The objective of this study was to examine the state-level association between household energy insecurity and diabetes prevalence in 2020. We obtained 1) state-level data on household energy characteristics from the 2020 Residential Energy Consumption Survey and 2) diagnosed diabetes prevalence from the US Diabetes Surveillance System. We found states with a higher percentage of household energy insecurity had greater diabetes prevalence compared with states with lower percentages of energy insecurity. Interventions related to energy assistance may help reduce household energy insecurity, mitigate the risk of diabetes-related complications, and alleviate some of the burden of diabetes management during extreme temperatures.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the association between racial and economic segregation and diabetes mortality among US counties from 2016 to 2020. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional ecological study that combined county-level diabetes mortality data from the National Vital Statistics System and sociodemographic information drawn from the 2016-2020 American Community Survey (n=2380 counties in the USA). Racialized economic segregation was measured using the Index Concentration at the Extremes (ICE) for income (ICE(income)), race (ICE(race)) and combined income and race (ICE(combined)). ICE measures were categorised into quintiles, Q1 representing the highest concentration and Q5 the lowest concentration of low-income, non-Hispanic (NH) black and low-income NH black households, respectively. Diabetes was ascertained as the underlying cause of death. County-level covariates included the percentage of people aged ≥65 years, metropolitan designation and population size. Multilevel Poisson regression was used to estimate the adjusted mean mortality rate and adjusted risk ratios (aRR) comparing Q1 and Q5. RESULTS: Adjusted mean diabetes mortality rate was consistently greater in counties with higher concentrations of low-income (ICE(income)) and low-income NH black households (ICE(combined)). Compared with counties with the lowest concentration (Q1), counties with the highest concentration (Q5) of low-income (aRR 1.93; 95% CI 1.79 to 2.09 for ICE(income)), NH black (aRR 1.93; 95% CI 1.79 to 2.09 for ICE(race)) and low-income NH black households (aRR 1.32; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.47 for ICE(combined)) had greater diabetes mortality. CONCLUSION: Racial and economic segregation is associated with diabetes mortality across US counties.

BACKGROUND: Household food insecurity has been linked to adverse health outcomes, but pathways driving these associations are not well understood. The stress experienced by those in food insecure households and having to prioritize between food and other essential needs could lead to physiological dysregulations (i.e., allostatic load [AL]) and, as a result, adversely impact their health. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between household food security status and AL and differences by gender, race and ethnicity, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation. METHODS: We used data from 7640 US adults in the 2015-2016 and 2017-March 2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to estimate means and prevalence ratios (PR) for AL scores (based on cardiovascular, metabolic, and immune biomarkers) associated with self-reported household food security status from multivariable linear and logistic regression models. RESULTS: Adults in marginally food secure (mean = 3.09, SE = 0.10) and food insecure households (mean = 3.05, SE = 0.08) had higher mean AL than those in food secure households (mean = 2.70, SE = 0.05). Compared to adults in food secure households in the same category, those more likely to have an elevated AL included: SNAP participants (PR = 1.12; 95% confidence interval, CI = 1.03, 1.22) and Hispanic women (PR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.05, 1.37) in marginally food secure households; and non-Hispanic Black women (PR = 1.14; 95% CI = 1.03, 1.26), men (PR = 1.13; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.26), and non-SNAP non-Hispanic White adults (PR = 1.22; 95% CI = 1.08, 1.39) in food insecure households. CONCLUSIONS: AL may be one pathway by which household food insecurity affects health and may vary by gender, race and ethnicity, and SNAP participation.

INTRODUCTION: Co-use of marijuana and tobacco/nicotine have unknown impacts on addiction and health. There are limited data on the extent to which adults are co-using tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)- and nicotine-containing products, in any of their various modes. This study describes adult use of THC- and nicotine-containing products among electronic vaping product (EVP) users. METHODS: Data on marijuana and tobacco use were collected from February 25-29, 2020 through an online survey of adults aged ≥18 years who reported using THC- and nicotine-containing electronic vaping products (EVPs) in the past 3 months (n = 3,980). Survey respondents from 18 states participated in the U.S. YouGov panel, a proprietary opt-in internet panel survey of 1.8 million U.S. residents. RESULTS: Among those who reported using nicotine and THC-containing EVPs in the past 3 months, 90.1% of respondents reported smoking marijuana in the past 3 months; 82.7% reported smoking as the most frequent mode of marijuana use. Almost 63% of EVP users reported smoking cigarettes; 55.6% reported smoking for over 8 years, while 7.7% had been smoking cigarettes for under a year. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, respondents reported cigarette smoking and marijuana smoking in addition to using marijuana- and nicotine- containing EVPs. Considering the unknown health effects of co-use of tobacco and THC-containing products, the finding that adults are vaping THC and nicotine alongside traditional modes of marijuana and tobacco use of these substances warrants further investigation. IMPLICATIONS: Findings from this study provide evidence that adults who use nicotine and THC EVPs are also using a variety of other THC-containing and tobacco-containing products. This indicates the importance of continued surveillance to assess trends of polysubstance EVP and multi-modal marijuana and tobacco use. Monitoring various modes of marijuana and tobacco use may inform policies, prevention education, communication, and cessation tools.

INTRODUCTION: Secondhand smoke and secondhand aerosol exposure are important public health concerns. This is the first study to present separate estimates of public indoor and outdoor secondhand smoke and secondhand aerosol exposure among U.S. youth. METHODS: Data came from the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey, an annual cross-sectional survey of U.S. students in Grades 6-12. Self-reported past 30-day indoor and outdoor secondhand smoke and secondhand aerosol exposures were assessed separately. Weighted prevalence and adjusted prevalence ratios for each outcome were assessed among students overall and stratified by sex, school level, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and current tobacco product use; prevalence also was calculated among those who did not currently use tobacco. RESULTS: Exposure to secondhand smoke and secondhand aerosol was reported by 60.6% (95% CI=58.7, 62.4) and 44.5% (95% CI=42.1, 46.9) of U.S. youth, respectively. Among all students, 37.6% (95% CI=36.0, 39.2) and 53.3% (95% CI=51.4, 55.2) reported indoor and outdoor secondhand smoke exposure, respectively; 34.9% (95% CI=32.9, 37.4) and 36.8% (95% CI=34.6, 38.9) reported indoor and outdoor secondhand aerosol exposure, respectively. After adjustment, female versus male students (adjusted prevalence ratio=1.15-1.30) and those who currently use versus do not use combustible tobacco products (adjusted prevalence ratio=1.15-1.36) were more likely to report exposure to all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 1 in 2 students overall reported outdoor secondhand smoke exposure, and 1 in 3 students reported exposures to each indoor secondhand smoke, indoor secondhand aerosol, and outdoor secondhand aerosol. Separate estimates of indoor and outdoor secondhand smoke and secondhand aerosol exposure, along with data on correlates of exposure, provide information to support comprehensive indoor and outdoor smoke-free policies.

PURPOSE: Heated tobacco products (HTP) heat-processed tobacco leaf into an aerosol inhaled by the user. This study assessed prevalence and correlates of HTP awareness, ever use, and current use among US middle and high school students. METHODS: Data came from the 2019 and 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey, a cross-sectional survey of US public and private, middle and high school students. HTP awareness, ever use, and current (past 30-day) use were assessed. Weighted prevalence estimates and adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) were assessed overall and by sex, school level, race/ethnicity, and current other tobacco product use. RESULTS: In 2019, 12.8% (3.44 million) of all students reported HTP awareness, increasing to 19.3% (5.29 million) in 2020 (p < .01). Ever [2019: 2.6% (630 000); 2020: 2.4% (620 000)] and current [2019: 1.6% (420 000); 2020: 1.4% (370 000)] HTP use did not significantly change from 2019 to 2020. Current e-cigarette users were more likely to report ever (2020 aPR = 1.79, 95% CI:1.23, 2.62) or current HTP use (2019 aPR = 5.16, 95% CI: 3.48, 7.67; 2020 aPR = 3.39, 95% CI: 2.10, 5.47) than nonusers. In both years, ever and current HTP use was more likely among current combustible (aPR range = 3.59-8.17) and smokeless tobacco product (aPR range = 2.99-4.09) users than nonusers. CONCLUSIONS: HTP awareness increased 51% among US students during 2019-2020; however, HTP use did not significantly change during this period. Students who used other tobacco products were more likely to currently use HTPs. Estimates of HTP awareness and use provided serve as a baseline as future monitoring of these products is warranted. IMPLICATIONS: Awareness of heated tobacco products (HTPs) increased among US youth from 2019 to 2020; however, HTP use did not change. These estimates of HTP awareness and use serve as a baseline for future surveillance of these products as their availability in the US increases.