Digital public health interventions at scale: The impact of social media advertising on beliefs and outcomes related to COVID vaccines.

Public health organizations increasingly use social media advertising campaigns in pursuit of public health goals. In this paper, we evaluate the impact of about $40 million of social media advertisements that were run and experimentally tested on Facebook and Instagram, aimed at increasing COVID-19 vaccination rates in the first year of the vaccine roll-out. The 819 randomized experiments in our sample were run by 174 different public health organizations and collectively reached 2.1 billion individuals in 15 languages. We find that these campaigns are, on average, effective at influencing self-reported beliefs-shifting opinions close to 1% at baseline with a cost per influenced person of about $3.41. Combining this result with an estimate of the relationship between survey outcomes and vaccination rates derived from observational data yields an estimated cost per additional vaccination of about $5.68. There is further evidence that campaigns are especially effective at influencing users' knowledge of how to get vaccines. Our results represent, to the best of our knowledge, the largest set of online public health interventions analyzed to date.

Preparing for a Pandemic: Accelerating Vaccine Availability

Vaccinating the world’s population quickly in a pandemic has enormous health and economic benefits. We analyze the problem faced by governments in determining the scale and structure of procurement for vaccines. We analyze alternative approaches to procurement. We find that if the goal is to accelerate the vaccine delivery timetable, buyers should directly fund manufacturing capacity and shoulder most of the risk of failure, while maintaining some direct incentives for speed. We analyzed the optimal portfolio of vaccine investments for countries with different characteristics as well as the implications for international cooperation. Our analysis, considered in light of the experience of 2020, suggests lessons for future pandemics.

Ten Rules for Conducting Retrospective Pharmacoepidemiological Analyses: Example COVID-19 Study.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, pharmaceutical treatment hypotheses have abounded, each requiring careful evaluation. A randomized controlled trial generally provides the most credible evaluation of a treatment, but the efficiency and effectiveness of the trial depend on the existing evidence supporting the treatment. The researcher must therefore compile a body of evidence justifying the use of time and resources to further investigate a treatment hypothesis in a trial. An observational study can provide this evidence, but the lack of randomized exposure and the researcher's inability to control treatment administration and data collection introduce significant challenges. A proper analysis of observational health care data thus requires contributions from experts in a diverse set of topics ranging from epidemiology and causal analysis to relevant medical specialties and data sources. Here we summarize these contributions as 10 rules that serve as an end-to-end introduction to retrospective pharmacoepidemiological analyses of observational health care data using a running example of a hypothetical COVID-19 study. A detailed supplement presents a practical how-to guide for following each rule. When carefully designed and properly executed, a retrospective pharmacoepidemiological analysis framed around these rules will inform the decisions of whether and how to investigate a treatment hypothesis in a randomized controlled trial. This work has important implications for any future pandemic by prescribing what we can and should do while the world waits for global vaccine distribution.

Alpha-1 adrenergic receptor antagonists to prevent hyperinflammation and death from lower respiratory tract infection.

In severe viral pneumonia, including Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the viral replication phase is often followed by hyperinflammation, which can lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome, multi-organ failure, and death. We previously demonstrated that alpha-1 adrenergic receptor (⍺1-AR) antagonists can prevent hyperinflammation and death in mice. Here, we conducted retrospective analyses in two cohorts of patients with acute respiratory distress (ARD, n = 18,547) and three cohorts with pneumonia (n = 400,907). Federated across two ARD cohorts, we find that patients exposed to ⍺1-AR antagonists, as compared to unexposed patients, had a 34% relative risk reduction for mechanical ventilation and death (OR = 0.70, p = 0.021). We replicated these methods on three pneumonia cohorts, all with similar effects on both outcomes. All results were robust to sensitivity analyses. These results highlight the urgent need for prospective trials testing whether prophylactic use of ⍺1-AR antagonists ameliorates lower respiratory tract infection-associated hyperinflammation and death, as observed in COVID-19.

The Association Between Alpha-1 Adrenergic Receptor Antagonists and In-Hospital Mortality From COVID-19.

Effective therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are urgently needed, and pre-clinical data suggest alpha-1 adrenergic receptor antagonists (α1-AR antagonists) may be effective in reducing mortality related to hyperinflammation independent of etiology. Using a retrospective cohort design with patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare system, we use doubly robust regression and matching to estimate the association between baseline use of α1-AR antagonists and likelihood of death due to COVID-19 during hospitalization. Having an active prescription for any α1-AR antagonist (tamsulosin, silodosin, prazosin, terazosin, doxazosin, or alfuzosin) at the time of admission had a significant negative association with in-hospital mortality (relative risk reduction 18%; odds ratio 0.73; 95% CI 0.63-0.85; p ≤ 0.001) and death within 28 days of admission (relative risk reduction 17%; odds ratio 0.74; 95% CI 0.65-0.84; p ≤ 0.001). In a subset of patients on doxazosin specifically, an inhibitor of all three alpha-1 adrenergic receptors, we observed a relative risk reduction for death of 74% (odds ratio 0.23; 95% CI 0.03-0.94; p = 0.028) compared to matched controls not on any α1-AR antagonist at the time of admission. These findings suggest that use of α1-AR antagonists may reduce mortality in COVID-19, supporting the need for randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials in patients with early symptomatic infection.

Association of α1-Blocker Receipt With 30-Day Mortality and Risk of Intensive Care Unit Admission Among Adults Hospitalized With Influenza or Pneumonia in Denmark.

Importance: Alpha 1-adrenergic receptor blocking agents (α1-blockers) have been reported to have protective benefits against hyperinflammation and cytokine storm syndrome, conditions that are associated with mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and other severe respiratory tract infections. However, studies of the association of α1-blockers with outcomes among human participants with respiratory tract infections are scarce. Objective: To examine the association between the receipt of α1-blockers and outcomes among adult patients hospitalized with influenza or pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study used data from Danish national registries to identify individuals 40 years and older who were hospitalized with influenza or pneumonia between January 1, 2005, and November 30, 2018, with follow-up through December 31, 2018. In the main analyses, patients currently receiving α1-blockers were compared with those not receiving α1-blockers (defined as patients with no prescription for an α1-blocker filled within 365 days before the index date) and those currently receiving 5α-reductase inhibitors. Propensity scores were used to address confounding factors and to compute weighted risks, absolute risk differences, and risk ratios. Data were analyzed from April 21 to December 21, 2020. Exposures: Current receipt of α1-blockers compared with nonreceipt of α1-blockers and with current receipt of 5α-reductase inhibitors. Main Outcomes and Measures: Death within 30 days of hospital admission and risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Results: A total of 528 467 adult patients (median age, 75.0 years; interquartile range, 64.4-83.6 years; 273 005 men [51.7%]) were hospitalized with influenza or pneumonia in Denmark between 2005 and 2018. Of those, 21 772 patients (4.1%) were currently receiving α1-blockers compared with a population of 22 117 patients not receiving α1-blockers who were weighted to the propensity score distribution of those receiving α1-blockers. In the propensity score-weighted analyses, patients receiving α1-blockers had lower 30-day mortality (15.9%) compared with patients not receiving α1-blockers (18.5%), with a corresponding risk difference of -2.7% (95% CI, -3.2% to -2.2%) and a risk ratio (RR) of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.83-0.88). The risk of ICU admission was 7.3% among patients receiving α1-blockers and 7.7% among those not receiving α1-blockers (risk difference, -0.4% [95% CI, -0.8% to 0%]; RR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-1.00]). A comparison between 18 280 male patients currently receiving α1-blockers and 18 228 propensity score-weighted male patients currently receiving 5α-reductase inhibitors indicated that those receiving α1-blockers had lower 30-day mortality (risk difference, -2.0% [95% CI, -3.4% to -0.6%]; RR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.82-0.96]) and a similar risk of ICU admission (risk difference, -0.3% [95% CI, -1.4% to 0.7%]; RR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.83-1.10]). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study's findings suggest that the receipt of α1-blockers is associated with protective benefits among adult patients hospitalized with influenza or pneumonia.

Falling living standards during the COVID-19 crisis: Quantitative evidence from nine developing countries.

Despite numerous journalistic accounts, systematic quantitative evidence on economic conditions during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic remains scarce for most low- and middle-income countries, partly due to limitations of official economic statistics in environments with large informal sectors and subsistence agriculture. We assemble evidence from over 30,000 respondents in 16 original household surveys from nine countries in Africa (Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Rwanda, Sierra Leone), Asia (Bangladesh, Nepal, Philippines), and Latin America (Colombia). We document declines in employment and income in all settings beginning March 2020. The share of households experiencing an income drop ranges from 8 to 87% (median, 68%). Household coping strategies and government assistance were insufficient to sustain precrisis living standards, resulting in widespread food insecurity and dire economic conditions even 3 months into the crisis. We discuss promising policy responses and speculate about the risk of persistent adverse effects, especially among children and other vulnerable groups.

Alpha-1 adrenergic receptor antagonists for preventing acute respiratory distress syndrome and death from cytokine storm syndrome.

In severe viral pneumonias, including Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the viral replication phase is often followed by a hyperinflammatory reaction ('cytokine storm syndrome') that leads to acute respiratory distress syndrome and death, despite maximal supportive care. Preventing hyperinflammation is key to avoiding these outcomes. We previously demonstrated that alpha-1 adrenergic receptor antagonists ($\alpha$-blockers) can prevent cytokine storm syndrome and death in mice. Here, we conduct a retrospective analysis of patients with acute respiratory distress or pneumonia (n = 13,125 and n = 108,956, respectively) from all causes; patients who were incidentally taking $\alpha$-blockers had a reduced risk of requiring ventilation (by 35% and 16%, respectively), and a reduced risk of being ventilated and dying (by 56% and 20%, respectively), compared to non-users. Beta-adrenergic receptor antagonists had no significant effects. These results highlight the urgent need for prospective trials testing whether prophylactic $\alpha$-blockers improve outcomes in diseases with a prominent hyperinflammatory component such as COVID-19.