Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose Liver cancer incidence continues to increase while incidence of most other cancers is decreasing. We analyze recent and long-term trends of US liver cancer incidence by race/ethnicity and sex to best understand where to focus preventive efforts. Methods Liver cancer incidence rates from 1992 to 2016 were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry. Delay-adjusted age-standardized incidence trends by race/ethnicity and sex were analyzed using joinpoint regression. Age-specific incidence was analyzed using age-period-cohort models. Hepatitis C seroprevalence by cohort was calculated using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data. Results Liver cancer incidence has peaked in males and Asian or Pacific Islanders. Hispanic males, a high-incidence population, are experiencing a decrease in incidence, although not yet statistically significant. In contrast, incidence continues to increase in females, although at lower rates than in the 1990s, and American Indian/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs). Liver cancer incidence continues to be higher in males. Non-Hispanic Whites have the lowest incidence among racial/ethnic groups. Trends largely reflect differences in incidence by birth-cohort, which increased considerably, particularly in males, for those born around the 1950s, and continues to increase in females and AI/ANs. The patterns in males are likely driven by cohort variations in Hepatitis C infection. Conclusions Liver cancer incidence appears to have peaked among males. However, important differences in liver cancer trends by race/ethnicity and sex remain, highlighting the need for monitoring trends across different groups. Preventive interventions should focus on existing liver cancer disparities, targeting AI/ANs, females, and high-incidence groups.

Background Many popular disease transmission models have helped nations respond to the COVID-19 pandemic by informing decisions about pandemic planning, resource allocation, implementation of social distancing measures, lockdowns, and other non-pharmaceutical interventions. We study how five epidemiological models forecast and assess the course of the pandemic in India: a baseline curve-fitting model, an extended SIR (eSIR) model, two extended SEIR (SAPHIRE and SEIR-fansy) models, and a semi-mechanistic Bayesian hierarchical model (ICM). Methods Using COVID-19 case-recovery-death count data reported in India from March 15 to October 15 to train the models, we generate predictions from each of the five models from October 16 to December 31. To compare prediction accuracy with respect to reported cumulative and active case counts and reported cumulative death counts, we compute the symmetric mean absolute prediction error (SMAPE) for each of the five models. For reported cumulative cases and deaths, we compute Pearson’s and Lin’s correlation coefficients to investigate how well the projected and observed reported counts agree. We also present underreporting factors when available, and comment on uncertainty of projections from each model. Results For active case counts, SMAPE values are 35.14% (SEIR-fansy) and 37.96% (eSIR). For cumulative case counts, SMAPE values are 6.89% (baseline), 6.59% (eSIR), 2.25% (SAPHIRE) and 2.29% (SEIR-fansy). For cumulative death counts, the SMAPE values are 4.74% (SEIR-fansy), 8.94% (eSIR) and 0.77% (ICM). Three models (SAPHIRE, SEIR-fansy and ICM) return total (sum of reported and unreported) cumulative case counts as well. We compute underreporting factors as of October 31 and note that for cumulative cases, the SEIR-fansy model yields an underreporting factor of 7.25 and ICM model yields 4.54 for the same quantity. For total (sum of reported and unreported) cumulative deaths the SEIR-fansy model reports an underreporting factor of 2.97. On October 31, we observe 8.18 million cumulative reported cases, while the projections (in millions) from the baseline model are 8.71 (95% credible interval: 8.63–8.80), while eSIR yields 8.35 (7.19–9.60), SAPHIRE returns 8.17 (7.90–8.52) and SEIR-fansy projects 8.51 (8.18–8.85) million cases. Cumulative case projections from the eSIR model have the highest uncertainty in terms of width of 95% credible intervals, followed by those from SAPHIRE, the baseline model and finally SEIR-fansy. Conclusions In this comparative paper, we describe five different models used to study the transmission dynamics of the SARS-Cov-2 virus in India. While simulation studies are the only gold standard way to compare the accuracy of the models, here we were uniquely poised to compare the projected case-counts against observed data on a test period. The largest variability across models is observed in predicting the “total” number of infections including reported and unreported cases (on which we have no validation data). The degree of under-reporting has been a major concern in India and is characterized in this report. Overall, the SEIR-fansy model appeared to be a good choice with publicly available R-package and desired flexibility plus accuracy.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) can provide useful information for personalized risk stratification and disease risk assessment, especially when combined with non-genetic risk factors. However, their construction depends on the availability of summary statistics from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) independent from the target sample. For best compatibility, it was reported that GWAS and the target sample should match in terms of ancestries. Yet, GWAS, especially in the field of cancer, often lack diversity and are predominated by European ancestry. This bias is a limiting factor in PRS research. By using electronic health records and genetic data from the UK Biobank, we contrast the utility of breast and prostate cancer PRS derived from external European-ancestry-based GWAS across African, East Asian, European, and South Asian ancestry groups. We highlight differences in the PRS distributions of these groups that are amplified when PRS methods condense hundreds of thousands of variants into a single score. While European-GWAS-derived PRS were not directly transferrable across ancestries on an absolute scale, we establish their predictive potential when considering them separately within each group. For example, the top 10% of the breast cancer PRS distributions within each ancestry group each revealed significant enrichments of breast cancer cases compared to the bottom 90% (odds ratio of 2.81 [95%CI: 2.69,2.93] in European, 2.88 [1.85, 4.48] in African, 2.60 [1.25, 5.40] in East Asian, and 2.33 [1.55, 3.51] in South Asian individuals). Our findings highlight a compromise solution for PRS research to compensate for the lack of diversity in well-powered European GWAS efforts while recruitment of diverse participants in the field catches up.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the effect of four-phase national lockdown from March 25 to May 31 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in India and unmask the state-wise variations in terms of multiple public health metrics.DesignCohort study (daily time series of case counts).SettingObservational and population based.ParticipantsConfirmed COVID-19 cases nationally and across 20 states that accounted for >99% of the current cumulative case counts in India until 31 May 2020.ExposureLockdown (non-medical intervention).Main outcomes and measuresWe illustrate the masking of state-level trends and highlight the variations across states by presenting evaluative evidence on some aspects of the COVID-19 outbreak: case fatality rates, doubling times of cases, effective reproduction numbers and the scale of testing.ResultsThe estimated effective reproduction number R for India was 3.36 (95% CI 3.03 to 3.71) on 24 March, whereas the average of estimates from 25 May to 31 May stands at 1.27 (95% CI 1.26 to 1.28). Similarly, the estimated doubling time across India was at 3.56 days on 24 March, and the past 7-day average for the same on 31 May is 14.37 days. The average daily number of tests increased from 1717 (19–25 March) to 113 372 (25–31 May) while the test positivity rate increased from 2.1% to 4.2%, respectively. However, various states exhibit substantial departures from these national patterns.ConclusionsPatterns of change over lockdown periods indicate the lockdown has been partly effective in slowing the spread of the virus nationally. However, there exist large state-level variations and identifying these variations can help in both understanding the dynamics of the pandemic and formulating effective public health interventions. Our framework offers a holistic assessment of the pandemic across Indian states and union territories along with a set of interactive visualisation tools that are daily updated at covind19.org.

To overcome the limitations associated with the collection and curation of COVID-19 outcome data in biobanks, this study proposes the use of polygenic risk scores (PRS) as reliable proxies of COVID-19 severity across three large biobanks: the Michigan Genomics Initiative (MGI), UK Biobank (UKB), and NIH All of Us. The goal is to identify associations between pre-existing conditions and COVID-19 severity. Drawing on a sample of more than 500,000 individuals from the three biobanks, we conducted a phenome-wide association study (PheWAS) to identify associations between a PRS for COVID-19 severity, derived from a genome-wide association study on COVID-19 hospitalization, and clinical pre-existing, pre-pandemic phenotypes. We performed cohort-specific PRS PheWAS and a subsequent fixed-effects meta-analysis. The current study uncovered 23 pre-existing conditions significantly associated with the COVID-19 severity PRS in cohort-specific analyses, of which 21 were observed in the UKB cohort and two in the MGI cohort. The meta-analysis yielded 27 significant phenotypes predominantly related to obesity, metabolic disorders, and cardiovascular conditions. After adjusting for body mass index, several clinical phenotypes, such as hypercholesterolemia and gastrointestinal disorders, remained associated with an increased risk of hospitalization following COVID-19 infection. By employing PRS as a proxy for COVID-19 severity, we corroborated known risk factors and identified novel associations between pre-existing clinical phenotypes and COVID-19 severity. Our study highlights the potential value of using PRS when actual outcome data may be limited or inadequate for robust analyses.

Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Removed (SEIR)-type epidemiologic models, modeling unascertained infections latently, can predict unreported cases and deaths assuming perfect testing. We apply a method we developed to account for the high false negative rates of diagnostic RT-PCR tests for detecting an active SARS-CoV-2 infection in a classic SEIR model. The number of unascertained cases and false negatives being unobservable in a real study, population-based serosurveys can help validate model projections. Applying our method to training data from Delhi, India, during March 15–June 30, 2020, we estimate the underreporting factor for cases at 34–53 (deaths: 8–13) on July 10, 2020, largely consistent with the findings of the first round of serosurveys for Delhi (done during June 27–July 10, 2020) with an estimated 22.86% IgG antibody prevalence, yielding estimated underreporting factors of 30–42 for cases. Together, these imply approximately 96–98% cases in Delhi remained unreported (July 10, 2020). Updated calculations using training data during March 15-December 31, 2020 yield estimated underreporting factor for cases at 13–22 (deaths: 3–7) on January 23, 2021, which are again consistent with the latest (fifth) round of serosurveys for Delhi (done during January 15–23, 2021) with an estimated 56.13% IgG antibody prevalence, yielding an estimated range for the underreporting factor for cases at 17–21. Together, these updated estimates imply approximately 92–96% cases in Delhi remained unreported (January 23, 2021). Such model-based estimates, updated with latest data, provide a viable alternative to repeated resource-intensive serosurveys for tracking unreported cases and deaths and gauging the true extent of the pandemic.

Black patients are overrepresented in the number of COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and deaths in the US. Reasons for this disparity may be due to underlying comorbidities or sociodemographic factors that require further exploration. To systematically determine patient characteristics associated with racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 outcomes. This retrospective cohort study used comparative groups of patients tested or treated for COVID-19 at the University of Michigan from March 10, 2020, to April 22, 2020, with an outcome update through July 28, 2020. A group of randomly selected untested individuals were included for comparison. Examined factors included race/ethnicity, age, smoking, alcohol consumption, comorbidities, body mass index (BMI; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), and residential-level socioeconomic characteristics. In-house polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests, commercial antibody tests, nasopharynx or oropharynx PCR deployed by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services and reverse transcription-PCR tests performed in external labs. The main outcomes were being tested for COVID-19, having test results positive for COVID-19 or being diagnosed with COVID-19, being hospitalized for COVID-19, requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission for COVID-19, and COVID-19-related mortality (including inpatient and outpatient). Medical comorbidities were defined from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes and were aggregated into a comorbidity score. Associations with COVID-19 outcomes were examined using odds ratios (ORs). Of 5698 patients tested for COVID-19 (mean [SD] age, 47.4 [20.9] years; 2167 [38.0%] men; mean [SD] BMI, 30.0 [8.0]), most were non-Hispanic White (3740 patients [65.6%]) or non-Hispanic Black (1058 patients [18.6%]). The comparison group included 7168 individuals who were not tested (mean [SD] age, 43.1 [24.1] years; 3257 [45.4%] men; mean [SD] BMI, 28.5 [7.1]). Among 1139 patients diagnosed with COVID-19, 492 (43.2%) were White and 442 (38.8%) were Black; 523 (45.9%) were hospitalized, 283 (24.7%) were admitted to the ICU, and 88 (7.7%) died. Adjusting for age, sex, socioeconomic status, and comorbidity score, Black patients were more likely to be hospitalized compared with White patients (OR, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.15-2.58]; P = .009). In addition to older age, male sex, and obesity, living in densely populated areas was associated with increased risk of hospitalization (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.01-1.19]; P = .02). In the overall population, higher risk of hospitalization was also observed in patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes (OR, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.25-2.64]; P = .02) and kidney disease (OR, 2.87 [95% CI, 1.87-4.42]; P < .001). Compared with White patients, obesity was associated with higher risk of having test results positive for COVID-19 among Black patients (White: OR, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.01-1.84]; P = .04. Black: OR, 3.11 [95% CI, 1.64-5.90]; P < .001; P for interaction = .02). Having any cancer was associated with higher risk of positive COVID-19 test results for Black patients (OR, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.19-2.78]; P = .005) but not White patients (OR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.84-1.40]; P = .53; P for interaction = .04). Overall comorbidity burden was associated with higher risk of hospitalization in White patients (OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.11-1.53]; P = .001) but not in Black patients (OR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.83-1.17]; P = .88; P for interaction = .02), as was type 2 diabetes (White: OR, 2.59 [95% CI, 1.49-4.48]; P < .001; Black: OR, 1.17 [95% CI, 0.66-2.06]; P = .59; P for interaction = .046). No statistically significant racial differences were found in ICU admission and mortality based on adjusted analysis. These findings suggest that preexisting type 2 diabetes or kidney diseases and living in high-population density areas were associated with higher risk for COVID-19 hospitalization. Associations of risk factors with COVID-19 outcomes differed by race.

Since the beginning of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a focus of research has been to identify risk factors associated with COVID-19-related outcomes, such as testing and diagnosis, and use them to build prediction models. Existing studies have used data from digital surveys or electronic health records (EHRs), but very few have linked the two sources to build joint predictive models. In this study, we used survey data on 7,054 patients from the Michigan Genomics Initiative biorepository to evaluate how well self-reported data could be integrated with electronic records for the purpose of modeling COVID-19-related outcomes. We observed that among survey respondents, self-reported COVID-19 diagnosis captured a larger number of cases than the corresponding EHRs, suggesting that self-reported outcomes may be better than EHRs for distinguishing COVID-19 cases from controls. In the modeling context, we compared the utility of survey- and EHR-derived predictor variables in models of survey-reported COVID-19 testing and diagnosis. We found that survey-derived predictors produced uniformly stronger models than EHR-derived predictors—likely due to their specificity, temporal proximity, and breadth—and that combining predictors from both sources offered no consistent improvement compared to using survey-based predictors alone. Our results suggest that, even though general EHRs are useful in predictive models of COVID-19 outcomes, they may not be essential in those models when rich survey data are already available. The two data sources together may offer better prediction for COVID severity, but we did not have enough severe cases in the survey respondents to assess that hypothesis in in our study.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are designed to serve as single summary measures that are easy to construct, condensing information from a large number of genetic variants associated with a disease. They have been used for stratification and prediction of disease risk. The primary focus of this paper is to demonstrate how we can combine PRS and electronic health records data to better understand the shared and unique genetic architecture and etiology of disease subtypes that may be both related and heterogeneous. PRS construction strategies often depend on the purpose of the study, the available data/summary estimates, and the underlying genetic architecture of a disease. We consider several choices for constructing a PRS using data obtained from various publicly-available sources including the UK Biobank and evaluate their abilities to predict not just the primary phenotype but also secondary phenotypes derived from electronic health records (EHR). This study was conducted using data from 30,702 unrelated, genotyped patients of recent European descent from the Michigan Genomics Initiative (MGI), a longitudinal biorepository effort within Michigan Medicine. We examine the three most common skin cancer subtypes in the USA: basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma. Using these PRS for various skin cancer subtypes, we conduct a phenome-wide association study (PheWAS) within the MGI data to evaluate PRS associations with secondary traits. PheWAS results are then replicated using population-based UK Biobank data and compared across various PRS construction methods. We develop an accompanying visual catalog called PRSweb that provides detailed PheWAS results and allows users to directly compare different PRS construction methods.