Given the racial disparities in cervical cancer screening, incidence, and mortality, the purpose of this study was to estimate cervical cancer screening behaviors through self-reported Pap testing among racial groups in the U.S. This cross-sectional study utilized the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data to compare Pap testing behaviors among women of different racial groups. The BRFSS data from 2014, 2016, and 2018 were chosen because these were the most recent years of data capturing cervical cancer screening information. The primary outcome was self-reported Pap testing behavior (yes/no). Racial groups were analyzed with the original categorical responses for the race/ethnicity variable to investigate Pap testing behaviors across all racial groups. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics and a multivariable binomial logistic regression model to assess differences of Pap testing by race after adjusting for covariates. Among the 538,218 females included, 88.81% (95% CI: 88.60–89.03) reported receiving a Pap test. Pap testing behaviors differed significantly between racial groups in 2014, 2016, and 2018 (p < 0.001 for all years). Compared to White women, Asians (OR: 0.169, 95% CI: 0.149–0.191), Native Hawaiians/other Pacific Islanders (OR: 0.339, 95% CI: 0.249–0.462), American Indians or Alaskan Natives (OR: 0.664, 95% CI: 0.532–0.829), Hispanics (OR: 0.726, 95% CI: 0.670–0.786), and other non-Hispanic races (OR: 0.439, 95% CI: 0.323–0.598) were significantly less likely to receive Pap test. Racial disparities in cervical cancer screening with Pap tests exist for Asians, Native Hawaiians/other Pacific Islanders, American Indians or Alaskan Natives, Hispanics, and other non-Hispanics.

Background: Due to diabetes being linked with poorer cervical cancer prognosis, this study aimed to evaluate HPV testing behaviors among females with and without diabetes across the U.S. by geographic area in 2016, 2018, and 2020. Methods: This cross-sectional study used the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) from 2016, 2018, and 2020. The study population included females aged 25–69 years old, stratified by self-reported diabetes status. The primary outcome measure was cervical cancer screening behavior, which was evaluated by self-reported HPV test uptake/receipt (yes/no). Results: A total of 361,546 females from across the U.S. were sampled. Within the study population combined from all study years, the overall likelihood of receiving an HPV test was significantly lower among females with diabetes [37.95% (95% CI: 36.87–39.04)] compared to those without diabetes [46.21% (95% CI: 45.84–46.58)] (p < 0.001). Screening rates with HPV tests were lowest among females with diabetes in the South in 2016 (29.32% (95% CI: 26.82–31.83)), 2018 (39.63% (95% CI: 36.30–42.96)), and 2020 (41.02% (95% CI: 37.60–44.45)). Conclusions: Females with diabetes are screening with HPV tests less frequently than females without diabetes, and females living in the South, particularly states in the Deep South, report the lowest rates of HPV testing.

No abstract

Background: Tocilizumab may reduce the risk of death, length of stay, and time of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Limited data are available evaluating low-dose subcutaneous administration of tocilizumab in this setting. Objective: To compare outcomes of 2 tocilizumab dosing and administration strategies in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods: A retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted to compare clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving tocilizumab 400 mg intravenously (400 mg IV) or 162 mg subcutaneously (162 mg SC). Hospitalized patients receiving a single dose of tocilizumab were eligible for inclusion and grouped by dosing and administration strategy. The primary endpoint was ventilator-free days at day 28. Secondary endpoints included length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, mechanical ventilation required after dose, 28-day readmission, 28-day mortality, and change in inflammatory markers. Results: A total of 303 patients were included, with 147 who received tocilizumab 400 mg IV and 156 who received 162 mg SC. There was no significant difference in average ventilator-free days at day 28 in patients receiving 400 mg IV compared with 162 mg SC (26.4 ± 5.3 vs 25.6 ± 6.8 days, respectively; P = 0.812). There was also no difference in LOS (10.4 ± 12.6 vs 10.5 ± 14.0 days; P = 0.637), ICU LOS (3.9 ± 9.0 vs 3.5 ± 8.3 days; P = 0.679), mechanical ventilation after dose (15.6% vs 19.2%; P = 0.412), 28-day readmission (6.1% vs 9.6%; P = 0.268), or 28-day mortality (23.1% vs 25.6%; P = 0.611). Finally, there was no difference regarding change in inflammatory markers at 48 hours ( P > 0.05 for all interactions). Conclusion and Relevance: In this retrospective study involving hospitalized patients with COVID-19, there was no difference between tocilizumab 162 mg SC and 400 mg IV in terms of efficacy. The 162 mg SC dose may be a reasonable alternative to traditional doses.