Policy Recommendations for Meeting the Grand Challenge to Close the Health Gap

This brief was created forSocial Innovation for America’s Renewal, a policy conference organized by the Center for Social Development in collaboration with the American Academy of Social Work & Social Welfare, which is leading theGrand Challenges for Social Work initiative to champion social progress. The conference site includes links to speeches, presentations, and a full list of the policy briefs

Does Racism Make Us Sick? 13th Annual Summer Public Health Research Institute and Videoconference on Minority Health

Live, interactive broadcast via Internet (webcast) and c-band satellite from the UNC Sonja Haynes Stone Center for Black Culture and History (SCBCH)

The Health Equity Promotion Model: Reconceptualization of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Health Disparities

National health initiatives emphasize the importance of eliminating health disparities among historically disadvantaged populations. Yet, few studies have examined the range of health outcomes among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. To stimulate more inclusive research in the area, we present the Health Equity Promotion Model—a framework oriented toward LGBT people reaching their full mental and physical health potential that considers both positive and adverse health-related circumstances. The model highlights (a) heterogeneity and intersectionality within LGBT communities; (b) the influence of structural and environmental context; and (c) both health-promoting and adverse pathways that encompass behavioral, social, psychological, and biological processes. It also expands upon earlier conceptualizations of sexual minority health by integrating a life course development perspective within the health-promotion model. By explicating the important role of agency and resilience as well as the deleterious effect of social structures on health outcomes, it supports policy and social justice to advance health and well-being in these communities. Important directions for future research as well as implications for health-promotion interventions and policies are offered

Implicating genes, pleiotropy, and sexual dimorphism at blood lipid loci through multi-ancestry meta-analysis

Abstract Background Genetic variants within nearly 1000 loci are known to contribute to modulation of blood lipid levels. However, the biological pathways underlying these associations are frequently unknown, limiting understanding of these findings and hindering downstream translational efforts such as drug target discovery. Results To expand our understanding of the underlying biological pathways and mechanisms controlling blood lipid levels, we leverage a large multi-ancestry meta-analysis (N = 1,654,960) of blood lipids to prioritize putative causal genes for 2286 lipid associations using six gene prediction approaches. Using phenome-wide association (PheWAS) scans, we identify relationships of genetically predicted lipid levels to other diseases and conditions. We confirm known pleiotropic associations with cardiovascular phenotypes and determine novel associations, notably with cholelithiasis risk. We perform sex-stratified GWAS meta-analysis of lipid levels and show that 3–5% of autosomal lipid-associated loci demonstrate sex-biased effects. Finally, we report 21 novel lipid loci identified on the X chromosome. Many of the sex-biased autosomal and X chromosome lipid loci show pleiotropic associations with sex hormones, emphasizing the role of hormone regulation in lipid metabolism. Conclusions Taken together, our findings provide insights into the biological mechanisms through which associated variants lead to altered lipid levels and potentially cardiovascular disease risk

Implicating genes, pleiotropy, and sexual dimorphism at blood lipid loci through multi-ancestry meta-analysis

Funding GMP, PN, and CW are supported by NHLBI R01HL127564. GMP and PN are supported by R01HL142711. AG acknowledge support from the Wellcome Trust (201543/B/16/Z), European Union Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007–2013 under grant agreement no. HEALTH-F2-2013–601456 (CVGenes@Target) & the TriPartite Immunometabolism Consortium [TrIC]-Novo Nordisk Foundation’s Grant number NNF15CC0018486. JMM is supported by American Diabetes Association Innovative and Clinical Translational Award 1–19-ICTS-068. SR was supported by the Academy of Finland Center of Excellence in Complex Disease Genetics (Grant No 312062), the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, and University of Helsinki HiLIFE Fellow and Grand Challenge grants. EW was supported by the Finnish innovation fund Sitra (EW) and Finska Läkaresällskapet. CNS was supported by American Heart Association Postdoctoral Fellowships 15POST24470131 and 17POST33650016. Charles N Rotimi is supported by Z01HG200362. Zhe Wang, Michael H Preuss, and Ruth JF Loos are supported by R01HL142302. NJT is a Wellcome Trust Investigator (202802/Z/16/Z), is the PI of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (MRC & WT 217065/Z/19/Z), is supported by the University of Bristol NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215–2001) and the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (MC_UU_00011), and works within the CRUK Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme (C18281/A19169). Ruth E Mitchell is a member of the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol funded by the MRC (MC_UU_00011/1). Simon Haworth is supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Academic Clinical Fellowship. Paul S. de Vries was supported by American Heart Association grant number 18CDA34110116. Julia Ramierz acknowledges support by the People Programme of the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme grant n° 608765 and Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant n° 786833. Maria Sabater-Lleal is supported by a Miguel Servet contract from the ISCIII Spanish Health Institute (CP17/00142) and co-financed by the European Social Fund. Jian Yang is funded by the Westlake Education Foundation. Olga Giannakopoulou has received funding from the British Heart Foundation (BHF) (FS/14/66/3129). CHARGE Consortium cohorts were supported by R01HL105756. Study-specific acknowledgements are available in the Additional file 32: Supplementary Note. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institutes of Health; or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Implicating genes, pleiotropy, and sexual dimorphism at blood lipid loci through multi-ancestry meta-analysis

Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s).Background: Genetic variants within nearly 1000 loci are known to contribute to modulation of blood lipid levels. However, the biological pathways underlying these associations are frequently unknown, limiting understanding of these findings and hindering downstream translational efforts such as drug target discovery. Results: To expand our understanding of the underlying biological pathways and mechanisms controlling blood lipid levels, we leverage a large multi-ancestry meta-analysis (N = 1,654,960) of blood lipids to prioritize putative causal genes for 2286 lipid associations using six gene prediction approaches. Using phenome-wide association (PheWAS) scans, we identify relationships of genetically predicted lipid levels to other diseases and conditions. We confirm known pleiotropic associations with cardiovascular phenotypes and determine novel associations, notably with cholelithiasis risk. We perform sex-stratified GWAS meta-analysis of lipid levels and show that 3–5% of autosomal lipid-associated loci demonstrate sex-biased effects. Finally, we report 21 novel lipid loci identified on the X chromosome. Many of the sex-biased autosomal and X chromosome lipid loci show pleiotropic associations with sex hormones, emphasizing the role of hormone regulation in lipid metabolism. Conclusions: Taken together, our findings provide insights into the biological mechanisms through which associated variants lead to altered lipid levels and potentially cardiovascular disease risk.Peer reviewe

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely