The Impact of Funding Inpatient Treatments for COVID-19 on Health Equity in the United States: A Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) to evaluate how Medicare funding of inpatient COVID-19 treatments affected health equity in the United States. METHODS: A DCEA, based on an existing cost-effectiveness analysis model, was conducted from the perspective of a single US payer, Medicare. The US population was divided based on race and ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, and non-Hispanic white) and county-level social vulnerability index (5 quintile groups) into 15 equity-relevant subgroups. The baseline distribution of quality-adjusted life expectancy was estimated across the equity subgroups. Opportunity costs were estimated by converting total spend on COVID-19 inpatient treatments into health losses, expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), using base-case assumptions of an opportunity cost threshold of $150 000 per QALY gained and an equal distribution of opportunity costs across equity-relevant subgroups. RESULTS: More socially vulnerable populations received larger per capita health benefits due to higher COVID-19 incidence and baseline in-hospital mortality. The total direct medical cost of inpatient COVID-19 interventions in the United States in 2020 was estimated at $25.83 billion with an estimated net benefit of 735 569 QALYs after adjusting for opportunity costs. Funding inpatient COVID-19 treatment reduced the population-level burden of health inequality by 0.234%. Conclusions remained robust across scenario and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first DCEA to quantify the equity implications of funding COVID-19 treatments in the United States. Medicare funding of COVID-19 treatments in the United States could improve overall health while reducing existing health inequalities.

COVID-19 Vaccine Allergy Safety Track (VAS-Track) pathway: real-world outcomes on vaccination rates and antibody protection.

BACKGROUND: Misdiagnosed vaccine-related "allergies" lead to unnecessary vaccine deferrals and incomplete vaccinations, leaving patients unprotected against COVID-19. To overcome limitations and queues for Allergist assessment, the "VAS-Track" pathway was developed to evaluate patients via a multi-disciplinary triage model including nurses, non-specialists, and Allergists. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the effectiveness and safety of VAS-Track and evaluate its real-world impact in terms of vaccination rates and COVID-19 protection. METHODS: Patients referred to VAS-Track between September 2021 and March 2022 were recruited. Subgroup analysis was performed with prospective pre- and post-clinic antibody levels. RESULTS: Nurse-assisted screening identified 10,412 (76%) referrals as inappropriate. 369 patients were assessed by VAS-Track. Overall, 100% of patients were recommended to complete vaccination and 332 (90%) completed their primary series. No patients reported any significant allergic reactions following subsequent vaccination. Vaccination completion rates between patients seen by non-specialists and additional Allergist review were similar (90% vs. 89%, p = 0.617). Vaccination rates were higher among patients with prior history of immediate-type reactions (odds ratio: 2.43, p = 0.025). Subgroup analysis revealed that only 20% (56/284) of patients had seropositive COVID-19 neutralizing antibody levels (≥ 15 AU/mL) prior to VAS-Track, which increased to 92% after vaccine completion (pre-clinic antibody level 6.0 ± 13.5 AU/mL vs. post-clinic antibody level 778.8 ± 337.4 AU/mL, p > 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A multi-disciplinary allergy team was able to streamline our COVID-19 VAS services, enabling almost all patients to complete their primary series, significantly boosting antibody levels and real-world COVID-19 protection. We propose similar multidisciplinary models to be further utilized, especially in the settings with limited allergy services.

Long-term spill-over impact of COVID-19 on health and healthcare of people with non-communicable diseases: a study protocol for a population-based cohort and health economic study.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has a significant spill-over effect on people with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) over the long term, beyond the direct effect of COVID-19 infection. Evaluating changes in health outcomes, health service use and costs can provide evidence to optimise care for people with NCDs during and after the pandemic, and to better prepare outbreak responses in the future. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a population-based cohort study using electronic health records of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority (HA) CMS, economic modelling and serial cross-sectional surveys on health service use. This study includes people aged ≥18 years who have a documented diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic respiratory disease or chronic kidney disease with at least one attendance at the HA hospital or clinic between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019, and without COVID-19 infection. Changes in all-cause mortality, disease-specific outcomes, and health services use rates and costs will be assessed between pre-COVID-19 and-post-COVID-19 pandemic or during each wave using an interrupted time series analysis. The long-term health economic impact of healthcare disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic will be studied using microsimulation modelling. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression and Poisson/negative binomial regression will be used to evaluate the effect of different modes of supplementary care on health outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the institutional review board of the University of Hong Kong, the HA Hong Kong West Cluster (reference number UW 21-297). The study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and international conferences.

Transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 in British Columbia's largest school district during the second half of the 2020-2021 school year.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the extent and characteristics of in-school transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and determine risk factors for in-school acquisition of COVID-19 in one of Canada's largest school districts. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all reportable cases of COVID-19 who attended a kindergarten-Grade 12 (K-12) school within the study area between January and June of the 2020-2021 school year. The acquisition source was inferred based on epidemiological data and, when available, whole genome sequencing results. Mixed effects logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors independently associated with in-school acquisition of COVID-19. RESULTS: Overall, 2877 cases of COVID-19 among staff and students were included in the analysis; of those, 9.1% had evidence of in-school acquisition. The median cluster size was two cases (interquartile range: 1). Risk factors for in-school acquisition included being male (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17-2.17), being a staff member (aOR: 2.62, 95% CI: 1.64-4.21) and attending or working in an independent school (aOR: 2.28, 95% CI: 1.13-4.62). CONCLUSION: In-school acquisition of COVID-19 was uncommon during the study period. Risk factors were identified in order to support the implementation of mitigation strategies that can reduce transmission further.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Déterminer l'étendue et les caractéristiques de la transmission de la SRAS-CoV-2 en milieu scolaire, et déterminer les facteurs de risque de l'acquisition de la COVID-19 dans l'un des plus larges arrondissements scolaires du Canada. MéTHODES: Nous avons mené un examen rétrospectif des dossiers de tous les cas signalés de COVID-19 ayant fréquenté une école de niveau élémentaire, primaire ou secondaire dans la zone à l'étude entre janvier et juin de l'année scolaire 2020-2021. La source d'acquisition était inférée sur la base des données épidémiologiques et, lorsque disponibles, les résultats de séquençage du génome entier. Nous avons eu recours à des régressions logistiques multiniveaux pour identifier les facteurs indépendamment associés avec l'acquisition de la COVID-19 en milieu scolaire. RéSULTATS: Au total, 2 877 cas de COVID-19 parmi les employés et les élèves ont été inclus dans l'analyse; de ceux-ci, 9,1 % avaient acquis l'infection en milieu scolaire. La grosseur médiane des agrégats était de deux cas (écart interquartile : 1). Les risques facteurs de l'acquisition en milieu scolaire incluaient le fait d'être de sexe masculin (rapport de cotes ajusté [RCa] : 1,59, intervalle de confiance [IC] de 95% : 1,17-2,17), être un membre du personnel (RCa : 2,62, IC de 95% : 1,64-4,21) et fréquenter ou travailler dans une école indépendante (RCa : 2,28, IC de 95% : 1,13-4,62). CONCLUSION: Nos résultats suggèrent que l'acquisition de la COVID-19 en milieu scolaire était peu commune pendant la période d'étude. Des facteurs de risque ont été identifiés afin de supporter l'implémentation de mesures de contrôle pouvant réduire davantage la transmission.

The Role of the Allergist in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine Allergy Safety: A Pilot Study on a "Hub-and-Spoke" Model for Population-Wide Allergy Service.

BACKGROUND: Hong Kong started its coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination program in February 2021. A territory-wide Vaccine Allergy Safety (VAS) clinic was set up to assess individuals deemed at "higher risk" of COVID-19 vaccine-associated allergies. A novel "hub-and-spoke" model was piloted to tackle the overwhelming demand of services by allowing nonallergists to conduct assessment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of the VAS hub-and-spoke model for allergy assessment. METHODS: Records of patients attending the VAS hub-and-spoke Clinics between March and August 2021 were reviewed (n = 2725). We studied the overall results between the Hub (allergist led) and Spoke (nonallergist led) Clinics. The Hub and the Hong Kong West Cluster Spoke Clinic were selected for subgroup analysis as they saw the largest number of patients (n = 1411). RESULTS: A total of 2725 patients were assessed under the VAS hub-and-spoke model. Overall, 2324 patients (85.3%) were recommended to proceed with vaccination. Allergists recommended significantly more patients for vaccination than nonallergists (odds ratio = 21.58; P < .001). Subgroup analysis revealed that 881 of 1055 (83.5%) patients received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccination safely after assessment. Among those recommended vaccination, more patients assessed by allergists received their first dose of vaccination (odds ratio = 4.18; P < .001). CONCLUSION: The hub-and-spoke model has proven to be successful for the vaccination campaign. This study has illustrated the crucial role of allergists in countering vaccine hesitancy. Results from the study revealed considerable differences in outcomes between allergist-led and nonallergist-led clinics. Precise reasons for these differences warrant further evaluation. We are hopeful that the hub-and-spoke model can be similarly adapted for other allergist-integrative services in the future.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Chronic Disease Care in India, China, Hong Kong, Korea, and Vietnam.

This study aims to provide evidence on how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted chronic disease care in diverse settings across Asia. Cross-sectional surveys were conducted to assess the health, social, and economic consequences of the pandemic in India, China, Hong Kong, Korea, and Vietnam using standardized questionnaires. Overall, 5672 participants with chronic conditions were recruited from five countries. The mean age of the participants ranged from 55.9 to 69.3 years. A worsened economic status during the COVID-19 pandemic was reported by 19% to 59% of the study participants. Increased difficulty in accessing care was reported by 8% to 24% of participants, except Vietnam: 1.6%. The worsening of diabetes symptoms was reported by 5.6% to 14.6% of participants, except Vietnam: 3%. In multivariable regression analyses, increasing age, female participants, and worsened economic status were suggestive of increased difficulty in access to care, but these associations mostly did not reach statistical significance. In India and China, rural residence, worsened economic status and self-reported hypertension were statistically significantly associated with increased difficulty in access to care or worsening of diabetes symptoms. These findings suggest that the pandemic disproportionately affected marginalized and rural populations in Asia, negatively affecting population health beyond those directly suffering from COVID-19.