Looking for race in all the wrong places: analyzing the lack of productivity in the ongoing debate about race and genetics

Racial and Ethnic Variation in COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake Among Medicare Beneficiaries with Cancer History

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to estimate COVID-19 vaccination rate among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer history and determine whether COVID-19 vaccine uptake is higher among non-Hispanic White beneficiaries compared with racially and ethnically minoritized beneficiaries.

METHODS

We used US representative, cross-sectional data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey COVID-19 Winter 2021 Rapid Response Community Supplement Survey. A total of 1,863 respondents with self-reported cancer history (other than skin cancer) were included. The outcome was self-reported receipt of at least one coronavirus vaccine dose since vaccines became available. The key independent variable of interest was self-reported race and ethnicity. We applied sample weights to account for the survey design and provide population estimates to 9.6 million beneficiaries with cancer history. Weighted descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

During the first 4 months of vaccine availability, 69.6% of beneficiaries received at least one vaccine dose of which 65.4% had two vaccine doses. A larger proportion of non-Hispanic White beneficiaries (71.9%) had at least one vaccine dose compared with non-Hispanic Black (60.4%) and Hispanic (57.4%) beneficiaries. An estimated 30.4% of beneficiaries were still unvaccinated, that represents approximately 2.9 million unvaccinated beneficiaries with cancer history. Hispanic beneficiaries were 42% (OR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.33-0.99; p = .048) less likely to be vaccinated compared with non-Hispanic White beneficiaries.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate racial and ethnic differences in vaccine uptake among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer history. Effective strategies are needed to help increase vaccine confidence and uptake among adults with cancer history.

A scoping review of guidelines for the use of race, ethnicity, and ancestry reveals widespread consensus but also points of ongoing disagreement

The use of population descriptors such as race, ethnicity, and ancestry in science, medicine, and public health has a long, complicated, and at times dark history, particularly for genetics, given the field's perceived importance for understanding between-group differences. The historical and potential harms that come with irresponsible use of these categories suggests a clear need for definitive guidance about when and how they can be used appropriately. However, while many prior authors have provided such guidance, no established consensus exists, and the extant literature has not been examined for implied consensus and sources of disagreement. Here, we present the results of a scoping review of published normative recommendations regarding the use of population categories, particularly in genetics research. Following PRISMA guidelines, we extracted recommendations from n = 121 articles matching inclusion criteria. Articles were published consistently throughout the time period examined and in a broad range of journals, demonstrating an ongoing and interdisciplinary perceived need for guidance. Examined recommendations fall under one of eight themes identified during analysis. Seven are characterized by broad agreement across articles; one, "appropriate definitions of population categories and contexts for use," revealed substantial fundamental disagreement among articles. Additionally, while many articles focus on the inappropriate use of race, none fundamentally problematize ancestry. This work can be a resource to researchers looking for normative guidance on the use of population descriptors and can orient authors of future guidelines to this complex field, thereby contributing to the development of more effective future guidelines for genetics research.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among Medicare Beneficiaries with and Without Cancer History: A US Population-based Study

Understanding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Medicare beneficiaries is critical for increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the US. This study aimed to estimate and compare the vaccine hesitancy rate among community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries with and without cancer history, also to investigate factors associated with vaccine hesitancy during the first four months after COVID-19 vaccine became available. We used population-based, cross-sectional data on 3,034 community-living Medicare beneficiaries from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey COVID-19 Winter 2021 Supplement. Sample weights were applied to account for the complex survey design with results generalizable to 16.4 million Medicare beneficiaries. Weighted multivariable logistic regression model was conducted to investigate the association between cancer history and vaccine hesitancy adjusting for covariates. A total of 39.6% were hesitant about getting COVID-19 vaccine. Those with cancer history were significantly less likely to be hesitant to get vaccinated than those without cancer history (adjusted odds ratio = 0.80, 95% confidence interval: 0.64, 0.99, p = .050). The most common reason for being hesitant to get COVID-19 vaccine was that the vaccine could have side effects or was viewed as not safe (19.2%), followed by not trusting what government says about vaccine (11.4%). Those with cancer history were more likely to report ongoing health conditions, lack of recommendation from a doctor, and doctor recommending against COVID-19 vaccination as reasons for not getting the vaccine compared to participants without cancer history. Increasing the confidence and knowledge about vaccine benefits among high-risk and more hesitant individuals are urgently needed to increase the vaccine uptake.

Use of Race in Kidney Research and Medicine: Concepts, Principles, and Practice

Black Americans and other racially and ethnically minoritized individuals are disproportionately burdened by higher morbidity and mortality from kidney disease when compared with their White peers. Yet, kidney researchers and clinicians have struggled to fully explain or rectify causes of these inequalities. Many studies have sought to identify hypothesized genetic and/or ancestral origins of biologic or behavioral deficits as singular explanations for racial and ethnic inequalities in kidney health. However, these approaches reinforce essentialist beliefs that racial groups are inherently biologically and behaviorally different. These approaches also often conflate the complex interactions of individual-level biologic differences with aggregated population-level disparities that are due to structural racism (i.e., sociopolitical policies and practices that created and perpetuate harmful health outcomes through inequities of opportunities and resources). We review foundational misconceptions about race, racism, genetics, and ancestry that shape research and clinical practice with a focus on kidney disease and related health outcomes. We also provide recommendations on how to embed key equity-enhancing concepts, terms, and principles into research, clinical practice, and medical publishing standards.

Medicine, anti-realism and ideology: Variation in medical genetics does not show that race is biologically real

Lee McIntyre’s Respecting Truth chronicles the contemporary challenges regarding the relationship amongst evidence, belief formation and ideology. The discussion in his book focusses on the ‘politicisation of knowledge’ and the purportedly growing public (and sometimes academic) tendency to choose to believe what is determined by prior ideological commitments rather than what is determined by evidence-based reasoning. In considering these issues, McIntyre posits that the claim “race is a myth” is founded on a political ideology rather than on support from scientific evidence. He contrasts this view with the argument that racially correlated biomedical outcomes for self-identified racial groups suggest that biological races are real. I explore how McIntyre’s framing of the claim “race is a myth” as fundamentally ideological results in him failing to engage with the arguments and evidence many constructionists and biological anti-realists put forward in support of their views. I also show how the biomedical evidence he thinks supports biological realism is unconvincing.

Kidney Disease, Race, and GFR Estimation

Assessment of GFR is central to clinical practice, research, and public health. Current Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes guidelines recommend measurement of serum creatinine to estimate GFR as the initial step in GFR evaluation. Serum creatinine is influenced by creatinine metabolism as well as GFR; hence, all equations to estimate GFR from serum creatinine include surrogates for muscle mass, such as age, sex, race, height, or weight. The guideline-recommended equation in adults (the 2009 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration creatinine equation) includes a term for race (specified as black versus nonblack), which improves the accuracy of GFR estimation by accounting for differences in non-GFR determinants of serum creatinine by race in the study populations used to develop the equation. In that study, blacks had a 16% higher average measured GFR compared with nonblacks with the same age, sex, and serum creatinine. The reasons for this difference are only partly understood, and the use of race in GFR estimation has limitations. Some have proposed eliminating the race coefficient, but this would induce a systematic underestimation of measured GFR in blacks, with potential unintended consequences at the individual and population levels. We propose a more cautious approach that maintains and improves accuracy of GFR estimates and avoids disadvantaging any racial group. We suggest full disclosure of use of race in GFR estimation, accommodation of those who decline to identify their race, and shared decision making between health care providers and patients. We also suggest mindful use of cystatin C as a confirmatory test as well as clearance measurements. It would be preferable to avoid specification of race in GFR estimation if there was a superior, evidence-based substitute. The goal of future research should be to develop more accurate methods for GFR estimation that do not require use of race or other demographic characteristics.

Essential(ist) medicine: promoting social explanations for racial variation in biomedical research

Biomedical research has a long and complicated history as a tool of oppression, exemplary of the racial science used to legitimise and maintain racial hierarchies in the USA and abroad. While the explicit racism and racial inferiority supported by this research has dissipated and modern methods of inquiry have increased in sophistication and rigor, contemporary biomedical research continues to essentialise race by distilling racial differences and disparities in health to an underlying, biogenetic source. Focusing on the persistence of essentialism in an era of genomic medicine, this paper examines the deep social origins and social implications of the essentialist viewpoint in biomedicine and how it relates to the broader construction of social and scientific knowledge. Invoking Hacking's 'looping effects' as a useful conceptual tool, I then demonstrate how sociohistorical forces influence scientific and medical research in producing evidence that favours and legitimises a biological construction of race. I extend the looping framework to consider a parallel 'louping' process whereby applying a socially rooted meaning to race in biomedical research results becomes magnified to influence social norms and ideas about race. As many biomedical researchers are motivated by a desire to eliminate racial disparities in outcomes, I argue that greater social acuity allows scientists to avoid individualising and racialising health, challenge preconceived assumptions about the meaning of racial variation in health and medicine and thus promote and strengthen a socioenvironmental focus on how to best improve individuals' and population health. Concluding with a call for structural competency in biomedical research, I suggest that empowering scientists to more freely discuss sociostructural factors in their work allows for the continued use of race in biological and medical research, while social scientists and medical humanities scholars stand to benefit from seeing their work imbued with the cultural authority currently granted to biomedicine.

Challenges and Considerations Related to Studying Dementia in Blacks/African Americans

Blacks/African Americans have been reported to be ∼2-4 times more likely to develop clinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) compared to Whites. Unfortunately, study design challenges (e.g., recruitment bias), racism, mistrust of healthcare providers and biomedical researchers, confounders related to socioeconomic status, and other sources of bias are often ignored when interpreting differences in human subjects categorized by race. Failure to account for these factors can lead to misinterpretation of results, reification of race as biology, discrimination, and missed or delayed diagnoses. Here we provide a selected historical background, discuss challenges, present opportunities, and suggest considerations for studying health outcomes among racial/ethnic groups. We encourage neuroscientists to consider shifting away from using biologic determination to interpret data, and work instead toward a paradigm of incorporating both biological and socio-environmental factors known to affect health outcomes with the goal of understanding and improving dementia treatments for Blacks/African Americans and other underserved populations.

Putting humanity back into the teaching of human biology

In this paper, I draw upon debates about race in biology and philosophy as well as the concepts of ineliminable pluralism and psychological essentialism to outline the necessary subject matter knowledge that teachers should possess if they desire to: (i) increase student understanding of scientific research on genetic and behavioral variation in humans; and (ii) attenuate inegalitarian beliefs about race amongst students.

Blood politics, ethnic identity, and racial misclassification among American Indians and Alaska Natives

Misclassification of race in medical and mortality records has long been documented as an issue in American Indian/Alaska Native data. Yet, little has been shared in a cohesive narrative which outlines why misclassification of American Indian/Alaska Native identity occurs. The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary of the current state of the science in racial misclassification among American Indians and Alaska Natives. We also provide a historical context on the importance of this problem and describe the ongoing political processes that both affect racial misclassification and contribute to the context of American Indian and Alaska Native identity.

Advancing genomic research and reducing health disparities: what can nurse scholars do?

PURPOSE

Advances in genomic research are improving our understanding of human diseases and evoking promise of an era of genomic medicine. It is unclear whether genomic medicine may exacerbate or attenuate extant racial group health disparities. We delineate how nurse scholars could engage in the configuration of an equitable genomic medicine paradigm.

ORGANIZING CONSTRUCT

We identify as legitimate subjects for nursing scholarship the scientific relevance, ethical, and public policy implications for employing racial categories in genomic research in the context of reducing extant health disparities.

FINDINGS

Since genomic research is largely population specific, current classification of genomic data will center on racial and ethnic groups. Nurse scholars should be involved in clarifying how putative racial group differences should be elucidated in light of the current orthodoxy that genomic solutions may alleviate racial health disparities.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurse scholars are capable of employing their expertise in concept analysis to elucidate how race is used as a variable in scientific research, and to use knowledge brokering to delineate how race variables that imply human ancestry could be utilized in genomic research pragmatically in the context of health disparities.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In an era of genomic medicine, nurse scholars should recognize and understand the challenges and complexities of genomics and race and their relevance to health care and health disparities.

Race, ethnicity, ancestry, and pharmacogenetics

Pharmacogenetics is the study of how genetic variation influences the response to drugs. The concepts of race, ethnicity, and ancestry have long had a strong influence on pharmacogenetic discovery and on our understanding of population-level differences in drug response. The primary goal of pharmacogenetics, however, is to identify the individual genetic determinants of drug activity so that therapy can be tailored to the individual patient. This article describes the relationship between the concepts of race, ethnicity, and ancestry and how these concepts have been applied to pharmacogenetics, and it provides examples of the benefits and pitfalls associated with the use of racial or ethnic labels in genetic studies. The future of pharmacogenetics, including the study of rare genetic variation and what this means for racial or ethnic disparities in pharmacogenetic discovery, is also discussed.

Informed consent in the context of pharmacogenomic research: ethical considerations

Although the scientific research surrounding pharmacogenomics (PGx) has been relatively plentiful, the ethical research concerning this discipline has developed rather conservatively. Following investigation of the ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI) of PGx research, as well as consulting with key stakeholders, we identified six outstanding ethical issues raised by the informed consent process in PGx research: (1) scope of consent; (2) consent to 'add-on' studies; (3) protection of personal information; (4) commercialization; (5) data sharing; and (6) potential risks stemming from population-based research. In discussing these six areas as well as offering specific considerations, this article offers a solid base from which future practical guidelines for informed consent in PGx research can be constructed. As such, this effort works toward filling the ELSI gap and provides ethical support to the numerous PGx projects undertaken by researchers every year.

Population description and its role in the interpretation of genetic association

Despite calls for greater clarity and precision of population description, studies have documented persistent ambiguity in the use of race/ethnicity terms in genetic research. It is unclear why investigators tolerate such ambiguity, or what effect these practices have on the evaluation of reported associations. To explore the way that population description is used to replicate and/or extend previously reported genetic observations, we examined articles describing the association of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma-gamma Pro12Ala polymorphism with type 2 diabetes mellitus and related phenotypes, published between 1997 and 2005. The 80 articles identified were subjected to a detailed content analysis to determine (1) how sampled populations were described, (2) whether and how the choice of sample was explained, and (3) how the allele frequency and genetic association findings identified were contextualized and interpreted. In common with previous reports, we observed a variety of sample descriptions and little explanation for the choice of population investigated. Samples of European origin were typically described with greater specificity than samples of other origin. However, findings from European samples were nearly always compared to samples described as "Caucasian" and sometimes generalized to all Caucasians or to all humans. These findings suggest that care with population description, while important, may not fully address analytical concerns regarding the interpretation of variable study outcomes or ethical concerns regarding the attribution of genetic observations to broad social groups. Instead, criteria which help investigators better distinguish justified and unjustified forms of population generalization may be required.