H5N1

Social determinants of health and premature death among adults in the USA from 1999 to 2018: A national cohort study

Via The Lancet Public Health: Social determinants of health and premature death among adults in the USA from 1999 to 2018: a national cohort study. The summary:

Background  

Racial and ethnic disparities in mortality persist in the US population. We studied the contribution of social determinants of health (SDoH) to racial and ethnic disparities in premature death.  

Methods  

A nationally representative sample of individuals aged 20–74 years who participated in the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 1999 and 2018 were included. Self-reported SDoH (employment, family income, food security, education, access to health care, health insurance, housing instability, and being married or living with a partner) were collected in each survey cycle. Participants were categorised into four groups of race and ethnicity: Black, Hispanic, White, and other. Deaths were ascertained from linkage to the National Death Index with follow-up until 2019. Multiple mediation analysis was used to assess simultaneous contributions of each individual SDoH to racial disparities in premature all-cause mortality.  

Findings  

We included 48 170 NHANES participants in our analyses, consisting of 10 543 (21·9%) Black participants, 13 211 (27·4%) Hispanic participants, 19 629 (40·7%) White participants, and 4787 (9·9%) participants of other racial and ethnic groups. Mean survey-weighted age was 44·3 years (95% CI 44·0–44·6), 51·3% (50·9–51·8) of participants were women, and 48·7% (48·2–49·1) were men. 3194 deaths before age 75 years were recorded (930 Black participants, 662 Hispanic participants, 1453 White participants, and 149 other participants).  

Black adults had significantly higher premature mortality than other racial and ethnic groups (p<0·0001): premature death rates per 100 000 person-years were 852 (95% CI 727–1000) for Black adults, 445 (349–574) for Hispanic adults, 546 (474–630) for White adults, and 521 (336–821) for other adults. Unemployment, lower family income, food insecurity, less than high school education, no private health insurance, and not being married nor living with a partner were significantly and independently associated with premature death.  

Dose–response associations were observed between cumulative number of unfavourable SDoH and premature all-cause mortality: hazard ratios (HRs) were 1·93 (95% CI 1·61–2·31) for those with one unfavourable SDoH, 2·24 (1·87–2·68) for those with two, 3·98 (3·34–4·73) for those with three, 4·78 (3·98–5·74) for those with four, 6·08 (5·06–7·31) for those with five, and 7·82 (6·60–9·26) for those with six or more unfavourable SDoH (p<0·0001 for linear trend).  

After adjusting for SDoH, HRs for premature all-cause mortality for Black adults compared with White adults decreased from 1·59 (1·44–1·76) to 1·00 (0·91–1·10), suggesting complete mediation of this racial difference in mortality.  

Interpretation  

Unfavourable SDoH are associated with increased rates of premature death and contribute to differences between Black and White racial groups in premature all-cause mortality in the US population. Innovative public health policies and interventions targeting SDoH are needed to reduce premature deaths and health disparities in this population.

Surveillance for violent deaths — National Violent Death Reporting System, 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, 2020

Via MMWR, a long, grim report: Surveillance for Violent Deaths — National Violent Death Reporting System, 48 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, 2020. Excerpt:

The COVID-19 Pandemic and Homicide

Research using NVDRS data to examine the circumstances of COVID-19 pandemic–related homicides are ongoing, but studies have already underscored the changes in homicide rates. The overall firearm homicide rate in 2020 was higher than it has been in the last 20 years. 

This increase was disproportionately experienced by AI/AN and Black persons. The increased social and economic stressors attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and associated mitigation measures (e.g., job loss and disruptions in emergency services) might have exacerbated the systemic inequities that have been found to increase risk for experiencing violence. 

These stressors might also have increased risk for intimate partner violence and child abuse and neglect. Early pandemic reports indicated increased arrests and police calls related to intimate partner violence, and despite fewer visits, a higher proportion of emergency department visits were child abuse and neglect related. 

Additional research on the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic and mitigation measures might have had on increases in homicide rates and potential changes in the contextual factors and characteristics of these fatal incidents is needed.

Excess mortality and years of potential life lost among the Black population in the US, 1999-2020

Via JAMA, an appalling report: Excess Mortality and Years of Potential Life Lost Among the Black Population in the US, 1999-2020. The key points and abstract:

Key Points 

Question  How many excess deaths and years of potential life lost for the Black population, compared with the White population, occurred in the United States from 1999 through 2020?  

Findings  Based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, excess deaths and years of potential life lost persisted throughout the period, with initial progress followed by stagnation of improvement and substantial worsening in 2020. The Black population had 1.63 million excess deaths, representing more than 80 million years of potential life lost over the study period.  

Meaning  After initial progress, excess mortality and years of potential life lost among the US Black population stagnated and then worsened, indicating a need for new approaches.  

Abstract  

Importance  Amid efforts in the US to promote health equity, there is a need to assess recent progress in reducing excess deaths and years of potential life lost among the Black population compared with the White population.  

Objective  To evaluate trends in excess mortality and years of potential life lost among the Black population compared with the White population.  

Design, setting, and participants  Serial cross-sectional study using US national data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 1999 through 2020. We included data from non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black populations across all age groups.  

Exposures  Race as documented in the death certificates.  

Main outcomes and measures  Excess age-adjusted all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, age-specific mortality, and years of potential life lost rates (per 100 000 individuals) among the Black population compared with the White population.  

Results  From 1999 to 2011, the age-adjusted excess mortality rate declined from 404 to 211 excess deaths per 100 000 individuals among Black males (P for trend <.001). However, the rate plateaued from 2011 through 2019 (P for trend = .98) and increased in 2020 to 395—rates not seen since 2000. Among Black females, the rate declined from 224 excess deaths per 100 000 individuals in 1999 to 87 in 2015 (P for trend <.001). There was no significant change between 2016 and 2019 (P for trend = .71) and in 2020 rates increased to 192—levels not seen since 2005. The trends in rates of excess years of potential life lost followed a similar pattern. From 1999 to 2020, the disproportionately higher mortality rates in Black males and females resulted in 997 623 and 628 464 excess deaths, respectively, representing a loss of more than 80 million years of life. Heart disease had the highest excess mortality rates, and the excess years of potential life lost rates were largest among infants and middle-aged adults.  

Conclusions and relevance  Over a recent 22-year period, the Black population in the US experienced more than 1.63 million excess deaths and more than 80 million excess years of life lost when compared with the White population. After a period of progress in reducing disparities, improvements stalled, and differences between the Black population and the White population worsened in 2020.

Unravelling the commercial determinants of health

Via The Lancet, an editorial: Unravelling the commercial determinants of health. Excerpt:

In early March, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 200 people—including former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon—signed a letter strongly criticising pharmaceutical companies for putting a desire to make extraordinary profits before the needs of humanity. Selling publicly funded vaccines, treatments, and tests to the highest bidder resulted in inequities that cost more than a million lives, while private companies made billions of dollars. The signatories called on world leaders to ensure that such an injustice is never repeated.  

The conflict between profits and health equity is not new. The global health community fought for decades to provide access to antiretrovirals for patients with HIV/AIDS in less-resourced settings. Many commercial actors attempt to negatively influence national and international policies, undermine science, or to directly attack individuals calling out their actions. The recent Lancet Series on breastfeeding showed how an extensive network of lobbying by formula milk companies has derailed progress on breastfeeding education. 

This history speaks to the central importance to health equity of the commercial determinants of health, the subject of a Series published in this issue of The Lancet, led by Rob Moodie of the University of Melbourne, along with authors spanning 15 countries and six continents, with the support of the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation of Australia.  

The headline findings are startling: four industries (tobacco, unhealthy food, fossil fuel, and alcohol) are responsible for at least a third of global deaths per year. Yet much of the work to understand the harmful (or beneficial) impact of commercial actors has to date been done in health research silos. Each field faces many of the same tactical battles and strategies without a unified agenda to protect health. There is a lack of consensus across fields of health to define and understand the commercial determinants of health.  

The Lancet Series seeks to remedy this long-standing and complex situation with a consensus definition of the commercial determinants of health (“systems, practices, and pathways through which commercial actors drive health and equity”), a framing to understand commercial entities' impact on health, and a commitment to address its challenges in a holistic way.  

The Series authors set out a bold vision in which governments, commercial actors, and civil society contribute first and foremost to improving health and societal wellbeing. Such a vision is needed urgently. As the second paper in the Series outlines, commercial actors are diverse and many play a vital role in society, but the products and practices of many are having increasingly negative impacts on human and planetary health and equity.  

The Series provides a comprehensive agenda for action, recognising the need for regenerative business models and accountable transparent policies (including an end to commercial actors opposition to health regulation and policies).  

Moodie emphasises that the Series is not anti-business; it is pro-health. There are some notable good models of pro-health-acting businesses. For example, nearly 200 leading financial institutions (which together manage more than US$16 trillion) have signed a pledge to support tobacco-free policies across lending, investment, and insurance. However, although Environmental, Social and Governance frameworks are increasingly used to guide more responsible investment, they still lack specific health indicators.  

Health needs to become a crucial consideration of investor frameworks and global capital markets. Doing so will require the adoption of different economic models, new legislative and regulatory measures, civil society advocacy and accountability, and better corporate social responsibility. Governments must be empowered to encourage businesses to prioritise positive health impacts.  

As Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General, writes in an accompanying Comment, public health cannot progress without action on the commercial determinants of health. The Lancet welcomes the upcoming WHO Congress and first Annual Report on the commercial determinants of health, especially in helping to address non-communicable diseases. Given their huge unresolved impacts, the commercial determinants of health must be recognised—and funded—as a crucial field of research.

Fixing the crisis in public health

The Tyee has published my article Fixing the Crisis in Public Health. Excerpt:

After three years of pandemic and the turmoil it’s generated, Canada is looking a little the worse for wear. We may want to think it’s over, but 50,344 Canadians have died of COVID — 18,920 of them in 2022. As well, the winter of 2022-23 has put a brutal strain on health-care workers and their patients.

Meanwhile, Ottawa and the provinces have been growling at one another about health-care funding. Given the mess in the health-care system, they seem likely to come up with some kind of cost-sharing formula on Feb. 7, which may improve the situation.  

Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s chief public health officer, has made some excellent suggestions for improving the health-care system in her annual reports for 2021 and 2022. But I expect the politicians will ignore her.  

Health spending has been enormous since the pandemic began in 2020. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, total health spending in 2022 was expected to reach $331 billion, or $8,563 per capita. Hospitals got 24.6 per cent, physicians received 13.6 per cent, and 13.6 per cent of all health spending was for drugs.  

Strikingly, only 5.3 per cent of that was for public health.

The Lancet Series on racism, xenophobia, discrimination, and health

Via The Lancet: The Lancet Series on racism, xenophobia, discrimination, and health. The executive summary: 

Racism, xenophobia, and discrimination exist in every modern society causing avoidable disease and premature death among groups who are often already disadvantaged.

This Series examines how the historic systems and structures of power and oppression, and discriminatory ideologies have shaped policy and practice today, and are root causes of racial health inequities. 

Furthermore, by applying a global lens and intersectional framework, overlapping forms of oppression such as age, gender, and socioeconomic status and their impact on discrimination are analysed. Interventions to address the spectrum of drivers of adverse health outcomes with a focus on the structural, societal, legal, human right, institutional and system level are reviewed. 

Research recommendations and key approaches for moving forward are proposed.

Symptoms and risk factors for long COVID in non-hospitalized adults

Via Nature Medicine: Symptoms and risk factors for long COVID in non-hospitalized adults. The abstract:

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is associated with a range of persistent symptoms impacting everyday functioning, known as post-COVID-19 condition or long COVID. We undertook a retrospective matched cohort study using a UK-based primary care database, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum, to determine symptoms that are associated with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection beyond 12 weeks in non-hospitalized adults and the risk factors associated with developing persistent symptoms. 

We selected 486,149 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and 1,944,580 propensity score-matched adults with no recorded evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Outcomes included 115 individual symptoms, as well as long COVID, defined as a composite outcome of 33 symptoms by the World Health Organization clinical case definition. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for the outcomes. 

A total of 62 symptoms were significantly associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection after 12 weeks. The largest aHRs were for anosmia (aHR 6.49, 95% CI 5.02–8.39), hair loss (3.99, 3.63–4.39), sneezing (2.77, 1.40–5.50), ejaculation difficulty (2.63, 1.61–4.28) and reduced libido (2.36, 1.61–3.47). 

Among the cohort of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, risk factors for long COVID included female sex, belonging to an ethnic minority, socioeconomic deprivation, smoking, obesity and a wide range of comorbidities. The risk of developing long COVID was also found to be increased along a gradient of decreasing age. 

SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a plethora of symptoms that are associated with a range of sociodemographic and clinical risk factors.

This article in The Guardian is likely only the first of many to discuss these findings.

COVID-19: It ain’t over ’til it’s over

Via Science, an editorial by Editor in Chief H. Holden Thorp: It ain’t over ’til it’s over. Excerpt:

The Biden administration is sheepishly waving a checkered flag on the pandemic. If you look closely, you can see its members cringing as they do so. 

Chief Medical Advisor Anthony Fauci told the PBS Newshour that the United States was “out of the pandemic phase” and then walked it back, saying he meant that the “acute compo­nent” of the pandemic phase was over. President Biden attended the likely superspreading White House Corre­spondents’ Dinner last weekend but skipped cocktails and the meal, opting to just give his talk. Fauci avoid­ed the whole affair. 

Meanwhile, Vice President Harris continued to isolate after her positive COVID-19 test, and many members of Congress and the administra­tion announced positive test results as well. All of this happened while the White House allowed a renegade federal judge in Florida (where else?) to end the nationwide mask mandate without much of a fight. 

These mixed messages have been emanating from the administration for months now, and although those with resources have tools to manage COVID-19, care needs to be taken that those without such means are not forgotten. 

When Biden pledged to “follow the science,” it was hard to imagine that the country could have ended up here. But the administration made a big bet that vaccines would provide sterilizing immunity and end the pandemic, allowing it to move on to other priorities. 

Leaving behind the insanity of ivermectin, hydroxy­chloroquine, and bleach was certainly a great step forward. However, evolution has had other plans, and variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome corona­virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19) have kept the pandemic going. This left the White House in a very tight spot: There was little political will to keep pushing nonpharmaceutical interven­tions, yet the pandemic was far from over. Add to this mounting inflation worries and concerns about the war in Ukraine, and the response has been a clumsy pivot to a message that politicians always turn to: personal responsibility. 

Get vaccinated, get boosted, wear a mask, get a prescription for the antiviral Pax­lovid—if you want to. This may be fine if you have a healthy immune system, great health insurance, and the ability to navigate the US health care system. But what about everyone else? 

COVID-19 is at a similar place to where the HIV/AIDS global pandemic was when the antiretroviral drugs came along. Yale epidemiologist Gregg Gonsalves told me about important parallels between both pandem­ics. “The HIV epidemic didn’t go away,” he said. “It just went to where people could ignore it. It went into the rural South, it went to communities that were already facing disparities in health.” 

At that time, confusion between medicine and public health was also an im­portant factor. “The discourse shifting to private choice and private adjudication of risk is really not what public health science is,” he said. “We work in populations. And if we’re talking about medicine, it’s about private risk and private choices.”

Will COVID force public health to confront America's epic inequality?

Via Nature, an important article by Amy Maxmen: Will COVID force public health to confront America's epic inequality? Excerpt:

On a hazy day in November, Hardeep Singh received a text message from the COVID-19 testing system at Foster Farms poultry company saying that his mother had tested positive for the coronavirus.  

He got the alert because his mother, a 63-year-old line worker at one of the company’s meat-packing plants in California’s San Joaquin Valley, doesn’t speak English and doesn’t own a smartphone.  

Singh couldn’t reach her as she continued to handle chicken parts alongside her co-workers. Her supervisors didn’t tell her, either. In fact, they assigned her more shifts for the week.  

Singh broke the news to her that evening, and convinced her not to return to work, where she might spread the infection to others. But he couldn’t reach anyone at the company for another five days, to ask whether she qualified for paid time off while she isolated.  

Singh’s mother ended up being among the more than 400 employees at the plant who were diagnosed with COVID-19 last year, and one of about 90,000 cases linked to food-production facilities and farm work across the United States. Because the sector feeds Americans and powers part of the US economy, agricultural workers such as Singh’s mother have been considered essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

That important role comes at a cost. One study1 found that food and agricultural workers in California had an almost 40% increased risk of dying last year, compared with the state’s general population. And within that imbalance lies another contrast. Latinx food and agriculture workers experienced a nearly 60% increase in deaths compared with previous years; the increase for white workers was just 16%.  

The reasons for such disparities, say public-health researchers, include discrimination, low wages, limited labour protections and inadequate access to health care, affordable housing and education. These are some of the ‘social determinants of health’, a concept that has been around for at least 150 years, but which has gained recognition during the pandemic.

Marmot: Studying health inequalities has been my life’s work. What’s about to happen in the UK is unprecedented

Via The Guardian, Sir Michael Marmot writes: Studying health inequalities has been my life’s work. What’s about to happen in the UK is unprecedented. Excerpt:

Dignity. It is fundamental to who we are and our place in society. One way to deprive people of the opportunity to lead dignified lives is to take away the means to meet their material needs. It is undignified to have to resort to food banks to feed your children; to wear two coats indoors against the cold; to plead against eviction because of an inability to pay the rent; to deny children a birthday party because of cost.  

The poorest people in the UK are about to experience a fresh wave of such indignities. These psycho-social assaults will be joined by the physical ill-effects of poverty.  

My life’s work has been studying the relationship between social conditions and inequalities in health. In the UK, a decade of austerity damaged public health and made health equity worse. But the cost of living crisis – and the chancellor’s failure to deal with it – is unprecedented, with its threats to the health and wellbeing of the nation. A 54% rise in the energy price cap will now mean an average household will pay £1,971 a year for gas and electricity, at the same time that council tax, water bills and car tax are all increasing. In October, a further rise pushing the annual energy bill up to £2,300 is expected.  

The typical working-age household will, according to the Resolution Foundation, experience a 4% fall in income, £1,100, in 2022-23. Surely, one might think, 4% is scarcely noticeable, hardly a matter of life and death? It is if you are on the margins.  

The Resolution Foundation gives the example of a single parent, with one child, working 20 hours a week at a low-to-medium wage. In September 2021, this person might have had an income of £18,265. The precipitate removal of the universal credit boost will have reduced income by £1,040. The cost of living rise to September 2022 will take another £1,198 off income. With the chancellor’s changes to taxes and allowances, and salary increases, this person’s income in September 2022 will be £17,681 – £584 less than it was a year earlier. (By contrast, a couple working full-time, both at the median wage, will see their net income fall by 1%, £392.)  

Inflation of more than 8%, and the government’s failure to deal with the cost of living crisis for the poorest people – an unemployed single person will see a 15% drop in income – will put an extra 1.3 million people, including 500,000 children, below the poverty line.