What is the cost-effectiveness of menu calorie labelling on reducing obesity-associated cancer burdens? An economic evaluation of a federal policy intervention among 235 million adults in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of menu calorie labelling on reducing obesity-associated cancer burdens in the USA. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov cohort state-transition model. SETTING: Policy intervention. PARTICIPANTS: A modelled population of 235 million adults aged ≥20 years in 2015-2016. INTERVENTIONS: The impact of menu calorie labelling on reducing 13 obesity-associated cancers among US adults over a lifetime was evaluated for: (1) effects on consumer behaviours; and (2) additional effects on industry reformulation. The model integrated nationally representative demographics, calorie intake from restaurants, cancer statistics and estimates on associations of policy with calorie intake, dietary change with body mass index (BMI) change, BMI with cancer rates, and policy and healthcare costs from published literature. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Averted new cancer cases and cancer deaths and net costs (in 2015 US$) among the total population and demographic subgroups were determined. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from societal and healthcare perspectives were assessed and compared with the threshold of US$150 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses incorporated uncertainty in input parameters and generated 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). RESULTS: Considering consumer behaviour alone, this policy was associated with 28 000 (95% UI 16 300 to 39 100) new cancer cases and 16 700 (9610 to 23 600) cancer deaths averted, 111 000 (64 800 to 158 000) QALYs gained, and US$1480 (884 to 2080) million saved in cancer-related medical costs among US adults. The policy was associated with net cost savings of US$1460 (864 to 2060) million and US$1350 (486 to 2260) million from healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively. Additional industry reformulation would substantially increase policy impact. Greater health gains and cost savings were predicted among young adults, Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings suggest that menu calorie labelling is associated with lower obesity-related cancer burdens and reduced healthcare costs. Policymakers may prioritise nutrition policies for cancer prevention in the USA.

Disparities in Health and Economic Burdens of Cancer Attributable to Suboptimal Diet in the United States, 2015‒2018.

Objectives. To quantify disparities in health and economic burdens of cancer attributable to suboptimal diet among US adults. Methods. Using a probabilistic cohort state-transition model, we estimated the number of new cancer cases and cancer deaths, and economic costs of 15 diet-related cancers attributable to suboptimal intake of 7 dietary factors (a low intake of fruits, vegetables, dairy, and whole grains and a high intake of red and processed meats and sugar-sweetened beverages) among a closed cohort of US adults starting in 2017. Results. Suboptimal diet was estimated to contribute to 3.04 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] = 2.88, 3.20) million new cancer cases, 1.74 (95% UI = 1.65, 1.84) million cancer deaths, and $254 (95% UI = $242, $267) billion economic costs among US adults aged 20 years or older over a lifetime. Diet-attributable cancer burdens were higher among younger adults, men, non-Hispanic Blacks, and individuals with lower education and income attainments than other population subgroups. The largest disparities were for cancers attributable to high consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and low consumption of whole grains. Conclusions. Suboptimal diet contributes to substantial disparities in health and economic burdens of cancer among young adults, men, racial/ethnic minorities, and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. (Am J Public Health. 2021;111(11):2008-2018. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306475).

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Nutrition Facts Added-Sugar Labeling and Obesity-Associated Cancer Rates in the US.

Importance: Obesity-associated cancer burdens are increasing in the US. Nutrition policies, such as the Nutrition Facts added-sugar labeling, may reduce obesity-associated cancer rates. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Nutrition Facts added-sugar labeling and obesity-associated cancer rates in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: A probabilistic cohort state-transition model was used to conduct an economic evaluation of added-sugar labeling and 13 obesity-associated cancers among 235 million adults aged 20 years or older by age, sex, and race/ethnicity over a median follow-up of 34.4 years. Policy associations were considered in 2 scenarios: with consumer behaviors and with additional industry reformulation. The model integrated nationally representative population demographics, diet, and cancer statistics; associations of policy intervention with diet, diet change and body mass index, and body mass index with cancer risk; and policy and health-related costs from established sources. Data were analyzed from January 8, 2019, to May 6, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Net costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were estimated from societal and health care perspectives. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses incorporated uncertainty in input parameters and generated 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). Results: Based on consumer behaviors, the policy was associated with a reduction of 30 000 (95% UI, 21 600-39 300) new cancer cases and 17 100 (95% UI, 12 400-22 700) cancer deaths, a gain of 116 000 (95% UI, 83 800-153 000) quality-adjusted life-years, and a saving of $1600 million (95% UI, $1190 million-$2030 million) in medical costs associated with cancer care among US adults over a lifetime. The policy was associated with a savings of $704 million (95% UI, $44.5 million-$1450 million) from the societal perspective and $1590 million (95% UI, $1180 million-$2020 million) from the health care perspective. Additional industry reformulation to reduce added-sugar amounts in packaged foods and beverages would double the impact. Greater health gains and cost savings were expected among young adults, women, and non-Hispanic Black individuals than other population subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the added-sugar labeling is associated with reduced costs and lower rates of obesity-associated cancers. Policymakers may consider and prioritize nutrition policies for cancer prevention in the US.

Cost-Effectiveness of a National Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax to Reduce Cancer Burdens and Disparities in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption contributes to obesity, a risk factor for 13 cancers. Although SSB taxes can reduce intake, the health and economic impact on reducing cancer burdens in the United States are unknown, especially among low-income Americans with higher SSB intake and obesity-related cancer burdens. METHODS: We used the Diet and Cancer Outcome Model, a probabilistic cohort state-transition model, to project health gains and economic benefits of a penny-per-ounce national SSB tax on reducing obesity-associated cancers among US adults aged 20 years and older by income. RESULTS: A national SSB tax was estimated to prevent 22 075 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] = 16 040-28 577) new cancer cases and 13 524 (95% UI = 9841-17 681) cancer deaths among US adults over a lifetime. The policy was estimated to cost $1.70 (95% UI = $1.50-$1.95) billion for government implementation and $1.70 (95% UI = $1.48-$1.96) billion for industry compliance, while saving $2.28 (95% UI = $1.67-$2.98) billion cancer-related healthcare costs. The SSB tax was highly cost-effective from both a government affordability perspective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = $1486, 95% UI = -$3516-$9265 per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) and a societal perspective (ICER = $13 220, 95% UI = $3453-$28 120 per QALY). Approximately 4800 more cancer cases and 3100 more cancer deaths would be prevented, and $0.34 billion more healthcare cost savings would be generated among low-income (federal poverty-to-income ratio [FPIR] ≤ 1.85) than higher-income individuals (FPIR > 1.85). CONCLUSIONS: A penny-per-ounce national SSB tax is cost-effective for cancer prevention in the United States, with the largest health gains and economic benefits among low-income Americans.

Cost Effectiveness of Nutrition Policies on Processed Meat: Implications for Cancer Burden in the U.S.

INTRODUCTION: Processed meats are associated with increased risk of colorectal and stomach cancers, but health and economic impacts of policies to discourage processed meats are not well established. This paper aims to evaluate the cost effectiveness of implementing tax and warning labels on processed meats. METHODS: A probabilistic cohort-state transition model was developed in 2018, including lifetime and short-term horizons, healthcare, and societal perspectives, and 3% discount rates for costs and health outcomes. The model simulated 32 subgroups by age, gender, and race/ethnicity from the U.S. adult population and integrated nationally representative 2011-2014 data on processed meat consumption, with etiologic effects of processed meat consumption on cancer incidence, medical and indirect societal costs, and policy costs. RESULTS: Over a lifetime, the 10% excise tax would prevent 77,000 cases of colorectal cancer (95% uncertainty interval=56,800, 107,000) and 12,500 cases of stomach cancer (95% uncertainty interval=6,880, 23,900), add 593,000 quality-adjusted life years (95% uncertainty interval=419,000, 827,000), and generate net savings of $2.7 billion from a societal perspective, including $1.1 billion healthcare costs saved. The warning label policy would avert 85,400 cases of colorectal cancer (95% uncertainty interval=56,600, 141,000) and 15,000 cases of stomach cancer (95% uncertainty interval=6,860, 34,500), and add 660,000 quality-adjusted life years (95% uncertainty interval=418,000, 1,070,000), with net savings of $4.5 billion from a societal perspective, including $1.3 billion healthcare costs saved. In subgroup analyses, greater health and economic benefits accrued to (1) younger subpopulations, (2) subpopulations with greater cancer risk, and (3) those with higher baseline processed meat consumption. CONCLUSIONS: The model shows that implementing tax or warning labels on processed meats would be a cost-saving strategy with substantial health and economic benefits. The findings should encourage policy makers to consider nutrition-related policies to reduce cancer burden.

SES and correlated factors do not explain the association between periodontal disease, edentulism, and cancer risk.

PURPOSE: Severe periodontal disease and edentulism have been previously reported to be significantly associated with cancer risk and mortality, including in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study (2018); however, complex sources of confounding by socioeconomic status (SES), and characteristics correlated with SES, could have been present in earlier analyses. METHODS: To capture life course SES and its correlates, we generated a propensity score and included it, along with other potential confounders such as smoking and obesity, into a Cox regression model to examine the association between periodontal disease and cancer risk. In addition, we stratified the model with the propensity score by low and high SES. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Compared with our previous study, the associations for severe periodontitis and cancer incidence remained comparable after weighting by the propensity score (e.g., for total cancer: before weighting, hazard ratio = 1.24, 95% confidence interval = 1.07-1.42 vs. after weighting, hazard ratio = 1.23, 95% confidence interval = 1.05-1.44 when comparing severe periodontitis to no or mild periodontitis). Associations were comparable in low and high SES strata and statistically significant among participants with high SES. CONCLUSIONS: Complex sources of confounding by SES and its correlates are unlikely to fully account for the positive associations observed for periodontal disease and edentulism and cancer risk.

Regular dental visits are associated with earlier stage at diagnosis for oral and pharyngeal cancer.

PURPOSE: Oral and pharyngeal cancer patients diagnosed at an advanced stage experience increased morbidity and mortality relative to those with localized disease. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of dental insurance status and regularity of dental visits on early detection of oral and pharyngeal cancer. METHODS: We examined the relationship of dental insurance and frequency of dental visits with stage at diagnosis among 441 oral and pharyngeal cancer cases from a population-based study of head and neck cancer. Ordinal logistic regression models were used to assess the association with stage, and tumor (T) and nodal (N) classification. RESULTS: Never or rarely going to the dentist was associated with being diagnosed at higher stage for oral and pharyngeal cancer (cumulative OR = 2.28, 95 % CI: 1.02-5.10) and oral cancer (cumulative OR = 9.17, 95 % CI: 2.70-31.15) compared to those going to the dentist at least annually. Oral and pharyngeal cancer patients who went to the dentist infrequently (cumulative OR = 1.82, 95 % CI: 1.09-3.05) or rarely/never (cumulative OR = 3.24, 95 % CI: 1.59-6.57) were diagnosed with a higher T classification compared with those who went at least annually. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of regular dental examinations at least annually may reduce the public health burden of oral and pharyngeal cancer by facilitating earlier detection of the disease.

Hybrid protease inhibitors for pest and pathogen control--a functional cost for the fusion partners?

Fusion proteins integrating dual pesticidal functions have been devised over the last 10 years to improve the effectiveness and potential durability of pest-resistant transgenic crops, but little attention has been paid to the impact of the fusion partners on the actual activity of the resulting hybrids. Here we assessed the ability of the rice cysteine protease inhibitor, oryzacystatin I (OCI), to retain its protease inhibitory potency when used as a template to devise hybrid inhibitors with dual activity against papain-like proteases and carboxypeptidase A (CPA). C-terminal variants of OCI were generated by fusing to its C-terminal end: (i) the primary inhibitory site of the small CPA inhibitor potato carboxypeptidase inhibitor (PCI, amino acids 35-39); or (ii) the complete sequence of PCI (a.a. 1-39). The hybrid inhibitors were expressed in E. coli and tested for their inhibitory activity against papain, CPA and digestive cysteine proteases of herbivorous and predatory arthropods. In contrast with the primary inhibitory site of PCI, the entire PCI attached to OCI was as active against CPA as free, purified PCI. The OCI-PCI hybrids also showed activity against papain, but the presence of extra amino acids at the C terminus of OCI negatively altered its inhibitory potency against cysteine proteases. This negative effect, although not preventing dual binding to papain and CPA, was correlated with an increased binding affinity for papain presumably due to non-specific interactions with the PCI domain. These results confirm the potential of OCI and PCI for the design of fusion inhibitors with dual protease inhibitory activity, but also point out the possible functional costs associated with protein domain grafting to recipient pesticidal proteins.