Global Association of COVID-19 Pandemic Measures with Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IMPORTANCE: The COVID-19 pandemic has put a serious strain on health services, including cancer treatment. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the changes in cancer treatment worldwide during the first phase of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. DATA SOURCES: Pubmed, Proquest, and Scopus databases were searched comprehensively for articles published between 1 January 2020 and 12 December 2021, in order to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis conducted following the PRISMA statement. STUDY SELECTION: Studies and articles that reported data on the number of or variation in cancer treatments between the pandemic and pre-pandemic periods, comprising oncological surgery, radiotherapy, and systemic therapies, were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted from two pairs of independent reviewers. The weighted average of the percentage variation was calculated between the two periods to assess the change in the number of cancer treatments performed during the pandemic. Stratified analyses were performed by type of treatment, geographic area, time period, study setting, and type of cancer. RESULTS: Among the 47 articles retained, we found an overall reduction of -18.7% (95% CI, -24.1 to -13.3) in the total number of cancer treatments administered during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the previous periods. Surgical treatment had a larger decrease compared to medical treatment (-33.9% versus -12.6%). For all three types of treatments, we identified a U-shaped temporal trend during the entire period January-October 2020. Significant decreases were also identified for different types of cancer, in particular for skin cancer (-34.7% [95% CI, -46.8 to -22.5]) and for all geographic areas, in particular, Asia (-42.1% [95% CI, -49.6 to -34.7]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The interruption, delay, and modifications to cancer treatment due to the COVID-19 pandemic are expected to alter the quality of care and patient outcomes.

How to fairly allocate scarce medical resources? Controversial preferences of healthcare professionals with different personal characteristics.

The scarcity of medical resources is widely recognized, and therefore priority setting is inevitable. This study examines whether Portuguese healthcare professionals (physicians vs nurses): (i) share the moral guidance proposed by ethicists and (ii) attitudes toward prioritization criteria vary among individual and professional characteristics. A sample of 254 healthcare professionals were confronted with hypothetical prioritization scenarios involving two patients distinguished by personal or health characteristics. Descriptive statistics and parametric analyses were performed to evaluate and compare the adherence of both groups of healthcare professionals regarding 10 rationing criteria: waiting time, treatment prognosis measured in life expectancy and quality of life, severity of health conditions measured in pain and immediate risk of dying, age discrimination measured in favoring the young over older and favoring the youngest over the young, merit evaluated positively or negatively, and parenthood. The findings show a slight adherence to the criteria. Waiting time and patient pain were the conditions considered fairer by respondents in contrast with the ethicists normative. Preferences for distributive justice vary by professional group and among participants with different political orientations, rationing experience, years of experience, and level of satisfaction with the NHS. Decision-makers should consider the opinion of ethicists, but also those of healthcare professionals to legitimize explicit guidelines.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine Prioritization in Low- and Middle-Income Countries May Justifiably Depart From High-Income Countries' Age Priorities.

In high-income countries that were first to roll out coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, older adults have thus far usually been prioritized for these vaccines over younger adults. Age-based priority primarily resulted from interpreting evidence available at the time, which indicated that vaccinating the elderly first would minimize COVID-19 deaths and hospitalizations. The World Health Organization counsels a similar approach for all countries. This paper argues that some low- and middle-income countries that are short of COVID-19 vaccine doses might be justified in revising this approach and instead prioritizing certain younger persons when allocating current vaccines or future variant-specific vaccines.

A catalogue of tools and variables from crisis and routine care to support decision-making about allocation of intensive care beds and ventilator treatment during pandemics: Scoping review.

PURPOSE: This scoping review sought to identify objective factors to assist clinicians and policy-makers in making consistent, objective and ethically sound decisions about resource allocation when healthcare rationing is inevitable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Review of guidelines and tools used in ICUs, hospital wards and emergency departments on how to best allocate intensive care beds and ventilators either during routine care or developed during previous epidemics, and association with patient outcomes during and after hospitalisation. RESULTS: Eighty publications from 20 countries reporting accuracy or validity of prognostic tools/algorithms, or significant correlation between prognostic variables and clinical outcomes met our eligibility criteria: twelve pandemic guidelines/triage protocols/consensus statements, twenty-two pandemic algorithms, and 46 prognostic tools/variables from non-crisis situations. Prognostic indicators presented here can be combined to create locally-relevant triage algorithms for clinicians and policy makers deciding about allocation of ICU beds and ventilators during a pandemic. No consensus was found on the ethical issues to incorporate in the decision to admit or triage out of intensive care. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a unique reference intended as a discussion starter for clinicians and policy makers to consider formalising an objective a locally-relevant triage consensus document that enhances confidence in decision-making during healthcare rationing of critical care and ventilator resources.

Operationalizing Ethical Guidance for Ventilator Allocation in Minnesota: Saving the Most Lives or Exacerbating Health Disparities?

A statewide working group in Minnesota created a ventilator allocation scoring system in anticipation of functioning under a Crisis Standards of Care declaration. The scoring system was intended for patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019. There was disagreement about whether the scoring system might exacerbate health disparities and about whether the score should include age. We measured the relationship of ventilator scores to in-hospital and 3-month mortality. We analyzed our findings in the context of ethical and legal guidance for the triage of scarce resources. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Multihospital within a single healthcare system. PATIENTS: Five-hundred four patients emergently intubated and admitted to the ICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The Ventilator Allocation Score was positively associated with higher mortality (p < 0.0001). The 3-month mortality rate for patients with a score of 6 or higher was 96% (42/44 patients). Age was positively associated with mortality. The 3-month mortality rate for patients 80 and older with scores of 4 or greater was 93% (40/43 patients). Of patients assigned a score of 5, those with end stage renal disease had lower mortality than patients without end stage renal disease although the difference did not achieve statistical significance (n = 27; 25% vs 58%; p = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: The Ventilator Allocation Score can accurately identify patients with high rates of short-term mortality. However, these high mortality patients only represent 27% of all the patients who died, limiting the utility of the score for allocation of scarce resources. The score may unfairly prioritize older patients and inadvertently exacerbate racial health disparities through the inclusion of specific comorbidities such as end stage renal disease. Triage frameworks that include age should be considered. Purposeful efforts must be taken to ensure that triage protocols do not perpetuate or exacerbate prevailing inequities. Further work on the allocation of scarce resources in critical care settings would benefit from consensus on the primary ethical objective.

Scarce Resource Allocation in a Pandemic: A Protocol to Promote Equity, Timeliness, and Transparency.

Shortages of equipment, medication, and staff under coronavirus disease 2019 may force hospitals to make wrenching decisions. Although bioethical guidance is available, published procedures for decision-making processes to resolve the time-sensitive conflicts are rare. Failure to establish decision-making procedures before scarcities arise exposes clinicians to moral distress and potential legal liability, entrenches existing systemic biases, and leaves hospitals without processes to guarantee transparency and consistency in the application of ethical guidelines. Formal institutional processes can reduce the panic, inequity, and irresolution that arise from confronting ethical conflicts under duress. Drawing on expertise in critical care medicine, bioethics, and political science, we propose a decision-making protocol to ensure fairness in the resolution of conflict, timely decision-making, and accountability to improve system response.

Reflective disequilibrium: a critical evaluation of the complete lives framework for healthcare rationing.

One prominent view in recent literature on resource allocation is Persad, Emanuel and Wertheimer's complete lives framework for the rationing of lifesaving healthcare interventions (CLF). CLF states that we should prioritise the needs of individuals who have had less opportunity to experience the events that characterise a complete life. Persad et al argue that their system is the product of a successful process of reflective equilibrium-a philosophical methodology whereby theories, principles and considered judgements are balanced with each other and revised until we achieve an acceptable coherence between our various beliefs. Yet I argue that many of the principles and intuitions underpinning CLF conflict with each other, and that Persad et al have failed to achieve an acceptable coherence between them. I focus on three tensions in particular: the conflict between the youngest first principle and Persad et al's investment refinement; the conflict between current medical need and a concern for lifetime equality; and the tension between adopting an objective measure of complete lives and accommodating for differences in life narratives.

Ethical rationing of healthcare resources during COVID-19 outbreak: Review.

While rationing of healthcare resources is inevitable even in the most developed economies, particularly on the wake of a pandemic, ethical basis of its implementation needs to be reviewed. With sudden and huge demand for drugs and medical supplies and equipments, the need for rationing arises and thus the concept becomes unavoidable. Thus, we aimed to review and analyse on the key ethical issues in the concept of healthcare rationing. Our search in various PubMed databases resulted articles explaining on the concept of strategizing the priorities based on universal ethical principles of justice, benevolence and ensuring equality rather than wealth, power, geographical location or other personal biases. Concrete and pragmatic regulations and guidelines for systematic rationing have to be framed and followed. In addition, physicians being sensitive and empowered on deciding bedside rationing in coordination with the recommendations of ethicists and healthcare officials, will ensure fair practice.

Academic During a Pandemic: Reflections from a Medical Student on Learning During SARS-CoVid-2.

The current pandemic represents unprecedented times in medical education. In addition to the already strenuous demands of medical school, the SARS-CoVid-2 pandemic introduced a new source of ethical and moral pressure on students. Medical students navigated finishing their didactic years in isolation and initiated their clinical rotations in a pandemic environment. Many medical students found themselves in the frustrating position of being non-essential healthcare workers but still wanting to help. This paper follows the personal and shared experiences of a second-year medical student transitioning to their third year. In particular, this paper examines the author's personal ties to the disability community through their family, and how this impacted their approach in striving to aid in the pandemic.

We Need to Talk About Rationing: The Need to Normalize Discussion About Healthcare Rationing in a Post COVID-19 Era.

The global COVID-19 pandemic has brought the issue of rationing finite healthcare resources to the fore. There has been much academic debate, media attention, and conversation in the homes of everyday individuals about the allocation of medical resources, diagnostic testing kits, ventilators, and personal protective equipment. Yet decisions to prioritize treatment for some individuals over others occur implicitly and explicitly in everyday practices. The pandemic has propelled the socially taboo and unavoidably prickly issue of healthcare rationing into the public spotlight-and as such, healthcare rationing demands ongoing public attention and transparent discussion. This article concludes that in the aftermath of COVID-19, policymakers should work towards normalizing rationing discussions by engaging in transparent and honest debate in the wider community and public domain. Further, injecting greater openness and objectivity into rationing decisions might go some way towards dismantling the societal taboo surrounding rationing in healthcare.

Operational Recommendations for Scarce Resource Allocation in a Public Health Crisis.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic may require rationing of various medical resources if demand exceeds supply. Theoretical frameworks for resource allocation have provided much needed ethical guidance, but hospitals still need to address objective practicalities and legal vetting to operationalize scarce resource allocation schemata. To develop operational scarce resource allocation processes for public health catastrophes, including the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, five health systems in Maryland formed a consortium-with diverse expertise and representation-representing more than half of all hospitals in the state. Our efforts built on a prior statewide community engagement process that determined the values and moral reference points of citizens and health-care professionals regarding the allocation of ventilators during a public health catastrophe. Through a partnership of health systems, we developed a scarce resource allocation framework informed by citizens' values and by general expert consensus. Allocation schema for mechanical ventilators, ICU resources, blood components, novel therapeutics, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and renal replacement therapies were developed. Creating operational algorithms for each resource posed unique challenges; each resource's varying nature and underlying data on benefit prevented any single algorithm from being universally applicable. The development of scarce resource allocation processes must be iterative, legally vetted, and tested. We offer our processes to assist other regions that may be faced with the challenge of rationing health-care resources during public health catastrophes.

When predictions are used to allocate scarce health care resources: three considerations for models in the era of Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The need for life-saving interventions such as mechanical ventilation may threaten to outstrip resources during the Covid-19 pandemic. Allocation of these resources to those most likely to benefit can be supported by clinical prediction models. The ethical and practical considerations relevant to predictions supporting decisions about microallocation are distinct from those that inform shared decision-making in ways important for model design. MAIN BODY: We review three issues of importance for microallocation: (1) Prediction of benefit (or of medical futility) may be technically very challenging; (2) When resources are scarce, calibration is less important for microallocation than is ranking to prioritize patients, since capacity determines thresholds for resource utilization; (3) The concept of group fairness, which is not germane in shared decision-making, is of central importance in microallocation. Therefore, model transparency is important. CONCLUSION: Prediction supporting allocation of life-saving interventions should be explicit, data-driven, frequently updated and open to public scrutiny. This implies a preference for simple, easily understood and easily applied prognostic models.