The management of emergency spinal surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy.

AIMS: The current pandemic caused by COVID-19 is the biggest challenge for national health systems for a century. While most medical resources are allocated to treat COVID-19 patients, several non-COVID-19 medical emergencies still need to be treated, including vertebral fractures and spinal cord compression. The aim of this paper is to report the early experience and an organizational protocol for emergency spinal surgery currently being used in a large metropolitan area by an integrated team of orthopaedic surgeons and neurosurgeons. METHODS: An organizational model is presented based on case centralization in hub hospitals and early management of surgical cases to reduce hospital stay. Data from all the patients admitted for emergency spinal surgery from the beginning of the outbreak were prospectively collected and compared to data from patients admitted for the same reason in the same time span in the previous year, and treated by the same integrated team. RESULTS: A total of 19 patients (11 males and eight females, with a mean age of 49.9 years (14 to 83)) were admitted either for vertebral fracture or spinal cord compression in a 19-day period, compared to the ten admitted in the previous year. No COVID-19 patients were treated. The mean time between admission and surgery was 1.7 days, significantly lower than 6.8 days the previous year (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The structural organization and the management protocol we describe allowed us to reduce the time to surgery and ultimately hospital stay, thereby maximizing the already stretched medical resources available. We hope that our early experience can be of value to the medical communities that will soon be in the same emergency situation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6):671-676.

An Auxiliary Medical Education: The Evolution of a Medical Student-Founded Organization in Response to the COVID-19 Era Personal Protective Equipment Shortage.

At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, many medical students were removed from clinical duties and had their education put on hold. Some found novel ways to join efforts to respond to the pandemic. Georgetown University School of Medicine medical students created Medical Supply Drive (MSD or MedSupplyDrive), a 501(c)(3), on March 17, 2020, in response to the national shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). This article reviews the formation of a national response to the pandemic, the methods employed to distribute PPE, and the results of MSD's work from March 17, 2020, through June 20, 2020. A focus was placed on equitable distribution, both within local regions and on the national scale, by distinguishing COVID-19 hotspots, including Native American reservations. As of June 20, 2020, over half a million items were donated, with 1,001 deliveries made to 423 hospitals, 182 clinics, 175 long-term care facilities, 25 homeless shelters, 32 public health departments, and 164 other facilities. From 46 states and the District of Columbia, 1,514 individuals volunteered, and 202 signed up as regional coordinators. MSD formed 2 international organizations, MedSupplyDrive UK and MedSupplyDrive Scotland, and established U.S.-based partnerships with 19 different PPE and aid organizations. MSD gained local, national, and international media attention with over 45 interviews conducted about the organization. While the pandemic temporarily disrupted formal medical education, MSD empowered medical students to actively learn about the needs of their communities and organize ways to address them while incorporating these values into their professional identities. The framework that this organization employed also provides a potential model for future disaster relief efforts in times of crisis. MSD hopes to motivate budding physicians to collaborate and play an active role in tackling public health inequities beyond hospitals and within the communities students will one day serve.

Advocating for Greater Inclusion of Marginalized and Forgotten Populations in COVID19 Vaccine Rollouts.

Objectives: Many countries recently approved a number of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. There is therefore growing optimism around the world about their future availability and effectiveness. However, supplies are likely to be limited and restricted to certain categories of individuals, at least initially. Thus, governments have suggested prioritization schemes to allocate such limited supplies. The majority of such schemes are said to be developed to safeguard the weakest sections of society; that is, healthcare personnel and the elderly. Methods: In this work, we analyse three case studies (incarcerated people; homeless people, asylum seekers and undocumented migrants). We propose a bioethical argument that frames the discussion by describing the salient facts about each of the three populations and then argue that these characteristics entail inclusion and prioritization in the queue for vaccination in their country of residence. Results: Through an analysis informed by ethical considerations revolving around the concepts of fairness and equality, we try to raise awareness of these important issues among decision makers. Conclusion: Our goal is to advocate for the development of more inclusive policies and frameworks in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allocation and, in general, in all scenarios in which there is a shortage of optimal care and treatments.

Treatment of moderate to severe respiratory COVID-19: a cost-utility analysis.

Despite COVID-19's significant morbidity and mortality, considering cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic treatment strategies for hospitalized patients remains critical to support healthcare resource decisions within budgetary constraints. As such, we calculated the cost-effectiveness of using remdesivir and dexamethasone for moderate to severe COVID-19 respiratory infections using the United States health care system as a representative model. A decision analytic model modelled a base case scenario of a 60-year-old patient admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Patients requiring oxygen were considered moderate severity, and patients with severe COVID-19 required intubation with intensive care. Strategies modelled included giving remdesivir to all patients, remdesivir in only moderate and only severe infections, dexamethasone to all patients, dexamethasone in severe infections, remdesivir in moderate/dexamethasone in severe infections, and best supportive care. Data for the model came from the published literature. The time horizon was 1 year; no discounting was performed due to the short duration. The perspective was of the payer in the United States health care system. Supportive care for moderate/severe COVID-19 cost $11,112.98 with 0.7155 quality adjusted life-year (QALY) obtained. Using dexamethasone for all patients was the most-cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $980.84/QALY; all remdesivir strategies were more costly and less effective. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed dexamethasone for all patients was most cost-effective in 98.3% of scenarios. Dexamethasone for moderate-severe COVID-19 infections was the most cost-effective strategy and would have minimal budget impact. Based on current data, remdesivir is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for COVID-19.

Association of COVID-19 Hospitalization Volume and Case Growth at US Hospitals with Patient Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Whether the volume of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalizations is associated with outcomes has important implications for the organization of hospital care both during this pandemic and future novel and rapidly evolving high-volume conditions. METHODS: We identified COVID-19 hospitalizations at US hospitals in the American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry with ≥10 cases between January and August 2020. We evaluated the association of COVID-19 hospitalization volume and weekly case growth indexed to hospital bed capacity, with hospital risk-standardized in-hospital case-fatality rate (rsCFR). RESULTS: There were 85 hospitals with 15,329 COVID-19 hospitalizations, with a median hospital case volume was 118 (interquartile range, 57, 252) and median growth rate of 2 cases per 100 beds per week but varied widely (interquartile range: 0.9 to 4.5). There was no significant association between overall hospital COVID-19 case volume and rsCFR (rho, 0.18, P = .09). However, hospitals with more rapid COVID-19 case-growth had higher rsCFR (rho, 0.22, P = 0.047), increasing across case growth quartiles (P trend = .03). Although there were no differences in medical treatments or intensive care unit therapies (mechanical ventilation, vasopressors), the highest case growth quartile had 4-fold higher odds of above median rsCFR, compared with the lowest quartile (odds ratio, 4.00; 1.15 to 13.8, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: An accelerated case growth trajectory is a marker of hospitals at risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, identifying sites that may be targets for influx of additional resources or triage strategies. Early identification of such hospital signatures is essential as our health system prepares for future health challenges.

Changes in Test Volumes During Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Laboratory Stewardship Opportunity.

CONTEXT.­: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) changed the dynamics of health care delivery, shifting patient priorities and deferring care perceived as less urgent. Delayed or eliminated care may place patients at risk for adverse outcomes. OBJECTIVE.­: To identify opportunities for laboratory test stewardship to close potential gaps in care created by the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN.­: The study was a retrospective time series design examining laboratory services received before and during the COVID-19 pandemic at a large metropolitan health system serving women and children. RESULTS.­: Laboratory test volumes displayed 3 distinct patterns: (1) a decrease during state lockdown, followed by near-complete or complete recovery; (2) no change; and (3) a persistent decrease. Tests that diagnose or monitor chronic illness recovered only partially. For example, hemoglobin A1c initially declined 80% (from 2232 for April 2019 to 452 for April 2020), and there was a sustained 16% drop (28-day daily average 117 at August 30, 2019, to 98 at August 30, 2020) 4 months later. Blood lead dropped 39% (from 2158 for April 2019 to 1314 for April 2020) and remained 23% lower after 4 months. CONCLUSIONS.­: The pandemic has taken a toll on patients, practitioners, and health systems. Laboratory professionals have access to data that can provide insight into clinical practice and identify pandemic-related gaps in care. During the pandemic, the biggest patient threat is underuse, particularly among tests to manage chronic diseases and for traditionally underserved communities and people of color. A laboratory stewardship program, focused on peri-pandemic care, positions pathologists and other laboratory professionals as health care leaders with a commitment to appropriate, equitable, and efficient care.

Optimal SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allocation using real-time attack-rate estimates in Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

BACKGROUND: When three SARS-CoV-2 vaccines came to market in Europe and North America in the winter of 2020-2021, distribution networks were in a race against a major epidemiological wave of SARS-CoV-2 that began in autumn 2020. Rapid and optimized vaccine allocation was critical during this time. With 95% efficacy reported for two of the vaccines, near-term public health needs likely require that distribution is prioritized to the elderly, health care workers, teachers, essential workers, and individuals with comorbidities putting them at risk of severe clinical progression. METHODS: We evaluate various age-based vaccine distributions using a validated mathematical model based on current epidemic trends in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. We allow for varying waning efficacy of vaccine-induced immunity, as this has not yet been measured. We account for the fact that known COVID-positive cases may not have been included in the first round of vaccination. And, we account for age-specific immune patterns in both states at the time of the start of the vaccination program. Our analysis assumes that health systems during winter 2020-2021 had equal staffing and capacity to previous phases of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic; we do not consider the effects of understaffed hospitals or unvaccinated medical staff. RESULTS: We find that allocating a substantial proportion (>75%) of vaccine supply to individuals over the age of 70 is optimal in terms of reducing total cumulative deaths through mid-2021. This result is robust to different profiles of waning vaccine efficacy and several different assumptions on age mixing during and after lockdown periods. As we do not explicitly model other high-mortality groups, our results on vaccine allocation apply to all groups at high risk of mortality if infected. A median of 327 to 340 deaths can be avoided in Rhode Island (3444 to 3647 in Massachusetts) by optimizing vaccine allocation and vaccinating the elderly first. The vaccination campaigns are expected to save a median of 639 to 664 lives in Rhode Island and 6278 to 6618 lives in Massachusetts in the first half of 2021 when compared to a scenario with no vaccine. A policy of vaccinating only seronegative individuals avoids redundancy in vaccine use on individuals that may already be immune, and would result in 0.5% to 1% reductions in cumulative hospitalizations and deaths by mid-2021. CONCLUSIONS: Assuming high vaccination coverage (>28%) and no major changes in distancing, masking, gathering size, hygiene guidelines, and virus transmissibility between 1 January 2021 and 1 July 2021 a combination of vaccination and population immunity may lead to low or near-zero transmission levels by the second quarter of 2021.

COVID-19 vaccine prioritization of incarcerated people relative to other vulnerable groups: An analysis of state plans.

BACKGROUND: Carceral facilities are epicenters of the COVID-19 pandemic, placing incarcerated people at an elevated risk of COVID-19 infection. Due to the initial limited availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, all states have developed allocation plans that outline a phased distribution. This study uses document analysis to compare the relative prioritization of incarcerated people, correctional staff, and other groups at increased risk of COVID-19 infection and morbidity. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a document analysis of the vaccine dissemination plans of all 50 US states and the District of Columbia using a triple-coding method. Documents included state COVID-19 vaccination plans and supplemental materials on vaccine prioritization from state health department websites as of December 31, 2020. We found that 22% of states prioritized incarcerated people in Phase 1, 29% of states in Phase 2, and 2% in Phase 3, while 47% of states did not explicitly specify in which phase people who are incarcerated will be eligible for vaccination. Incarcerated people were consistently not prioritized in Phase 1, while other vulnerable groups who shared similar environmental risk received this early prioritization. States' plans prioritized in Phase 1: prison and jail workers (49%), law enforcement (63%), seniors (65+ years, 59%), and long-term care facility residents (100%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that states' COVID-19 vaccine allocation plans do not prioritize incarcerated people and provide little to no guidance on vaccination protocols if they fall under other high-risk categories that receive earlier priority. Deprioritizing incarcerated people for vaccination misses a crucial opportunity for COVID-19 mitigation. It also raises ethical and equity concerns. As states move forward with their vaccine distribution, further work must be done to prioritize ethical allocation and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to incarcerated people.

What Has Covid-19 Exposed in Bioethics? Four Myths.

The Covid-19 pandemic has exposed four myths in bioethics. First, the flood of bioethics publications on how to allocate scarce resources in crisis conditions has assumed authorities would declare the onset of crisis standards of care, yet few have done so. This leaves guidelines in limbo and patients unprotected. Second, the pandemic's realities have exploded traditional boundaries between clinical, research, and public health ethics, requiring bioethics to face the interdigitation of learning, doing, and allocating. Third, without empirical research, the success or failure of ethics guidelines remains unknown, demonstrating that crafting ethics guidance is only the start. And fourth, the pandemic's glaring health inequities require new commitment to learn from communities facing extraordinary challenges. Without that new learning, bioethics methods cannot succeed. The pandemic is a wake-up call, and bioethics must rise to the challenge.

Justice through a Wide-Angle Lens.

In the lead article of the May-June 2021 issue of the Hastings Center Report, Nancy Jecker and Caesar Atuire argue that the Covid-19 crisis is best understood as a syndemic, "a convergence of biosocial forces that interact with one another to produce and exacerbate clinical disease and prognosis." A syndemic framework, the authors advise, will enable bioethicists to recognize the ethical principles that should guide efforts to reduce the unequal effects that Covid-19 has on populations. Drawing on sub-Saharan African conceptions of solidarity, the authors lay out an approach to global vaccine distribution that prioritizes low- and middle-income countries. Like Jecker and Atuire's article, an essay by philosopher Keisha Ray pushes bioethicists to recognize broader justice-oriented responsibilities with the aid of a wide-angle lens. Ray's essay focuses on contemporary examples of environmental injustices that sicken, disable, or kill Black people.