National Institutes Of Health Institutes Research Articles

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health: Priorities for Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research.

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), which is part of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), has a broad interest in studying the biologic activities of natural products, especially those for which compelling evidence from preclinical research suggests biologic activities that may be beneficial to health or have a potential role in disease treatment, as well as products used extensively by the American public. As of 2023, use of cannabis for medical purposes is legal in 38 states and Washington, D.C. Such use continues to climb generally without sufficient knowledge regarding risks and benefits. In keeping with NCCIH's natural product research priorities and recognizing this gap in knowledge, NCCIH formally launched a research program in 2019 to expand research on the possible benefits for pain management of certain substances found in cannabis: minor cannabinoids and terpenes. This Viewpoint provides additional details and the rationale for this research priority at NCCIH. In addition, NCCIH's efforts and initiatives to facilitate and coordinate an NIH research agenda focused on cannabis and cannabinoid research are described. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Use of cannabis for purported medical purposes continues to increase despite insufficient knowledge regarding risks and benefits. Research is needed to help health professionals and patients make knowledgeable decisions about using cannabis and cannabinoids for medical purposes. The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, along with other NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices, is expanding study on the safety, efficacy, and harms of cannabis-a complex mixture of phytochemicals that needs to be studied alone and in combination.

U.S. Medical School Participation in Nationally Funded Biomedical Research: A New Accounting of NIH Award Dollars.

To better understand the amount of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding received by U.S. medical schools with Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited medical education programs, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) developed a new methodology that crosswalks faculty NIH grants with medical schools and their affiliated organizations (e.g., teaching hospitals). This approach offers a more comprehensive and methodologically transparent accounting of NIH extramural funding to academic medicine than existing processes.The AAMC Crosswalk utilized publicly available grants data from the NIH and resources unique to the AAMC, such as the Faculty Roster and Council of Teaching Hospitals and Health Systems records. Using a multi-step algorithm, the AAMC Crosswalk linked individual faculty with NIH grants, their organizations, and partner medical schools, aggregated at the level of the medical school and its affiliated organizations for fiscal year (FY) 2017-2021.The AAMC Crosswalk attributed on average $3.7 billion more per year in NIH funding to U.S. medical schools, representing a 24% increase compared to the NIH and Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research (BRIMR) methodologies. In FY 2021, the AAMC Crosswalk attributed 60% of NIH funding to U.S. medical schools compared with 47% by NIH and 50% by BRIMR. An exploration of limitations showed no medical school affiliations were missed by the AAMC Crosswalk among 90 randomly sampled organizations, and medical school affiliations for 30 randomly sampled principal investigator faculty members were attributed correctly.These findings indicate that academic medicine's contribution to biomedical research may be greater than historically reported. Systematically accounting for grants awarded to faculty across medical schools and their affiliated organizations provides a more comprehensive understanding of NIH funding to U.S. medical schools. The AAMC Crosswalk provides a new tool to better estimate the true investment and role of academic medicine in advancing biomedical research.

Workshop summary: National Institutes of Health (NIH) 2022 scientific workshop on gender and health

In this manuscript, we summarize the goals, content, and impact of the Gender and Health: Impacts of Structural Sexism, Gender Norms, Relational Power Dynamics, and Gender Inequities workshop held by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Research on Women's Health (ORWH) in collaboration with 10 NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices. Specifically, we outline the key points emerging from the workshop presentations, which are the focus of the collection of articles in this supplement. The overarching goals of the workshop were to convene NIH staff, the external scientific community, and the public to discuss methods, measurement, modifiable factors, interventions, and best practices in health research on gender as a social and cultural variable and to identify opportunities to advance research and foster collaborations on these key topics. Themes emerging from the workshop include the need for intersectional measures in research on gender and health, the role of multilevel interventions and analyses, and the importance of considering gender as a social and structural determinant of health. Careful, nuanced, and rigorous integration of gender in health research can contribute to knowledge about and interventions to change the social and structural forces that lead to disparate health outcomes and perpetuate inequities.

Funding for Refugee Health Research From the National Institutes of Health Between 2000 and 2020

The US has historically resettled more refugees than any other country, with over 3.5 million refugees since 1980. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest public funder of biomedical research and development, but its role in mitigating many health disparities refugees experience through its funded research remains unknown. To examine the NIH's research funding patterns on refugee health research over the last 2 decades. Secondary analysis of NIH-funded grants between 2000 and 2020 using a cross-sectional study design. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools database was used to find relevant grants. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to September 2022. NIH grants awarded by year, state, grant type, research area, funding institute, grant duration, and amount funded. Of 1.7 million NIH grants funded over the 20-year study period, only 78 addressed refugee health. Funded grants were mostly training grants (23 grants [29%]), followed by hypothesis-driven research (R01 grants; 22 grants [28%]), pilot or preliminary investigation proposals (13 grants [17%]), and other types of grants (20 grants [26%]). The most studied research domain was mental health (36 grants [46%]), followed by refugee family dynamics and women's and children's health (14 grants [18%]). A total of 26 grants (33%) were funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and 15 (19%) were funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Most grants were US-based (60 grants [76%]) and the state of Massachusetts received the greatest amount of funding ($14 825 852 [18%]). In 2020, the NIH allocated about $2.3 million to refugee health research, or less than 0.01% of its $42 billion budget that year. The number of grants funded in each time period did not always reflect changes in the number of refugees resettled in the US over the years. This cross-sectional study found that there remain significant gaps in the understanding of and interventions in the health research needs of refugees locally and along the migratory route. To close these gaps, the NIH should increase its investments in comprehensive studies assessing the physical, mental, and social well-being of this expanding population. This can be achieved by ensuring that all NIH institutes allocate budgets specifically for refugee health research and extend support for the training of refugee researchers.

Supporting Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia research in low‐ and middle‐income countries

AbstractThe greatest increases for AD/ADRD will occur in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs), where approximately 71% of the global cases will reside. These projections might be confounded by temporal changes due to shorter survival after dementia, lack of education and awareness, lack of access to healthcare, inadequate diagnostic assessment, and variability in costs of care of the elderly with AD/ADRD, all of which could lead to under‐accounting of the AD/ADRD burden. Nevertheless, the projected increase underscores the importance of developing a strong, coordinated research agenda that will inform mitigation and prevention strategies for AD/ADRD in LMICs. National Institute on Aging (NIA) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is positioned to play a leading role in this endeavor, as the leading federal government institute for supporting research on aging and AD/ADRD. NIA’s interests, activities and scientific initiatives related to global health research has increased over the past year through collaborations with other NIH institutes and centers (including Fogarty International Center) and engagement with the global scientific community. Research supported under these initiatives could further inform future scientific priorities areas for AD/ADRD. Given the growth trajectory of its global health portfolio, NIA will continue to support coordinated approaches to identify research gaps and new opportunities to address the growing burden of AD/ADRD in LMICs, globally.

Abstract B009: Advancing health equity in cancer survivorship research: A review of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) 2017-2021 portfolio

Abstract Background: Over the past decade there has been a call for a research paradigm shift from describing health disparities to a health equity research agenda that links and addresses the social, environmental, economic, health system, and policy contextual factors that drive health disparities. However, it is unknown if cancer survivorship research has made this transition. Methods: Research project grants funded during Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 to 2021 focused on cancer survivorship were identified using a text mining algorithm of words from the NIH Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization thesaurus with survivorship-relevant terms. A total of 586 grants were identified, of which the title and abstract were reviewed to identify grants focused on health disparities. Characteristics for each grant focused on health disparities were abstracted. We then coded the determinants of heath disparities by levels of influence (individual, interpersonal, organizational/community, societal) and domains of influence (biological, behavioral, physical/built environment, sociocultural environment, healthcare system).Results: A total of 134 grants were identified that focused on health disparities. These grants were funded by 5 NIH institutes with NCI funding 85%. The majority of grants (63%) used the R01 mechanism. The populations of focus included racial and ethnic minority survivors (75%), survivors living in rural areas (25%), socioeconomically disadvantaged cancer survivors (22%), and SGM survivors (2%). Half of the studies were of observational design, and half were interventional. Study topics included: late effects (44%), patient activation (28%), adherence to care guidelines (25%), health communication (18%), physical activity (13%), nutrition (8%), and policy research (4%). Nearly all grants included at least one individual-level of influence (95%), as compared to higher levels of influence (26% interpersonal, 33% organizational/community, 15% societal). Behavioral and healthcare system domains of influence were commonly represented, especially at the individual-level (76% and 43%). Determinants from the physical/built environment and sociocultural environment were less frequent. Conclusions: Our findings highlight that NIH-funded survivorship research on health disparities is still focused on the individual-level and behavioral domains of influence. However, the portfolio analysis also suggests that survivorship research is transitioning to a health equity research agenda by incorporating structural/institutional level factors. Gaps in funded research on understudied populations were identified, including SGM, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander. Future research is needed to identify mechanisms to address the upstream social drivers/determinants or contextual factors of where cancer survivors live, work, learn, play, age, and access care. Such work would inform the development or implementation of evidence-based interventions to prevent inequitable care and achieve the goal of health equity. Citation Format: Michelle Doose, Michelle A. Mollica, Amanda Acevedo, Crystal Reed, Gina Tesauro, Lisa Gallicchio, Jennifer Guida, Molly E. Maher, Shobha Srinivasan, Emily Tonorezos. Advancing health equity in cancer survivorship research: A review of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) 2017-2021 portfolio [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 16th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2023 Sep 29-Oct 2;Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023;32(12 Suppl):Abstract nr B009.

Affective Science Research: Perspectives and Priorities from the National Institutes of Health.

Affective science is a broad and burgeoning field, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) support research on a similarly broad range of topics. Across NIH, funding is available for basic, translational, and intervention research, including research in non-human animals, healthy populations, and those with or at risk for disease. Multiple NIH Institutes and Centers have specific programs devoted to topics within the affective science umbrella. Here, we introduce the funding priorities of these six: the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National Institute on Aging (NIA), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD). We then discuss overlapping themes and offer a perspective on promising research directions.

Opioids and Chronic Pain: Impact of the NIH Pathways to Prevention Evidence-Based Workshop Program.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Disease Prevention (ODP) sponsors Pathways to Prevention (P2P), an evidence-based scientific workshop program that helps advance prevention research. Each P2P workshop is presided over by an independent expert panel and informed by a systematic evidence review, scientific presentations, and public input. Post-workshop activities include collaborating with federal agency partners to develop an action plan for addressing key research gaps. Primary outcomes of P2P workshops include developing a research agenda and creating or enhancing initiatives to implement the agenda. In 2014, ODP partnered with the NIH Pain Consortium and two NIH institutes to convene "The Role of Opioids in the Treatment of Chronic Pain." This workshop assessed the state-of-the-science on the long-term effectiveness, safety, and harms of opioid use for managing chronic pain. In 2021, ODP initiated an assessment of the outcomes and impact of the Opioids P2P workshop. We applied an evaluation framework and a mixed methods approach encompassing web analytics, bibliometric assessment, grant portfolio analysis, policy assessment, and key informant interviews. Our data showed that the workshop attracted a broad audience, and its published reports had high impact. The workshop also helped inform over 100 new research projects through grants funded by three federal agencies, as well as national legislation and practice guidelines from influential organizations. In sum, the Opioids P2P workshop and follow-up activities have identified gaps in scientific knowledge, informed clinical practice, and catalyzed change on a national level for addressing the prescription opioid crisis.

President Biden Chooses Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, to Lead the NIH

President Biden Chooses Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, to Lead the NIH

Survivorship science at the National Institutes of Health 2017-2021.

To describe the characteristics of National Institutes of Health (NIH) cancer survivorship grants funded over the past 5 years and identify gap areas for future efforts and initiatives. Research project grants (RPG) funded during Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 to 2021 focused on cancer survivorship were identified using a text mining algorithm of words from the NIH Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization (RCDC) thesaurus with survivorship-relevant terms. The title, abstract, specific aims, and public health relevance section of each grant were reviewed for eligibility. Grants meeting the eligibility criteria were double coded to extract study characteristics (e.g., grant mechanism, study design, study population). A total of 586 grants were funded by 14 NIH Institutes from FY2017 to FY2021, and the number of newly funded grants increased each FY, from 68 in 2017 to 105 in 2021. Approximately 60% of all grants included an intervention study, and interventions most often focused on psychosocial or supportive care (32.0%). The most common primary focus of the grants was late- and long-term effects of cancer treatment (46.6%), and least often financial hardship. The results of this portfolio analysis indicate overall growth in the number and breadth of grants over the last five years, although notable gaps persist. This review of current NIH grants suggests a need for expanded research to understand and address survivor needs to ensure that the over 18 million cancer survivors in the United States have optimal quality of life and health outcomes.

Conceptualizing a resilience research framework at TheNational Institutes of Health.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) have recently gathered internal and external input towards a shared understanding of resilience in the wide context of human health and the biomedical sciences that would help accelerate advances in human health and its maintenance. This shared view is that resilience refers in general to a system's capacity to recover, grow, adapt, or resist perturbation from a challenge or stressor. Over time, a system's response to a challenge might show varied degrees of reactions that likely fluctuate in response to the type of challenge (internal and/or external), severity of the challenge, the length of time exposed to the challenge, other external factors and/or biological factors (innate and/or external). We have embarked on this special issue as an opportunity to explore commonalities amongst viewpoints on the science of resilience covered by the various NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices (ICOs) with respect to the characterization of various systems, stressors, outcomes measures and metrics, and interventions and/or protective factors that are shared within each domain and across multiple domains. Here, resilience is characterized broadly by four areas of scientific study: molecular/cellular, physiologic, psychosocial and spiritual, and environmental/community resilience. Each area or domain provides general frameworks for designing studies that may help advance the science of resilience within the context of health maintenance. This special issue will also acknowledge the remaining gaps that impede advancement of the science of resilience and offer considerations for potential next steps towards addressing the research gaps.

Integrating sleep health into resilience research.

Sleep is a biological necessity that is a critical determinant of mental and physical well-being. Sleep may promote resilience by enhancing an individual's biological preparedness to resist, adapt and recover from a challenge or stressor. This report analyzes currently active National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants focussed on sleep and resilience, specifically examining the design of studies that explore sleep as a factor that promotes health maintenance, survivorship, or protective/preventive pathways. A search of NIH R01 and R21 research project grants that received funding in Fiscal Years (FY) 2016-2021 and focussed on sleep and resilience was conducted. A total of 16 active grants from six NIH institutes met the inclusion criteria. Most grants were funded in FY 2021 (68.8%), used the R01 mechanism (81.3%), were observational studies (75.0%), and measured resilience in the context of resisting a stressor/challenge (56.3%). Early adulthood and midlife were most commonly studied and over half of the grants focussed on underserved/underrepresented populations. NIH-funded studies focussed on sleep and resilience, or the ways in which sleep can influence an individual's ability to resist, adapt, or recover from a challenging event. This analysis highlights an important gap and the need to expand research focussed on sleep as a promotor of molecular, physiological, and psychological resilience.

Advice for Early Career Clinical Stroke Researchers Applying for National Institutes of Health Funding.

Advice for Early Career Clinical Stroke Researchers Applying for National Institutes of Health Funding.

Trends in NIH Funding to Medical Schools in 2011 and 2020.

To examine trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding to U.S. medical schools and their academic departments and the amount of awards provided by each of the NIH institutes. All data on NIH awards to U.S. medical schools from 2000 to 2020 are publicly available and were obtained from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools and Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research. These data include the value and number of awards to each medical school, medical school department, medical school location, principal investigator, and the NIH awarding institute. Trends in the inflation-adjusted awards from 2011 to 2020 were calculated and a comparison of the awards made in 2011 and 2020 was performed. The total NIH budget increased by 16.1% from 2011 to 2020. The allocation of NIH funds to medical schools increased 26.3% ($13.7 billion to $17.3 billion) during this interval. In 2020, 29.3% of all medical school NIH funds were allocated to departments of internal medicine/medicine. Psychiatry was the second ranking department, which was followed, in order, by pediatrics, neurology, and microbiology/immunology/virology. The National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute were the top medical school funding institutes in 2011 and 2020. Medical schools as a group continue to receive the greatest percentage of NIH funding. Funding to clinical science departments increased by a larger percentage than that to basic science departments (35.3% vs 10.9%, respectively) over the 2011-2020 interval. Funding for clinical science departments is increasing at a faster rate than that of basic science departments. However, that so much investigation in basic science and clinical science departments is performed by personnel with a PhD degree indicates the goals and methods of the basic and clinical sciences may not be so different.

An evaluation of programs to support new investigators at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: Striking a balance with funding for established investigators

As the largest funder of basic biomedical research in the US, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has an interest in maintaining a sustainable, productive workforce of investigators. Over the years, NIH has implemented several programs to attract early-stage investigators and other applicants without prior NIH support. The latest of these is the Next Generation Researchers Initiative. These programs have been shown to be successful in meeting NIH-wide goals but their success for any particular NIH institute or center (IC), and in any particular year, is determined by a variety of factors, some extrinsic to an IC’s funding decision process. Each IC must balance support for new investigators with funding for productive ongoing programs of research. We examine historical trends in support of new investigators at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) over a 22-year period, as well as trends in some major extrinsic influences on that support. The results indicate that NIH’s new investigator programs have succeeded in maintaining a balance between the support for new NIAID investigators while also continuing to support an expanded pool of established investigators. The programs have been particularly effective in providing support to early-stage investigators.

Current gaps and opportunities in screening, prevention, and treatment of cervical cancer.

In their fiscal year 2021 reports, the US House and Senate Appropriations Committees requested that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) evaluate current research related to women's health and topics that include stagnant cervical cancer survival. In response, the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health, with input from women's health experts; members of the public; representatives from NIH institutes, centers, and offices; and members of the NIH Advisory Committee on Research on Women's Health, reviewed the public health needs and current NIH activities on cervical cancer. The Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women: A 2021 Conference held in October 2021 reviewed these findings and allowed the identification of opportunities to strengthen research. In this review, the authors summarize public health needs related to cervical cancer and NIH activities in this realm. Cervical cancer has become a rare disease in theUnited States, yet significant portions of the US population remain under screened orunscreened for cervical cancer, human papillomavirus vaccination rates remain low, access to high-quality treatment remains a challenge for many, and large inequities by race and ethnicity persist. Novel, inclusive, and intentional research isneeded to produce improvements in cervical cancer survival within the UnitedStates.

Abstracts from the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health 2022 Annual BIRCWH Meeting:Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health November 2, 2022

Abstracts from the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health 2022 Annual BIRCWH Meeting:Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health November 2, 2022

Research Matters

Lymphatic Research and BiologyVol. 20, No. 3 Research MattersFree AccessResearch MattersPublished Online:10 Jun 2022https://doi.org/10.1089/lrb.2022.29123.wrAboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail National Institutes of Health Begins Planning for National Commission on Lymphatic ResearchOn March 9, the FY2022 Omnibus bill directed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to establish a National Commission on Lymphatic Diseases and further called for the creation of an NIH research category specifically for lymphedema (LE). Without a category to date, the secondary status of LE was being perpetuated. It also meant NIH was unable to report on levels of LE research when queried by Congress.Then, on March 18, a representative of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute wrote on behalf of its Director Dr. Gary Gibbons in response to an open letter written by Lymphatic Education and Research Network (LE&RN) President and CEO William Repicci. The planning is now beginning for the National Commission, and NIH is already engaged in creating research categories for both LE and lymphatic diseases.President's FY 2023 Budget Request to Congress ReleasedPresident Biden's budget seeks increases to NIH as well as proposing $5 billion for the new Advanced Research Project Agency for Health (ARPA-H) within NIH. ARPA-H is so important to lymphatic research because it represents a substantial budget that is not currently committed to any project. The goal of ARPA-H is to create breakthroughs and build platforms to revolutionize prevention, treatment, and cures of diseases. Its mission is to overcome market failures. Lymphatic research, such as LE research, fits squarely in ARPA-H's mission.Centers of Excellence Lymphatic Summit 2021 Now Open AccessLE&RN's 2021 Virtual Summit: The Continuum From Evolving Research to State-of-the-Art Lymphatic Management is now available for open-access viewing. The rapidly evolving world of lymphatic research is already creating a substantial impact upon the practice of lymphatic medicine. The 2021 State-of-the-Art Lymphatic Medicine Summit highlights the interface between the investigative process and the optimal current management of lymphatic patients. Evolving concepts and unanswered questions are emphasized.For instant access: https://learn.regfox.com/wld-2021-virtual-lymphatic-summit-admissionLet's Talk Lymphedema Is Now Open AccessOn World Lymphedema Day 2021, LE&RN broadcast Let's Talk Lymphedema, the first-ever play written and produced about living with LE. That play is now available to all. Watch it on LE&RN's website at www.lymphaticnetwork.org/lets-talk-le.LE&RN Symposium SeriesOn June 1, Roman Skoracki, MD presented Head and Neck Lymphedema for LE&RN supporters on Zoom. In May, Max Itkin, MD presented “Beyond Lymphedema: New Developments in Central Lymphatic Imaging and Interventions.” In April, Sheila H. Ridner, PhD, RN, FAAN presented Secondary Lymphedema Prevention: A Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating Early Detection and Intervention in Breast Cancer Patients. All LE&RN Symposiums are available as replays on LE&RN's website at https://lymphaticnetwork.org/symposium-series.LE&RN Creates Lymphatic Researcher Database for NIHAt NIH's request, LE&RN has created a Lymphatic Researcher Database (https://lymphaticnetwork.org/treating-lymphedema/researchers) to keep NIH informed of the lymphatic research being pursued worldwide. LE&RN now needs all lymphatic researchers to submit information for this webpage by contacting LE&RN at LERN@LymphaticNetwork.org. Research names, institutions, PubMed weblinks, and brief research descriptions will appear on this page, searchable by name, institution, or topic. Researchers, if you have already provided information here but need to update it, you may do so by contacting LE&RN at LERN@LymphaticNetwork.org. All 27 NIH Institutes and Centers have been provided this weblink. This initiative grew out of the efforts of the Trans-NIH Lymphatics Coordinating Committee.Annual Global Virtual LymphWalkLE&RN's annual LymphWalk took place globally, virtually, and in person at Artesani Park in Boston on May 15, 2022. After the global event, participants around the world tuned in for a virtual program on Monday, May 16. There LE&RN shared recent treatment breakthroughs, honored doctors and patients fighting lymphatic diseases, and gave a glimpse of exciting new medical advances on the horizon.William RepicciPresident and CEOLymphatic Education and Research Network (LE&RN)www.lymphaticnetwork.orgFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 20Issue 3Jun 2022 InformationCopyright 2022, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishersTo cite this article:Research Matters.Lymphatic Research and Biology.Jun 2022.352-352.http://doi.org/10.1089/lrb.2022.29123.wrPublished in Volume: 20 Issue 3: June 10, 2022PDF download

Sexual and Gender Minority Health in Cancer Research: Progress to Date

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has established significant infrastructure to support research and related activities for sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations. The foundation of the NIH SGM Research Coordinating Committee and the Sexual & Gender Minority Research Office has helped foster the pursuit of work focused on or relevant to SGM individuals across the NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices and raise awareness more broadly about the importance of this work. Despite this progress, however, there remain crucial gaps in our knowledge base on the health and well-being of SGM people, such as in the field of cancer. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has recognized the need for increased research on cancer in SGM populations and the paucity of data that currently exists. Potential future directions to address these issues are highlighted and include increased communication about pertinent research opportunities at NCI and enhanced population-level data collection to identify SGM-specific gaps in cancer knowledge and research.

Knowledge Gaps, Challenges, and Opportunities in Health and Prevention Research for Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders: A Report From the 2021 National Institutes of Health Workshop.

Asian Americans (AsA), Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders (NHPI) comprise 7.7% of the U.S. population, and AsA have had the fastest growth rate since 2010. Yet the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has invested only 0.17% of its budget on AsA and NHPI research between 1992 and 2018. More than 40 ethnic subgroups are included within AsA and NHPI (with no majority subpopulation), which are highly diverse culturally, demographically, linguistically, and socioeconomically. However, data for these groups are often aggregated, masking critical health disparities and their drivers. To address these issues, in March 2021, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, in partnership with 8 other NIH institutes, convened a multidisciplinary workshop to review current research, knowledge gaps, opportunities, barriers, and approaches for prevention research for AsA and NHPI populations. The workshop covered 5 domains: 1) sociocultural, environmental, psychological health, and lifestyle dimensions; 2) metabolic disorders; 3) cardiovascular and lung diseases; 4) cancer; and 5) cognitive function and healthy aging. Two recurring themes emerged: Very limited data on the epidemiology, risk factors, and outcomes for most conditions are available, and most existing data are not disaggregated by subgroup, masking variation in risk factors, disease occurrence, and trajectories. Leveraging the vast phenotypic differences among AsA and NHPI groups was identified as a key opportunity to yield novel clues into etiologic and prognostic factors to inform prevention efforts and intervention strategies. Promising approaches for future research include developing collaborations with community partners, investing in infrastructure support for cohort studies, enhancing existing data sources to enable data disaggregation, and incorporating novel technology for objective measurement. Research on AsA and NHPI subgroups is urgently needed to eliminate disparities and promote health equity in these populations.