Background/objectives: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-limiting genetic disorder affecting multiple organ systems. This study compared clinical outcomes, hospitalization rates, and survival between children and adolescents with CF who received CFTR modulator therapies (ivacaftor, lumacaftor, tezacaftor, and elexacaftor). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the TriNetX global collaborative network. Patients with CF aged 2–12 years (children) and 13–18 years (adolescents) who received CFTR modulator therapies were included. The propensity score matching balanced baseline characteristics between the two age groups. Results: After propensity score matching, 946 patients per group were analyzed. The incidence of respiratory failure (3.81% vs. 1.06%, p < 0.001) and respiratory infections (62.7% vs. 57.5%, p = 0.021) were significantly higher in adolescents compared to children. Adolescents had a higher risk of respiratory failure (HR = 3.6, 95% CI = 1.79–7.21, p < 0.001) and respiratory infections (HR = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.01–1.17, p < 0.001). Adolescents also had a higher hospitalization rate (29.6% vs. 20.3%, p < 0.001), with a 47% higher risk (HR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.22–1.77, p = 0.001), more hospital visits per person (8.8 vs. 3.7, p = 0.004), and longer hospital stays (32.7 vs. 20.4 days, p = 0.006). Mortality rates were similar between the groups (1.58% vs. 1.26%, p = 0.56). Conclusions: CF patients who initiated CFTR modulator therapies during adolescence had a higher incidence of respiratory failure, respiratory infections, hospitalization rates, and healthcare resource utilization compared to those who started therapy in childhood, despite similar mortality rates. These findings highlight the importance of the early initiation of CFTR modulator therapies.

Heart failure (HF) remains a significant health challenge globally, placing a heavy burden on individuals, families, and healthcare systems. The prevalence of HF continues to rise, posing substantial public health concerns. This burden is particularly pronounced among the Black Population, who face higher prevalence, earlier onset, and greater severity of HF compared to other racial and ethnic groups. This review explores the multifaceted landscape of HF in Black individuals by examining epidemiological patterns, pathophysiological mechanisms, clinical presentations, treatment disparities, and clinical outcomes. Black individuals exhibit distinct pathophysiological characteristics, such as genetic variations contributing to heightened susceptibility and severity of HF. Social determinants of health, including socioeconomic status, education, and healthcare access, further exacerbate these disparities. Despite advancements in medical science, Black individuals receive less optimal HF care, reflected in lower rates of guideline-directed medical therapy and cardiac rehabilitation. Addressing these disparities requires targeted interventions and a holistic approach that emphasizes social determinants of health, improved healthcare access, and health equity. This review synthesizes existing literature to illuminate the unique challenges faced by Black HF patients and advocates for evidence-based strategies to enhance management and outcomes, aiming to reduce disparities and improve the well-being of this vulnerable population.

Objective: Clinical trials are the cornerstone of medical innovation and set the standard for medical care. Cancer clinical trials drive critical innovation and availability of new treatments. However, obstacles to successful recruitment and participation of patients in clinical trials still significantly limit their success. Our objective is to evaluate trial enrollment trends according to both patient and trial demographics/features for those who have sought care at our multi-center, mixed-setting Gynecologic Oncology practice, allowing for us to describe specific trial criteria designs that are negatively associated with diverse enrollment or lack of enrollment completion on cancer clinical trials. Methods: An IRB-approved, retrospective cohort study was completed to evaluate patients who screened positive for a clinical trial through the Gynecologic Oncology practice’s manual screening process. We looked at how trial characteristics affect enrollment success. Results: After adjustment, there were no significant differences between patient factors and enrollment status. Higher rates of enrollment were seen among Asian patients and patients whose race was reported as “unknown” (>50%, p = 0.125). There was a drastic, unadjusted estimated increase in enrollment for Medicaid patients compared to patients with other insurance types (55.2% vs. 32%, p = 0.031), but multivariable logistic regression showed that insurance status (Medicaid vs. others) lost significance, p = 0.148. Patients with Stage I cancer accounted for 42.1% of patients enrolled, and enrollment rates were higher than for other cancer stages (p = 0.087). There was a significant increase in enrollment likelihood if the trial did not exclude subjects with prior cancer (50.0% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.046). Conclusions: We demonstrated equitable trial enrollment across different races and insurance statuses and were able to identify criteria that lend itself towards higher rates of enrollment. These findings can be used to tailor cancer trial portfolios to a diverse patient catchment.