Assessment of Prevention Research Measuring Leading Risk Factors and Causes of Mortality and Disability Supported by the US National Institutes of Health

The intersection of health and housing: Analysis of the research portfolios of the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

BACKGROUND

Housing is a major social determinant of health that affects health status and outcomes across the lifespan.

OBJECTIVES

An interagency portfolio analysis assessed the level of funding invested in "health and housing research" from fiscal years (FY) 2016-2020 across the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to characterize the existing health and housing portfolio and identify potential areas for additional research and collaboration.

METHODS/RESULTS

We identified NIH, HUD, and CDC research projects that were relevant to both health and housing and characterized them by housing theme, health topic, population, and study design. We organized the assessment of the individual housing themes by four overarching housing-to-health pathways. From FY 2016-2020, NIH, HUD, and CDC funded 565 health and housing projects combined. The Neighborhood pathway was most common, followed by studies of the Safety and Quality pathway. Studies of the Affordability and Stability pathways were least common. Health topics such as substance use, mental health, and cardiovascular disease were most often studied. Most studies were observational (66%); only a little over one fourth (27%) were intervention studies.

DISCUSSION

This review of the research grant portfolios of three major federal funders of health and housing research in the United States describes the diversity and substantial investment in research at the intersection between housing and health. Analysis of the combined portfolio points to gaps in studies on causal pathways linking housing to health outcomes. The findings highlight the need for research to better understand the causal pathways from housing to health and prevention intervention research, including rigorous evaluation of housing interventions and policies to improve health and well-being.

Lifestyle Medicine: Prevention, Treatment, and Reversal of Disease

Lifestyle medicine (LM) expands the scope of preventive medicine by focusing on the promotion of healthy lifestyles while preventing, treating, and reversing the vast majority of chronic diseases caused by behaviors and environmental factors. LM focuses on six pillars-a plant-predominant eating pattern; physical movement; restorative sleep; management of stress; avoidance of risky substances; and positive social connections. Advances in LM competencies, education, certification, resources, and practice models are accelerating with a particular need and focus on underserved and most seriously impacted patients and communities. A comprehensive and integrated strategy addressing "whole person health" is emerging as a compelling framework for providers and health systems which combines a foundational commitment to prevention with a systematic approach to the actual and root causes of premature disease, disability, and death.

Sex-specific population attributable risk factors for cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in the general population: Findings from the China PEACE million persons project

Little evidence exists regarding the sex-specific population attributable risk factors for cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in the Chinese general population. We used a sub-cohort of the China Patient-Centered Evaluative Assessment of Cardiac Events million persons project to evaluate the overall and sex-specific associations and population attributable fractions (PAFs) of twelve risk factors for cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. 95,469 participants were included between January 2016 and December 2020. The twelve risk factors (including four socioeconomic status and eight modifiable risk factors) were collected or measured at baseline. The outcomes of the study were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Overall, 60.7% (N = 57,971) were women, and the mean age was 54.3 ± 10.2 years. After a median of 3.52 years of follow-up, 1311 (1.4%) people died, and 362 (0.4%) people died of cardiovascular causes. Majorities of risk factors were significantly associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and suboptimal blood pressure and low educational attainment were the two leading attributable risk factors for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. The twelve risk factors collectively explained 72.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 63.5, 79.2) and 84.0% (95% CI: 71.1, 91.1) of PAFs for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. When stratified by sex, men had more risk factors that were significantly attributable to mortality than women, whereas low educational attainment had a more pronounced impact on female cardiovascular health. This study found that the twelve risk factors collectively explained a significant proportion of PAFs for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Several sex-related disparities in the associations between risk factors and mortality were noted.

Prevention Science and Health Equity: A Comprehensive Framework for Preventing Health Inequities and Disparities Associated with Race, Ethnicity, and Social Class

The ultimate goal of our public health system is to reduce the incidence of disability and premature death. Evidence suggests that, by this standard, the USA falls behind most other developed countries largely as a function of disparities in health outcomes among significant portions of the US population. We present a framework for addressing these disparities that attributes them, not simply to differences in the behavioral and physical risk factors, but to social, environmental, and structural inequities such as poverty, discrimination, toxic physical setting, and the marketing of harmful products. These inequities result from de facto and instituted public policies. An analysis of the NIH research portfolio indicates a relative lack of investment in experimental evaluations of preventive interventions-especially studies targeting disadvantaged populations. Moreover, experimental research on reducing social inequities is almost entirely lacking. A line of research focusing on the drivers of inequities and their dissolution must include experimental evaluation of strategies for getting policies adopted that will reduce inequities. In conclusion, a summary is provided of the types of research that are needed and the challenges involved in conducting the experimental research that is essential for reducing inequities and disparities and, in turn, prolonging life.

Investment in Prevention Health Care Delivery Research by the National Institutes of Health

BACKGROUND

Research assessing the delivery of preventive health care has considerable potential for improving health outcomes and reducing health care costs for the United States population.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the prevention health care delivery research grant portfolio supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A random sample of 14,523 NIH research projects funded during 2012-2019 was selected and coded for various study topics using a structured taxonomy. We analyzed the subset of prevention research projects, for which health care delivery was identified as an independent or dependent variable, including study characteristics and funding trends.

RESULTS

Overall, 11.2% of NIH-funded prevention research projects were relevant to health care delivery. Of these projects, 68.6% assessed access to care, 53.4% examined quality, and 27.1% assessed costs. Over the study period, the percentage of funded prevention research projects involving health care delivery increased from 10.9%-15.1%. Over half of the projects assessed research related to the prevention of a new health condition, identification of risk factors, or health promotion (55.5%), whereas < half addressed prevention of disease progression/recurrence (40.4%), screening for early disease (20.2%), or screening for risk factors (1.4%). human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome, cancer, and substance use were the most prevalent health topics studied, whereas other topics-such as lung diseases and Alzheimer disease-were less frequently studied.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care delivery research comprises a modest portion of the NIH prevention research portfolio and is mostly focused on access and quality of care; cost-related analyses are less prevalent.human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome, cancer, and substance use are frequently studied health topics in this portfolio.

Assessing National Institutes of Health Prevention Research on Leading Causes of Death Focused on Racial or Ethnic Minority Populations, Fiscal Years 2016-2020

Objective

To characterize the National Institutes of Health (NIH) prevention research portfolio on leading causes of death focused on racial or ethnic minority populations.

Research Design

Longitudinal analysis of NIH-funded prevention research projects from FY2016-FY2020.

Measures

Project characteristics including type of prevention, study design, budget, minority health focus, and causes of death addressed.

Results

Minority health projects comprised 27.0% of prevention projects and 33.1% of funding across all leading causes of death. Homicide (42.9%), diabetes (36.3%), and stroke (35.5%) had the highest proportion of minority health projects and suicide (20.2%), Alzheimer disease (18.8%), and pneumonia or influenza (8.3%) the lowest. Most minority health projects focused on identifying risk factors or on primary prevention efforts (80.3%). Most projects had an observational design (80.0%), and this predominance was observed for each cause of death. There was a significant correlation between the proportion of minority health projects for cause of death and the ratio of minorities versus non-minorities mortality rate.

Conclusions

Only about one-fourth of NIH-funded prevention research on leading causes of death focused on racial or ethnic minorities, who currently comprise about 40% of the US population. Only a small fraction of minority health prevention projects included an intervention design, suggesting a limited contribution to the evidence base on effective interventions to address racial or ethnic mortality disparities. Also, we identified that the number of projects increase where mortality rate disparities are higher. This portfolio analysis provides a useful baseline to assess future progress in building the minority health prevention research portfolio, a critical component to promoting health equity in population health.

Women's health: optimal nutrition throughout the lifecycle

Sex differences are an important consideration when researching and establishing policies for nutrition and optimal health. For women's health, there are important physiologic, neurologic, and hormonal distinctions throughout the lifecycle that impact nutritional needs. Distinct from those for men, these nutritional needs must be translated into appropriate nutrition policy that aims to not only avoid overt nutritional deficiency, but also to promote health and minimize risk for chronic disease. Through a series of webinars, scientific experts discussed the advances in the understanding of the unique nutritional needs, challenges and opportunities of the various life stages for women across the life course and identified emerging nutritional interventions that may be beneficial for women. Nevertheless, there is concern that existing nutrition policy intended for women's health is falling short with examples of programs that are focused more on delivering calories than achieving optimal nutrition. To be locally effective, targeted nutrition needs to offer different proposals for different cultural, socio-economic, and geographic communities, and needs to be applicable at all stages of growth and development. There must be adequate access to nutritious foods, and the information to understand and implement proven nutritional opportunities. Experts provided recommendations for improvement of current entitlement programs that will address accessibility and other social and environmental issues to support women properly throughout the lifecycle.

Health Disparities: Research That Matters

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

NIH Primary and Secondary Prevention Research in Humans: a Portfolio Analysis of Study Designs Used in 2012-2019

We can learn a great deal about the research questions being addressed in a field by examining the study designs used in that field. This manuscript examines the research questions being addressed in prevention research by characterizing the distribution and trends of study designs included in primary and secondary prevention research supported by the National Institutes of Health through grants and cooperative agreements, together with the types of prevention research, populations, rationales, exposures, and outcomes associated with each type of design. The Office of Disease Prevention developed a taxonomy to classify new extramural NIH-funded research projects and created a database with a representative sample of 14,523 research projects for fiscal years 2012-2019. The data were weighted to represent the entirety of the extramural research portfolio. Leveraging this dataset, the Office of Disease Prevention characterized the study designs proposed in NIH-funded primary and secondary prevention research applications. The most common study designs proposed in new NIH-supported prevention research applications during FY12-19 were observational designs (63.3%, 95% CI 61.5%-65.0%), analysis of existing data (44.5%, 95% CI: 42.7-46.3), methods research (23.9%, 95% CI: 22.3-25.6), and randomized interventions (17.2%, 95% CI: 16.1%-18.4%). Observational study designs dominated primary prevention research, while intervention designs were more common in secondary prevention research. Observational designs were more common for exposures that would be difficult to manipulate (e.g., genetics, chemical toxin, and infectious disease (not pneumonia/influenza or HIV/AIDS)), while intervention designs were more common for exposures that would be easier to manipulate (e.g., education/counseling, medication/device, diet/nutrition, and healthcare delivery). Intervention designs were not common for outcomes that are rare or have a long latency (e.g., cancer, neurological disease, Alzheimer's disease) and more common for outcomes that are more common or where effects would be expected earlier (e.g., healthcare delivery, health related quality of life, substance use, and medication/device). Observational designs and analyses of existing data dominated, suggesting that much of the prevention research funded by NIH continues to focus on questions of association and on questions of identification of risk and protective factors. Randomized and non-randomized intervention designs were included far less often, suggesting that a much smaller fraction of the NIH prevention research portfolio is focused on questions of whether interventions can be used to modify risk or protective factors or to change some other health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome. The much heavier focus on observational studies is surprising given how much we know already about the leading risk factors for death and disability in the USA, because those risk factors account for 74% of the county-level mortality in the USA, and because they play such a vital role in the development of clinical and public health guidelines, whose developers often weigh results from randomized trials much more heavily than results from observational studies. Improvements in death and disability nationwide are more likely to derive from guidelines based on intervention research to address the leading risk factors than from additional observational studies.

New NIH Primary and Secondary Prevention Research During 2012-2019

INTRODUCTION

This manuscript characterizes primary and secondary prevention research in humans and related methods research funded by NIH in 2012‒2019.

METHODS

The NIH Office of Disease Prevention updated its prevention research taxonomy in 2019‒2020 and applied it to a sample of 14,523 new extramural projects awarded in 2012-2019. All projects were coded manually for rationale, exposures, outcomes, population focus, study design, and type of prevention research. All results are based on that manual coding.

RESULTS

Taxonomy updates resulted in a slight increase, from an average of 16.7% to 17.6%, in the proportion of prevention research awards for 2012‒2017; there was a further increase to 20.7% in 2019. Most of the leading risk factors for death and disability in the U.S. were observed as an exposure or outcome in <5% of prevention research projects in 2019 (e.g., diet, 3.7%; tobacco, 3.9%; blood pressure, 2.8%; obesity, 4.4%). Analysis of existing data became more common (from 36% to 46.5%), whereas randomized interventions became less common (from 20.5% to 12.3%). Randomized interventions addressing a leading risk factor in a minority health or health disparities population were uncommon.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of new NIH awards classified as prevention research increased to 20.7% in 2019. New projects continued to focus on observational studies and secondary data analysis in 2018 and 2019. Additional research is needed to develop and test new interventions or develop methods for the dissemination of existing interventions, which address the leading risk factors, particularly in minority health and health disparities populations.

Prioritized Research for the Prevention, Treatment, and Reversal of Chronic Disease: Recommendations From the Lifestyle Medicine Research Summit

Declining life expectancy and increasing all-cause mortality in the United States have been associated with unhealthy behaviors, socioecological factors, and preventable disease. A growing body of basic science, clinical research, and population health evidence points to the benefits of healthy behaviors, environments and policies to maintain health and prevent, treat, and reverse the root causes of common chronic diseases. Similarly, innovations in research methodologies, standards of evidence, emergence of unique study cohorts, and breakthroughs in data analytics and modeling create new possibilities for producing biomedical knowledge and clinical translation. To understand these advances and inform future directions research, The Lifestyle Medicine Research Summit was convened at the University of Pittsburgh on December 4–5, 2019. The Summit's goal was to review current status and define research priorities in the six core areas of lifestyle medicine: plant-predominant nutrition, physical activity, sleep, stress, addictive behaviors, and positive psychology/social connection. Forty invited subject matter experts (1) reviewed existing knowledge and gaps relating lifestyle behaviors to common chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, many cancers, inflammatory- and immune-related disorders and other conditions; and (2) discussed the potential for applying cutting-edge molecular, cellular, epigenetic and emerging science knowledge and computational methodologies, research designs, and study cohorts to accelerate clinical applications across all six domains of lifestyle medicine. Notably, federal health agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Veterans Administration have begun to adopt “whole-person health and performance” models that address these lifestyle and environmental root causes of chronic disease and associated morbidity, mortality, and cost. Recommendations strongly support leveraging emerging research methodologies, systems biology, and computational modeling in order to accelerate effective clinical and population solutions to improve health and reduce societal costs. New and alternative hierarchies of evidence are also be needed in order to assess the quality of evidence and develop evidence-based guidelines on lifestyle medicine. Children and underserved populations were identified as prioritized groups to study. The COVID-19 pandemic, which disproportionately impacts people with chronic diseases that are amenable to effective lifestyle medicine interventions, makes the Summit's findings and recommendations for future research particularly timely and relevant.

Feasibility of a behavioral intervention using mobile health applications to reduce cardiovascular risk factors in cancer survivors: a pilot randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Determine the feasibility of a remotely delivered mobile health (mHealth)-supported intervention to improve diet and physical activity in hematologic malignancy survivors.

METHODS

Pilot randomized controlled trial of a 16-week intervention for improving diet and physical activity: individualized goal-setting (daily steps, sodium, saturated fat, added sugar intake) per feedback from mHealth trackers (Fitbit for activity; Healthwatch360 for diet), supplemented by a Facebook peer support group. Controls accessed the trackers without goal-setting or peer support. Everyone received standardized survivorship counseling with tailored advice from a clinician. Actigraphy and food frequency questionnaires assessed activity and diet at baseline and follow-up.

RESULTS

Forty-one participants (51.2% male; median age 45.1 years; 7.0 years from treatment) were randomized (24 intervention; 17 control). Fitbit and Healthwatch360 use were more common among intervention versus control participants (75.0% versus 70.6% and 50.0% versus 17.7% of eligible days, respectively). Most intervention participants (66.7%) engaged with Facebook; overall, 91.7% interacted with the study's mHealth applications. While no comparisons in activity or dietary outcomes between intervention versus control group met statistical significance, the intervention was associated with greater reductions in the targeted dietary factors and improvements in Healthy Eating Index-2015 score, moderate-vigorous physical activity time, and daily steps. Participant retention at 6 months was 90.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

An intervention for cardiovascular risk reduction based on individualized goal-setting enhanced by mHealth and social media peer support was feasible and acceptable among cancer survivors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Effective and easily disseminated strategies that improve diet and physical activity in this population are needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03574012) on June 29, 2018.

Strengthening national nutrition research: rationale and options for a new coordinated federal research effort and authority

BACKGROUND

The US faces remarkable food and nutrition challenges. A new federal effort to strengthen and coordinate nutrition research could rapidly generate the evidence base needed to address these multiple national challenges. However, the relevant characteristics of such an effort have been uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to provide an objective, informative summary of 1) the mounting diet-related health burdens facing our nation and corresponding economic, health equity, national security, and sustainability implications; 2) the current federal nutrition research landscape and existing mechanisms for its coordination; 3) the opportunities for and potential impact of new fundamental, clinical, public health, food and agricultural, and translational scientific discoveries; and 4) the various options for further strengthening and coordinating federal nutrition research, including corresponding advantages, disadvantages, and potential executive and legislative considerations.

METHODS

We reviewed government and other published documents on federal nutrition research; held various discussions with expert groups, advocacy organizations, and scientific societies; and held in-person or phone meetings with >50 federal staff in executive and legislative roles, as well as with a variety of other stakeholders in academic, industry, and nongovernment organizations.

RESULTS

Stark national nutrition challenges were identified. More Americans are sick than are healthy, largely from rising diet-related illnesses. These conditions create tremendous strains on productivity, health care costs, health disparities, government budgets, US economic competitiveness, and military readiness. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has further laid bare these strains, including food insecurity, major diet-related comorbidities for poor outcomes from COVID-19 such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, and insufficient surveillance on and coordination of our food system. More than 10 federal departments and agencies currently invest in critical nutrition research, yet with relatively flat investments over several decades. Coordination also remains suboptimal, documented by multiple governmental reports over 50 years. Greater harmonization and expansion of federal investment in nutrition science, not a silo-ing or rearrangement of existing investments, has tremendous potential to generate new discoveries to improve and sustain the health of all Americans. Two identified key strategies to achieve this were as follows: 1) a new authority for robust cross-governmental coordination of nutrition research and other nutrition-related policy and 2) strengthened authority, investment, and coordination for nutrition research within the NIH. These strategies were found to be complementary, together catalyzing important new science, partnerships, coordination, and returns on investment. Additional complementary actions to accelerate federal nutrition research were identified at the USDA.

CONCLUSIONS

The need and opportunities for strengthened federal nutrition research are clear, with specific identified options to help create the new leadership, strategic planning, coordination, and investment the nation requires to address the multiple nutrition-related challenges and grasp the opportunities before us.

The urgent need for disability studies among midlife adults

Issues of poor physical functioning and disability are burdensome for midlife adults and evidence suggests that the prevalence of these conditions is increasing temporally. Physical functioning during the midlife period, however, may be highly amendable to intervention given the highly dynamic nature of functioning during this life stage. Thus, efforts to improve or forestall poor physical functioning and/or disability during midlife may not only improve the health status and quality of life for midlife adults but may have important ramifications on the health of these individuals who will become older adults in the future. This thematic series on women and disability includes contributions addressing issues of person, place and time with respect to disability in midlife and into late adulthood. The purpose of this commentary is to provide a summary overview of the major themes of the series and to offer insight into areas of most promise for intervention among midlife populations to improve physical functioning and prevent disability.

Actual Causes of Death in Relation to Media, Policy, and Funding Attention: Examining Public Health Priorities

Despite numerous public health advancements over the last century, we continue to under-invest in prevention and public health efforts. As a result, one of the most challenging aspects of public health is prioritizing the use of limited resources. Building on the foundation of previous researchers, the goal of this exploratory study was to provide current estimates for the actual causes of death, media attention, policy focus, and research funding in the United States. In addition, we sought to calculate and compare media attention, policy attention, and research funding trends to better assess the nation's prioritization of health issues. Using a systematic approach, we searched available databases, including Media Cloud, Nexis Uni, Congress.gov, and the Department of Health and Human Services Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System from January 1, 2010-December 31, 2019 and compared how the actual causes of death in the United States align with health-related media attention, policy attention, and federal spending. Overall, our findings suggest that our priorities are not well-aligned with the actual causes of death. Certain actual causes appear to be consistently misaligned across media, legislative, and financial sectors (e.g., tobacco). This work highlights the importance of multiple strategies-media coverage, national legislation, and government spending-as indicators of public health attention and priorities. These results may inform discussions about how to best allocate U.S. public health resources to better align with the actual causes of death.

Automated CT biomarkers for opportunistic prediction of future cardiovascular events and mortality in an asymptomatic screening population: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Body CT scans are frequently performed for a wide variety of clinical indications, but potentially valuable biometric information typically goes unused. We investigated the prognostic ability of automated CT-based body composition biomarkers derived from previously-developed deep-learning and feature-based algorithms for predicting major cardiovascular events and overall survival in an adult screening cohort, compared with clinical parameters.

Methods

Mature and fully-automated CT-based algorithms with pre-defined metrics for quantifying aortic calcification, muscle density, visceral/subcutaneous fat, liver fat, and bone mineral density (BMD) were applied to a generally-healthy asymptomatic outpatient cohort of 9223 adults (mean age, 57.1 years; 5152 women) undergoing abdominal CT for routine colorectal cancer screening. Longitudinal clinical follow-up (median, 8.8 years; IQR, 5.1-11.6 years) documented subsequent major cardiovascular events or death in 19.7% (n=1831). Predictive ability of CT-based biomarkers was compared against the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and body mass index (BMI).

Findings

Significant differences were observed for all five automated CT-based body composition measures according to adverse events (p<0.001). Univariate 5-year AUROC (with 95% CI) for automated CT-based aortic calcification, muscle density, visceral/subcutaneous fat ratio, liver density, and vertebral density for predicting death were 0.743(0.705-0.780)/0.721(0.683-0.759)/0.661(0.625-0.697)/0.619 (0.582-0.656)/0.646(0.603-0.688), respectively, compared with 0.499(0.454-0.544) for BMI and 0.688(0.650-0.727) for FRS (p<0.05 for aortic calcification vs. FRS and BMI); all trends were similar for 2-year and 10-year ROC analyses. Univariate hazard ratios (with 95% CIs) for highest-risk quartile versus others for these same CT measures were 4.53(3.82-5.37) /3.58(3.02-4.23)/2.28(1.92-2.71)/1.82(1.52-2.17)/2.73(2.31-3.23), compared with 1.36(1.13-1.64) and 2.82(2.36-3.37) for BMI and FRS, respectively. Similar significant trends were observed for cardiovascular events. Multivariate combinations of CT biomarkers further improved prediction over clinical parameters (p<0.05 for AUROCs). For example, by combining aortic calcification, muscle density, and liver density, the 2-year AUROC for predicting overall survival was 0.811 (0.761-0.860).

Interpretation

Fully-automated quantitative tissue biomarkers derived from CT scans can outperform established clinical parameters for pre-symptomatic risk stratification for future serious adverse events, and add opportunistic value to CT scans performed for other indications.