STIMULATE-ICP: A pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster randomised trial of an integrated care pathway with a nested, Phase III, open label, adaptive platform randomised drug trial in individuals with Long COVID: A structured protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Long COVID (LC), the persistent symptoms ≥12 weeks following acute COVID-19, presents major threats to individual and public health across countries, affecting over 1.5 million people in the UK alone. Evidence-based interventions are urgently required and an integrated care pathway approach in pragmatic trials, which include investigations, treatments and rehabilitation for LC, could provide scalable and generalisable solutions at pace. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster-randomised clinical trial of two components of an integrated care pathway (Coverscan™, a multi-organ MRI, and Living with COVID Recovery™, a digitally enabled rehabilitation platform) with a nested, Phase III, open label, platform randomised drug trial in individuals with LC. Cluster randomisation is at level of primary care networks so that integrated care pathway interventions are delivered as "standard of care" in that area. The drug trial randomisation is at individual level and initial arms are rivaroxaban, colchicine, famotidine/loratadine, compared with no drugs, with potential to add in further drug arms. The trial is being carried out in 6-10 LC clinics in the UK and is evaluating the effectiveness of a pathway of care for adults with LC in reducing fatigue and other physical, psychological and functional outcomes at 3 months. The trial also includes an economic evaluation which will be described separately. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was reviewed by South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (reference: 21/SC/0416). All participating sites obtained local approvals prior to recruitment. Coverscan™ has UK certification (UKCA 752965). All participants will provide written consent to take part in the trial. The first participant was recruited in July 2022 and interim/final results will be disseminated in 2023, in a plan co-developed with public and patient representatives. The results will be presented at national and international conferences, published in peer reviewed medical journals, and shared via media (mainstream and social) and patient support organisations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10665760.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiovascular disease prevention and management.

How the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected prevention and management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is not fully understood. In this study, we used medication data as a proxy for CVD management using routinely collected, de-identified, individual-level data comprising 1.32 billion records of community-dispensed CVD medications from England, Scotland and Wales between April 2018 and July 2021. Here we describe monthly counts of prevalent and incident medications dispensed, as well as percentage changes compared to the previous year, for several CVD-related indications, focusing on hypertension, hypercholesterolemia and diabetes. We observed a decline in the dispensing of antihypertensive medications between March 2020 and July 2021, with 491,306 fewer individuals initiating treatment than expected. This decline was predicted to result in 13,662 additional CVD events, including 2,281 cases of myocardial infarction and 3,474 cases of stroke, should individuals remain untreated over their lifecourse. Incident use of lipid-lowering medications decreased by 16,744 patients per month during the first half of 2021 as compared to 2019. By contrast, incident use of medications to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus, other than insulin, increased by approximately 623 patients per month for the same time period. In light of these results, methods to identify and treat individuals who have missed treatment for CVD risk factors and remain undiagnosed are urgently required to avoid large numbers of excess future CVD events, an indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

STIMULATE-ICP-Delphi (Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways Delphi): Study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: As mortality rates from COVID-19 disease fall, the high prevalence of long-term sequelae (Long COVID) is becoming increasingly widespread, challenging healthcare systems globally. Traditional pathways of care for Long Term Conditions (LTCs) have tended to be managed by disease-specific specialties, an approach that has been ineffective in delivering care for patients with multi-morbidity. The multi-system nature of Long COVID and its impact on physical and psychological health demands a more effective model of holistic, integrated care. The evolution of integrated care systems (ICSs) in the UK presents an important opportunity to explore areas of mutual benefit to LTC, multi-morbidity and Long COVID care. There may be benefits in comparing and contrasting ICPs for Long COVID with ICPs for other LTCs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study aims to evaluate health services requirements for ICPs for Long COVID and their applicability to other LTCs including multi-morbidity and the overlap with medically not yet explained symptoms (MNYES). The study will follow a Delphi design and involve an expert panel of stakeholders including people with lived experience, as well as clinicians with expertise in Long COVID and other LTCs. Study processes will include expert panel and moderator panel meetings, surveys, and interviews. The Delphi process is part of the overall STIMULATE-ICP programme, aimed at improving integrated care for people with Long COVID. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this Delphi study has been obtained (Research Governance Board of the University of York) as have approvals for the other STIMULATE-ICP studies. Study outcomes are likely to inform policy for ICPs across LTCs. Results will be disseminated through scientific publication, conference presentation and communications with patients and stakeholders involved in care of other LTCs and Long COVID. REGISTRATION: Researchregistry: https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#home/registrationdetails/6246bfeeeaaed6001f08dadc/.

Information Asymmetry in Hospitals: Evidence of the Lack of Cost Awareness in Clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Information asymmetries and the agency relationship are two defining features of the healthcare system. These market failures are often used as a rationale for government intervention. Many countries have government financing and provision of healthcare in order to correct for this, while health technology agencies also exist to improve efficiency. However, informational asymmetries and the resulting principal-agent problem still persist, and one example is the lack of cost awareness amongst clinicians. This study explores the cost awareness of clinicians across different settings. METHODS: We targeted four clinical cohorts: medical students, Senior House Officers/Interns, Mid-grade Senior Registrar/Residents, and Consultant/Attending Physicians, in six hospitals in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Spain. The survey asked respondents to report the cost (as they recalled) of different types of scans, visits, medications and tests. Our analysis focused on the differential between the perceived/recalled cost and the actual cost. We explored variation across speciality, country and other potential confounders. Cost-awareness levels were estimated based on the cost estimates within 25% of the actual cost. RESULTS: We received 705 complete responses from six sites across five countries. Our analysis found that respondents often overestimated the cost of common tests while underestimating high-cost tests. The mean cost-awareness levels varied between 4 and 23% for different items. Respondents acknowledged that they did not feel they had received adequate training in cost awareness. DISCUSSION: The current financial climate means that cost awareness and the appropriate use of scarce healthcare resources is more paramount than perhaps ever before. Much of the focus of health economics research is on high-cost innovative technologies, yet there is considerable waste in the system with respect to overtreatment and overdiagnosis. Common reasons put forward for this include defensive medicine, poor education, clinical uncertainty and the institution of protocols. CONCLUSION: Given the role of clinicians in the healthcare system, as agents both for patients and for providers, more needs to be done to remove informational asymmetries and improve clinician cost awareness.

STIMULATE-ICP-CAREINEQUAL (Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways) study protocol: Defining usual care and examining inequalities in Long Covid support.

INTRODUCTION: Individuals with Long Covid represent a new and growing patient population. In England, fewer than 90 Long Covid clinics deliver assessment and treatment informed by NICE guidelines. However, a paucity of clinical trials or longitudinal cohort studies means that the epidemiology, clinical trajectory, healthcare utilisation and effectiveness of current Long Covid care are poorly documented, and that neither evidence-based treatments nor rehabilitation strategies exist. In addition, and in part due to pre-pandemic health inequalities, access to referral and care varies, and patient experience of the Long Covid care pathways can be poor. In a mixed methods study, we therefore aim to: (1) describe the usual healthcare, outcomes and resource utilisation of individuals with Long Covid; (2) assess the extent of inequalities in access to Long Covid care, and specifically to understand Long Covid patients' experiences of stigma and discrimination. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed methods study will address our aims. Qualitative data collection from patients and health professionals will be achieved through surveys, interviews and focus group discussions, to understand their experience and document the function of clinics. A patient cohort study will provide an understanding of outcomes and costs of care. Accessible data will be further analysed to understand the nature of Long Covid, and the care received. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (reference 303958). The dissemination plan will be decided by the patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group members and study Co-Is, but will target 1) policy makers, and those responsible for commissioning and delivering Long Covid services, 2) patients and the public, and 3) academics.

The role of microvesicles as biomarkers in the screening of colorectal neoplasm.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second cause of cancer death worldwide. The role of circulating microvesicles as a screening tool is a novel, yet effective approach that warrants prioritised research. METHODS: In a two-gate diagnostic accuracy study, 35 patients with benign colorectal polyps (BCRP) (n = 16) and colorectal cancer (CRC) (n = 19) were compared to 17 age-matched healthy controls. Total annexin-V positive microvesicles and sub-populations positive for selected biomarkers relevant to bowel neoplasm were evaluated in patients' plasma using flow cytometry. Statistical methods including factor analysis utilising two component factors were performed to obtain optimal diagnostic accuracy of microvesicles in identifying patients with colorectal neoplasms. RESULTS: Total plasma microvesicles, and sub-populations positive for CD31, CD42a, CD31+/CD42a-, EPHB2, ICAM and LGR5 (component factor-1) were able to identify patients with BCRP and CRC with a receiver operator curve (AUC) accuracy of a 100% (95% CI: 100%-100%) and 95% (95% CI: 88%-100%), respectively. To identify patients with BCRP, a cut-off point value of component factor-1761 microvesicles/µl demonstrated a 100% sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value (NPV) and a 93% positive predictive value (PPV). To identify patients with CRC, a cut-off value of component factor-1 3 439 microvesicles/µl demonstrated a 100% sensitivity, specificity and NPV and a 65% PPV. CEA+ microvesicles sub-population were significantly (p < 0.02) higher in CRC in comparison to BCRP. CONCLUSIONS: Microvesicles as biomarkers for the early and accurate detection of CRC is a simple and effective tool that yields a potential breakthrough in clinical management.

Which countries need COVID-19 vaccines the most? Development of a prioritisation tool.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic and associated non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have affected all countries. With a scarcity of COVID-19 vaccines there has been a need to prioritize populations, but assessing relative needs has been challenging. The COVAX Facility allocates vaccines to cover 20% of each national population, followed by a needs assessment that considers five quantitative metrics alongside a qualitative assessment. The objective of this study was to identify the most important factors for assessing countries' needs for vaccines, and to weight each, generating a scoring tool for prioritising countries. METHODS: The study was conducted between March and November 2021. The first stage involved an online Delphi survey with a purposive and snowball sample of public health experts, to reach consensus on country-level factors for assessing relative needs for COVID-19 vaccines. The second stage involved a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to determine weights for the most important factors. RESULTS: Responses were received from 28 experts working across 13 different countries and globally. The most common job titles reported were director and professor, with most based in national public health institutes (n = 9) and universities (n = 8). The Delphi survey found 37 distinct factors related to needs. Nine of the most important factors were included in the DCE. Among these, the most important factor was the 'proportion of overall population not fully vaccinated' (with a mean weight of 19.5), followed by 'proportion of high-risk population not fully vaccinated' (16.1), 'health system capacity' (14.2), 'capacity to purchase vaccines' (11.9) and the 'proportion of the population clinically vulnerable' (11.3). CONCLUSIONS: Several factors exist, extending beyond those currently used, which may lead to some countries having a greater need for vaccines compared to others. By assessing relative needs, this scoring tool can build on existing methods to further the role of equity in global COVID-19 vaccine allocation.

The Real-World Impact of Vaccination on COVID-19 Cases During Europe’s Fourth Wave

Objectives: Disease control is important to limit the social, economic and health effects of COVID-19 and reduce the risk of novel variants emerging. Evidence suggests vaccines are less effective against the Omicron variant, but their impact on disease control is unclear. Methods: We used a longitudinal fixed effects Poisson regression model to assess the impact of vaccination on COVID-19 case rates across 32 countries in Europe from 13th October to 01st January 2022. We controlled for country and time fixed effects and the severity of public health restrictions. Results: Full vaccination coverage increased by 4.2%, leading to a 54% reduction in case rates across Europe (p < 0.001). This protection decreased over time but remained significant at 5 weeks after the detection of Omicron. Mean booster vaccination rates increased from 2.71% to 24.5% but provided no significant additional benefit. For every one-unit increase in the severity of public health restrictions, case rates fell by a further 2% (p = 0.019). Conclusion: Full vaccination significantly limited the spread of COVID-19 and blunted the impact of the Omicron variant, despite becoming less useful over time.

The impact of pausing the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine on uptake in Europe: a difference-in-differences analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several countries paused their rollouts of the Oxford-AstraZeneca coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) vaccine in mid-March 2021 due to concerns about vaccine-induced thrombosis and thrombocytopenia. Many warned that this risked damaging public confidence during a critical period of pandemic response. This study investigated whether the pause in the use of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine had an impact on subsequent vaccine uptake in European countries. METHODS: We used a difference-in-differences approach capitalizing on the fact that some countries halted their rollouts whilst others did not. A longitudinal panel was constructed for European Economic Area countries spanning 15 weeks in early 2021. Media reports were used to identify countries that paused the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and the timing of this. Data on vaccine uptake were available through the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Vaccine Tracker. Difference-in-differences linear regression models controlled for key confounders that could influence vaccine uptake, and country and week fixed effects. Further models and robustness checks were performed. RESULTS: The panel included 28 countries, with 19 in the intervention group and 9 in the control group. Pausing the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was associated with a 0.52% decrease in uptake for the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and a 1.49% decrease in the uptake for both doses, comparing countries that paused to those that did not. These estimates are not statistically significant (P = 0.86 and 0.39, respectively). For the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine only, the pause was associated with a 0.56% increase in uptake for the first dose and a 0.07% decrease in uptake for both doses. These estimates are also not statistically significant (P = 0.56 and 0.51, respectively). All our findings are robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: As new COVID-19 vaccines emerge, regulators should be cautious to deviate from usual protocols if further investigation on clinical or epidemiological grounds is warranted.

A public health framework for the equitable global allocation of vaccines: COVID-NEEDS.

The equitable global allocation of COVID-19 vaccines has received much attention yet been poorly defined. Understanding equity requires assessing needs for vaccines across countries. Making distinctions is especially challenging when countries perform similarly on traditional epidemiological metrics. This Viewpoint offers a novel conceptual framework (COVID-NEEDS) based on empirical evidence and public health guidance. It encompasses health, social, and economic impacts of COVID-19 and associated non-pharmaceutical interventions. We intend this framework to complement existing needs assessment methods to help identify countries most in need of vaccines. We present factors to consider, but future work will be required to understand how to weight the factors and to determine the practical utility of the framework for supplementing existing COVID-19 vaccine allocation mechanisms.

Mitigating the severity of child homelessness in the UK: a global mixed-methods systematic review

Background In 2019, 585 000 children in England were homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. The pressure of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health-care delivery system has amplified the inequalities faced by marginalised children. Although the UK has had a series of successful health sector reforms, few have designed or implemented strategies that target reach, access, and use of public health services for marginalised children. This project aims to identify such strategies by exploring solutions used in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), through reverse-innovation. Methods We undertook a systematic review of the literature published in English from PubMed, MEDLINE, and SCOPUS between Jan 1, 2010, and March 31, 2021. We explored the literature focusing on policy, strategy, intervention, and services, using keywords and Medical Subject Headings corresponding to the target population, and medical, health, and nutrition services including preventive and immunisation services, and outcomes. Our target population included homeless and marginalised children. We defined marginality in terms of social distances following Braun and Gatzweiler (2013). We included in our search homelessness, temporary accommodation (eg, makeshift accommodation, emergency shelter, and feral), the conditions that put a child at risk of homelessness (eg, war, battle, conflict, refugee, displaced, and migrant), and the general conditions of social distances (eg, poverty, and financial catastrophe) that do not belong to discrimination. We used the Arksey O'Malley framework with Levene's extension in the aforementioned databases and Google Scholar to improve inclusivity. The primary outcomes included access, coverage, and utilisation of child health and nutrition services. The impact measurements included morbidity, mortality, and economic outcomes (return on investment, cost, and efficiency). We applied natural language processing for thematic analysis of qualitative evidence. The analysis was assisted by Python (v3.7.12). Findings We found 53 final articles (47 quantitative and six qualitative) from LMICs. Community-focused and financial interventions were successful in different settings. Financial interventions such as user-fee removal increased health care and service use between 15–309%. Cash transfers increased immunisation coverage, financial security, and nutrition. Mobile health services and the individualised tactics of community midwives and volunteers improved the coverage and use of child health and nutrition services. Community-based savings groups, user-fee removal, and cash transfer policies improved access and utilisation. mHealth applications and capacity building of health workforce increased coverage and quality of these services and improved clinic attendance. Interpretation UK policy makers could adapt and adopt targeted and conditional cash transfer policies to provide greater financial security to homeless families and make child health care more affordable and inclusive. Volunteer and mobile-clinic-based community services would increase access and use of these services in the COVID-19 recovery phase. Our review may have missed matured strategies published before 2010. We were unable to estimate a pooled effect. Funding ESRC, UK Research and Innovation rapid response COVID 19.

A Rapid Review of COVID-19 Vaccine Prioritization in the U.S.: Alignment between Federal Guidance and State Practice.

BACKGROUND: Population groups to be prioritized for COVID-19 vaccinations in the U.S. have been determined at the Federal level, but there is variation in how States have implemented guidance. This review examines how the position of population groups in vaccine priority lists varies between Federal guidance and State practice. METHODS: An online search of State vaccination prioritization plans was conducted. Data were extracted on each population group included and their relative position. A standardized ranking method was applied to provide a directional measure of variability in prioritization between State and Federal guidance, for each population group. RESULTS: Healthcare workers and those in long-term care facilities were largely prioritized in line with Federal guidance. Aside from early education staff, essential workers were often excluded at State level. Almost all States included the 65-74 year age group and most assigned them to a higher position than recommended in Federal guidance. Those with underlying medical conditions were similarly highly prioritized, although there was more variability across States. Some socially vulnerable groups (not included in Federal guidance) were highly prioritized by many States. CONCLUSIONS: The prioritization of groups for COVID-19 vaccination has been highly variable despite clear Federal guidance. Future guidance must be relevant to local needs, values, and constraints, to minimize any unwarranted heterogeneity in vaccine access across populations.