TOPLINE:
US alcohol-related mortality rates increased from 10.7 to 21.6 per 100,000 between 1999 and 2020, with the largest rise of 3.8-fold observed in adults aged 25-34 years. Women experienced a 2.5-fold increase, while the Midwest region showed a similar rise in mortality rates.
METHODOLOGY:
Analysis utilized the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research to examine alcohol-related mortality trends from 1999 to 2020.
Researchers analyzed data from a total US population of 180,408,769 people aged 25 to 85+ years in 1999 and 226,635,013 people in 2020.
International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes were used to identify deaths with alcohol attribution, including mental and behavioral disorders, alcoholic organ damage, and alcohol-related poisoning.
TAKEAWAY:
Overall mortality rates increased from 10.7 (95% CI, 10.6-10.8) per 100,000 in 1999 to 21.6 (95% CI, 21.4-21.8) per 100,000 in 2020, representing a significant twofold increase.
Adults aged 55-64 years demonstrated both the steepest increase and highest absolute rates in both 1999 and 2020.
American Indian and Alaska Native individuals experienced the steepest increase and highest absolute rates among all racial groups.
The West region maintained the highest absolute rates in both 1999 and 2020, despite the Midwest showing the largest increase.
IN PRACTICE:
“Individuals who consume large amounts of alcohol tend to have the highest risks of total mortality as well as deaths from cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular disease deaths are predominantly due to myocardial infarction and stroke. To mitigate these risks, health providers may wish to implement screening for alcohol use in primary care and other healthcare settings. By providing brief interventions and referrals to treatment, healthcare providers would be able to achieve the early identification of individuals at risk of alcohol-related harm and offer them the support and resources they need to reduce their alcohol consumption,” wrote the authors of the study.
LIMITATIONS:
According to the authors, the cross-sectional nature of the data limits the study to descriptive analysis only, making it suitable for hypothesis generation but not hypothesis testing. While the validity and generalizability within the United States are secure due to the use of complete population data, potential bias and uncontrolled confounding may exist due to different population mixes between the two time points.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Professor Charles H. Hennekens disclosed serving as an independent scientist in an advisory role to investigators and sponsors as Chair of Data Monitoring Committees for Amgen and UBC, to the US Food and Drug Administration, and to UpToDate. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
Note: This article originally appeared on Medscape.
Commenti