Assessing COVID-19 pandemic policies and behaviours and their economic and educational trade-offs across US states from Jan 1, 2020, to July 31, 2022: an observational analysis.

BACKGROUND: The USA struggled in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, but not all states struggled equally. Identifying the factors associated with cross-state variation in infection and mortality rates could help to improve responses to this and future pandemics. We sought to answer five key policy-relevant questions regarding the following: 1) what roles social, economic, and racial inequities had in interstate variation in COVID-19 outcomes; 2) whether states with greater health-care and public health capacity had better outcomes; 3) how politics influenced the results; 4) whether states that imposed more policy mandates and sustained them longer had better outcomes; and 5) whether there were trade-offs between a state having fewer cumulative SARS-CoV-2 infections and total COVID-19 deaths and its economic and educational outcomes. METHODS: Data disaggregated by US state were extracted from public databases, including COVID-19 infection and mortality estimates from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation's (IHME) COVID-19 database; Bureau of Economic Analysis data on state gross domestic product (GDP); Federal Reserve economic data on employment rates; National Center for Education Statistics data on student standardised test scores; and US Census Bureau data on race and ethnicity by state. We standardised infection rates for population density and death rates for age and the prevalence of major comorbidities to facilitate comparison of states' successes in mitigating the effects of COVID-19. We regressed these health outcomes on prepandemic state characteristics (such as educational attainment and health spending per capita), policies adopted by states during the pandemic (such as mask mandates and business closures), and population-level behavioural responses (such as vaccine coverage and mobility). We explored potential mechanisms connecting state-level factors to individual-level behaviours using linear regression. We quantified reductions in state GDP, employment, and student test scores during the pandemic to identify policy and behavioural responses associated with these outcomes and to assess trade-offs between these outcomes and COVID-19 outcomes. Significance was defined as p<0·05. FINDINGS: Standardised cumulative COVID-19 death rates for the period from Jan 1, 2020, to July 31, 2022 varied across the USA (national rate 372 deaths per 100 000 population [95% uncertainty interval [UI] 364-379]), with the lowest standardised rates in Hawaii (147 deaths per 100 000 [127-196]) and New Hampshire (215 per 100 000 [183-271]) and the highest in Arizona (581 per 100 000 [509-672]) and Washington, DC (526 per 100 000 [425-631]). A lower poverty rate, higher mean number of years of education, and a greater proportion of people expressing interpersonal trust were statistically associated with lower infection and death rates, and states where larger percentages of the population identify as Black (non-Hispanic) or Hispanic were associated with higher cumulative death rates. Access to quality health care (measured by the IHME's Healthcare Access and Quality Index) was associated with fewer total COVID-19 deaths and SARS-CoV-2 infections, but higher public health spending and more public health personnel per capita were not, at the state level. The political affiliation of the state governor was not associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 death rates, but worse COVID-19 outcomes were associated with the proportion of a state's voters who voted for the 2020 Republican presidential candidate. State governments' uses of protective mandates were associated with lower infection rates, as were mask use, lower mobility, and higher vaccination rate, while vaccination rates were associated with lower death rates. State GDP and student reading test scores were not associated with state COVD-19 policy responses, infection rates, or death rates. Employment, however, had a statistically significant relationship with restaurant closures and greater infections and deaths: on average, 1574 (95% UI 884-7107) additional infections per 10 000 population were associated in states with a one percentage point increase in employment rate. Several policy mandates and protective behaviours were associated with lower fourth-grade mathematics test scores, but our study results did not find a link to state-level estimates of school closures. INTERPRETATION: COVID-19 magnified the polarisation and persistent social, economic, and racial inequities that already existed across US society, but the next pandemic threat need not do the same. US states that mitigated those structural inequalities, deployed science-based interventions such as vaccination and targeted vaccine mandates, and promoted their adoption across society were able to match the best-performing nations in minimising COVID-19 death rates. These findings could contribute to the design and targeting of clinical and policy interventions to facilitate better health outcomes in future crises. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, J Stanton, T Gillespie, J and E Nordstrom, and Bloomberg Philanthropies.

Estimating the cause-specific relative risks of non-optimal temperature on daily mortality: a two-part modelling approach applied to the Global Burden of Disease Study.

BACKGROUND: Associations between high and low temperatures and increases in mortality and morbidity have been previously reported, yet no comprehensive assessment of disease burden has been done. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the global and regional burden due to non-optimal temperature exposure. METHODS: In part 1 of this study, we linked deaths to daily temperature estimates from the ERA5 reanalysis dataset. We modelled the cause-specific relative risks for 176 individual causes of death along daily temperature and 23 mean temperature zones using a two-dimensional spline within a Bayesian meta-regression framework. We then calculated the cause-specific and total temperature-attributable burden for the countries for which daily mortality data were available. In part 2, we applied cause-specific relative risks from part 1 to all locations globally. We combined exposure-response curves with daily gridded temperature and calculated the cause-specific burden based on the underlying burden of disease from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study, for the years 1990-2019. Uncertainty from all components of the modelling chain, including risks, temperature exposure, and theoretical minimum risk exposure levels, defined as the temperature of minimum mortality across all included causes, was propagated using posterior simulation of 1000 draws. FINDINGS: We included 64·9 million individual International Classification of Diseases-coded deaths from nine different countries, occurring between Jan 1, 1980, and Dec 31, 2016. 17 causes of death met the inclusion criteria. Ischaemic heart disease, stroke, cardiomyopathy and myocarditis, hypertensive heart disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, lower respiratory infection, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease showed J-shaped relationships with daily temperature, whereas the risk of external causes (eg, homicide, suicide, drowning, and related to disasters, mechanical, transport, and other unintentional injuries) increased monotonically with temperature. The theoretical minimum risk exposure levels varied by location and year as a function of the underlying cause of death composition. Estimates for non-optimal temperature ranged from 7·98 deaths (95% uncertainty interval 7·10-8·85) per 100 000 and a population attributable fraction (PAF) of 1·2% (1·1-1·4) in Brazil to 35·1 deaths (29·9-40·3) per 100 000 and a PAF of 4·7% (4·3-5·1) in China. In 2019, the average cold-attributable mortality exceeded heat-attributable mortality in all countries for which data were available. Cold effects were most pronounced in China with PAFs of 4·3% (3·9-4·7) and attributable rates of 32·0 deaths (27·2-36·8) per 100 000 and in New Zealand with 3·4% (2·9-3·9) and 26·4 deaths (22·1-30·2). Heat effects were most pronounced in China with PAFs of 0·4% (0·3-0·6) and attributable rates of 3·25 deaths (2·39-4·24) per 100 000 and in Brazil with 0·4% (0·3-0·5) and 2·71 deaths (2·15-3·37). When applying our framework to all countries globally, we estimated that 1·69 million (1·52-1·83) deaths were attributable to non-optimal temperature globally in 2019. The highest heat-attributable burdens were observed in south and southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and North Africa and the Middle East, and the highest cold-attributable burdens in eastern and central Europe, and central Asia. INTERPRETATION: Acute heat and cold exposure can increase or decrease the risk of mortality for a diverse set of causes of death. Although in most regions cold effects dominate, locations with high prevailing temperatures can exhibit substantial heat effects far exceeding cold-attributable burden. Particularly, a high burden of external causes of death contributed to strong heat impacts, but cardiorespiratory diseases and metabolic diseases could also be substantial contributors. Changes in both exposures and the composition of causes of death drove changes in risk over time. Steady increases in exposure to the risk of high temperature are of increasing concern for health. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Effects of elevated systolic blood pressure on ischemic heart disease: a Burden of Proof study.

High systolic blood pressure (SBP) is a major risk factor for ischemic heart disease (IHD), the leading cause of death worldwide. Using data from published observational studies and controlled trials, we estimated the mean SBP-IHD dose-response function and burden of proof risk function (BPRF), and we calculated a risk outcome score (ROS) and corresponding star rating (one to five). We found a very strong, significant harmful effect of SBP on IHD, with a mean risk-relative to that at 100 mm Hg SBP-of 1.39 (95% uncertainty interval including between-study heterogeneity 1.34-1.44) at 120 mm Hg, 1.81 (1.70-1.93) at 130 mm Hg and 4.48 (3.81-5.26) at 165 mm Hg. The conservative BPRF measure indicated that SBP exposure between 107.5 and 165.0 mm Hg raised risk by 101.36% on average, yielding a ROS of 0.70 and star rating of five. Our analysis shows that IHD risk was already increasing at 120 mm Hg SBP, rising steadily up to 165 mm Hg and increasing less steeply above that point. Our study endorses the need to prioritize and strengthen strategies for screening, to raise awareness of the need for timely diagnosis and treatment of hypertension and to increase the resources allocated for understanding primordial prevention of elevated blood pressure.

Health effects associated with consumption of unprocessed red meat: a Burden of Proof study.

Characterizing the potential health effects of exposure to risk factors such as red meat consumption is essential to inform health policy and practice. Previous meta-analyses evaluating the effects of red meat intake have generated mixed findings and do not formally assess evidence strength. Here, we conducted a systematic review and implemented a meta-regression-relaxing conventional log-linearity assumptions and incorporating between-study heterogeneity-to evaluate the relationships between unprocessed red meat consumption and six potential health outcomes. We found weak evidence of association between unprocessed red meat consumption and colorectal cancer, breast cancer, type 2 diabetes and ischemic heart disease. Moreover, we found no evidence of an association between unprocessed red meat and ischemic stroke or hemorrhagic stroke. We also found that while risk for the six outcomes in our analysis combined was minimized at 0 g unprocessed red meat intake per day, the 95% uncertainty interval that incorporated between-study heterogeneity was very wide: from 0-200 g d-1. While there is some evidence that eating unprocessed red meat is associated with increased risk of disease incidence and mortality, it is weak and insufficient to make stronger or more conclusive recommendations. More rigorous, well-powered research is needed to better understand and quantify the relationship between consumption of unprocessed red meat and chronic disease.

Health effects associated with vegetable consumption: a Burden of Proof study.

Previous research suggests a protective effect of vegetable consumption against chronic disease, but the quality of evidence underlying those findings remains uncertain. We applied a Bayesian meta-regression tool to estimate the mean risk function and quantify the quality of evidence for associations between vegetable consumption and ischemic heart disease (IHD), ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, type 2 diabetes and esophageal cancer. Increasing from no vegetable consumption to the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (306-372 g daily) was associated with a 23.2% decline (95% uncertainty interval, including between-study heterogeneity: 16.4-29.4) in ischemic stroke risk; a 22.9% (13.6-31.3) decline in IHD risk; a 15.9% (1.7-28.1) decline in hemorrhagic stroke risk; a 28.5% (-0.02-51.4) decline in esophageal cancer risk; and a 26.1% (-3.6-48.3) decline in type 2 diabetes risk. We found statistically significant protective effects of vegetable consumption for ischemic stroke (three stars), IHD (two stars), hemorrhagic stroke (two stars) and esophageal cancer (two stars). Including between-study heterogeneity, we did not detect a significant association with type 2 diabetes, corresponding to a one-star rating. Although current evidence supports increased efforts and policies to promote vegetable consumption, remaining uncertainties suggest the need for continued research.

Health effects associated with smoking: a Burden of Proof study.

As a leading behavioral risk factor for numerous health outcomes, smoking is a major ongoing public health challenge. Although evidence on the health effects of smoking has been widely reported, few attempts have evaluated the dose-response relationship between smoking and a diverse range of health outcomes systematically and comprehensively. In the present study, we re-estimated the dose-response relationships between current smoking and 36 health outcomes by conducting systematic reviews up to 31 May 2022, employing a meta-analytic method that incorporates between-study heterogeneity into estimates of uncertainty. Among the 36 selected outcomes, 8 had strong-to-very-strong evidence of an association with smoking, 21 had weak-to-moderate evidence of association and 7 had no evidence of association. By overcoming many of the limitations of traditional meta-analyses, our approach provides comprehensive, up-to-date and easy-to-use estimates of the evidence on the health effects of smoking. These estimates provide important information for tobacco control advocates, policy makers, researchers, physicians, smokers and the public.