Background The annual reappearance of respiratory viruses has been recognized for decades. COVID‐19 mitigation measures taken during the pandemic were targeted at respiratory transmission and broadly impacted the burden of acute respiratory illnesses (ARIs). Methods We used the longitudinal Household Influenza Vaccine Evaluation (HIVE) cohort in southeast Michigan to characterize the circulation of respiratory viruses from March 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, using RT‐PCR of respiratory specimens collected at illness onset. Participants were surveyed twice during the study period, and SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies were measured in serum by electrochemiluminescence immunoassay. Incidence rates of ARI reports and virus detections were compared between the study period and a preceding pre‐pandemic period of similar duration. Results Overall, 437 participants reported a total of 772 ARIs; 42.6% had respiratory viruses detected. Rhinoviruses were the most frequent virus, but seasonal coronaviruses, excluding SARS‐CoV‐2, were also common. Illness reports and percent positivity were lowest from May to August 2020, when mitigation measures were most stringent. Seropositivity for SARS‐CoV‐2 was 5.3% in summer 2020 and increased to 11.3% in spring 2021. The incidence rate of total reported ARIs for the study period was 50% lower (95% CI: 0.5, 0.6; p < 0.001) than the incidence rate from a pre‐pandemic comparison period (March 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017). Conclusions The burden of ARI in the HIVE cohort during the COVID‐19 pandemic fluctuated, with declines occurring concurrently with the widespread use of public health measures. Rhinovirus and seasonal coronaviruses continued to circulate even when influenza and SARS‐CoV‐2 circulation was low.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a relatively prevalent neuropsychiatric and neurodevelopmental condition characterized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition ( DSM-5 ) as difficulty sustaining attention and maintaining tasks at hand, heightened distractibility, and other deficits in executive functioning. Prescription stimulants—amphetamine (AMP) and methylphenidate (MPH)—are the first-line treatment(s) for ADHD in both pediatric and adult populations and exist in many formulations. Troublingly, the non-medical use (NMU) of amphetamine and methylphenidate is more prevalent in the American population, especially on college and university campuses, than the condition of interest. The neurotoxicological profile and NMU epidemiology of prescription stimulants is of direct relevance to primary care physicians and psychiatrists as they are the providers most frequently tasked with the treatment of ADHD and the surveillance of substance misuse behaviors in the young adult population. As comprehensive literature reviews of the mechanisms and potential adverse sequelae of prescription stimulant-induced neurotoxicity intended for medical clinicians have been quite sparse in the last decade—especially given the gravity of the issue—this article includes a brief primer on ADHD etiology and pathophysiology; considers the current state of NMU epidemiology; reviews the mechanisms of action of AMP and MPH; and, finally, summarizes known molecular and clinical manifestations of AMP and MPH neurotoxicity.

BACKGROUND: To improve insulin affordability, Congress is considering capping insulin cost-sharing to $35 per 30-day supply for Medicare patients. The potential benefits and cost of this cap are unclear. Additionally, it is unknown whether the benefits of this cap would vary between Medicare patients with type 1 versus type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Database, which reports prescriptions dispensed from 92% of U.S. pharmacies, and the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart, a national claims database from Medicare Advantage patients. The IQVIA analysis included patients who only had dispensed insulin prescriptions paid by Medicare in 2019. We estimated the proportion of Medicare patients who would benefit from an insulin cost-sharing cap of $35 per 30-day supply. Among these patients, we calculated the mean annual decrease in insulin out-of-pocket spending. We summed this decrease across patients to estimate the cap's cost to the federal government. The Optum analysis included Medicare Advantage patients with diabetes and at least 1 dispensed insulin prescription in 2019. We used linear regression to compare the proportion of patients who would benefit from a $35 cap and annual savings among these patients by diabetes type, adjusting for demographic characteristics and payer type. RESULTS: The IQVIA analysis included 2,227,229 patients who only had dispensed insulin prescriptions paid by Medicare in 2019. Mean (SD) age was 69.2 (11.4) years. The $35 cap would benefit 887,051 (39.0%) of patients, lowering annual insulin out-of-pocket spending by $338, from $687 to $349. Across all patients in the sample, aggregate savings (i.e., the cap's cost to the federal government) would be $299,402,402, or a mean of $134.4 per patient. Among the 60,300 Medicare Advantage patients in the Optum Analysis, mean age was 72.6 (9.3) years; 2,686 (4.5%) had type 1 diabetes and 57,614 (95.6%) had type 2 diabetes. The $35 cap would benefit a higher proportion of patients with type 1 diabetes (64.0%) compared with patients with type 2 diabetes (59.4%). Among patients with type 1 diabetes who would benefit from the cap, annual savings would be greater ($284) compared with their counterparts with type 2 diabetes ($231; p<.001 in adjusted analyses for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: A $35 insulin cost-sharing cap would benefit a sizable proportion of Medicare patients using insulin and may particularly lower out-of-pocket spending for patients with type 1 diabetes. The estimated cost of this cap to the federal government would be $134.4 per Medicare patient using insulin.

Background. The annual reappearance of respiratory viruses has been recognized for decades. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic altered typical respiratory virus transmission patterns. COVID-19 mitigation measures taken during the pandemic were targeted at SARS-CoV-2 respiratory transmission and thus broadly impacted the burden of acute respiratory illnesses (ARIs), in general. Methods. We used the longitudinal Household Influenza Vaccine Evaluation (HIVE) cohort of households in southeast Michigan to characterize mitigation strategy adherence, respiratory illness burden, and the circulation of 15 respiratory viruses during the COVID-19 pandemic determined by RT-PCR of respiratory specimens collected at illness onset. Study participants were surveyed twice during the study period (March 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021), and serologic specimens were collected for antibody measurement by electrochemiluminescence immunoassay. Incidence rates of ARI reports and virus detections were calculated and compared using incidence rate ratios for the study period and a pre-pandemic period of similar length. Results. Overall, 437 participants reported a total of 772 ARIs and 329 specimens (42.6%) had respiratory viruses detected. Rhinoviruses were the most frequently detected organism, but seasonal coronaviruses, excluding SARS-CoV-2, were also common. Illness reports and percent positivity were lowest from May to August 2020, when mitigation measures were most stringent. Study participants were more adherent to mitigation measures in the first survey compared with the second survey. Supplemental serology surveillance identified 5.3% seropositivity for SARS-CoV-2 in summer 2020; 3.0% between fall 2020 and winter 2021; and 11.3% in spring 2021. Compared to a pre-pandemic period of similar length, the incidence rate of total reported ARIs for the study period was 50% lower (95% CI: 0.5, 0.6; p<0.001) than the incidence rate from March 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017. Conclusions. The burden of ARI in the HIVE cohort during the COVID-19 pandemic fluctuated, with declines occurring concurrently with the widespread use of public health measures. It is notable, however, that rhinovirus and seasonal coronaviruses continued to circulate even as influenza and SARS-CoV-2 circulation was low.