[Prioritization of health resources in contexts of scarcity. SESPAS Report 2022]. / Priorización de recursos sanitarios en contextos de escasez. Informe SESPAS 2022.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a clinical challenge, but also a legal and bioethical one. These three fundamental pillars are developed in the approach to prioritizing health resources in pandemic, clinical criteria, corresponding legal framework and applicable ethical principles. Initially, clinical criteria were applied to identify patients with the best survival prognosis, combining a clinical evaluation and the use of short-term and long-term prognostic variables. But the decision to prioritize the care of one patient over another has a legal-political burden, which poses a risk of falling into discrimination since fundamental rights are at stake. The prioritization criteria must be based on principles that reflect as a vehicle philosophy that which we have constitutionally assumed as a social and democratic State of Law, which did not respond to utilitarianism but to personalism. Any philosophy of resource distribution must bear in mind the scientific and constitutional perspective and, with them, those of fundamental rights and bioethical principles. In the prioritization of resources, ethical principles must be consolidated such as respect for the human dignity, the principle of necessity (equal need, equal access to the resource), the principle of equity (which advises prioritizing the most vulnerable population groups), transparency (fundamental in society's trust) and the principle of reciprocity (which requires protecting the sectors of the population that take more risks), among others.

COVID-19 Vaccination of Individuals with Down Syndrome-Data from the Trisomy 21 Research Society Survey on Safety, Efficacy, and Factors Associated with the Decision to Be Vaccinated.

Individuals with Down syndrome (DS) are among the groups with the highest risk for severe COVID-19. Better understanding of the efficacy and risks of COVID-19 vaccines for individuals with DS may help improve uptake of vaccination. The T21RS COVID-19 Initiative launched an international survey to obtain information on safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines for individuals with DS. De-identified survey data collected between March and December 2021 were analyzed. Of 2172 individuals with DS, 1973 (91%) had received at least one vaccine dose (57% BNT162b2), 107 (5%) were unvaccinated by choice, and 92 (4%) were unvaccinated for other reasons. Most participants had either no side effects (54%) or mild ones such as pain at the injection site (29%), fatigue (12%), and fever (7%). Severe side effects occurred in <0.5% of participants. About 1% of the vaccinated individuals with DS contracted COVID-19 after vaccination, and all recovered. Individuals with DS who were unvaccinated by choice were more likely to be younger, previously recovered from COVID-19, and also unvaccinated against other recommended vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be safe for individuals with DS and effective in terms of resulting in minimal breakthrough infections and milder disease outcomes among fully vaccinated individuals with DS.

Comparison of COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 Pneumonia in Down Syndrome.

Whether the increased risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization and death observed in Down syndrome (DS) are disease specific or also occur in individuals with DS and non-COVID-19 pneumonias is unknown. This retrospective cohort study compared COVID-19 cases in persons with DS hospitalized in Spain reported to the Trisomy 21 Research Society COVID-19 survey (n = 86) with admissions for non-COVID-19 pneumonias from a retrospective clinical database of the Spanish Ministry of Health (n = 2832 patients). In-hospital mortality rates were significantly higher for COVID-19 patients (26.7% vs. 9.4%), especially among individuals over 40 and patients with obesity, dementia, and/or epilepsy. The mean length of stay of deceased patients with COVID-19 was significantly shorter than in those with non-COVID-19 pneumonias. The rate of admission to an ICU in patients with DS and COVID-19 (4.3%) was significantly lower than that reported for the general population with COVID-19. Our findings confirm that acute SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to higher mortality than non-COVID-19 pneumonias in individuals with DS, especially among adults over 40 and those with specific comorbidities. However, differences in access to respiratory support might also account for some of the heightened mortality of individuals with DS with COVID-19.

Should healthcare workers be prioritised during the COVID-19 pandemic? A view from Madrid and New York.

While COVID-19 has generated a massive burden of illness worldwide, healthcare workers (HCWs) have been disproportionately exposed to SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus infection. During the so-called 'first wave', infection rates among this population group have ranged between 10% and 20%, raising as high as one in every four COVID-19 patients in Spain at the peak of the crisis. Now that many countries are already dealing with new waves of COVID-19 cases, a potential competition between HCW and non-HCW patients for scarce resources can still be a likely clinical scenario. In this paper, we address the question of whether HCW who become ill with COVID-19 should be prioritised in diagnostic, treatment or resource allocation protocols. We will evaluate some of the proposed arguments both in favour and against the prioritisation of HCW and also consider which clinical circumstances might warrant prioritising HCW and why could it be ethically appropriate to do so. We conclude that prioritising HCW's access to protective equipment, diagnostic tests or even prophylactic or therapeutic drug regimes and vaccines might be ethically defensible. However, prioritising HCWs to receive intensive care unit (ICU) beds or ventilators is a much more nuanced decision, in which arguments such as instrumental value or reciprocity might not be enough, and economic and systemic values will need to be considered.