Lower endoscopy, early-onset, and average-onset colon cancer among Medicaid beneficiaries with and without HIV.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest a lower colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and lower or similar CRC screening among people with HIV (PWH) compared with the general population. We evaluated the incidence of lower endoscopy and average-onset (diagnosed at ≥50) and early-onset (diagnosed at <50) colon cancer by HIV status among Medicaid beneficiares with comparable sociodemographic factors and access to care. METHODS: We obtained Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX) data from 2001 to 2015 for 14 states. We included 41 727 243 and 42 062 552 unique individuals with at least 7 months of continuous eligibility for the endoscopy and colon cancer analysis, respectively. HIV and colon cancer diagnoses and endoscopy procedures were identified from inpatient and other nondrug claims. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to assess endoscopy and colon cancer incidence, controlling for age, sex, race/ethnicity, calendar year and state of enrollment, and comorbidities conditions. RESULTS: Endoscopy and colon cancer incidence increased with age in both groups. Compared with beneficiaries without HIV, PWH had an increased hazard of endoscopy; this association was strongest among those 18-39 years [hazard ratio: 1.85, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.77-1.92] and attenuated with age. PWH 18-39 years also had increased hazard of early-onset colon cancer (hazard ratio: 1.66, 95% CI:1.05-2.62); this association was attenuated after comorbidity adjustment. Hazard ratios were null among all beneficiaries less than 50 years of age. PWH had a lower hazard of average-onset colon cancer compared with those without HIV (hazard ratio: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.66-0.94). CONCLUSION: PWH had a higher hazard of endoscopy, particularly at younger ages. PWH had a lower hazard of average-onset colon cancer. Early-onset colon cancer was higher among the youngest PWH but not associated with HIV overall.

Racialized Economic Segregation and Breast Cancer Mortality among Women in Maryland.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to determine the association between racialized economic segregation and the hazard of breast cancer mortality in Maryland. METHODS: Among 35,066 women (24,540 White; 10,526 Black) diagnosed with incident invasive breast cancer in Maryland during 2007 to 2017, exposure to racialized economic segregation was measured at the census tract level using Index of Concentration at the Extremes metrics. HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression for the association between racialized economic segregation and the hazard of breast cancer mortality, accounting for clustering at the census tract level. Models were adjusted for age and stratified by race, median age (<60 years, ≥60 years), and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, the hazard of breast cancer mortality was 1.84 times as high (95% CI, 1.64-2.06) for the least privileged quintile of racialized economic segregation compared with the most privileged quintile. This association differed significantly (P interaction< 0.05) by race and age, with 1.20 (95% CI, 0.90-1.60) times the hazard of breast cancer mortality for Black women versus 1.66 (95% CI, 1.41-1.95) times the hazard for White women, and with greater hazards for younger women (HR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.83-2.57) than older women (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.40-1.88). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that breast cancer survival disparities exist in Maryland among women residing in the least privileged census tracts with lower income households and higher proportions of Black residents. IMPACT: Our findings provide new insights into the breast cancer mortality disparities observed among women in Maryland.

Recommendations to the Society for Epidemiologic Research for Further Promoting Diversity and Inclusion at the Annual Meeting and Beyond.

Increasing diverse engagement in the Society for Epidemiologic Research (SER) will positively impact the field of epidemiology. As the largest and longest-running epidemiologic society in North America, SER has long been a pioneer in promoting diversity and inclusion. A recent survey of SER members, however, showed there is still room for improving diversity, inclusion, representation, and participation in the Society. In this commentary, as members of both the SER and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Department of Epidemiology's Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Anti-Racism, and Science (Epi IDEAS) Working Group, we recommend 4 goals for the SER Annual Meeting and beyond: 1) convene epidemiologic researchers with diverse backgrounds and ideas; 2) promote an inclusive environment at the SER Annual Meeting; 3) develop, compile, and disseminate best practices to honor diversity in epidemiologic research; and 4) increase prioritization of health disparities research and methods. We also suggest strategies for achieving these goals so that SER can better include, support, and elevate members from historically disadvantaged groups. While our recommendations are tailored specifically to SER, the greater epidemiologic and academic communities could benefit from adopting these goals and strategies within their professional societies and conferences.

Access to environmental health assets across wealth strata: Evidence from 41 low- and middle-income countries.

INTRODUCTION: Low levels of household access to basic environmental health assets (EHAs)-including technologies such as clean cookstoves and bed nets or infrastructure such as piped water and electricity-in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are known to contribute significantly to the global burden of disease. This low access persists despite decades of promotion of many low-cost, life-saving technologies, and is particularly pronounced among poor households. This study aims to characterize variation in access to EHAs among LMIC households as a function of wealth, as defined by ownership of various assets. METHODS: Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data from 41 low- and middle-income countries were used to assess household-level access to the following EHAs: 1) improved water supply; 2) piped water supply; 3) improved sanitation; 4) modern cooking fuels; 5) electricity; and 6) bed nets. For comparison, we included access to mobile phones, which is considered a highly successful technology in terms of its penetration into poor households within LMICs. Ownership levels were compared across country-specific wealth quintiles constructed from household assets using bivariate analysis and multivariable linear regression models. RESULTS: Access to EHAs was low among the households in the bottom three quintiles of wealth. Access to piped water, modern cooking fuels, electricity and improved sanitation, for example, were all below 50% for households in the bottom three wealth quintiles. Access to certain EHAs such as improved water supply and bed nets increased only slowly with concomitant increases in wealth, while gaps in access to other EHAs varied to a greater degree by wealth quintile. For example, disparities in access between the richest and poorest quintiles were greatest for electricity and improved sanitation. Rural households in all wealth quintiles had much lower levels of access to EHAs, except for bed nets, relative to urban households. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study provide a basis for understanding how EHAs are distributed among poor households in LMICs, elucidate where inequalities in access are particularly pronounced, and point to a need for strategies that better reach the poor, if the global environmental burden of disease is to be reduced.

CO2 and H2O: Understanding Different Stakeholder Perspectives on the Use of Carbon Credits to Finance Household Water Treatment Projects.

BACKGROUND: Carbon credits are an increasingly prevalent market-based mechanism used to subsidize household water treatment technologies (HWT). This involves generating credits through the reduction of carbon emissions from boiling water by providing a technology that reduces greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change. Proponents claim this process delivers health and environmental benefits by providing clean drinking water and reducing greenhouse gases. Selling carbon credits associated with HWT projects requires rigorous monitoring to ensure households are using the HWT and achieving the desired benefits of the device. Critics have suggested that the technologies provide neither the benefits of clean water nor reduced emissions. This study explores the perspectives of carbon credit and water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) experts on HWT carbon credit projects. METHODS: Thirteen semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with key informants from the WASH and carbon credit development sectors. The interviews explored perceptions of the two groups with respect to the procedures applied in the Gold Standard methodology for trading Voluntary Emission Reduction (VER) credits. RESULTS: Agreement among the WASH and carbon credit experts existed for the concept of suppressed demand and parameters in the baseline water boiling test. Key differences, however, existed. WASH experts' responses highlighted a focus on objectively verifiable data for monitoring carbon projects while carbon credit experts called for contextualizing observed data with the need for flexibility and balancing financial viability with quality assurance. CONCLUSIONS: Carbon credit projects have the potential to become an important financing mechanism for clean energy in low- and middle-income countries. Based on this research we recommend that more effort be placed on building consensus on the underlying assumptions for obtaining carbon credits from HWT projects, as well as the approved methods for monitoring correct and consistent use of the HWT technologies in order to support public health impacts.