A City Surveillance System for Social Health Inequalities: The Case of Barcelona.

INTRODUCTION: In the past, health inequalities were not prioritised in the political agenda of Barcelona. The change of city government (2015) was an opportunity to develop a Surveillance System for Social Health Inequalities in the city, which is described in this article. METHODS: The design of the Surveillance System formed part of the Joint Action for Health Equity in Europe (JAHEE), funded by the European Union. Various steps were considered by the experts to set up the System: define its objectives, target population, domains and indicators, and sources of information; perform data analysis; implement and disseminate the system; define the evaluation; and perform regular data updates. RESULTS: The System considers the following domains: social determinants of health, health-related with behaviours, use of healthcare, and health outcomes, and includes eight indicators. As axes of inequality, the experts chose sex, age, social class, country of origin, and geographical area. The Surveillance System for Social Health Inequalities is presented on a website including different types of figures. CONCLUSION: The methodology used to implement the Surveillance System can be used to implement similar systems in other urban areas around the world.

Trends and inequalities in (healthy) life expectancy by neighbourhood during the COVID-19 epidemic in Barcelona.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the trend in life expectancy (LE), healthy life expectancy (HLE) and socio-economic inequalities by neighbourhood in Barcelona from the pre-pandemic period (2018-2019) to the pandemic period (2020-2021). METHOD: LE and HLE at birth were computed using the municipal register of inhabitants and quality of life (EuroQol) from the Barcelona Health Survey of 2016. Inequalities were assessed with the gap between quantiles of neighbourhood income. RESULTS: In 2020, there was a reduction in LE among men (-1.98 years) and women (-2.44) and in HLE among men (-1.44). Socio-economic inequalities in LE and HLE between neighbourhoods widened since 2019 to 2021 (LE: from 3.92 to 4.86 years for men, and from 1.30 to 3.60 for women; HLE: from 6.88 to 7.70 years for men, and from 7.85 to 9.31 for women). CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has substantially reduced LE and HLE, with larger effects among low-income neighbourhoods, especially among women.

Tendencias y desigualdades en la esperanza de vida (en buena salud) por barrios durante la epidemia de COVID-19 en Barcelona Trends and inequalities in (healthy) life expectancy by neighbourhood during the COVID-19 epidemic in Barcelona

Objetivo: Analizar la evolución de la esperanza de vida (EV), la esperanza de vida en buena salud (EVBS) y las desigualdades socioeconómicas por barrio en Barcelona desde el periodo prepandémico (2018-2019) hasta el periodo de pandemia (2020-2021). Método: Se calcularon la EV y la EVBS al nacimiento utilizando el registro municipal de habitantes y la calidad de vida (EuroQol) de la Encuesta de Salud de Barcelona de 2016. Las desigualdades se valoraron mediante la brecha entre los cuantiles de ingreso por barrios. Resultados: En 2020 hubo una reducción en la EV en los hombres (−1,98 años) y las mujeres (−2,44), y en la EVBS en los hombres (−1,44). Las desigualdades socioeconómicas en EV y EVBS por barrios se ampliaron de 2019 a 2021 (EV: de 3,92 hasta 4,86 años en hombres y de 1,30 hasta 3,60 años en mujeres;EVBS: de 6,88 hasta 7,70 años en hombres y de 7,85 hasta 9,31 años en mujeres). Conclusiones: La pandemia ha reducido sustancialmente la EV y la EVBS, con mayores efectos entre los barrios de menor renta, en especial en las mujeres.

Tackling health inequalities in a public health organization: the case of the Barcelona Public Health Agency.

BACKGROUND: Municipalities are important actors in the implementation of policies to tackle health inequalities, which requires political will, the availability of financial support, and technical and human resources. With the aim of aligning with local government political priorities, in 2017 the Barcelona Public Health Agency (Agència de Salut Pública de Barcelona, henceforth ASPB), which is responsible for the public health functions of the city, launched a strategy to improve the approach to tackling health inequalities in all its services. The objectives of this study were to show how social health inequalities were addressed in the ASPB from 2017 to 19 and to describe which actions were proposed after a participatory process aiming to create a plan to systematically incorporate health inequalities in ASPB actions. METHODS: The ASPB has 304 workers, 8 directors and 20 services or departments. Participatory methodologies were carried out: 1) semi-structured interviews with department heads (N = 12, 60%); 2) world cafe workshops open to a group of workers (N = 63, 37%); 3) a Quick and Colorful voting session open to a group of workers (N = 108, 63%); and 4) Hanlon matrix with 19 actions to be prioritized (N = 12 services, 60%). RESULTS: Semi-structured interviews and world cafe workshops provided 40 potential actions. After a step by step process of participatory prioritization, seven lines of action emerged: 1) to make progress in collaborative networking; 2) to promote policy evaluation; 3) to increase the ability of the ASPB to evaluate policies to reduce health inequalities; 4) to incorporate the axes of inequalities in all ASPB products; 5) to improve information on vulnerable groups; 6) to incorporate the gender perspective; and 7) to participate in an internal training plan to address health inequalities. CONCLUSIONS: The participation of ASPB public health professionals and staff allowed the organization to design a shared plan of actions to address health inequalities. This experience could be useful for other municipalities whose political agendas include tackling inequalities in health.

Real-world Assessment of 2879 COVID-19 Patients Treated With Monoclonal Antibody Therapy: A Propensity Score–Matched Cohort Study

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to spread globally and cause significant morbidity and mortality. Antispike protein monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy has been shown to prevent progression to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The objective of this study was to report the outcomes of high-risk, SARS-CoV-2-positive patients infused with 1 of the 3 mAb therapies available through Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Methods A total of 4328 SARS-CoV-2-positive patients who satisfied EUA criteria for eligibility for receiving mAb therapy were infused with bamlanivimab or the combination therapies bamlanivimab-etesevimab or casirivimab-imdevimab from November 22, 2020, to May 31, 2021, at 6 infusion clinics and multiple emergency departments within the 8 Houston Methodist Hospitals in Houston, Texas. The primary outcome of hospital admission within 14 and 28 days postinfusion was assessed relative to a propensity score–matched cohort, matched based on age, race/ethnicity, median income by zip code, body mass index, comorbidities, and positive polymerase chain reaction date. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit admission and mortality. Results A total of 2879 infused patients and matched controls were included in the analysis, including 1718 patients infused with bamlanivimab, 346 patients infused with bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and 815 patients infused with casirivimab-imdevimab. Hospital admission and mortality rates were significantly decreased overall in mAb-infused patients relative to matched controls. Among the infused cohort, those who received casirivimab-imdevimab had a significantly decreased rate of admission relative to the other 2 mAb therapy groups (adjusted risk ratio,0.51;P=.001). Conclusions Treatment with bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, or casirivimab-imdevimab significantly decreased the number of patients who progressed to severe COVID-19 disease and required hospitalization.

A Latent Profile Analysis of COVID-19 Trusted Sources of Information among Racial and Ethnic Minorities in South Florida.

By the spring of 2021, most of the adult U.S. population became eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Yet, by the summer of 2021, the vaccination rate stagnated. Given the immense impact COVID-19 has had on society and individuals, and the surge of new variant strains of the virus, it remains urgent to better understand barriers to vaccination, including the impact of variations in trusted sources of COVID-19 information. The goal of the present study was to conduct a cross-sectional, community-engaged, and person-centered study of trusted sources of COVID-19 information using latent profile analysis (LPA). The aims were to (1) identify the number and nature of profiles of trusted sources of COVID-19 information, and (2) determine whether the trust profiles were predictive of COVID-19 vaccination attitudes and various demographic categories. Participants included mostly racial and ethnic minority individuals (82.4%) recruited by various community-based agencies in South Florida. The LPA evidenced an optimal 3-class solution characterized by low (n = 80)-, medium (n = 147)-, and high (n = 52)-trust profiles, with high trust statistically significantly predictive of vaccination willingness. The profiles identified could be important targets for public health dissemination efforts to reduce vaccine hesitancy and increase COVID-19 vaccination uptake. The general level of trust in COVID-19 information sources was found to be an important factor in predicting COVID-19 vaccination willingness.

Remdesivir for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Versus a Cohort Receiving Standard of Care.

BACKGROUND: We compared the efficacy of the antiviral agent, remdesivir, versus standard-of-care treatment in adults with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using data from a phase 3 remdesivir trial and a retrospective cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 treated with standard of care. METHODS: GS-US-540-5773 is an ongoing phase 3, randomized, open-label trial comparing two courses of remdesivir (remdesivir-cohort). GS-US-540-5807 is an ongoing real-world, retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes in patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (non-remdesivir-cohort). Inclusion criteria were similar between studies: patients had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, were hospitalized, had oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, and had pulmonary infiltrates. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the treatment effect of remdesivir versus standard of care. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with recovery on day 14, dichotomized from a 7-point clinical status ordinal scale. A key secondary endpoint was mortality. RESULTS: After the inverse probability of treatment weighting procedure, 312 and 818 patients were counted in the remdesivir- and non-remdesivir-cohorts, respectively. At day 14, 74.4% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had recovered versus 59.0% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.03: 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-3.08, P < .001). At day 14, 7.6% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had died versus 12.5% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (aOR 0.38, 95% CI: .22-.68, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative analysis, by day 14, remdesivir was associated with significantly greater recovery and 62% reduced odds of death versus standard-of-care treatment in patients with severe COVID-19. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04292899 and EUPAS34303.

Inequities in the distribution of COVID-19: an adaptation of WHO's conceptual framework.

The COVID-19 pandemic currently affects populations worldwide. Although everyone is susceptible to the virus, there are numerous accounts of the pandemic having a greater impact on lower socioeconomic groups and minorities, which is a ubiquitous phenomenon. It is essential for public health administrations and governments to uncover and understanding these inequities to develop proper intersectoral policies to tackle this crisis. Therefore, developing a conceptual framework on this topic, describing the social mechanisms that explain the unjust distribution of the incidence and mortality of COVID-19, is a key task. The aim of this paper is to adapt the framework on social determinants of health from the World Health Organization to the specifics of COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, it identifies and explains the structural and intermediate determinants involved in this pandemic, and adds some new elements (such as the role of the oppression systems and communication) which may help to understand, and ultimately tackle, social inequities in COVID-19 distribution.

Desigualdades en la distribución de la COVID-19: una adaptación del marco conceptual de la OMS Inequities in the distribution of COVID-19: an adaptation of WHO’s conceptual framework

La pandemia de COVID-19 afecta actualmente a poblaciones de todo el mundo. Aunque todas las personas son susceptibles de contraer la enfermedad, hay numerosos argumentos de que la pandemia tiene un mayor impacto en los grupos socioeconómicos más desfavorecidos y en las minorías, lo que es un fenómeno omnipresente. Es esencial que las Administraciones de salud pública y los gobiernos comprendan las desigualdades para desarrollar políticas intersectoriales adecuadas para hacer frente a esta crisis. Por lo tanto, es clave desarrollar un marco conceptual sobre este tema, que describa los mecanismos sociales que explican la injusta distribución de la incidencia y la mortalidad de la COVID-19. El objetivo de este trabajo es adaptar el marco sobre determinantes sociales de la salud de la Organización Mundial de la Salud a las particularidades de la pandemia de COVID-19, identificar y explicar los determinantes estructurales e intermedios implicados en esta pandemia, así como añadir algunos elementos nuevos (como el papel de los sistemas de opresión y la comunicación) que pueden ayudar a comprender, y en última instancia a abordar, las desigualdades sociales en la distribución de la COVID-19.

Remdesivir Versus Standard-of-Care for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection: An Analysis of 28-Day Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been shown to shorten time to recovery and improve clinical outcomes in randomized trials. METHODS: This was the final day 28 comparative analysis of data from a phase 3, randomized, open-label study comparing 2 remdesivir regimens (5 vs 10 days, combined for this analysis [remdesivir cohort]) and a real-world retrospective longitudinal cohort study of patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (nonremdesivir cohort). Eligible patients, aged ≥18 years, had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, with pulmonary infiltrates. Propensity score matching (up to 1:10 ratio) was used to ensure comparable populations. We assessed day 14 clinical recovery (determined using a 7-point ordinal scale) and day 28 all-cause mortality (coprimary endpoints). RESULTS: A total of 368 (remdesivir) and 1399 (nonremdesivir) patients were included in the matched analysis. The day 14 clinical recovery rate was significantly higher among the remdesivir versus the nonremdesivir cohort (65.2% vs 57.1%; odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.90; P = 0.002). The day 28 mortality rate was significantly lower in the remdesivir cohort versus the nonremdesivir cohort (12.0% vs 16.2%; OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-.95; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir was associated with significantly higher rates of day 14 clinical recovery, and lower day 28 mortality, compared with standard-of-care treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. These data, taken together, support the use of remdesivir to improve clinical recovery and decrease mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Patients with Convalescent Plasma.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, has spread globally, and no proven treatments are available. Convalescent plasma therapy has been used with varying degrees of success to treat severe microbial infections for >100 years. Patients (n = 25) with severe and/or life-threatening COVID-19 disease were enrolled at the Houston Methodist hospitals from March 28, 2020, to April 14, 2020. Patients were transfused with convalescent plasma, obtained from donors with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection who had recovered. The primary study outcome was safety, and the secondary outcome was clinical status at day 14 after transfusion. Clinical improvement was assessed on the basis of a modified World Health Organization six-point ordinal scale and laboratory parameters. Viral genome sequencing was performed on donor and recipient strains. At day 7 after transfusion with convalescent plasma, nine patients had at least a one-point improvement in clinical scale, and seven of those were discharged. By day 14 after transfusion, 19 (76%) patients had at least a one-point improvement in clinical status, and 11 were discharged. No adverse events as a result of plasma transfusion were observed. Whole genome sequencing data did not identify a strain genotype-disease severity correlation. The data indicate that administration of convalescent plasma is a safe treatment option for those with severe COVID-19 disease.