Health Disparities: Research That Matters.

Health advances have not benefited all people equally. Health equity remains an aspirational goal, but research that enhances health equity is the highest priority at the National Institutes of Health. Here, we propose a call to action and outline current National Institutes of Health programs that aim to eliminate health disparities both broadly and in high priority areas. Discussed topics include stroke as an indicator of broad health inequity, challenges, and opportunities in health disparities research, the need to diversify the research workforce, and the ongoing efforts and struggles to establish trust with disadvantaged communities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Burden of Neurological Disorders Across the US From 1990-2017: A Global Burden of Disease Study.

Importance: Accurate and up-to-date estimates on incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (burden) of neurological disorders are the backbone of evidence-based health care planning and resource allocation for these disorders. It appears that no such estimates have been reported at the state level for the US. Objective: To present burden estimates of major neurological disorders in the US states by age and sex from 1990 to 2017. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study. Data on incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) of major neurological disorders were derived from the GBD 2017 study of the 48 contiguous US states, Alaska, and Hawaii. Fourteen major neurological disorders were analyzed: stroke, Alzheimer disease and other dementias, Parkinson disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, migraine, tension-type headache, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injuries, brain and other nervous system cancers, meningitis, encephalitis, and tetanus. Exposures: Any of the 14 listed neurological diseases. Main Outcome and Measure: Absolute numbers in detail by age and sex and age-standardized rates (with 95% uncertainty intervals) were calculated. Results: The 3 most burdensome neurological disorders in the US in terms of absolute number of DALYs were stroke (3.58 [95% uncertainty interval [UI], 3.25-3.92] million DALYs), Alzheimer disease and other dementias (2.55 [95% UI, 2.43-2.68] million DALYs), and migraine (2.40 [95% UI, 1.53-3.44] million DALYs). The burden of almost all neurological disorders (in terms of absolute number of incident, prevalent, and fatal cases, as well as DALYs) increased from 1990 to 2017, largely because of the aging of the population. Exceptions for this trend included traumatic brain injury incidence (-29.1% [95% UI, -32.4% to -25.8%]); spinal cord injury prevalence (-38.5% [95% UI, -43.1% to -34.0%]); meningitis prevalence (-44.8% [95% UI, -47.3% to -42.3%]), deaths (-64.4% [95% UI, -67.7% to -50.3%]), and DALYs (-66.9% [95% UI, -70.1% to -55.9%]); and encephalitis DALYs (-25.8% [95% UI, -30.7% to -5.8%]). The different metrics of age-standardized rates varied between the US states from a 1.2-fold difference for tension-type headache to 7.5-fold for tetanus; southeastern states and Arkansas had a relatively higher burden for stroke, while northern states had a relatively higher burden of multiple sclerosis and eastern states had higher rates of Parkinson disease, idiopathic epilepsy, migraine and tension-type headache, and meningitis, encephalitis, and tetanus. Conclusions and Relevance: There is a large and increasing burden of noncommunicable neurological disorders in the US, with up to a 5-fold variation in the burden of and trends in particular neurological disorders across the US states. The information reported in this article can be used by health care professionals and policy makers at the national and state levels to advance their health care planning and resource allocation to prevent and reduce the burden of neurological disorders.

Global Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases and Risk Factors, 1990-2019: Update From the GBD 2019 Study.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), principally ischemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke, are the leading cause of global mortality and a major contributor to disability. This paper reviews the magnitude of total CVD burden, including 13 underlying causes of cardiovascular death and 9 related risk factors, using estimates from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study 2019. GBD, an ongoing multinational collaboration to provide comparable and consistent estimates of population health over time, used all available population-level data sources on incidence, prevalence, case fatality, mortality, and health risks to produce estimates for 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019. Prevalent cases of total CVD nearly doubled from 271 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 257 to 285 million) in 1990 to 523 million (95% UI: 497 to 550 million) in 2019, and the number of CVD deaths steadily increased from 12.1 million (95% UI:11.4 to 12.6 million) in 1990, reaching 18.6 million (95% UI: 17.1 to 19.7 million) in 2019. The global trends for disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and years of life lost also increased significantly, and years lived with disability doubled from 17.7 million (95% UI: 12.9 to 22.5 million) to 34.4 million (95% UI:24.9 to 43.6 million) over that period. The total number of DALYs due to IHD has risen steadily since 1990, reaching 182 million (95% UI: 170 to 194 million) DALYs, 9.14 million (95% UI: 8.40 to 9.74 million) deaths in the year 2019, and 197 million (95% UI: 178 to 220 million) prevalent cases of IHD in 2019. The total number of DALYs due to stroke has risen steadily since 1990, reaching 143 million (95% UI: 133 to 153 million) DALYs, 6.55 million (95% UI: 6.00 to 7.02 million) deaths in the year 2019, and 101 million (95% UI: 93.2 to 111 million) prevalent cases of stroke in 2019. Cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of disease burden in the world. CVD burden continues its decades-long rise for almost all countries outside high-income countries, and alarmingly, the age-standardized rate of CVD has begun to rise in some locations where it was previously declining in high-income countries. There is an urgent need to focus on implementing existing cost-effective policies and interventions if the world is to meet the targets for Sustainable Development Goal 3 and achieve a 30% reduction in premature mortality due to noncommunicable diseases.

Field Assessment Stroke Triage for Emergency Destination: A Simple and Accurate Prehospital Scale to Detect Large Vessel Occlusion Strokes.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients with large vessel occlusion strokes (LVOS) may be better served by direct transfer to endovascular capable centers avoiding hazardous delays between primary and comprehensive stroke centers. However, accurate stroke field triage remains challenging. We aimed to develop a simple field scale to identify LVOS. METHODS: The Field Assessment Stroke Triage for Emergency Destination (FAST-ED) scale was based on items of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) with higher predictive value for LVOS and tested in the Screening Technology and Outcomes Project in Stroke (STOPStroke) cohort, in which patients underwent computed tomographic angiography within the first 24 hours of stroke onset. LVOS were defined by total occlusions involving the intracranial internal carotid artery, middle cerebral artery-M1, middle cerebral artery-2, or basilar arteries. Patients with partial, bihemispheric, and anterior+posterior circulation occlusions were excluded. Receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of FAST-ED were compared with the NIHSS, Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation (RACE) scale, and Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Severity (CPSS) scale. RESULTS: LVO was detected in 240 of the 727 qualifying patients (33%). FAST-ED had comparable accuracy to predict LVO to the NIHSS and higher accuracy than RACE and CPSS (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: FAST-ED=0.81 as reference; NIHSS=0.80, P=0.28; RACE=0.77, P=0.02; and CPSS=0.75, P=0.002). A FAST-ED ≥4 had sensitivity of 0.60, specificity of 0.89, positive predictive value of 0.72, and negative predictive value of 0.82 versus RACE ≥5 of 0.55, 0.87, 0.68, and 0.79, and CPSS ≥2 of 0.56, 0.85, 0.65, and 0.78, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: FAST-ED is a simple scale that if successfully validated in the field, it may be used by medical emergency professionals to identify LVOS in the prehospital setting enabling rapid triage of patients.

The Science of Vascular Contributions to Cognitive Impairment and Dementia (VCID): A Framework for Advancing Research Priorities in the Cerebrovascular Biology of Cognitive Decline.

The World Health Organization reports that 47.5 million people are affected by dementia worldwide. With aging populations and 7.7 million new cases each year, the burden of illness due to dementia approaches crisis proportions. Despite significant advances in our understanding of the biology of Alzheimer's disease (AD), the leading dementia diagnosis, the actual causes of dementia in affected individuals are unknown except for rare fully penetrant genetic forms. Evidence from epidemiology and pathology studies indicates that damage to the vascular system is associated with an increased risk of many types of dementia. Both Alzheimer's pathology and cerebrovascular disease increase with age. How AD affects small blood vessel function and how vascular dysfunction contributes to the molecular pathology of Alzheimer's are areas of intense research. The science of vascular contributions to cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID) integrates diverse aspects of biology and incorporates the roles of multiple cell types that support the function of neural tissue. Because of the proven ability to prevent and treat cardiovascular disease and hypertension with population benefits for heart and stroke outcomes, it is proposed that understanding and targeting the biological mechanisms of VCID can have a similarly positive impact on public health.

NIH: developing and funding research in emergency care and training the next generation of emergency care researchers.

For the best health care to be provided in emergency settings, it must be based on the best available science. There are about 136 million visits to emergency departments (EDs) in the United States annually. Many of the nation's most critically ill patients are first stabilized and treated in EDs-the point of origin for nearly half of all medical intensive care unit admissions and a fourth of all surgical intensive care unit admissions. This article explores the role of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in developing and funding research in emergency care and in training the next generation of emergency care researchers. Recognizing that effective emergency care research spans multiple organ systems and disciplines, the NIH established the Office of Emergency Care Research in December 2011 to facilitate and coordinate funding opportunities relevant to research and research training in emergency settings. Because the NIH funds education, basic research, and large clinical trials, it plays a key role in improving emergency care.

Toward an international initiative for traumatic brain injury research.

The European Commission (EC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) jointly sponsored a workshop on October 18-20, 2011 in Brussels to discuss the feasibility and benefits of an international collaboration in the field of traumatic brain injury (TBI) research. The workshop brought together scientists, clinicians, patients, and industry representatives from around the globe as well as funding agencies from the EU, Spain, the United States, and Canada. Sessions tackled both the possible goals and governance of a future initiative and the scientific questions that would most benefit from an integrated international effort: how to optimize data collection and sharing; injury classification; outcome measures; clinical study design; and statistical analysis. There was a clear consensus that increased dialogue and coordination of research at an international level would be beneficial for advancing TBI research, treatment, and care. To this end, the EC, the NIH, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research expressed interest in developing a framework for an international initiative for TBI Research (InTBIR). The workshop participants recommended that InTBIR initially focus on collecting, standardizing, and sharing clinical TBI data for comparative effectiveness research, which will ultimately result in better management and treatments for TBI.

Improved outcome prediction using CT angiography in addition to standard ischemic stroke assessment: results from the STOPStroke study.

PURPOSE: To improve ischemic stroke outcome prediction using imaging information from a prospective cohort who received admission CT angiography (CTA). METHODS: In a prospectively designed study, 649 stroke patients diagnosed with acute ischemic stroke had admission NIH stroke scale scores, noncontrast CT (NCCT), CTA, and 6-month outcome assessed using the modified Rankin scale (mRS) scores. Poor outcome was defined as mRS>2. Strokes were classified as "major" by the (1) Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS+) if NCCT ASPECTS was ≤7; (2) Boston Acute Stroke Imaging Scale (BASIS+) if they were ASPECTS+ or CTA showed occlusion of the distal internal carotid, proximal middle cerebral, or basilar arteries; and (3) NIHSS for scores >10. RESULTS: Of 649 patients, 253 (39.0%) had poor outcomes. NIHSS, BASIS, and age, but not ASPECTS, were independent predictors of outcome. BASIS and NIHSS had similar sensitivities, both superior to ASPECTS (p<0.0001). Combining NIHSS with BASIS was highly predictive: 77.6% (114/147) classified as NIHSS>10/BASIS+ had poor outcomes, versus 21.5% (77/358) with NIHSS≤10/BASIS- (p<0.0001), regardless of treatment. The odds ratios for poor outcome is 12.6 (95% CI: 7.9 to 20.0) in patients who are NIHSS>10/BASIS+ compared to patients who are NIHSS≤10/BASIS-; the odds ratio is 5.4 (95% CI: 3.5 to 8.5) when compared to patients who are only NIHSS>10 or BASIS+. CONCLUSIONS: BASIS and NIHSS are independent outcome predictors. Their combination is stronger than either instrument alone in predicting outcomes. The findings suggest that CTA is a significant clinical tool in routine acute stroke assessment.

The Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy (CARE) registry: objectives, design, and implications.

This is the first comprehensive national registry that will provide data characterizing contemporary results of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has become the standard revascularization therapy to prevent stroke in patients with carotid artery disease, while carotid artery stenting (CAS) offers a percutaneous alternative in selected patients. Given the rapid growth in the numbers of CAS procedures being performed, there is a critical need for a national program to assess quality outcomes. The Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy (CARE) Registry was developed through a multispecialty collaboration resulting in a comprehensive data collection tool for carotid revascularization procedures. The intent of the CARE registry is to collect and analyze clinical data to measure clinical practice, patient outcomes, and enable quality improvement for carotid revascularization. Finally, the CARE Registry satisfies the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data reporting criteria for reimbursement.

CT angiography with whole brain perfused blood volume imaging: added clinical value in the assessment of acute stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In CT angiographic and perfusion imaging (CTA/CTP), rapid CT scanning is performed during the brief steady state administration of a contrast bolus, creating both vascular phase images of the major intracranial vessels and perfused blood volume-weighted parenchymal phase images of the entire brain. We assessed the added clinical value of the data provided by CTA/CTP over that of clinical examination and noncontrast CT (NCCT) alone. METHODS: NCCT and CTA/CTP imaging was performed in 40 patients presenting with an acute stroke. Short clinical vignettes were retrospectively prepared. After concurrent review of the vignettes and NCCT, a stroke neurologist rated infarct location, vascular territory, vessel(s) occluded, and Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST) and Oxfordshire Community Stroke Project classifications. The ratings were repeated after serial review of each of the CTA/CTP components: (1) axial CTA source images; (2) CTP whole brain blood volume-weighted source images; and (3) maximum-intensity projection 3-dimensional reformatted images. The sequential ratings for each case were compared with the final discharge assessment. RESULTS: Compared with the initial review after NCCT, CTA/CTP improved the overall accuracy of infarct localization (P<0.001), vascular territory determination (P=0.003), vessel occlusion identification (P<0.001), TOAST classification (P=0.039), and Oxfordshire Community Stroke Project classification (P<0.001) by 40%, 28%, 38%, 18%, and 32%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Admission CTA/CTP imaging significantly improves accuracy, over that of initial clinical assessment and NCCT imaging alone, in the determination of infarct localization, site of vascular occlusion, and Oxfordshire classification in acute stroke patients.

Recommendations for improving the quality of care through stroke centers and systems: an examination of stroke center identification options: multidisciplinary consensus recommendations from the Advisory Working Group on Stroke Center Identification Options of the American Stroke Association.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The American Stroke Association (ASA) assembled a multidisciplinary group of experts to develop recommendations regarding the potential effectiveness of establishing an identification program for stroke centers and systems. "Identification" refers to the full spectrum of models for assessing and recognizing standards of quality care (self-assessment, verification, certification, and accreditation). A primary consideration is whether stroke center identification might improve patient outcomes. METHODS: In February 2001, ASA, with the support of the Stroke Council's Executive Committee, decided to embark on an evaluation of the potential impact of stroke center identification. HealthPolicy R&D was selected to prepare a comprehensive report. The investigators reported on models outside the area of stroke, ongoing initiatives within the stroke community (such as Operation Stroke), and state and federal activities designed to improve care for stroke patients. The investigators also conducted interviews with thought leaders in the stroke community, representing a diverse sampling of specialties and affiliations. In October 2001, the Advisory Working Group on Stroke Center Identification developed its consensus recommendations. This group included recognized experts in neurology, emergency medicine, emergency medical services, neurological surgery, neurointensive care, vascular disease, and stroke program planning. RESULTS: There are a variety of existing identification programs, generally falling within 1 of 4 categories (self-assessment, verification, certification, and accreditation) along a continuum with respect to intensity and scope of review and consumption of resources. Ten programs were evaluated, including Peer Review Organizations, trauma centers, and new efforts by the National Committee on Quality Assurance and the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations to identify providers and disease management programs. The largest body of literature on clinical outcomes associated with identification programs involves trauma centers. Most studies support that trauma centers and systems lead to improved mortality rates and patient outcomes. The Advisory Working Group felt that comparison to the trauma model was most relevant given the need for urgent evaluation and treatment of stroke. The literature in other areas generally supports the positive impact of identification programs, although patient outcomes data have less often been published. In the leadership interviews, participants generally expressed strong support for pursuing some form of voluntary identification program, although concerns were raised that this effort could meet with some resistance. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of stroke centers and stroke systems competencies is in the best interest of stroke patients in the United States, and ASA should support the development and implementation of such processes. The purpose of a stroke center/systems identification program is to increase the capacity for all hospitals to treat stroke patients according to standards of care, recognizing that levels of involvement will vary according to the resources of hospitals and systems.