Friday, March 03, 2023

DESPITE DESANTIS

FSU criminology faculty ranked No. 1 in the nation for research productivity and scholarly influence


Peer-Reviewed Publication

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

Faculty in Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice are No. 1 in the country for research productivity and influence among faculty in their field, according to a quantitative assessment in the Journal of Criminal Justice Education.  

The journal’s findings draw from data gathered from criminology and criminal justice doctoral programs in the United States from 2015-2021. 

Thomas Blomberg, dean of the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, said the acknowledgment affirms the college’s progress toward achieving its mission.    

“In addition to our research productivity, we value carrying out high-quality research that makes a difference in the lives of citizens,” he said. “We are very pleased with our consistently high faculty research rankings but translating our research into meaningful policies and practices to reduce the pain and suffering of crime is what we are most proud of.” 

The assessment included 727 faculty members across 45 criminology doctoral programs. Based on multiple indicators of productivity and influence, FSU’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice was ranked No. 1 for the programs with the highest publication credit per faculty. Penn State University, Arizona State University and the University of Pennsylvania rounded out the top four. 

The College of Criminology and Criminal Justice faculty are teachers and scholars who prepare students to be leaders in shaping America’s response to crime. A branch of the college, the Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research, contributes to evidence-based policymaking and practice at local, state and national levels by producing policy-relevant research that is published in leading journals. 

For more information about the FSU College of Criminology and Criminal Justice and the Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research visit, https://www.criminology.fsu.edu

To access the article, visit the Journal of Criminal Justice Education

RACIST HEALTHCARE U$A

Higher levels of perceived racism linked to increased risk of heart disease in Black women


American Heart Association Epidemiology, Prevention, Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health Scientific Sessions 2023, Abstract 455

Reports and Proceedings

AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION

Research Highlight:

  • A long-term study of more than 48,000 Black women assessed two measures of perceived interpersonal racism with risk of coronary heart disease.
  • Experiencing self-reported interpersonal racism in employment, housing and interactions with the police was associated with a 26% higher risk of coronary heart disease, relative to not experiencing interpersonal racism in those areas.
  • Self-reported experiences of racism in everyday life were not associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease.

DALLAS, March 1, 2023 — Self-reported interpersonal racism in employment, housing and interactions with the police was associated with a 26% higher risk of coronary heart disease among Black women, according to preliminary research presented at the American Heart Association’s Epidemiology, Prevention, Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health Scientific Sessions 2023. The meeting will be held in Boston, February 28-March 3, 2023, and offers the latest science on population-based health and wellness and implications for lifestyle and cardiometabolic health.

“Many Black adults in the U.S. are already at higher risk of developing heart disease due to high blood pressure or Type 2 diabetes,” said Shanshan Sheehy, Sc.D., lead author of the study and an assistant professor at the Slone Epidemiology Center at Boston University and Boston University’s Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine. “Current evidence shows that racism may act as a chronic stressor in the human body, and chronic stress may lead to high blood pressure, which increases the risk of heart attack and stroke.”

Researchers evaluated data for approximately 48,000 individuals enrolled in the Black Women’s Health Study, the largest follow-up study on the health of Black women in the U.S. They reviewed data gathered from 1997, two years after the Black Women’s Health Study began, through 2019 to investigate whether self-perceived interpersonal racism was associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease. In 1997, the age range of participants in the study was 22-72 years old and by 2019, the age range was 40-90 years old. All participants were free of cardiovascular disease and cancer in 1997; during the 22-year follow-up period, 1,947 women developed coronary heart disease.

In 1997, the participants answered five questions about their experiences related to interpersonal racism in their everyday activities, such as “How often do people act as if they think you are dishonest?” They also answered three questions (for a total of eight) that asked “have you ever been treated unfairly due to your race in any of the following circumstances?” — employment (hiring, promotion, firing), housing (renting, buying, mortgage) or in interactions with police (stopped, searched, threatened).

The researchers calculated a score for self-perceived interpersonal racism in everyday life by averaging participants’ responses to the first set of five questions and divided the participants into quartiles of the score; this analysis found no association with reported experiences of racism in everyday life and increased risk of CHD.

The researchers also calculated a perceived interpersonal racism score for interactions that involved jobs, housing and police interactions by adding up the positive responses to those three additional questions. The self-perceived interpersonal racism scores ranged from 0 (no to all three questions) to 3 (yes to all three questions). The researchers’ analysis of perceived interpersonal racism scores for interactions that involved jobs, housing and police found that women who reported experiencing racism in all three categories had an estimated 26% higher risk of heart disease relative to those who answered no to all three questions.

“Structural racism is real — on the job, in educational circumstances and in interactions with the criminal justice system,” said Michelle A. Albert, M.D., M.P.H., FAHA. Albert is president of the American Heart Association, professor of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF), Admissions Dean for UCSF Medical School and an author on the study. “Now we have hard data linking it to cardiovascular outcomes, which means that we as a society need to work on the things that create the barriers that perpetuate structural racism.”

The study’s limitations include that the investigation was limited to self-perceived interpersonal racism, which is subjective by definition and may reflect different perceptions of levels of actual racism for each individual, and this information was collected from study participants only once. Also, despite efforts to adjust the findings based on a comprehensive list of additional factors — age, neighborhood socioeconomic status, education level, body mass index, geographic region, physical activity, smoking, history of diabetes and history of hypertension — the study is observational in nature and may still have some unmeasured factors or other elements that may influence the results that were not included, Sheehy said.

“Future research is needed to examine the impacts of structural racism on cardiovascular health,” Sheehy said, “as well as to evaluate the joint impacts of perceived interpersonal racism and structural racism.”

Co-first author is Max Brock, M.D.; additional co-authors include Julie R. Palmer, Sc.D. M.P.H.; Yvette Cozier, D.Sc.; and Lynn Rosenberg, Sc.D. Authors’ disclosures are listed in the abstract.

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Statements and conclusions of studies that are presented at the American Heart Association’s scientific meetings 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. Abstracts presented at the Association’s scientific meetings are not peer-reviewed, rather, they are curated by independent review panels and are considered based on the potential to add to the diversity of scientific issues and views discussed at the meeting. The findings are considered preliminary until published as a full manuscript in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

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:

The American Heart Association’s EPI/LIFESTYLE 2023 Scientific Sessions is the world’s premier meeting dedicated to the latest advances in population-based science. The meeting will be held Tuesday-Friday, February 28 – March 3, 2023, at the Omni Boston Seaport in Boston, Massachusetts. The primary goal of the meeting is to promote the development and application of translational and population science to prevent heart disease and stroke and foster cardiovascular health. The sessions focus on risk factors, obesity, nutrition, physical activity, genetics, metabolism, biomarkers, subclinical disease, clinical disease, healthy populations, global health and prevention-oriented clinical trials. The Councils on Epidemiology and Prevention and Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health (Lifestyle) jointly planned the EPI/Lifestyle 2023 Scientific Sessions. Follow the conference on Twitter at #EPILifestyle23.

Obstacles for breast cancer prevention in high-risk Black women


New study finds multiple hurdles, competing priorities

Peer-Reviewed Publication

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

Black women at high risk of breast cancer face a variety of obstacles that may keep them from care that could prevent cancer and increase the chances they’ll survive if they develop the disease, new research has found.

A study from researchers at The Ohio State University provides insights into the factors that contribute to racial disparities in use of preventive measures, including genetic testing, prophylactic mastectomies and medication to thwart breast cancer.

In the new study, which appears today (March 1, 2023) in the journal PLOS ONE, the researchers interviewed 20 Black women and 30 white women at high risk of breast cancer to better understand racial differences in the decision-making process, which hadn’t previously been well-studied.

Among their findings: Black women may be less focused on breast cancer risk as an issue to be addressed proactively, may less frequently possess information to help guide their decisions about prevention, and face more constraints when it comes to making and carrying out health-protective decisions.

“We need to recognize that the personal, interpersonal and social dynamics that Black women are experiencing that influence their ability to cope with their risk are complicated and multilayered and need to be taken into account if we’re going to empower people to do something about their risk,” said Tasleem Padamsee, lead author of the study and an assistant professor in Ohio State’s College of Public Health.

Women with strong family histories of breast cancer, genetic predispositions to the disease or other risk factors can face a 20% to 80% risk of developing the disease within their lifetimes, but can cut that risk in half, or more, by using preventive therapies, research has shown. Black women in the U.S. are diagnosed with breast cancer at about the same rate as white women, although at younger ages and later stages of disease, and with higher breast cancer mortality rates.

“I walked away from these conversations feeling like many of these women have experienced horrible things with cancer over and over again, and that they just have an overriding sense that cancer is this thing that comes at you, upends your life and the life of everyone around you, and it’s up to God what happens from there,” said Padamsee, who is a member of The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center’s Cancer Control Research Program.

“Being in a cutting-edge cancer center, we have ways, and are finding new ones, to head the disease off at the pass and — if we can’t — to catch it earlier, when the prognosis is much better. And we want all high-risk women to have those advantages.”

The researchers found several differences based on race, all of which pointed to potentially worse outcomes for the high-risk Black women.

Overall, the Black women in the study described feeling less ready and equipped to consider and cope with their risk and less informed about their options. They also reported facing more obstacles in availing themselves of those options and having less access to detailed information to help them make decisions about managing their risk.

Previous research using data from the same interviews with this group of women found that experiences with family members had a profound influence on perceptions of their own risk and prevention options. Though Black women generally reported having more up-close experiences with family members who had cancer, that didn’t seem to be associated with awareness of measures they might take to protect themselves, Padamsee said.

The Black women in the study were more likely to describe cancers as a collective group of diseases for which they have an equally high risk, rather than recognizing a particular predisposition to breast cancer. Women who thought this way did not generally believe anything specific could be done to prevent their increased risk, instead viewing a healthy lifestyle and regular health screenings as their sole tools to mitigate risk.

Many white women in the study who were more inclined to pursue preventive medication, such as Tamoxifen, or prophylactic mastectomies, told the researchers they perceived themselves to be at specific risk of breast cancer and that they worried a lot about its impact on them and their families.

In contrast, Black women in the study who worried about their cancer risk were more likely to talk about their faith.

“We’re just a really spiritual family, we believe in God. … I put my faith in God in that everything will be alright,” said one of the middle-aged Black women interviewed for the study.

While worrying less and having a stronger spiritual connection could have mental health benefits for Black women, it also could serve as a barrier to seeking out risk-management options, Padamsee said.

Black women in the study were also more likely to describe other priorities in their lives — including family and work demands and other health struggles — that were top of mind. About 20% of white women in the study had a major health concern besides the high risk of breast cancer, compared to 40% of the Black women.

Access to care from specialists, including genetic counselors, was also uneven. About 15% of the Black women reported access to specialists, compared to 70% of the white women.

That disparity likely has a significant influence on another key finding — that Black women were less likely to know about preventive measures and were much less likely to undergo genetic testing even when they’d heard of it.

Black women’s ability to manage their breast cancer risk also is more significantly impacted by financial barriers, the study suggests. Of the Black women in the study, 40% had experienced a time without insurance, compared to just 3% of the white women. And 40% of the Black women also described significant financial difficulties coping with health challenges, compared to 3% of whites.

These new findings could provide a foundation for building equity within health care, Padamsee said. Among the possibilities she suggests: Find better ways to acknowledge and incorporate patients’ spirituality and religious perspectives into discussions about prevention, ensure that women have access to good insurance coverage or other ways of paying for specialist care, and improve training for primary care physicians who are often the sole source of medical counsel for high-risk Black women. 

“There’s a lot of hand waving when it comes to talking about health equity problems, and discrimination and disadvantage in general,” she said. “One of the things that’s really important in equity work is that we have clear documentation of where the differences are and where they’re coming from, and this study helps provide that.”

Other Ohio State researchers who worked on the study are Anna Muraveva, Megan Hils, Celia Wills and Electra Paskett.

 

#

 

CONTACT: Tasleem Padamsee, Padamsee.1@osu.edu

Written by Misti Crane, 614-292-3739; Crane.11@osu.edu








RACIST MEDICINE

Black men more likely to die after surgery than White men, or women of either race

Unequal post-surgery death rate mainly applies to planned surgeries. Findings highlight the need for better understanding of the challenges facing Black men requiring surgery in the US


Peer-Reviewed Publication


Black men have a higher death rate within 30 days of surgery compared with any other subgroup of race and sex, finds a study of adults in the United States published in The BMJ.

This inequality in death rate was mainly observed for elective, or planned, surgeries, where the death rate for Black men was 50% higher than that of White men. 

The researchers say further research is needed to understand better the “factors contributing to this higher mortality rate among Black men after elective surgery.”

In previous studies, racial inequities in surgical care and outcomes, including a higher death rate following surgery for Black patients, have been well documented. 

However, less is known of how surgical outcomes differ by the race and sex of patients undergoing both elective or non-elective (urgent or emergency) surgeries.

To fill in this knowledge gap, the researchers used nationwide Medicare data on 1,868,036 adults with an average age of 75 years who underwent one of eight surgeries —abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, appendectomy, cholecystectomy, colectomy, coronary artery bypass surgery, hip replacement, knee replacement, and lung resection—between 2016–2018.

They analysed data for differences in death rates between subgroups of race and sex, following elective or urgent surgeries

Of the adults included in this study, 40.7% were White men, 53.4% were White women, 2.2% were Black men, and 3.7% were Black women. Just over 70% of the surgeries were elective. 

After accounting for other potentially influential factors such as age, disability, and a range of underlying chronic conditions, the researchers found that Black men had a higher death rate (3.05%) within 30 days of both urgent and elective surgery than White men (2.69%), White women (2.38%), and Black women (2.18%).   

A similar pattern was found for elective surgery: Black men had a higher death rate (1.3%) than White men (0.85%), White women (0.82%), and Black women (0.79%).

This 0.45 percentage point difference between Black and White men “implies that mortality after elective procedures was 50% higher in Black men compared with White men", say the researchers. 

And much of this difference persisted even when patients operated on by the same surgeon were compared, they note.

The researchers did not find a statistically significant difference between Black and White men following urgent surgery, with death rates of 6.69% and 7.03%, respectively.  

They did, however, find that deaths after urgent surgery were lower for both White and Black women, than men of either race, at 6.12% and 5.29%, respectively. 

This is an observational study, so cannot establish cause, and the researchers acknowledge that their results were limited to Black and White Medicare patients undergoing certain procedures, so may not apply to other groups or types of surgery.

However, results remained largely unchanged after further sensitivity analyses, suggesting that they are robust. 

The researchers suggest that structural racism within society, such as higher rates of poverty among Black patients, which can lead to poorer underlying health and challenges accessing care, may, at least partially, explain their findings, and say better standardisation of care is needed to help mitigate some of these factors and reduce inequities in surgical outcomes.

“Further research is needed to understand better the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors contributing to this higher mortality rate among Black men after elective surgery, ” they conclude.

New study finds most targeted COVID-19 border closures ineffective, likely illegal

Peer-Reviewed Publication

YORK UNIVERSITY

March 1, 2023, TORONTO —  A research team from the Global Strategy Lab (GSL) at York University looked at border closures implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic and concluded that many were ineffective, illegal and even when they did work, were so disruptive that in the future they should only be used when absolutely necessary.  

The new study, among the first to evaluate the effectiveness of border closures initially put in place three years ago to slow the spread of the then novel coronavirus, found that targeted closures did little to curb the crisis, and, if evaluated based on what we know now, would likely be considered illegal under international law. The most extreme shutdowns, on the other hand, were temporarily effective but came at a great cost. Border closures should be used as a means of last resort and decisions around closures would be most effective if co-ordinated globally by the World Health Organization, says the paper’s lead author Mathieu Poirier.

“People just assumed at the time that these measures were effective, but that’s not necessarily the case,” says Poirier, Faculty of Health social epidemiology professor and York Research Chair in Global Health Equity and co-director of GSL. “Our study shows, using real-world data, that for most countries, in most situations, border closures are not going to be the best approach.” 

The research was published yesterday in PLOS Global Public Health. Poirier and his GSL co-authors  – York professors Susan Rogers Van Katwyk and Steven Hoffman and data analyst Gigi Lin –  looked at available information from 166 countries and evaluated whether border closures curbed spread both domestically and internationally. 

Total border closures – defined as barring non-essential travel from all other countries and implemented by the vast majority of countries in March 2020 – did temporarily slow COVID-19 transmission globally. However, the wave of targeted border closures a month earlier aimed at travellers from hotspots did not slow down the global pandemic. On a national level, targeted closures did work in some situations, but the most effective were implemented early and were so extensive that they approached a total closure. Border closures can also divert resources away from other pandemic measures and reduce global co-operation when it is most needed during a pandemic crisis. 

Border closures have a huge effect on people’s lives and the economy when compared to other measures such as quarantines, restricting public gatherings and test-and-tracing approaches. But if other less disruptive measures are not possible, then applying border closures early is key. Poirier acknowledges that deciding how early is not a straightforward process. 

“If you're not making those difficult decisions early on, then that decision-making process might already be too late, but if you are the first country to implement a closure, that’s likely going to be very unpopular.”

This challenge is further complicated by the lack of reliable real-time information available to decision-makers. 

“Some countries may not be reporting what they know, and many more countries aren't testing or don't have the infrastructure to actually know what's happening on the ground in the first place,” he adds, noting data is not solely an issue in autocratic regimes. “With these fast-moving pandemic threats, it's probably best to assume that we don't know what's happening.” 

Under the International Health Regulations, restrictions should not be more stringent than necessary and methods like border closures should only be implemented if supported by science. 

“Looking back, most countries’ border closures were likely illegal, but that science was not available to decision makers at the time,” Poirier concludes. “This research suggests closures may have a role to play in future pandemics but should be implemented with strong caution and in co-operation with other countries.”

The Global Strategy Lab is hosting a presentation of the paper at 9 a.m. EST on March 17, the three-year anniversary date of Ontario declaring a provincial emergency and the day after Canada barred entry to non-residents. Poirier, Rogers Van Katwyk and Lin will be presenting, in discussion with Kelley Lee, professor of Public Health with Simon Fraser University and Canada Research Chair Tier I in Global Health Governance. Register here.

 

-30-
 

York University is a modern, multi-campus, urban university located in Toronto, Ontario. Backed by a diverse group of students, faculty, staff, alumni and partners, we bring a uniquely global perspective to help solve societal challenges, drive positive change, and prepare our students for success. York's fully bilingual Glendon Campus is home to Southern Ontario's Centre of Excellence for French Language and Bilingual Postsecondary Education. York’s campuses in Costa Rica and India offer students exceptional transnational learning opportunities and innovative programs. Together, we can make things right for our communities, our planet, and our future. 

 

Media Contact: 

Emina Gamulin, York University Media Relations, 437-217-6362, egamulin@yorku.ca

Immunotherapy before surgery significantly improves outcomes of patients with melanoma

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - LOS ANGELES HEALTH SCIENCES

If cancer exhibits a weakness, exploit it before taking the target away.

That’s what researchers did in a Phase 2, randomized clinical trial showing that adding immunotherapy before surgical removal of stage III-IV melanoma significantly improved event-free survival and produced no more side effects than standard-of-care treatment, which provides immunotherapy only after surgery.

Results of the multicenter trial, led by a team that included UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center researchers, are published in the March 2, 2023 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

“This is the first clinical trial demonstrating that neoadjuvant therapy – that given before surgery – is superior to the same therapy given in the adjuvant setting – after surgery,” said Dr. Antoni Ribas, director of the Tumor Immunology Program at UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, the paper’s senior author. “This is because it is best to turn on the immune system inside the cancer before it is taken out with the surgery.”

The researchers designed the study and treatment regimen on how pembrolizumab – used in this study – and similar drugs, called immune checkpoint inhibitors, are thought to work. The antibody pembrolizumab is a PD-1 inhibitor; it blocks an immune checkpoint that blunts the immune system’s response to cancer. The therapy releases the antitumor immune response – often referred to as “taking the brakes off the immune system” – enabling immune cells already existing at the tumor site to proliferate and attack the cancer cells at that place or anywhere else in the body.

“Based on this understanding, removing the bulk of the tumor, along with the tumor-infiltrating immune cells contained in the surgical specimen, is likely to take away some or even most of the potential antitumor immune cells that would proliferate after PD-1 blockade,” said Ribas, who was chair of the SWOG Cancer Research Network’s melanoma committee when the study was designed and launched. “Our theory has been – and this study confirms it – that starting anti-PD-1 blocking therapy before surgery could activate more antitumor immune cells and improve clinical outcomes compared with the same amount of drug delivered after the surgery.”

As first author Dr. Sapna Patel says, “It’s not just what you give, it’s when you give it.” She is the current chair of the SWOG Cancer Research Network’s melanoma committee and associate professor of Melanoma Medical Oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

The trial included patients with clinically detectable, measurable stage IIIB-IVC melanoma that could be surgically resected. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Those in the adjuvant therapy group, consisting of 159 patients, were treated with surgery followed by pembrolizumab given every three weeks for a total of 18 infusions. The 154 participants in the neoadjuvant group received three infusions of pembrolizumab before surgery, followed by the remaining 15 infusions after surgery. Therefore, both study groups received the same drug and the same total number of 18 infusions, with the only difference being the timing of surgery.

The researchers found that at two years 72% of patients in the group receiving neoadjuvant pembrolizumab followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab were free of events (inability to get surgery, recurrence of the melanoma or death) compared to 49% of the patients in the adjuvant pembrolizumab alone group.

Dr. Bartosz Chmielowski, clinical professor of medicine in the division of Hematology-Oncology at UCLA and study co-author said the study’s findings could change the way high-risk melanoma is routinely treated.

“The study highlights that the timing of administration of an immune checkpoint inhibitor relative to surgery can have a large effect on patient outcomes, even though the same systemic therapy was given to both study groups,” Chmielowski said. “Our results demonstrate a significant benefit when immunotherapy is started prior to surgery to generate an immune response while the bulk of the cancer and the anti-tumor immune cells remain intact.”

The study, known as S1801, was led by the SWOG Cancer Research Network, supported by the National Cancer Institute and conducted by the National Institutes of Health-funded National Clinical Trials Network. Dr. Chmielowski was UCLA’s principal investigator of the trial. For a complete list of authors, please see the study.

Funding: Research reported in this publication was supported by NIH/NCI grant awards U10CA180888, U10CA180819, U10CA180820, U10CA180821, U10CA180868, UG1CA233329, UG1CA233328, UG1CA233247, UG1CA233180, UG1CA189860, UG1CA233178, UG1CA233160, UG1CA189821, UG1CA233320, UG1CA233331, UG1CA189850, UG1CA233330, UG1CA233234, UG1CA233193, UG1CA189956, UG1CA239767, UG1CA189869, UG1CA180830, P30CA014089, UG1CA239758, P30CA016042, UG1CA189830, P30CA076292, P30CA033572, R35 CA197633 and P01 CA244118; and in part by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA.

Disclosures and potential conflicts of interest: Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.

Article: Patel SP, Othus M, Chen Y, et al. Neoadjuvant–adjuvant or adjuvant-only pembrolizumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med 2023;388:813-23. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2211437

Article URL (once embargo lifts): https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2211437.