Person:

Chen, Jarvis

Objectives: To date, limited and inconsistent evidence exists regarding racial discrimination and risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Methods: Cross-sectional observational study of 1005 US-born non-Hispanic black (n = 504) and white (n = 501) participants age 35–64 randomly selected from community health centers in Boston, MA (2008–2010; 82.4% response rate), using 3 racial discrimination measures: explicit self-report; implicit association test (IAT, a time reaction test for self and group as target vs. perpetrator of discrimination); and structural (Jim Crow status of state of birth, i.e. legal racial discrimination prior 1964). Results: Black and white participants both had adverse cardiovascular and socioeconomic profiles, with black participants most highly exposed to racial discrimination. Positive crude associations among black participants occurred for Jim Crow birthplace and hypertension (odds ratio (OR) 1.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28, 2.89) and for explicit self-report and the Framingham 10 year CVD risk score (beta = 0.04; 95% CI 0.01, 0.07); among white participants, only negative crude associations existed (for IAT for self, for lower systolic blood pressure (SBP; beta = −4.86; 95% CI −9.08, −0.64) and lower Framingham CVD score (beta = −0.36, 95% CI −0.63, −0.08)). All of these associations were attenuated and all but the white IAT-Framingham risk score association were rendered null in analyses that controlled for lifetime socioeconomic position and additional covariates. Controlling for racial discrimination, socioeconomic position, and other covariates did not attenuate the crude black excess risk for SBP and hypertension and left unaffected the null excess risk for the Framingham CVD score. Conclusion: Despite worse exposures among the black participants, racial discrimination and socioeconomic position were not associated, in multivariable analyses, with risk of CVD. We interpret results in relation to constrained variability of exposures and outcomes and discuss implications for valid research on social determinants of health.

Although allergic diseases such as asthma and hay fever are a major cause of morbidity in industrialized countries, most studies have focused on patterns of prevalence among children and adolescents, with relatively few studies on variations in prevalence by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic position among adults. Our study examined racial/ethnic and socioeconomic patterns in the prevalence of asthma overall, asthma with hay fever, asthma without hay fever, and hay fever overall, in a population of 173,859 women and men in a large prepaid health plan in northern California. Using education as a measure of socioeconomic position, we found evidence of a positive gradient for asthma with hay fever with increasing level of education but an inverse gradient for asthma without hay fever. Hay fever was also strongly associated with education. Compared with their White counterparts, Black women and men were more likely to report asthma without hay fever, and Black women were less likely to have asthma with hay fever. Asian men were also more likely to report asthma with hay fever, and Asian women and men were much more likely to have hay fever. Racial/ethnic disparities in prevalence of allergic diseases were largely independent of education. We discuss implications for understanding these social inequalities in allergic disease risk in relation to possible differences in exposure to allergens and determinants of immunologic susceptibility and suggest directions for future research.

Background: Important controversies exist about the extent to which people's health status as adults is shaped by their living conditions in early life compared to adulthood. These debates have important policy implications, and one obstacle to resolving them is the relative lack of sufficient high-quality data on childhood and adult socioeconomic position and adult health status. We accordingly compared the health status among monozygotic and dizygotic women twin pairs who lived together through childhood (until at least age 14) and subsequently were discordant or concordant on adult socioeconomic position. This comparison permitted us to ascertain the additional impact of adult experiences on adult health in a population matched on early life experiences. Methods and Findings: Our study employed data from a cross-sectional survey and physical examinations of twins in a population-based twin registry, the Kaiser Permanente Women Twins Study Examination II, conducted in 1989 to 1990 in Oakland, California, United States. The study population was composed of 308 women twin pairs (58% monozygotic, 42% dizygotic); data were obtained on childhood and adult socioeconomic position and on blood pressure, cholesterol, post-load glucose, body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio, physical activity, and self-rated health. Health outcomes among adult women twin pairs who lived together through childhood varied by their subsequent adult occupational class. Cardiovascular factors overall differed more among monozygotic twin pairs that were discordant compared to concordant on occupational class. Moreover, among the monozygotic twins discordant on adult occupational class, the working class twin fared worse and, compared to her professional twin, on average had significantly higher systolic blood pressure (mean matched difference = 4.54 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10–8.97), diastolic blood pressure (mean matched difference = 3.80 mm Hg; 95% CI, 0.44–7.17), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (mean matched difference = 7.82 mg/dl; 95% CI, 1.07–14.57). By contrast, no such differences were evident for analyses based on educational attainment, which does not capture post-education socioeconomic position. Conclusion: These results provide novel evidence that lifetime socioeconomic position influences adult health and highlight the utility of studying social plus biological aspects of twinship.

Nancy Krieger and colleagues argue that law-enforcement–related deaths in the United States should be treated as notifiable conditions, which would allow public health departments to report these data in real-time.

Cutaneous melanoma is a significant public health concern, accounting for thousands of deaths annually in the US. Early detection and diagnosis are critical given the poor prognosis and limited treatment options of advanced-stage disease. While non-Hispanic whites have higher incidence rates of melanoma, Hispanics are typically diagnosed at later disease stages and suffer higher morbidity and mortality. Currently, there is a paucity of literature investigating the root causes underlying these trends among Hispanics. Given that Hispanics are the most rapidly expanding demographic segment in the US, it is essential for cancer control efforts to elucidate the major determinants of their poor melanoma outcomes. Herein, we use the social ecological model as a framework to explore the multitude of influences on melanoma disparities among Hispanics and provide recommendations for planning future studies and interventions.

Background: The spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) across the United States confirms that not all Americans are equally at risk of infection, severe disease, or mortality. A range of intersecting biological, demographic, and socioeconomic factors are likely to determine an individual’s susceptibility to COVID-19. These factors vary significantly across counties in the United States, and often reflect the structural inequities in our society. Recognizing this vast inter-county variation in risks will be critical to mounting an adequate response strategy.

Methods and Findings: Using publicly available county-specific data we identified key biological, demographic, and socioeconomic factors influencing susceptibility to COVID-19, guided by international experiences and consideration of epidemiological parameters of importance. We created bivariate county-level maps to summarize examples of key relationships across these categories, grouping age and poverty; comorbidities and lack of health insurance; proximity, density and bed capacity; and race and ethnicity, and premature death. We have also made available an interactive online tool that allows public health officials to query risk factors most relevant to their local context.

Our data demonstrate significant inter-county variation in key epidemiological risk factors, with a clustering of counties in certain states, which will result in an increased demand on their public health system. While the East and West coast cities are particularly vulnerable owing to their densities (and travel routes), a large number of counties in the Southeastern states have a high proportion of at-risk populations, with high levels of poverty, comorbidities, and premature death at baseline, and low levels of health insurance coverage.

The list of variables we have examined is by no means comprehensive, and several of them are interrelated and magnify underlying vulnerabilities. The online tool allows readers to explore additional combinations of risk factors, set categorical thresholds for each covariate, and filter counties above different population thresholds.

Conclusion: COVID-19 responses and decision making in the United States remain decentralized. Both the federal and state governments will benefit from recognizing high intra-state, inter-county variation in population risks and response capacity. Many of the factors that are likely to exacerbate the burden of COVID-19 and the demand on healthcare systems are the compounded result of long-standing structural inequalities in US society. Strategies to protect those in the most vulnerable counties will require urgent measures to better support communities’ attempts at social distancing and to accelerate cooperation across jurisdictions to supply personnel and equipment to counties that will experience high demand.

Objective: For at least three decades, many investigators have reported on the US black/white breast cancer case ratio for estrogen receptor (ER) status as if it reflected an intrinsic biological difference. In light of racial/ethnic differences in declines in the incidence of ER+ breast cancer, as linked to changing use of hormone therapy, we empirically tested whether the black/white breast cancer estrogen receptor ratio has changed over time. Methods: We examined temporal trends in the odds of being ER+ among white as compared to black women among all cases of invasive breast cancer occurring among women residing in the catchment area of the SEER 13 Registries Database between 1992 and 2005. Results: During the study period, the odds of being ER+ among the white compared to black cases increased from 1992 to 2002 (a statistically significant joinpoint; p < 0.05; peak odds ratio (2002) = 2.25 (95% confidence interval 2.13, 2.39)). Thereafter, the odds ratio leveled off (post-2002 slope not significantly different from zero; p = 0.326). Among women aged 45–54, moreover, the post-2002 decline tended toward statistical significance (p = 0.0891). Conclusions: The results suggest the black/white breast cancer case estrogen receptor ratio is historically contingent, not innate.

The United States (US) has been among those nations most severely affected by the first—and subsequent—phases of the pandemic of COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. With only 4% of the worldwide population, the US has seen about 22% of COVID-19 deaths. Despite formidable advantages in resources and expertise, presently the per capita mortality rate is over 585/million, respectively 2.4 and 5 times higher compared to Canada and Germany. As we enter Fall 2020, the US is enduring ongoing outbreaks across large regions of the country. Moreover, within the US, an early and persistent feature of the pandemic has been the disproportionate impact on populations already made vulnerable by racism and dangerous jobs, inadequate wages, and unaffordable housing, and this is true for both the headline public health threat and the additional disastrous economic impacts. In this article we assess the impact of missteps by the Federal Government in three specific areas: the introduction of the virus to the US and the establishment of community transmission; the lack of national COVID-19 workplace standards and enforcement, and lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) for workplaces as represented by complaints to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) which we find are correlated with deaths 16 days later (ρ = 0.83); and the total excess deaths in 2020 to date already total more than 230,000, while COVID-19 mortality rates exhibit severe—and rising—inequities in race/ethnicity, including among working age adults.

Objective: To determine whether race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status are associated with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) mortality in the United States. Methods: The National Longitudinal Mortality Study (NLMS), a United States–representative, multistage sample, collected race/ethnicity and socioeconomic data prospectively. Mortality information was obtained by matching NLMS records to the National Death Index (1979–2011). More than 2 million persons (n = 1,145,368 women, n = 1,011,172 men) were included, with 33,024,881 person-years of follow-up (1,299 ALS deaths , response rate 96%). Race/ethnicity was by self-report in 4 categories. Hazard ratios (HRs) for ALS mortality were calculated for race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status separately and in mutually adjusted models. Results: Minority vs white race/ethnicity predicted lower ALS mortality in models adjusted for socioeconomic status, type of health insurance, and birthplace (non-Hispanic black, HR 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48–0.78; Hispanic, HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46–0.88; other races, non-Hispanic, HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31–0.86). Higher educational attainment compared with < high school was in general associated with higher rate of ALS (high school, HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.07–1.42; some college, HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.04–1.48; college, HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90–1.36; postgraduate, HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.06–1.62). Income, household poverty, and home ownership were not associated with ALS after adjustment for race/ethnicity. Rates did not differ by sex. Conclusion: Higher rate of ALS among whites vs non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, and non-Hispanic other races was not accounted for by multiple measures of socioeconomic status, birthplace, or type of health insurance. Higher rate of ALS among whites likely reflects actual higher risk of ALS rather than ascertainment bias or effects of socioeconomic status on ALS risk.