Working conditions and health behavior as causes of educational inequalities in self-rated health: an inverse odds weighting approach

Objective Using a novel mediation method that presents unbiased results even in the presence of exposure– mediator interactions, this study estimated the extent to which working conditions and health behaviors contribute to educational inequalities in self-rated health in the workforce. Methods Respondents of the longitudinal Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) in 16 countries were selected, aged 50–64 years, in paid employment at baseline and with information on education and self-rated health (N=15 028). Education, health behaviors [including body mass index (BMI)] and working conditions were measured at baseline and self-rated health at baseline and two-year follow-up. Causal mediation analysis with inverse odds weighting was used to estimate the total effect of education on self-rated health, decomposed into a natural direct effect (NDE) and natural indirect effect (NIE). Results Lower educated workers were more likely to perceive their health as poor than higher educated workers [relative risk (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37–1.60]. They were also more likely to have unfavorable working conditions and unhealthy behaviors, except for alcohol consumption. When all working conditions were included, the remaining NDE was RR 1.30 (95% CI 1.15–1.44). When BMI and health behaviors were included, the remaining NDE was RR 1.40 (95% CI 1.27–1.54). Working conditions explained 38% and health behaviors and BMI explained 16% of educational inequalities in health. Including all mediators explained 64% of educational inequalities in self-rated health. Conclusions Working conditions and health behaviors explain over half of the educational inequalities in selfrated health. To reduce health inequalities, improving working conditions seems to be more important than introducing health promotion programs in the workforce

Randomized Trial of Metformin, Ivermectin, and Fluvoxamine for Covid-19

BACKGROUND Early treatment to prevent severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is an important component of the comprehensive response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. METHODS In this phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we used a 2-by-3 factorial design to test the effectiveness of three repurposed drugs - metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine - in preventing serious SARS-CoV-2 infection in nonhospitalized adults who had been enrolled within 3 days after a confirmed diagnosis of infection and less than 7 days after the onset of symptoms. The patients were between the ages of 30 and 85 years, and all had either overweight or obesity. The primary composite end point was hypoxemia (≤93% oxygen saturation on home oximetry), emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death. All analyses used controls who had undergone concurrent randomization and were adjusted for SARSCoV-2 vaccination and receipt of other trial medications. RESULTS A total of 1431 patients underwent randomization; of these patients, 1323 were included in the primary analysis. The median age of the patients was 46 years; 56% were female (6% of whom were pregnant), and 52% had been vaccinated. The adjusted odds ratio for a primary event was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 1.09; P=0.19) with metformin, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.45; P=0.78) with ivermectin, and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.36; P=0.75) with fluvoxamine. In prespecified secondary analyses, the adjusted odds ratio for emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.94) with metformin, 1.39 (95% CI, 0.72 to 2.69) with ivermectin, and 1.17 (95% CI, 0.57 to 2.40) with fluvoxamine. The adjusted odds ratio for hospitalization or death was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.20 to 1.11) with metformin, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.19 to 2.77) with ivermectin, and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.33 to 3.76) with fluvoxamine. CONCLUSIONS None of the three medications that were evaluated prevented the occurrence of hypoxemia, an emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death associated with Covid-19

Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2 Is Associated With a Lower Viral Load and Likelihood of Systemic Symptoms

Background: Data conflict on whether vaccination decreases severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load. The objective of this analysis was to compare baseline viral load and symptoms between vaccinated and unvaccinated adults enrolled in a randomized trial of outpatient coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment. Methods: Baseline data from the first 433 sequential participants enrolling into the COVID-OUT trial were analyzed. Adults aged 30-85 with a body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m2 were eligible within 3 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test and <7 days of symptoms. Log10 polymerase chain reaction viral loads were normalized to human RNase P by vaccination status, by time from vaccination, and by symptoms. Results: Two hundred seventy-four participants with known vaccination status contributed optional nasal swabs for viral load measurement: median age, 46 years; median (interquartile range) BMI 31.2 (27.4-36.4) kg/m2. Overall, 159 (58%) were women, and 217 (80%) were White. The mean relative log10 viral load for those vaccinated <6 months from the date of enrollment was 0.11 (95% CI, -0.48 to 0.71), which was significantly lower than the unvaccinated group (P = .01). Those vaccinated ≥6 months before enrollment did not differ from the unvaccinated with respect to viral load (mean, 0.99; 95% CI, -0.41 to 2.40; P = .85). The vaccinated group had fewer moderate/severe symptoms of subjective fever, chills, myalgias, nausea, and diarrhea (all P < .05). Conclusions: These data suggest that vaccination within 6 months of infection is associated with a lower viral load, and vaccination was associated with a lower likelihood of having systemic symptoms

Diario de Alicante: Año X Número 2715 - 1916 abril 29

Objective This study aimed to systematically review the literature on the contribution of work and lifestyle factors to socioeconomic inequalities in self-rated health among workers. Methods A search for cross-sectional and longitudinal studies assessing the contribution of work and/or lifestyle factors to socioeconomic inequalities in self-rated health among workers was performed in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science in March 2017. Two independent reviewers performed eligibility and risk of bias assessment. The median change in odds ratio between models without and with adjustment for work or lifestyle factors across studies was calculated to quantify the contribution of work and lifestyle factors to health inequalities. A best-evidence synthesis was performed. Results Of those reviewed, 3 high-quality longitudinal and 17 cross-sectional studies consistently reported work factors to explain part (about one-third) of the socioeconomic health inequalities among workers (grade: strong evidence). Most studies separately investigated physical and psychosocial work factors. In contrast with the 12 cross-sectional studies, 2 longitudinal studies reported no separate contribution of physical workload and physical work environment to health inequalities. Regarding psychosocial work factors, lack of job resources (eg, less autonomy) seemed to contribute to health inequalities, whereas job demands (eg, job overload) might not. Furthermore, 2 longitudinal and 4 cross-sectional studies showed that lifestyle factors explain part (about one-fifth) of the health inequalities (grade: strong evidence). Conclusions The large contribution of work factors to socioeconomic health inequalities emphasizes the need for future longitudinal studies to assess which specific work factors contribute to health inequalities