Rethinking how development assistance for health can catalyse progress on primary health care.

Global campaigns to control HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, and vaccine-preventable illnesses showed that large-scale impact can be achieved by using additional international financing to support selected, evidence-based, high-impact investment areas and to catalyse domestic resource mobilisation. Building on this paradigm, we make the case for targeting additional international funding for selected high-impact investments in primary health care. We have identified and costed a set of concrete, evidence-based investments that donors could support, which would be expected to have major impacts at an affordable cost. These investments are in: (1) individuals and communities empowered to engage in health decision making, (2) a new model of people-centred primary care, and (3) next generation community health workers. These three areas would be supported by strengthening two cross-cutting elements of national systems. The first is the digital tools and data that support facility, district, and national managers to improve processes, quality of care, and accountability across primary health care. The second is the educational, training, and supervisory systems needed to improve the quality of care. We estimate that with an additional international investment of between US$1·87 billion in a low-investment scenario and $3·85 billion in a high-investment scenario annually over the next 3 years, the international community could support the scale-up of this evidence-based package of investments in the 59 low-income and middle-income countries that are eligible for external financing from the World Bank Group's International Development Association.

Estimated Global Proportions of Individuals With Persistent Fatigue, Cognitive, and Respiratory Symptom Clusters Following Symptomatic COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021.

Importance: Some individuals experience persistent symptoms after initial symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (often referred to as Long COVID). Objective: To estimate the proportion of males and females with COVID-19, younger or older than 20 years of age, who had Long COVID symptoms in 2020 and 2021 and their Long COVID symptom duration. Design, Setting, and Participants: Bayesian meta-regression and pooling of 54 studies and 2 medical record databases with data for 1.2 million individuals (from 22 countries) who had symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the 54 studies, 44 were published and 10 were collaborating cohorts (conducted in Austria, the Faroe Islands, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the US). The participant data were derived from the 44 published studies (10 501 hospitalized individuals and 42 891 nonhospitalized individuals), the 10 collaborating cohort studies (10 526 and 1906), and the 2 US electronic medical record databases (250 928 and 846 046). Data collection spanned March 2020 to January 2022. Exposures: Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of individuals with at least 1 of the 3 self-reported Long COVID symptom clusters (persistent fatigue with bodily pain or mood swings; cognitive problems; or ongoing respiratory problems) 3 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2020 and 2021, estimated separately for hospitalized and nonhospitalized individuals aged 20 years or older by sex and for both sexes of nonhospitalized individuals younger than 20 years of age. Results: A total of 1.2 million individuals who had symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection were included (mean age, 4-66 years; males, 26%-88%). In the modeled estimates, 6.2% (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 2.4%-13.3%) of individuals who had symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection experienced at least 1 of the 3 Long COVID symptom clusters in 2020 and 2021, including 3.2% (95% UI, 0.6%-10.0%) for persistent fatigue with bodily pain or mood swings, 3.7% (95% UI, 0.9%-9.6%) for ongoing respiratory problems, and 2.2% (95% UI, 0.3%-7.6%) for cognitive problems after adjusting for health status before COVID-19, comprising an estimated 51.0% (95% UI, 16.9%-92.4%), 60.4% (95% UI, 18.9%-89.1%), and 35.4% (95% UI, 9.4%-75.1%), respectively, of Long COVID cases. The Long COVID symptom clusters were more common in women aged 20 years or older (10.6% [95% UI, 4.3%-22.2%]) 3 months after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection than in men aged 20 years or older (5.4% [95% UI, 2.2%-11.7%]). Both sexes younger than 20 years of age were estimated to be affected in 2.8% (95% UI, 0.9%-7.0%) of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. The estimated mean Long COVID symptom cluster duration was 9.0 months (95% UI, 7.0-12.0 months) among hospitalized individuals and 4.0 months (95% UI, 3.6-4.6 months) among nonhospitalized individuals. Among individuals with Long COVID symptoms 3 months after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, an estimated 15.1% (95% UI, 10.3%-21.1%) continued to experience symptoms at 12 months. Conclusions and Relevance: This study presents modeled estimates of the proportion of individuals with at least 1 of 3 self-reported Long COVID symptom clusters (persistent fatigue with bodily pain or mood swings; cognitive problems; or ongoing respiratory problems) 3 months after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Achieving global mortality reduction targets and universal health coverage: The impact of COVID-19.

Wenhui Mao and coauthors discuss possible implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for health aspirations in low- and middle-income countries.

Quality of life measures and cost analysis of biologic versus synthetic mesh for ventral hernia repair: The Preventing Recurrence in Clean and Contaminated Hernias randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Although the most durable method for ventral hernia repairs involves using mesh, whether to use biologic mesh versus synthetic mesh remains controversial. This study aimed to compare synthetic and biologic meshes with respect to patient-reported quality of life scores and costs after ventral hernia repair surgeries. METHODS: This study is part of the Preventing Recurrence in Clean and Contaminated Hernias (PRICE) pragmatic randomized control trial conducted from March 2014 through October 2018. Patients were randomized 1:1 to undergo ventral hernia repair using either a biologic or synthetic mesh. The coprimary outcomes were 2-year changes in Visual Analog Scale, Activities Assessment Scale, Hernia-Related Quality-of-Life Survey, and Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) quality-of-life scores from repair. The secondary outcome was the overall cost per patient. RESULTS: Among the 165 patients included in the study, 82 were randomized to biologic meshes and 83 to synthetic meshes. There were no significant differences in the performance between the 2 mesh types with regard to quality-of-life measures using a mixed model approach. This result was consistent even when performing subgroup analysis based on wound contamination. However, nonparametric tests comparing the differences in quality-of-life measures from preoperative to 24-month postoperative timepoints revealed that the synthetic mesh group showed a greater reduction in disability than biologic mesh for the SF-36 (median [interquartile range] of 20 [5-30] vs 6 [1-20], P = .025). This difference was due to reductions in the physical role limitations (62 [0-100] vs 0 [0-50], P = .018) and the pain (38 [12-50] vs 12 [0-25], P = .012) domains of the SF-36. Overall cost per patient was greater for biologic meshes (mean [95% confidence interval] of $80,420 [$66,485-$94,355] vs $61,036 [$48,946-$73,125], P = .038), regardless of insurance type. CONCLUSION: In this randomized clinical trial, there were no differences in changes in quality-of-life scores at the 2-year timepoint except for the SF-36, where the synthetic mesh may be associated with less pain and physical role limitations than the biologic mesh. Overall costs per patient were less for synthetic than biologic mesh.

Investing in a global pooled-funding mechanism for late-stage clinical trials of poverty-related and neglected diseases: an economic evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Poverty-related and neglected diseases (PRNDs) cause over three million deaths annually. Despite this burden, there is a large gap between actual funding for PRND research and development (R&D) and the funding needed to launch PRND products from the R&D pipeline. This study provides an economic evaluation of a theoretical global pooled-funding mechanism to finance late-stage clinical trials of PRND products. METHODS: We modelled three pooled-funding design options, each based on a different level of coverage of candidate products for WHO's list of PRNDs: (1) vaccines covering 4 PRNDs, (2) vaccines and therapeutics covering 9 PRNDs and (3) vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics covering 30 PRNDs. For each option, we constructed a discrete event simulation of the 2019 PRND R&D pipeline to estimate required funding for phase III trials and expected product launches through 2035. For each launch, we estimated global PRND treatment costs averted, deaths averted and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted. For each design option, we calculated the cost per death averted, cost per DALY averted, the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Option 1 averts 18.4 million deaths and 516 million DALYs, has a cost per DALY averted of US$84 and yields a BCR of 5.53. Option 2 averts 22.9 million deaths and 674 million DALYs, has a cost per DALY averted of US$75, an ICER over option 1 of US$49 and yields a BCR of 3.88. Option 3 averts 26.9 million deaths and 1 billion DALYs, has a cost per DALY averted of US$114, an ICER over option 2 of US$186 and yields a BCR of 2.52. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 options for a pooled-funding mechanism-vaccines for 4 PRNDs, vaccines and therapeutics for 9 PRNDs, and vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics for 30 PRNDs-would generate a large return on investment, avert a substantial proportion of the global burden of morbidity and mortality for diseases of poverty and be cost-effective.

A global systematic analysis of the occurrence, severity, and recovery pattern of long COVID in 2020 and 2021.

Importance: While much of the attention on the COVID-19 pandemic was directed at the daily counts of cases and those with serious disease overwhelming health services, increasingly, reports have appeared of people who experience debilitating symptoms after the initial infection. This is popularly known as long COVID. Objective: To estimate by country and territory of the number of patients affected by long COVID in 2020 and 2021, the severity of their symptoms and expected pattern of recovery. Design: We jointly analyzed ten ongoing cohort studies in ten countries for the occurrence of three major symptom clusters of long COVID among representative COVID cases. The defining symptoms of the three clusters (fatigue, cognitive problems, and shortness of breath) are explicitly mentioned in the WHO clinical case definition. For incidence of long COVID, we adopted the minimum duration after infection of three months from the WHO case definition. We pooled data from the contributing studies, two large medical record databases in the United States, and findings from 44 published studies using a Bayesian meta-regression tool. We separately estimated occurrence and pattern of recovery in patients with milder acute infections and those hospitalized. We estimated the incidence and prevalence of long COVID globally and by country in 2020 and 2021 as well as the severity-weighted prevalence using disability weights from the Global Burden of Disease study. Results: Analyses are based on detailed information for 1906 community infections and 10526 hospitalized patients from the ten collaborating cohorts, three of which included children. We added published data on 37262 community infections and 9540 hospitalized patients as well as ICD-coded medical record data concerning 1.3 million infections. Globally, in 2020 and 2021, 144.7 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 54.8-312.9) people suffered from any of the three symptom clusters of long COVID. This corresponds to 3.69% (1.38-7.96) of all infections. The fatigue, respiratory, and cognitive clusters occurred in 51.0% (16.9-92.4), 60.4% (18.9-89.1), and 35.4% (9.4-75.1) of long COVID cases, respectively. Those with milder acute COVID-19 cases had a quicker estimated recovery (median duration 3.99 months [IQR 3.84-4.20]) than those admitted for the acute infection (median duration 8.84 months [IQR 8.10-9.78]). At twelve months, 15.1% (10.3-21.1) continued to experience long COVID symptoms. Conclusions and relevance: The occurrence of debilitating ongoing symptoms of COVID-19 is common. Knowing how many people are affected, and for how long, is important to plan for rehabilitative services and support to return to social activities, places of learning, and the workplace when symptoms start to wane. Key Points: Question: What are the extent and nature of the most common long COVID symptoms by country in 2020 and 2021?Findings: Globally, 144.7 million people experienced one or more of three symptom clusters (fatigue; cognitive problems; and ongoing respiratory problems) of long COVID three months after infection, in 2020 and 2021. Most cases arose from milder infections. At 12 months after infection, 15.1% of these cases had not yet recovered.Meaning: The substantial number of people with long COVID are in need of rehabilitative care and support to transition back into the workplace or education when symptoms start to wane.

Drones and digital adherence monitoring for community-based tuberculosis control in remote Madagascar: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Continuing tuberculosis control with current approaches is unlikely to reach the World Health Organization's objective to eliminate TB by 2035. Innovative interventions such as unmanned aerial vehicles (or drones) and digital adherence monitoring technologies have the potential to enhance patient-centric quality tuberculosis care and help challenged National Tuberculosis Programs leapfrog over the impediments of conventional Directly Observed Therapy (DOTS) implementation. A bundle of innovative interventions referred to for its delivery technology as the Drone Observed Therapy System (DrOTS) was implemented in remote Madagascar. Given the potentially increased cost these interventions represent for health systems, a cost-effectiveness analysis was indicated. METHODS: A decision analysis model was created to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness of the DrOTS strategy compared to DOTS, the standard of care, in a study population of 200,000 inhabitants in rural Madagascar with tuberculosis disease prevalence of 250/100,000. A mixed top-down and bottom-up costing approach was used to identify costs associated with both models, and net costs were calculated accounting for resulting TB treatment costs. Net cost per disability-adjusted life years averted was calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed for key input variables to identify main drivers of health and cost outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. FINDINGS: Net cost per TB patient identified within DOTS and DrOTS were, respectively, $282 and $1,172. The incremental cost per additional TB patient diagnosed in DrOTS was $2,631 and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of DrOTS compared to DOTS was $177 per DALY averted. Analyses suggest that integrating drones with interventions ensuring highly sensitive laboratory testing and high treatment adherence optimizes cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Innovative technology packages including drones, digital adherence monitoring technologies, and molecular diagnostics for TB case finding and retention within the cascade of care can be cost effective. Their integration with other interventions within health systems may further lower costs and support access to universal health coverage.

Demographic Factors Associated with Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Pain Management.

BACKGROUND: Pain control is strongly correlated with the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) quality-of-care domains and overall hospital experience. Prior research implicates several factors in the variability of patients' pain management satisfaction scores, including but not limited to racial diversity, ethnic diversity, gender, socioeconomic status, and other cultural factors. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we examined responses to the HCAHPS survey in order to assess factors associated with patient-reported experiences of pain management. STUDY DESIGN: The study design involved a retrospective analysis of patient survey responses. SETTING: The research took place at a university-affiliated tertiary hospital. METHODS: The study was conducted in a university-affiliated tertiary hospital. Records for adult patients discharged between October 2015 and June 2017 were included. We obtained all patient responses to the HCAHPS pain management questions. We then performed a systematic statistical analysis to evaluate interactions between demographic factor variables and responses to the HCAHPS pain management questions. RESULTS: Between October 2015 and June 2017, 107,287 patients were discharged from the hospital. Of these, 13,026 of the respondents answered at least one of the HCAHPS pain management questions. Among HCAHPS pain-domain respondents, "Hispanic" and "Black or African American" respondents are more likely to report successful Pain Control when compared to "Not Hispanic" and "Caucasian/White," respectively (odds ratios [ORs] 1.60, 1.22). Additionally, among women, "Black or African American" respondents are more likely to report positive Staff Helpfulness than "Caucasian/White" respondents (OR 1.38).However, we also identified corresponding associations among HCAHPS pain-question responding and patient race/ethnicity: "Hispanic" and "Black/African American" patients were each less likely to respond to the HCAHPS pain questions (ORs 2.03, 2.74). LIMITATIONS: The primary limitation to this study was nonresponse bias; nevertheless, this is likely to be similar to bias experienced at other institutions. Additionally, this is a single institution study; however, given that the institution has a very large catchment area, we believe the results could be generalized to other settings. CONCLUSION: Response rates and responses to HCAHPS pain questions vary by race/ethnicity and sex. It appears likely that Hispanic and Black/African American patients underreport negative experiences. As HCAHPS surveys are used to inform decision-making within the US health care system, demographic biases in the survey data could lead to biases in care and resource allocation. KEY WORDS: Pain, HCAHPS, patient reported outcome measures, patient satisfaction, ethnicity, race.