Comparative study between admission, orthopaedic surgery, and economic trends during Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 pandemic in an Italian tertiary hospital: a retrospective review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic represents one of the most massive health emergencies in the last century and has caused millions of deaths worldwide and a massive economic and social burden. The aim of this study was to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic-during the Italian lockdown period between 8 March and 4 May 2020-influenced orthopaedic access for traumatic events to the Emergency Department (ER). METHODS: A retrospective review of the admission to the emergency room and the discharge of the trauma patients' records was performed during the period between 8 March and 4 May 2020 (block in Italy), compared to the same period of the previous year (2019). Patients accesses, admissions, days of hospitalisation, frequency, fracture site, number and type of surgery, the time between admission and surgery, days of hospitalisation, and treatment cost according to the diagnosis-related group were collected. Chi-Square and ANOVA test were used to compare the groups. RESULTS: No significant statistical difference was found for the number of emergency room visits and orthopaedic hospitalisations (p < 0.53) between the year 2019 (9.5%) and 2020 (10.81%). The total number of surgeries in 2019 was 119, while in 2020, this was just 48 (p < 0.48). A significant decrease in the mean cost of orthopaedic hospitalisations was detected in 2020 compared (261.431 euros, equal to - 52.07%) relative to the same period in 2019 (p = 0.005). Although all the surgical performances have suffered a major decline, the most frequent surgery in 2020 was intramedullary femoral nailing. CONCLUSION: We detected a decrease in traumatic occasions during the lockdown period, with a decrease in fractures in each district and a consequent decrease in the diagnosis-related group (DRG).

The potential health and economic value of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination alongside physical distancing in the UK: a transmission model-based future scenario analysis and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK first adopted physical distancing measures in March, 2020. Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 became available in December, 2020. We explored the health and economic value of introducing SARS-CoV-2 immunisation alongside physical distancing in the UK to gain insights about possible future scenarios in a post-vaccination era. METHODS: We used an age-structured dynamic transmission and economic model to explore different scenarios of UK mass immunisation programmes over 10 years. We compared vaccinating 75% of individuals aged 15 years or older (and annually revaccinating 50% of individuals aged 15-64 years and 75% of individuals aged 65 years or older) to no vaccination. We assumed either 50% vaccine efficacy against disease and 45-week protection (worst-case scenario) or 95% vaccine efficacy against infection and 3-year protection (best-case scenario). Natural immunity was assumed to wane within 45 weeks. We also explored the additional impact of physical distancing on vaccination by assuming either an initial lockdown followed by voluntary physical distancing, or an initial lockdown followed by increased physical distancing mandated above a certain threshold of incident daily infections. We considered benefits in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs, both to the health-care payer and the national economy. We discounted future costs and QALYs at 3·5% annually and assumed a monetary value per QALY of £20 000 and a conservative long-run cost per vaccine dose of £15. We explored and varied these parameters in sensitivity analyses. We expressed the health and economic benefits of each scenario with the net monetary value: QALYs × (monetary value per QALY) - costs. FINDINGS: Without the initial lockdown, vaccination, and increased physical distancing, we estimated 148·0 million (95% uncertainty interval 48·5-198·8) COVID-19 cases and 3·1 million (0·84-4·5) deaths would occur in the UK over 10 years. In the best-case scenario, vaccination minimises community transmission without future periods of increased physical distancing, whereas SARS-CoV-2 becomes endemic with biannual epidemics in the worst-case scenario. Ongoing transmission is also expected in intermediate scenarios with vaccine efficacy similar to published clinical trial data. From a health-care perspective, introducing vaccination leads to incremental net monetary values ranging from £12·0 billion to £334·7 billion in the best-case scenario and from -£1·1 billion to £56·9 billion in the worst-case scenario. Incremental net monetary values of increased physical distancing might be negative from a societal perspective if national economy losses are persistent and large. INTERPRETATION: Our model findings highlight the substantial health and economic value of introducing SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Smaller outbreaks could continue even with vaccines, but population-wide implementation of increased physical distancing might no longer be justifiable. Our study provides early insights about possible future post-vaccination scenarios from an economic and epidemiological perspective. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, European Commission, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Optimising triage procedures for patients with cancer needing active anticancer treatment in the COVID-19 era.

BACKGROUND: Immunosuppression induced by anticancer therapy in a COVID-19-positive asymptomatic patient with cancer may have a devastating effect and, eventually, be lethal. To identify asymptomatic cases among patients receiving active cancer treatment, the Federico II University Hospital in Naples performs rapid serological tests in addition to hospital standard clinical triage for COVID-19 infection. METHODS: From 6 to 17 April 2020, all candidates for chemotherapy, radiotherapy or target/immunotherapy, if negative at the standard clinical triage on the day scheduled for anticancer treatment, received a rapid serological test on peripheral blood for COVID-19 IgM and IgG detection. In case of COVID-19 IgM and/or IgG positivity, patients underwent a real-time PCR (RT-PCR) SARS-CoV-2 test to confirm infection, and active cancer treatment was delayed. RESULTS: Overall 466 patients, negative for COVID-19 symptoms, underwent serological testing in addition to standard clinical triage. The average age was 61 years (range 25-88 years). Most patients (190, 40.8%) had breast cancer, and chemotherapy with or without immunotherapy was administered in 323 (69.3%) patients. Overall 433 (92.9%) patients were IgG-negative and IgM-negative, and 33 (7.1%) were IgM-positive and/or IgG-positive. Among the latter patients, 18 (3.9%), 11 (2.4%) and 4 (0.9%) were IgM-negative/IgG-positive, IgM-positive/IgG-negative and IgM-positive/IgG-positive, respectively. All 33 patients with a positive serological test, tested negative for RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 test. No patient in our cohort developed symptoms suggestive of active COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSION: Rapid serological testing at hospital admission failed to detect active asymptomatic COVID-19 infection. Moreover, it entailed additional economic and human resources, delayed therapy administrationand increased hospital accesses.