Thursday, February 02, 2023

WHITE SUPREMACY

Racial disparities in childhood adversity linked to brain structural differences in U.S. children


Study highlights the role structural racism may play in brain development and disparate rates of psychiatric disease among Black and White Americans


Peer-Reviewed Publication

MCLEAN HOSPITAL

Belmont, MA – Black children in the United States are more likely to experience childhood adversity than White children, and these disparities are reflected in differential changes to regions of the brain linked to psychiatric disease like posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), according to new research led by McLean Hospital, a member of Mass General Brigham.

The findings, published February 1 in the American Journal of Psychiatry, the flagship journal of the American Psychiatric Association, suggest that adversity may act as a toxic stressor to regions of the brain related to threat processing and that this exposure is disproportionately seen in Black children. The authors added that their study provides additional evidence contradicting the pseudoscientific falsehood that there are inherent race-related differences found in the brain and instead emphasizes the role of adversity brought on by structural racism.

For the study, led by Nathaniel Harnett, PhD, director of the Neurobiology of Affective Traumatic Experiences Laboratory at McLean Hospital, researchers analyzed surveys and MRI brain scans of more than 7,300 White children and nearly 1,800 Black children in the U.S. who were 9 and 10 years old. They found Black children displayed small neurobiological differences reflected as lower gray matter volumes in the amygdala, hippocampus and prefrontal cortex compared with White children. Their analysis also revealed that experiencing adversity was the significant differentiating factor, with household income the most common predictor of brain volume differences.

“Our research provides substantial evidence of the effects structural racism can have on a child’s developing brain, and these small differences may be meaningful for their mental health and wellbeing through adulthood,” said Dr. Harnett, who is also an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. “The dataset in our study included children younger than 10 years old – children who have no choice in where they are born, who their parents are and how much adversity they are exposed to. These findings offer another chilling reminder of the public health impact of structural racism, and how crucial it is to address these disparities in a meaningful way.”

Mining data for social determinants of adversity and impact on brain

In the US., there are stark racial disparities in the distribution of economic resources, exposure to stress, and psychiatric disorder prevalence. To date, limited research has investigated how racial inequities in the social determinants of health may lead to changes in the brain for different groups.

This led Dr. Harnett and colleagues at McLean’s Neurobiology of Fear Laboratory to leverage strong datasets to look for potential race-related differences in the neurobiology of psychiatric disorders and how racial structural inequities may explain these differences.

The researchers reviewed data from the 2019 Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, a large-scale MRI research effort that included nearly 12,000 U.S. children between the ages of 9 and 10 from 21 sites across the country. Study participants’ parents filled out surveys assessing parent and child race and ethnicity; parental education, employment and family income; and other variables. Children also completed assessments that captured emotional and physical conflicts within their household. Also included were measures of neighborhood disadvantage using the Area Deprivation Index, which utilizes 17 socioeconomic indicators from the U.S. Census, including poverty and housing, that characterize a given neighborhood.

The analysis found that White children’s parents were three times more likely to be currently employed than Black children’s parents. White children’s parents also attained a higher level of education and had greater family income compared with Black children’s parents. Specifically, about 75 percent of White parents had a college degree, compared with nearly 41 percent of Black parents, and about 88 percent of White parents made $35,000 a year or more, compared with about 47 percent of Black parents. White children also experienced less family conflict, less material hardship, less neighborhood disadvantage and fewer traumatic events compared with Black children.

When assessing corresponding MRI data, experiencing childhood adversity was associated with lower gray matter volumes in the amygdala, hippocampus and prefrontal cortex – effects more likely to be seen in Black children. The amygdala plays an important role in the learning of a fear response, the hippocampus in memory formation, and the prefrontal cortex is what regulates the emotional and threat response to fear. The researchers observed neurobiological effects tied to most adversity indicators with income being the most frequent predictor, affecting gray matter volume in eight of 14 regions of the brain studied. Trauma history and family conflict were not related to gray matter volume in any of the models; however, the researchers note that doesn’t necessarily reflect that there is no neurobiological impact from those adversities.

Additional analysis factoring in previous studies on PTSD and regions of the brain found Black children had significantly greater PTSD symptom severity, and symptom severity was further predicted by adversity.

“I consider these findings critically important, as they speak to the need for Psychiatry as a field to be outspoken about the detrimental psychological impacts of race-related disparities in childhood adversity, to call out the fact that these disparities stem from structural racism, and to vigorously support rectifying efforts by pursuing policy changes,” said Ned H. Kalin, MD, Editor-in-Chief of the American Journal of Psychiatry.

Future study of neurobiological impact of structural racism

Future research from this team will build upon these findings and expand their data collection beyond the ages included in this study in an effort to track the neurobiological impact racial disparities in adversity have throughout a lifetime. The researchers also hope to determine whether exposure to adversity may accelerate or decelerate aging in the brain, and whether additional measures of adversity not included in this study may impact these regions of the brain or others involved in psychiatric disorders.

“These findings may just be the tip of the iceberg,” said Dr. Harnett.

About McLean:
McLean Hospital has a continuous commitment to put people first in patient care, innovation and discovery, and shared knowledge related to mental health. It is consistently named the #1 freestanding psychiatric hospital in the United States by U.S. News & World Report, and is #1 in America for psychiatric care in 2022-23. McLean Hospital is the largest psychiatric affiliate of Harvard Medical School and a member of Mass General Brigham. To stay up to date on McLean, follow us on FacebookYouTube, and LinkedIn.

American Psychiatric Association

The American Psychiatric Association, founded in 1844, is the oldest medical association in the country. The APA is also the largest psychiatric association in the world with more than 37,000 physician members specializing in the diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and research of mental illnesses. APA's vision is to ensure access to quality psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. For more information, please visit www.psychiatry.org.

HOSPITAL ACQUIRED INFECTION

Sepsis increased risk of heart failure and rehospitalization after hospital discharge

A new study in the Journal of the American Heart Association found people hospitalized for sepsis or who developed it while hospitalized were at an elevated risk for heart failure or rehospitalization within 12 years

Peer-Reviewed Publication

AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION

Research Highlights:

  • After hospital discharge, people hospitalized for sepsis or who developed it while hospitalized had a 38% higher risk of rehospitalization for all causes and a 43% higher risk of rehospitalization for cardiovascular causes compared to people without sepsis during hospitalization.
  • The risk of developing heart failure after hospital discharge was 51% higher among people who had sepsis while hospitalized compared to those who did not have sepsis while hospitalized. 
  • People who had sepsis while hospitalized also had a 27% higher risk of death after hospital discharge compared to people without sepsis.

DALLAS, February 1, 2023 — People who are discharged after a hospitalization involving sepsis were at greater risk of cardiovascular events, rehospitalization for any cause or death during a maximum follow-up of 12 years compared to those hospitalized and did not have sepsis,  according to new research published today in the Journal of the American Heart Association, an open access, peer-reviewed Journal of the American Heart Association.

Sepsis is a leading cause of hospitalization and death worldwide. Each year in the U.S., about 1.7 million people develop sepsis, an extreme immune response to an infection in the bloodstream that can spread throughout the whole body and lead to organ failure and possibly death.   

“We know that infection may be a potential trigger for myocardial infarction or heart attack, and infection may also predispose a patient to other cardiovascular events, either directly during infection or later when the infection and related effects on the body promote progressive cardiovascular disease,”  said lead study author Jacob C. Jentzer, M.D., FAHA, an assistant professor of medicine in the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.  “We sought to describe the association between sepsis during hospitalization and subsequent death and rehospitalization among a large group of adults.” 

In this study, researchers examined whether adults who had sepsis may have a higher risk of death and a higher risk of rehospitalization for cardiovascular events after hospital discharge. They queried a database containing administrative claims data and identified more than 2 million enrollees of commercial and Medicare Advantage insurance across the U.S. who survived a non-surgical hospitalization of two nights or more between 2009 and 2019. Of these patients, who were ages 19-87 years, the medical claims indicate more than 800,000 had sepsis during their hospital stay. The researchers analyzed the association of hospitalization with sepsis, rehospitalization and death over a follow-up period from 2009 to 2021.

Because variations in sepsis diagnosis and documentation may affect outcomes in research and clinical treatment, researchers included two standard diagnosis codes used for sepsis: explicit and implicit. Explicit sepsis means a physician formally diagnosed the patient. Implicit sepsis is an administrative code in the electronic health record given automatically when a patient has both an infection and organ failure, which is the currently accepted definition of sepsis.  The presence of either definition of sepsis was used to classify patients as having sepsis versus no sepsis.

To focus on the potential cardiovascular impact of sepsis, researchers compared 808,673 hospitalized patients who had sepsis to 1,449,821  hospitalized patients who did not develop sepsis but still had cardiovascular disease or one or more cardiovascular disease risk factors (older age, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, obesity or smoking).

The analysis found:

  • Compared to patients who did not have sepsis during their hospital stay, those with sepsis were 27% more likely to die, 38% more likely to be rehospitalized for any cause and 43% more likely to return to the hospital specifically for cardiovascular causes in the 12 years after having sepsis. 
  • Heart failure was the most common major cardiovascular event (including stroke, heart attack, arrhythmia and heart failure) among people who had sepsis. People who had sepsis while hospitalized had a 51% higher risk of developing heart failure during the follow-up period. 
  • Patients with implicit sepsis (infection with organ failure) had a two-fold increased risk of rehospitalization for cardiovascular events compared to those with explicit sepsis (formal diagnosis by a physician). 

“Our findings indicate that after hospitalization with sepsis, close follow-up care is important, and it may be valuable to implement cardiovascular prevention therapies with close supervision,” Jentzer said. “Professionals need to be aware that people who have previously had sepsis are at very high risk for cardiovascular events, and that it may be necessary to advise them to increase the intensity of their cardiovascular prevention.” 

The study authors will continue to evaluate new data on people who have previously had sepsis during hospitalization in order to map out their needs for cardiovascular prevention therapies. “It’s an important opportunity to establish what might and might not work in the future for people who have had sepsis,” Jentzer said. 

The main limitation of the study is that it is a retrospective cohort study that uses data gathered through hospital administration. This meant that researchers were assessing past records and did not have information on the severity of sepsis. 

Co-authors are Patrick R. Lawler, M.D., M.P.H.; Holly K. Van Houten, B.A.; Xiaoxi Yao, Ph.D., M.P.H.; Kianoush B. Kashani, M.D., M.S.; and Shannon M. Dunlay, M.D., M.S. Authors’ disclosures are listed in the manuscript.

The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery and the Mayo Clinic Department of Cardiovascular Medicine.

Statements and conclusions of studies published in the American Heart Association’s scientific journals are solely those of the study authors and do not necessarily reflect the Association’s policy or position. The Association makes no representation or guarantee as to their accuracy or reliability. The Association receives funding primarily from individuals; foundations and corporations (including pharmaceutical, device manufacturers and other companies) also make donations and fund specific Association programs and events. The Association has strict policies to prevent these relationships from influencing the science content. Revenues from pharmaceutical and biotech companies, device manufacturers and health insurance providers and the Association’s overall financial information are available here.

Additional Resources:

About the American Heart Association

The American Heart Association is a relentless force for a world of longer, healthier lives. We are dedicated to ensuring equitable health in all communities. Through collaboration with numerous organizations, and powered by millions of volunteers, we fund innovative research, advocate for the public’s health and share lifesaving resources. The Dallas-based organization has been a leading source of health information for nearly a century. Connect with us on heart.orgFacebookTwitter or by calling 1-800-AHA-USA1.

###

Medicaid expansion in southern states associated with earlier and more comprehensive breast cancer treatment

Patients living in Southern states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act were more likely to have insurance and be diagnosed with less advanced-stage breast cancer

Peer-Reviewed Publication

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS

Medicaid Expansion Improves Breast Cancer Treatment in the South 

VIDEO: RESEARCHERS SOUGHT TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF MEDICAID EXPANSION ON BREAST CANCER TREATMENT IN EIGHT SOUTHERN STATES, GIVEN THE LARGE GEOGRAPHIC HEALTH DISPARITIES THAT EXIST IN THAT REGION AND THE VARIATION IN MEDICAID COVERAGE. view more 

CREDIT: AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS.

Key takeaways

  • Filling a research gap: Researchers sought to understand the impact of Medicaid expansion on breast cancer treatment in eight Southern states, given the large geographic health disparities that exist in that region and the variation in Medicaid coverage.
  • Improved access to insurance and earlier diagnosis: Patients in Southern states that expanded Medicaid were less likely to be uninsured and diagnosed with stage IV cancer.
  • Access to Medicaid may only be part of the picture: Patients in Southern states that expanded Medicaid were more likely to receive breast cancer treatment overall, but data also suggests that other healthcare barriers may exist for cancer patients.

CHICAGO: Patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in a Southern state that expanded access to Medicaid were more likely to receive treatment and less likely to be diagnosed with advanced-stage disease, according to new research published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (JACS).

Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Medicaid was expanded in 2010 to provide coverage for all adults 18 to 64 for up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Level (about $17,774 for an individual in 2021).1 However, in 2012, the Supreme Court made it optional for states to adopt the expansion. To date, 40 states have expanded Medicaid, with the majority of these states being located outside of the South.1

“A lot of research on the Affordable Care Act has looked at trends at the national level. But if you look at a map of where states actually expanded Medicaid, the South is under-represented,” said lead author Amy Laughlin, MD, MSHP, chief quality officer at the Orlando Health Cancer Institute. “We wanted to make sure that the impact of Medicaid expansion on breast cancer was assessed at the Southern state level to understand the impact specifically in that region and perhaps to inform policy for the rest of the region.”

Some prior research has shown that expanded access to Medicaid can improve access to cancer screening services, such as mammograms,2 but little research has specifically compared neighboring populations in the South, where many vulnerable patients live in rural areas and have less access to affordable care, said senior author Quyen Chu, MD, MBA, FACS, a surgical oncologist with the Orlando Health Cancer Institute. In his former position at the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Dr. Chu sometimes encountered patients who traveled, in search of cancer treatment, from Texas, which did not adopt the expansion, to Louisiana, which expanded Medicaid in 2016.

“Those encounters are something you don’t really hear about. But, from my personal experience, that’s what I saw during my time when I was practicing in Louisiana,” he said. “There are vulnerable patients who don’t have access to care, and we wanted to look at the facts to know whether the ACA expansion had an impact on those patients. We wanted to be apolitical about it; we didn’t know the answer before doing the study.”

Using the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) database, the researchers identified patients on Medicaid or without insurance who were between the ages of 40-64 and diagnosed with invasive breast cancer from 2011 to 2018.

The researchers compared data from patients who lived in Southern states that expanded access to Medicaid (Louisiana, Kentucky, and Arkansas) to patients in states that did not expand access to Medicaid (Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Oklahoma). Oklahoma expanded coverage in 2020, but data from that state was included in the non-expanded group because this research only included data up until 2018.

Key findings

  • Among 21,974 patients, those living in states that expanded Medicaid were less likely to be uninsured than patients living in states that did not expand (18.9% vs. 41.1%).
  • Compared with breast cancer patients in states that expanded Medicaid, patients in states that did not expand access were younger and more likely to be uninsured, Hispanic, and live in an urban area with less poverty.
  • Patients living in a state that expanded Medicaid were less likely to be diagnosed with stage IV disease, with odds of being diagnosed with advanced-stage breast cancer decreasing by 7% every year after expansion. The authors hypothesize that this decrease may be attributed to increased access to mammogram screenings among low-income patients.
  • Unrelated to Medicaid expansion, just by being diagnosed in a state that expanded Medicaid, patients had 2.27 higher odds of receiving treatment for breast cancer. “And this is regardless of expansion, so more likely due to intrinsic factors in the state,” Dr. Laughlin noted. These intrinsic factors were not specifically identified in the study but could be related to other infrastructure or services available in states that expanded Medicaid, independent of policy changes.

However, the study also revealed that Medicaid may only be part of the picture when it comes to receiving quality cancer care. Even though patients diagnosed in states that expanded Medicaid were more likely to receive treatment overall, the proportion of patients undergoing treatments for their breast cancer actually decreased in all states regardless of Medicaid expansion.

“This trend raises concern,” Dr. Laughlin said. “We know from other studies that cancer diagnoses are increasing. If we’re then having less treatment received, are we not meeting that demand? That was a surprising finding to me.”

Katharine Yao, MD, FACS, Chair of the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (NAPBC) of the American College of Surgeons and a surgical oncologist with NorthShore University Health System, agreed that the decline in treatment noted by the researchers is concerning. “Future studies may be warranted to understand whether this trend is due to stage migration, access issues, patient preferences, or another reason,” said Dr. Yao, who was not involved with the study.

The decrease in uninsured rates in states that expanded Medicaid found in this study is striking, Dr. Yao added. “Since Medicaid expansion resulted in a greater than 50% drop in the rate of uninsured for those states that underwent expansion, it seems like a missed opportunity for those states that did not adopt Medicaid expansion,” she said. “While observational and only focused on a cohort of patients, this research brings awareness to the widespread disparities in healthcare in the Southern states and how much further these states have to go before patients receive the healthcare they need.”

Next steps

The study represents an initial step to understand treatment patterns and was limited by the data included in the NAACCR database, the authors noted. In future studies, they hope to understand if earlier detection and increased access to care improved survival rates. Investigating potential racial or socioeconomic disparities in breast cancer treatment between states that expanded Medicaid or did not may also reveal important findings.

“As a society, we have made tremendous gains in terms of finding novel therapies, such as immunotherapy or targeted drug therapy. But the question is, how many of these patients actually benefit from those discoveries?” Dr. Chu said. “Theoretically speaking, everyone should benefit from those discoveries. For the next step, we would like to look at if we see an impact for those who live in rural areas or belong to vulnerable populations.”

Study coauthors are Tingting Li, MPH; Qingzhao Yu, PhD; Xiao-Cheng Wu, MD, MPH; Yong Yi, PhD; Mei-Chin Hsieh, PhD, MSPH; William Havron, MD, FACS; and Margo Shoup, MD, MBA, FACS. All authors are affiliated with the Orlando Health Cancer Institute or the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center.

The study authors have no relevant disclosures to report. Dr. Wu and Dr. Hsieh were supported by the National Cancer Institute under award number HHSN261201800007I/HHSN26100002.

This research was also presented at the Southern Surgical Association 134th Annual Meeting in Palm Beach, Florida, December 2022. This study is published as an article in press on the JACS website.

Citation: Laughlin AI, Li T, Yu Q et al. Impact of Medicaid Expansion on Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment in Southern States. Journal of American College of Surgeons. DOI: 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000550.

_____________

  1. Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions: Interactive Map,” Kaiser Family Foundation, November 9, 2022.
  2. Toyoda, Yoshiko, Eun Jeong Oh, Ishani D. Premaratne, Codruta Chiuzan, and Christine H. Rohde. “Affordable Care Act state-specific Medicaid expansion: impact on health insurance coverage and breast cancer screening rate.” Journal of the American College of Surgeons 230, no. 5 (2020): 775-783.

# # #

About the American College of Surgeons 

The American College of Surgeons is a scientific and educational organization of surgeons that was founded in 1913 to raise the standards of surgical practice and improve the quality of care for all surgical patients. The College is dedicated to the ethical and competent practice of surgery. Its achievements have significantly influenced the course of scientific surgery in America and have established it as an important advocate for all surgical patients. The College has more than 84,000 members and is the largest organization of surgeons in the world. “FACS” designates a surgeon is a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons.  

The Journal of the American College of Surgeons (JACS) is the official scientific journal of ACS. Each month, JACS publishes peer-reviewed original contributions on all aspects of surgery, with the goal of providing its readership the highest quality rapid retrieval of information relevant to surgeons.

Seeing the same midwives improves birthing experience for high-risk mothers

Peer-Reviewed Publication

KING'S COLLEGE LONDON

Seeing the same midwives throughout the perinatal period makes a substantial difference to a women’s feelings of calm and confidence during pregnancy and birth, a study has found.

The study, published recently in Women and Birth by researchers from King’s College London, highlight the improvements in a woman’s experience of care under the continuity of care model.

This is the first study which looks at women’s experience of care when they are at a higher risk of pre-term birth.

The model of continuity of care is designed to provide mothers with a dedicated team of midwives who are on call 24/7 to provide support, including answering questions, provide antenatal and postanal appointments and be there for them when they go into labour.

One woman said the experience had completely changed her attitude to birth. She said: “I’m very happy that I will be able to pass on a positive message about birth to friends, my own daughter, and I don’t what it would have been like without the POPPIE team.”

The continuity of care model was set out in the NHS Long Term Plan in 2019 and the ambition is for continuity to be the default model of care for maternity services.

In reality, though, implementation of sustainable continuity models requires all building blocks to be in place such as staffing and appropriate resourcing; which can be challenging in the current NHS climate.

Interviews of women who took part in the study found they felt at ease just knowing someone was there for them all the time. Women reported never feeling rushed during appointments, and feeling like they could trust their midwife with personal information, which in turn developed trust in their midwives.

One woman said: “[It] felt like they were friends, you know, because we’d seen them for so long, they were just friends with lots of skills.”

Women felt their midwives advocated for them better and navigated institutional bureaucracy for them, ensuring they were getting the best treatment.

Author Lia Brigante, a researcher from King’s College London and the Policy & Practice Advisor at the Royal College of Midwives, said: “Previous research has shown that continuity of midwifery care has a positive impact in women who are low risk or mixed risk. This paper focuses on the experience of women at higher risk of preterm birth and it shows that the model acts as a safety net, improving trust, advocacy, access and consistency of care, and reducing anxiety and stress. This study will hopefully inform policy and care provision planning for women at higher risk of preterm birth.” 

Previous research has found the continuity of care model reduces the rate of preterm birth, fetal loss and neonatal death.

Lia Brigante added: “Adequate staffing and added investment is essential to ensure all women have access to the continuity model, otherwise we are in danger of implementing a two-tier system.’