Disparities in wellbeing in the USA by race and ethnicity, age, sex, and location, 2008-21: an analysis using the Human Development Index.

The Human Development Index (HDI)-a composite metric encompassing a population's life expectancy, education, and income-is used widely for assessing and comparing human development and wellbeing at the country level, but does not account for within-country inequality. In this study of the USA, we aimed to adapt the HDI framework to measure the HDI at an individual level to examine disparities in the distribution of wellbeing by race and ethnicity, sex, age, and geographical location. We used individual-level data on adults aged 25 years and older from the 2008-21 American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample. We extracted information on race and ethnicity, age, sex, location (Public Use Microdata Areas), educational attainment, and household income and size. We merged these data with estimated life tables by race and ethnicity, sex, age, location (county), and year, generated using Bayesian small-area estimation models applied to death certificate data from the National Vital Statistics System. For each individual in the ACS, we used these combined data to estimate years of education, household consumption, and expected lifespan; converted each of these three features into an index using a percentile score; and calculated the HDI as the geometric mean of these three indices. Finally, we grouped individuals into yearly HDI deciles. Years of education, household consumption, and expected lifespan-and thus the HDI-varied considerably among adults in the USA during the 2008-21 period. For most race and ethnicity and sex groups, the mean HDI increased gradually from 2008 to 2019, then declined in 2020 due to declines in expected lifespan, although there were systematic differences in the distribution of the HDI by race and ethnicity and sex. In the lowest HDI decile, there was over-representation (ie, >10% of the total population of a given race and ethnicity and sex group) of American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) males (50% [SE 0·2] in decile, mean annual population in decile 0·37 million [SE 0·002]), Black males (40% [<0·1], 4·67 million [0·006]), AIAN females (23% [0·1], 0·19 million [0·001]), Latino males (21% [<0·1], 3·27 million [0·006]), Black females (14% [<0·1], 1·86 million [0·004]), and Latina females (13% [<0·1], 2·07 million [0·006]). Given differences in total population size, however, White males were the largest population group in the lowest decile (27% [<0·1] of the lowest decile, 5·87 million [0·012]), followed by Black males (22% [<0·1]) and Latino males (15% [<0·1]). There were notable differences in these patterns by age group: for example, for the 25-44 years age group, the lowest HDI decile had even greater over-representation of AIAN males (66% [0·2] in decile, 0·22 million [0·001]) and Black males (46% [<0·1], 2·52 million [0·005]) than the 85 years and older age group (22% [1·1], <0·01 million [<0·001]; and 20% [0·3], 0·03 million [<0·001]). By contrast, the lowest decile had an under-representation of Asian females (2% [<0·1], 0·06 million [<0·001]) in the 25-44 years age group, but an over-representation in the 85 years and older age group (25% [0·3], 0·03 million [<0·001]). The lowest HDI decile for the 25-44 years age group was primarily male (76% [<0·1], 6·44 million [0·009]) whereas for age 85 years and older it was predominantly female (71% [0·1], 0·42 million [0·002]). In the highest HDI decile, shifts in the composition of the population by age were particularly large for White males, who made up 5% (0·1; 0·39 million [0·001]) of this decile in the 25-44 years age group, but 49% (0·2; 0·29 million [0·001]) in the 85 years and older age group. From 2012 to 2021, the proportion of the population living in the lowest HDI decile varied substantially by location, and a disproportionately high share of the population living in locations in much of the southern half of the USA, Appalachia, and Rust Belt states were in the lowest HDI decile. Substantial disparities in wellbeing exist within the USA and are heavily influenced by race and ethnicity (due to racism), sex, age, and geographical location. These disparities are not immutable, but improvement is not a given, and gains can be fleeting in the face of a crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustained action to ensure that everyone has meaningful access to a high-quality education, the means to earn a sufficient income, and the opportunity to live a long and healthy life is needed to reduce these disparities and should focus on the populations and locations that are worst off. State of Washington and National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities.

Dwyer-Lindgren L ，Kendrick P ，Baumann MM ，Li Z ，Schmidt C ，Sylte DO ，Daoud F ，La Motte-Kerr W ，Aldridge RW ，Bisignano C ，Hay SI ，Mokdad AH ，Murray CJL ... -  《-》

Ten Americas: a systematic analysis of life expectancy disparities in the USA.

Nearly two decades ago, the Eight Americas study offered a novel lens for examining health inequities in the USA by partitioning the US population into eight groups based on geography, race, urbanicity, income per capita, and homicide rate. That study found gaps of 12·8 years for females and 15·4 years for males in life expectancy in 2001 across these eight groups. In this study, we aimed to update and expand the original Eight Americas study, examining trends in life expectancy from 2000 to 2021 for ten Americas (analogues to the original eight, plus two additional groups comprising the US Latino population), by year, sex, and age group. In this systematic analysis, we defined ten mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive Americas comprising the entire US population, starting with all combinations of county and race and ethnicity, and assigning each to one of the ten Americas based on race and ethnicity and a variable combination of geographical location, metropolitan status, income, and Black-White residential segregation. We adjusted deaths from the National Vital Statistics System to account for misreporting of race and ethnicity on death certificates. We then tabulated deaths from the National Vital Statistics System and population estimates from the US Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics from Jan 1, 2000, to Dec 31, 2021, by America, year, sex, and age, and calculated age-specific mortality rates in each of these strata. Finally, we constructed abridged life tables for each America, year, and sex, and extracted life expectancy at birth, partial life expectancy within five age groups (0-4, 5-24, 25-44, 45-64, and 65-84 years), and remaining life expectancy at age 85 years. We defined the ten Americas as: America 1-Asian individuals; America 2-Latino individuals in other counties; America 3-White (majority), Asian, and American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN) individuals in other counties; America 4-White individuals in non-metropolitan and low-income Northlands; America 5-Latino individuals in the Southwest; America 6-Black individuals in other counties; America 7-Black individuals in highly segregated metropolitan areas; America 8-White individuals in low-income Appalachia and Lower Mississippi Valley; America 9-Black individuals in the non-metropolitan and low-income South; and America 10-AIAN individuals in the West. Large disparities in life expectancy between the Americas were apparent throughout the study period but grew more substantial over time, particularly during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2000, life expectancy ranged 12·6 years (95% uncertainty interval 12·2-13·1), from 70·5 years (70·3-70·7) for America 9 to 83·1 years (82·7-83·5) for America 1. The gap between Americas with the lowest and highest life expectancies increased to 13·9 years (12·6-15·2) in 2010, 15·8 years (14·4-17·1) in 2019, 18·9 years (17·7-20·2) in 2020, and 20·4 years (19·0-21·8) in 2021. The trends over time in life expectancy varied by America, leading to changes in the ordering of the Americas over this time period. America 10 was the only America to experience substantial declines in life expectancy from 2000 to 2019, and experienced the largest declines from 2019 to 2021. The three Black Americas (Americas 6, 7, and 9) all experienced relatively large increases in life expectancy before 2020, and thus all three had higher life expectancy than America 10 by 2006, despite starting at a lower level in 2000. By 2010, the increase in America 6 was sufficient to also overtake America 8, which had a relatively flat trend from 2000 to 2019. America 5 had relatively similar life expectancy to Americas 3 and 4 in 2000, but a faster rate of increase in life expectancy from 2000 to 2019, and thus higher life expectancy in 2019; however, America 5 experienced a much larger decline in 2020, reversing this advantage. In some cases, these trends varied substantially by sex and age group. There were also large differences in income and educational attainment among the ten Americas, but the patterns in these variables differed from each other and from the patterns in life expectancy in some notable ways. For example, America 3 had the highest income in most years, and the highest proportion of high-school graduates in all years, but was ranked fourth or fifth in life expectancy before 2020. Our analysis confirms the continued existence of different Americas within the USA. One's life expectancy varies dramatically depending on where one lives, the economic conditions in that location, and one's racial and ethnic identity. This gulf was large at the beginning of the century, only grew larger over the first two decades, and was dramatically exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. These results underscore the vital need to reduce the massive inequity in longevity in the USA, as well as the benefits of detailed analyses of the interacting drivers of health disparities to fully understand the nature of the problem. Such analyses make targeted action possible-local planning and national prioritisation and resource allocation-to address the root causes of poor health for those most disadvantaged so that all Americans can live long, healthy lives, regardless of where they live and their race, ethnicity, or income. State of Washington, Bloomberg Philanthropies, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Dwyer-Lindgren L ，Baumann MM ，Li Z ，Kelly YO ，Schmidt C ，Searchinger C ，La Motte-Kerr W ，Bollyky TJ ，Mokdad AH ，Murray CJ ... -  《-》

The burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors by state in the USA, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 provides a comprehensive assessment of health and risk factor trends at global, regional, national, and subnational levels. This study aims to examine the burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors in the USA and highlight the disparities in health outcomes across different states. GBD 2021 analysed trends in mortality, morbidity, and disability for 371 diseases and injuries and 88 risk factors in the USA between 1990 and 2021. We used several metrics to report sources of health and health loss related to specific diseases, injuries, and risk factors. GBD 2021 methods accounted for differences in data sources and biases. The analysis of levels and trends for causes and risk factors within the same computational framework enabled comparisons across states, years, age groups, and sex. GBD 2021 estimated years lived with disability (YLDs) and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs; the sum of years of life lost to premature mortality and YLDs) for 371 diseases and injuries, years of life lost (YLLs) and mortality for 288 causes of death, and life expectancy and healthy life expectancy (HALE). We provided estimates for 88 risk factors in relation to 155 health outcomes for 631 risk-outcome pairs and produced risk-specific estimates of summary exposure value, relative health risk, population attributable fraction, and risk-attributable burden measured in DALYs and deaths. Estimates were produced by sex (male and female), age (25 age groups from birth to ≥95 years), and year (annually between 1990 and 2021). 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated for all final estimates as the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles values of 500 draws (ie, 500 random samples from the estimate's distribution). Uncertainty was propagated at each step of the estimation process. We found disparities in health outcomes and risk factors across US states. Our analysis of GBD 2021 highlighted the relative decline in life expectancy and HALE compared with other countries, as well as the impact of COVID-19 during the first 2 years of the pandemic. We found a decline in the USA's ranking of life expectancy from 1990 to 2021: in 1990, the USA ranked 35th of 204 countries and territories for males and 19th for females, but dropped to 46th for males and 47th for females in 2021. When comparing life expectancy in the best-performing and worst-performing US states against all 203 other countries and territories (excluding the USA as a whole), Hawaii (the best-ranked state in 1990 and 2021) dropped from sixth-highest life expectancy in the world for males and fourth for females in 1990 to 28th for males and 22nd for females in 2021. The worst-ranked state in 2021 ranked 107th for males (Mississippi) and 99th for females (West Virginia). 14 US states lost life expectancy over the study period, with West Virginia experiencing the greatest loss (2·7 years between 1990 and 2021). HALE ranking declines were even greater; in 1990, the USA was ranked 42nd for males and 32nd for females but dropped to 69th for males and 76th for females in 2021. When comparing HALE in the best-performing and worst-performing US states against all 203 other countries and territories, Hawaii ranked 14th highest HALE for males and fifth for females in 1990, dropping to 39th for males and 34th for females in 2021. In 2021, West Virginia-the lowest-ranked state that year-ranked 141st for males and 137th for females. Nationally, age-standardised mortality rates declined between 1990 and 2021 for many leading causes of death, most notably for ischaemic heart disease (56·1% [95% UI 55·1-57·2] decline), lung cancer (41·9% [39·7-44·6]), and breast cancer (40·9% [38·7-43·7]). Over the same period, age-standardised mortality rates increased for other causes, particularly drug use disorders (878·0% [770·1-1015·5]), chronic kidney disease (158·3% [149·6-167·9]), and falls (89·7% [79·8-95·8]). We found substantial variation in mortality rates between states, with Hawaii having the lowest age-standardised mortality rate (433·2 per 100 000 [380·6-493·4]) in 2021 and Mississippi having the highest (867·5 per 100 000 [772·6-975·7]). Hawaii had the lowest age-standardised mortality rates throughout the study period, whereas Washington, DC, experienced the most improvement (a 40·7% decline [33·2-47·3]). Only six countries had age-standardised rates of YLDs higher than the USA in 2021: Afghanistan, Lesotho, Liberia, Mozambique, South Africa, and the Central African Republic, largely because the impact of musculoskeletal disorders, mental disorders, and substance use disorders on age-standardised disability rates in the USA is so large. At the state level, eight US states had higher age-standardised YLD rates than any country in the world: West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Ohio, Tennessee, and Arizona. Low back pain was the leading cause of YLDs in the USA in 1990 and 2021, although the age-standardised rate declined by 7·9% (1·8-13·0) from 1990. Depressive disorders (56·0% increase [48·2-64·3]) and drug use disorders (287·6% [247·9-329·8]) were the second-leading and third-leading causes of age-standardised YLDs in 2021. For females, mental health disorders had the highest age-standardised YLD rate, with an increase of 59·8% (50·6-68·5) between 1990 and 2021. Hawaii had the lowest age-standardised rates of YLDs for all sexes combined (12 085·3 per 100 000 [9090·8-15 557·1]), whereas West Virginia had the highest (14 832·9 per 100 000 [11 226·9-18 882·5]). At the national level, the leading GBD Level 2 risk factors for death for all sexes combined in 2021 were high systolic blood pressure, high fasting plasma glucose, and tobacco use. From 1990 to 2021, the age-standardised mortality rates attributable to high systolic blood pressure decreased by 47·8% (43·4-52·5) and for tobacco use by 5·1% (48·3%-54·1%), but rates increased for high fasting plasma glucose by 9·3% (0·4-18·7). The burden attributable to risk factors varied by age and sex. For example, for ages 15-49 years, the leading risk factors for death were drug use, high alcohol use, and dietary risks. By comparison, for ages 50-69 years, tobacco was the leading risk factor for death, followed by dietary risks and high BMI. GBD 2021 provides valuable information for policy makers, health-care professionals, and researchers in the USA at the national and state levels to prioritise interventions, allocate resources effectively, and assess the effects of health policies and programmes. By addressing socioeconomic determinants, risk behaviours, environmental influences, and health disparities among minority populations, the USA can work towards improving health outcomes so that people can live longer and healthier lives. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

GBD 2021 US Burden of Disease Collaborators 《-》

Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling.

Elwenspoek MM ，Thom H ，Sheppard AL ，Keeney E ，O'Donnell R ，Jackson J ，Roadevin C ，Dawson S ，Lane D ，Stubbs J ，Everitt H ，Watson JC ，Hay AD ，Gillett P ，Robins G ，Jones HE ，Mallett S ，Whiting PF ... -  《-》

Comparison of Two Modern Survival Prediction Tools, SORG-MLA and METSSS, in Patients With Symptomatic Long-bone Metastases Who Underwent Local Treatment With Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy and With Radiotherapy Alone.

Survival estimation for patients with symptomatic skeletal metastases ideally should be made before a type of local treatment has already been determined. Currently available survival prediction tools, however, were generated using data from patients treated either operatively or with local radiation alone, raising concerns about whether they would generalize well to all patients presenting for assessment. The Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine-learning algorithm (SORG-MLA), trained with institution-based data of surgically treated patients, and the Metastases location, Elderly, Tumor primary, Sex, Sickness/comorbidity, and Site of radiotherapy model (METSSS), trained with registry-based data of patients treated with radiotherapy alone, are two of the most recently developed survival prediction models, but they have not been tested on patients whose local treatment strategy is not yet decided. (1) Which of these two survival prediction models performed better in a mixed cohort made up both of patients who received local treatment with surgery followed by radiotherapy and who had radiation alone for symptomatic bone metastases? (2) Which model performed better among patients whose local treatment consisted of only palliative radiotherapy? (3) Are laboratory values used by SORG-MLA, which are not included in METSSS, independently associated with survival after controlling for predictions made by METSSS? Between 2010 and 2018, we provided local treatment for 2113 adult patients with skeletal metastases in the extremities at an urban tertiary referral academic medical center using one of two strategies: (1) surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy or (2) palliative radiotherapy alone. Every patient's survivorship status was ascertained either by their medical records or the national death registry from the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Administration. After applying a priori designated exclusion criteria, 91% (1920) were analyzed here. Among them, 48% (920) of the patients were female, and the median (IQR) age was 62 years (53 to 70 years). Lung was the most common primary tumor site (41% [782]), and 59% (1128) of patients had other skeletal metastases in addition to the treated lesion(s). In general, the indications for surgery were the presence of a complete pathologic fracture or an impending pathologic fracture, defined as having a Mirels score of ≥ 9, in patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of less than or equal to IV and who were considered fit for surgery. The indications for radiotherapy were relief of pain, local tumor control, prevention of skeletal-related events, and any combination of the above. In all, 84% (1610) of the patients received palliative radiotherapy alone as local treatment for the target lesion(s), and 16% (310) underwent surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy. Neither METSSS nor SORG-MLA was used at the point of care to aid clinical decision-making during the treatment period. Survival was retrospectively estimated by these two models to test their potential for providing survival probabilities. We first compared SORG to METSSS in the entire population. Then, we repeated the comparison in patients who received local treatment with palliative radiation alone. We assessed model performance by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration analysis, Brier score, and decision curve analysis (DCA). The AUROC measures discrimination, which is the ability to distinguish patients with the event of interest (such as death at a particular time point) from those without. AUROC typically ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 0.5 indicating random guessing and 1.0 a perfect prediction, and in general, an AUROC of ≥ 0.7 indicates adequate discrimination for clinical use. Calibration refers to the agreement between the predicted outcomes (in this case, survival probabilities) and the actual outcomes, with a perfect calibration curve having an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. A positive intercept indicates that the actual survival is generally underestimated by the prediction model, and a negative intercept suggests the opposite (overestimation). When comparing models, an intercept closer to 0 typically indicates better calibration. Calibration can also be summarized as log(O:E), the logarithm scale of the ratio of observed (O) to expected (E) survivors. A log(O:E) > 0 signals an underestimation (the observed survival is greater than the predicted survival); and a log(O:E) < 0 indicates the opposite (the observed survival is lower than the predicted survival). A model with a log(O:E) closer to 0 is generally considered better calibrated. The Brier score is the mean squared difference between the model predictions and the observed outcomes, and it ranges from 0 (best prediction) to 1 (worst prediction). The Brier score captures both discrimination and calibration, and it is considered a measure of overall model performance. In Brier score analysis, the "null model" assigns a predicted probability equal to the prevalence of the outcome and represents a model that adds no new information. A prediction model should achieve a Brier score at least lower than the null-model Brier score to be considered as useful. The DCA was developed as a method to determine whether using a model to inform treatment decisions would do more good than harm. It plots the net benefit of making decisions based on the model's predictions across all possible risk thresholds (or cost-to-benefit ratios) in relation to the two default strategies of treating all or no patients. The care provider can decide on an acceptable risk threshold for the proposed treatment in an individual and assess the corresponding net benefit to determine whether consulting with the model is superior to adopting the default strategies. Finally, we examined whether laboratory data, which were not included in the METSSS model, would have been independently associated with survival after controlling for the METSSS model's predictions by using the multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. Between the two models, only SORG-MLA achieved adequate discrimination (an AUROC of > 0.7) in the entire cohort (of patients treated operatively or with radiation alone) and in the subgroup of patients treated with palliative radiotherapy alone. SORG-MLA outperformed METSSS by a wide margin on discrimination, calibration, and Brier score analyses in not only the entire cohort but also the subgroup of patients whose local treatment consisted of radiotherapy alone. In both the entire cohort and the subgroup, DCA demonstrated that SORG-MLA provided more net benefit compared with the two default strategies (of treating all or no patients) and compared with METSSS when risk thresholds ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 at both 90 days and 1 year, indicating that using SORG-MLA as a decision-making aid was beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting for treatment was 0.2 to 0.9. Higher albumin, lower alkaline phosphatase, lower calcium, higher hemoglobin, lower international normalized ratio, higher lymphocytes, lower neutrophils, lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lower platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, higher sodium, and lower white blood cells were independently associated with better 1-year and overall survival after adjusting for the predictions made by METSSS. Based on these discoveries, clinicians might choose to consult SORG-MLA instead of METSSS for survival estimation in patients with long-bone metastases presenting for evaluation of local treatment. Basing a treatment decision on the predictions of SORG-MLA could be beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting to undergo a particular treatment strategy ranged from 0.2 to 0.9. Future studies might investigate relevant laboratory items when constructing or refining a survival estimation model because these data demonstrated prognostic value independent of the predictions of the METSSS model, and future studies might also seek to keep these models up to date using data from diverse, contemporary patients undergoing both modern operative and nonoperative treatments. Level III, diagnostic study.

Lee CC ，Chen CW ，Yen HK ，Lin YP ，Lai CY ，Wang JL ，Groot OQ ，Janssen SJ ，Schwab JH ，Hsu FM ，Lin WH ... -  《-》