Association of Race and Ethnicity With Prescription of SGLT2 Inhibitors and GLP1 Receptor Agonists Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in the Veterans Health Administration System.

Importance: Novel therapies for type 2 diabetes can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease progression. The equitability of these agents' prescription across racial and ethnic groups has not been well-evaluated. Objective: To investigate differences in the prescription of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) among adult patients with type 2 diabetes by racial and ethnic groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional analysis of data from the US Veterans Health Administration's Corporate Data Warehouse. The sample included adult patients with type 2 diabetes and at least 2 primary care clinic visits from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020. Exposures: Self-identified race and self-identified ethnicity. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were prevalent SGLT2i or GLP-1 RA prescription, defined as any active prescription during the study period. Results: Among 1 197 914 patients (mean age, 68 years; 96% men; 1% American Indian or Alaska Native, 2% Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander, 20% Black or African American, 71% White, and 7% of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity), 10.7% and 7.7% were prescribed an SGLT2i or a GLP-1 RA, respectively. Prescription rates for SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA, respectively, were 11% and 8.4% among American Indian or Alaska Native patients; 11.8% and 8% among Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander patients; 8.8% and 6.1% among Black or African American patients; and 11.3% and 8.2% among White patients, respectively. Prescription rates for SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA, respectively, were 11% and 7.1% among Hispanic or Latino patients and 10.7% and 7.8% among non-Hispanic or Latino patients. After accounting for patient- and system-level factors, all racial groups had significantly lower odds of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA prescription compared with White patients. Black patients had the lowest odds of prescription compared with White patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.71-0.74] for SGLT2i and 0.64 [95% CI, 0.63-0.66] for GLP-1 RA). Patients of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity had significantly lower odds of prescription (0.90 [95% CI, 0.88-0.93] for SGLT2i and 0.88 [95% CI, 0.85-0.91] for GLP-1 RA) compared with non-Hispanic or Latino patients. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with type 2 diabetes in the Veterans Health Administration system during 2019 and 2020, prescription rates of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA medications were low, and individuals of several different racial groups and those of Hispanic ethnicity had statistically significantly lower odds of receiving prescriptions for these medications compared with individuals of White race and non-Hispanic ethnicity. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms underlying these differences in rates of prescribing and the potential relationship with differences in clinical outcomes.

Social Determinants of Cardiovascular Disease.

Social determinants of health (SDoH), which encompass the economic, social, environmental, and psychosocial factors that influence health, play a significant role in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors as well as CVD morbidity and mortality. The COVID-19 pandemic and the current social justice movement sparked by the death of George Floyd have laid bare long-existing health inequities in our society driven by SDoH. Despite a recent focus on these structural drivers of health disparities, the impact of SDoH on cardiovascular health and CVD outcomes remains understudied and incompletely understood. To further investigate the mechanisms connecting SDoH and CVD, and ultimately design targeted and effective interventions, it is important to foster interdisciplinary efforts that incorporate translational, epidemiological, and clinical research in examining SDoH-CVD relationships. This review aims to facilitate research coordination and intervention development by providing an evidence-based framework for SDoH rooted in the lived experiences of marginalized populations. Our framework highlights critical structural/socioeconomic, environmental, and psychosocial factors most strongly associated with CVD and explores several of the underlying biologic mechanisms connecting SDoH to CVD pathogenesis, including excess stress hormones, inflammation, immune cell function, and cellular aging. We present landmark studies and recent findings about SDoH in our framework, with careful consideration of the constructs and measures utilized. Finally, we provide a roadmap for future SDoH research focused on individual, clinical, and policy approaches directed towards developing multilevel community-engaged interventions to promote cardiovascular health.

COVID-19 and Pediatric Gastroenterology.

Pediatric gastroenterologists took on a variety of challenges during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, including learning about a new disease and how to recognize and manage it, prevent its spread among their patients and health professions colleagues, and make decisions about managing patients with chronic gastrointestinal and liver problems in light of the threat. They adapted their practice to accommodate drastically decreased numbers of in-person visits, adopting telehealth technologies, and instituting new protocols to perform endoscopies safely. The workforce pipeline was also affected by the impact of the pandemic on trainee education, clinical experience, research, and job searches.

The Surgeon's Role in Addressing Racism and Achieving Health Equity.

In the United States, the nation's health is not an organic outcome. It is not a coincidence that certain groups of people living in the United States experience higher premature death rates or poorer health outcomes than others. For centuries, racial and ethnic as well as geographic differences in health outcomes have been part of the American landscape, so entrenched in society that many people fail to recognize that health inequities were intentionally derived. A national crisis tends to magnify inequities in our society, but even more alarming is the fact that as the country becomes more racially and ethnically diverse in the coming years, the health inequities are projected to worsen if we do not proactively and immediately address them. As we continue to grapple with the lasting impact of the pandemic, it is of vital importance that we utilize this time to acknowledge, understand, and seriously address the health inequities that have historically plagued the country for over 400 years. As the United States works overtime to stem the tide of the COVID-19 pandemic, it must also work equally hard to move in a more equitable, inclusive, and healthier direction, not only because of the more than 83 000 Americans dying prematurely each year but also because of the economic and national security toll it will have if not effectively addressed.

Mainstreaming of Health Equity in Infectious Disease Control Policy During the COVID-19 Pandemic Era.

The Korean government's strategy to combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has focused on non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as social distancing and wearing masks, along with testing, tracing, and treatment; overall, its performance has been relatively good compared to that of many other countries heavily affected by COVID-19. However, little attention has been paid to health equity in measures to control the COVID-19 pandemic. The study aimed to examine the unequal impacts of COVID-19 across socioeconomic groups and to suggest potential solutions to tackle these inequalities. The pathways linking social determinants and health could be entry points to tackle the unequal consequences of this public health emergency. It is crucial for infectious disease policy to consider social determinants of health including poor housing, precarious working conditions, disrupted healthcare services, and suspension of social services. Moreover, the high levels of uncertainty and complexity inherent in this public health emergency, as well as the health and socioeconomic inequalities caused by the pandemic, underscore the need for good governance other than top-down measures by the government. We emphasize that a people-centered perspective is a key approach during the pandemic era. Mutual trust between the state and civil society, strong accountability of the government, and civic participation are essential components of cooperative disaster governance.

The Ethical Imperative of Equity in Oncology: Lessons Learned From 2020 and a Path Forward.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the simultaneous increased focus on structural racism and racial/ethnic disparities across the United States have shed light on glaring inequities in U.S. health care, both in oncology and more generally. In this article, we describe how, through the lens of fundamental ethical principles, an ethical imperative exists for the oncology community to overcome these inequities in cancer care, research, and the oncology workforce. We first explain why this is an ethical imperative, centering the discussion on lessons learned during 2020. We continue by describing ongoing equity-focused efforts by ASCO and other related professional medical organizations. We end with a call to action-all members of the oncology community have an ethical responsibility to take steps to address inequities in their clinical and academic work-and with guidance to practicing oncologists looking to optimize equity in their research and clinical practice.

Exploring equity in health and poverty impacts of control measures for SARS-CoV-2 in six countries.

BACKGROUND: Policy makers need to be rapidly informed about the potential equity consequences of different COVID-19 strategies, alongside their broader health and economic impacts. While there are complex models to inform both potential health and macro-economic impact, there are few tools available to rapidly assess potential equity impacts of interventions. METHODS: We created an economic model to simulate the impact of lockdown measures in Pakistan, Georgia, Chile, UK, the Philippines and South Africa. We consider impact of lockdown in terms of ability to socially distance, and income loss during lockdown, and tested the impact of assumptions on social protection coverage in a scenario analysis. RESULTS: In all examined countries, socioeconomic status (SES) quintiles 1-3 were disproportionately more likely to experience income loss (70% of people) and inability to socially distance (68% of people) than higher SES quintiles. Improving social protection increased the percentage of the workforce able to socially distance from 48% (33%-60%) to 66% (44%-71%). We estimate the cost of this social protection would be equivalent to an average of 0.6% gross domestic product (0.1% Pakistan-1.1% Chile). CONCLUSIONS: We illustrate the potential for using publicly available data to rapidly assess the equity implications of social protection and non-pharmaceutical intervention policy. Social protection is likely to mitigate inequitable health and economic impacts of lockdown. Although social protection is usually targeted to the poorest, middle quintiles will likely also need support as they are most likely to suffer income losses and are disproportionately more exposed.

Examining the concept of equity in community psychology with natural language processing.

Large amounts of text-based data, like study abstracts, often go unanalyzed because the task is laborious. Natural language processing (NLP) uses computer-based algorithms not traditionally implemented in community psychology to effectively and efficiently process text. These methods include examining the frequency of words and phrases, the clustering of topics, and the interrelationships of words. This article applied NLP to explore the concept of equity in community psychology. The COVID-19 crisis has made pre-existing health equity gaps even more salient. Community psychology has a specific interest in working with organizations, systems, and communities to address social determinants that perpetuate inequities by refocusing interventions around achieving health and wellness for all. This article examines how community psychology has discussed equity thus far to identify strengths and gaps for future research and practice. The results showed the prominence of community-based participatory research and the diversity of settings researchers work in. However, the total number of abstracts with equity concepts was lower than expected, which suggests there is a need for a continued focus on equity.

Digital disparities: designing telemedicine systems with a health equity aim.

The use of telemedicine has grown immensely during the COVID-19 pandemic. Telemedicine provides a means to deliver clinical care while limiting patient and provider exposure to the COVID-19. As such, telemedicine is finding applications in a variety of clinical environments including primary care and the acute care setting and the array of patient populations who use telemedicine continues to grow. Yet as telehealth becomes ubiquitous, it is critical to consider its potential to exacerbate disparities in care. Challenges accessing technology and digital literacy, for example, disproportionately impact older patients and those living in poverty. When implemented with the consideration of health disparities, telemedicine provides an opportunity to address these inequities. This manuscript explores potential mechanisms by which telemedicine may play a role in exacerbating or ameliorating disparities in care. We further describe a framework and suggested strategies with which to implement telemedicine systems to improve health equity.

Global Health Education in the Time of COVID-19: An Opportunity to Restructure Relationships and Address Supremacy.

Global health and its predecessors, tropical medicine and international health, have historically been driven by the agendas of institutions in high-income countries (HICs), with power dynamics that have disadvantaged partner institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Since the 2000s, however, the academic global health community has been moving toward a focus on health equity and reexamining the dynamics of global health education (GHE) partnerships. Whereas GHE partnerships have largely focused on providing opportunities for learners from HIC institutions, LMIC institutions are now seeking more equitable experiences for their trainees. Additionally, lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic underscore already important lessons about the value of bidirectional educational exchange, as regions gain new insights from one another regarding strategies to impact health outcomes. Interruptions in experiential GHE programs due to COVID-19-related travel restrictions provide an opportunity to reflect on existing GHE systems, to consider the opportunities and dynamics of these partnerships, and to redesign these systems for the equitable benefit of the various partners. In this commentary, the authors offer recommendations for beginning this process of change, with an emphasis on restructuring GHE relationships and addressing supremacist attitudes at both the systemic and individual levels.

Addressing Food Insecurity through a Health Equity Lens: a Case Study of Large Urban School Districts during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Reduced access to school meals during public health emergencies can accelerate food insecurity and nutritional status, particularly for low-income children in urban areas. To prevent the exacerbation of health disparities, there is a need to understand the implementation of meal distribution among large urban school districts during emergencies and to what degree these strategies provide equitable meal access. Our case study of four large urban school districts during the COVID-19 pandemic aims to address these knowledge gaps. Guided by the Getting to Equity (GTE) framework, we conducted a mixed-methods study evaluating emergency meal distribution and strategy implementation in four large urban school districts (Chicago Public Schools, Houston Independent School District, Los Angeles Unified School District, and New York City Department of Education). We gathered data from school district websites on (1) meal service and delivery sites and (2) district documents, policies, communication, and resources. Using qualitative coding approaches, we identified unique and shared district strategies to address meal distribution and communications during the pandemic according to the four components of the GTE framework: increase healthy options, reduce deterrents, build on community capacity, and increase social and economic resources. We matched district census tract boundaries to demographic data from the 2018 American Community Survey and United States Department of Agriculture food desert data, and used geographic information systems (GIS) software to identify meal site locations relative to student population, areas of high poverty and high minority populations, and food deserts. We found that all districts developed strategies to optimize meal provision, which varied across case site. Strategies to increase healthy options included serving adults and other members of the general public, providing timely information on meal site locations, and promoting consumption of a balanced diet. The quantity and frequency of meals served varied, and the degree to which districts promoted high-quality nutrition was limited. Reducing deterrents related to using inclusive language and images and providing safety information on social distancing practices in multiple languages. Districts built community capacity through partnering with first responder, relief, and other community organizations. Increased social and economic resources were illustrated by providing technology assistance to families, childcare referrals for essential workers, and other wellness resources. Geospatial analysis suggests that service locations across cities varied to some degree by demographics and food environment, with potential gaps in reach. This study identifies strategies that have the potential to increase equitable access to nutrition assistance programs. Our findings can support (1) ongoing efforts to address child food insecurity during the pandemic and (2) future meal provision through programs like the Summer Food Service Program and Seamless Summer Option. Future research should further examine the rationale behind meal site placement and how site availability changed over time.

A framework for identifying and mitigating the equity harms of COVID-19 policy interventions.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic. Governments have implemented combinations of "lockdown" measures of various stringencies, including school and workplace closures, cancellations of public events, and restrictions on internal and external movements. These policy interventions are an attempt to shield high-risk individuals and to prevent overwhelming countries' healthcare systems, or, colloquially, "flatten the curve." However, these policy interventions may come with physical and psychological health harms, group and social harms, and opportunity costs. These policies may particularly affect vulnerable populations and not only exacerbate pre-existing inequities but also generate new ones. METHODS: We developed a conceptual framework to identify and categorize adverse effects of COVID-19 lockdown measures. We based our framework on Lorenc and Oliver's framework for the adverse effects of public health interventions and the PROGRESS-Plus equity framework. To test its application, we purposively sampled COVID-19 policy examples from around the world and evaluated them for the potential physical, psychological, and social harms, as well as opportunity costs, in each of the PROGRESS-Plus equity domains: Place of residence, Race/ethnicity, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital, Plus (age, and disability). RESULTS: We found examples of inequitably distributed adverse effects for each COVID-19 lockdown policy example, stratified by a low- or middle-income country and high-income country, in every PROGRESS-Plus equity domain. We identified the known policy interventions intended to mitigate some of these adverse effects. The same harms (anxiety, depression, food insecurity, loneliness, stigma, violence) appear to be repeated across many groups and are exacerbated by several COVID-19 policy interventions. CONCLUSION: Our conceptual framework highlights the fact that COVID-19 policy interventions can generate or exacerbate interactive and multiplicative equity harms. Applying this framework can help in three ways: (1) identifying the areas where a policy intervention may generate inequitable adverse effects; (2) mitigating the policy and practice interventions by facilitating the systematic examination of relevant evidence; and (3) planning for lifting COVID-19 lockdowns and policy interventions around the world.