Everyone Wins: Vaccine Lotteries Can Cost-Effectively Increase COVID-19 Booster Vaccination Rates.

Booster vaccination remains a key strategy to address the ongoing threat of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, take-up has been slow. By the fall of 2022, less than 50% of eligible US residents had received a booster dose. It is a central tenet in health economics that incentives or penalties are necessary to reach optimal vaccination rates. Six rigorous real-world studies provide evidence that COVID-19 vaccine lotteries cost-effectively raised vaccination rates at an estimated cost of $49 to $82 per additional dose. The 5 studies that found no impact of lotteries used statistical methods that underestimated the impact: They were statistically underpowered to detect a small yet cost-effective impact and did not adequately address selection bias. Vaccine lotteries are cost-effective because they not only provide financial incentives but also influence the public via nonfinancial channels: They garner media attention, tap into social networks, combat procrastination, and signal the importance of sustaining high vaccination rates. In fact, vaccine lotteries are likely to be more effective for booster vaccination than for initial doses because barriers to vaccination are higher. The ongoing threat of COVID-19 presents a unique opportunity to develop and implement innovative, evidence-based public health policies like vaccine lotteries to address current challenges.

Real world treatment of juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus: Data from the UK JSLE cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of clinical trials evidence, Juvenile-onset Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (JSLE) treatment plans vary. AIM: To explore 'real world' treatment utilising longitudinal UK JSLE Cohort Study data. METHODS: Data collected between 07/2009-05/2020 was used to explore the choice/sequence of immunomodulating drugs from diagnosis. Multivariate logistic regression determined how organ-domain involvement (pBILAG-2004) impacted treatment choice. RESULT: 349 patients met inclusion criteria, median follow-up 4-years (IQR:2,6). Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) was most commonly used for the majority of organ-domains, and significantly associated with renal involvement (OR:1.99, 95% CI:1.65-2.41, pc < 0.01). Analyses assessing the sequence of immunomodulators focused on 197/349 patients (meeting relevant inclusion/exclusion criteria). 10/197 (5%) solely recieved hydroxychloroquine/prednisolone, 62/197 (31%) received a single-immunomodulator, 69/197 (36%) received two, and 36/197 patients (28%) received ≥three immunomodulators. The most common first and second line immunomodulator was MMF. Rituximab was the most common third-line immunomodulator. CONCLUSIONS: Most UK JSLE patients required ≥two immunomodulators, with MMF used most commonly.

Attainment of low disease activity and remission targets reduces the risk of severe flare and new damage in childhood lupus.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the achievability and effect of attaining low disease activity (LDA) or remission in childhood-onset SLE (cSLE). METHODS: Attainment of three adult-SLE derived definitions of LDA (LLDAS, LA, Toronto-LDA), and four definitions of remission (clinical-SLEDAI-defined remission on/off treatment, pBILAG-defined remission on/off treatment) was assessed in UK JSLE Cohort Study patients longitudinally. Prentice-Williams-Petersen gap recurrent event models assessed the impact of LDA/remission attainment on severe flare/new damage. RESULTS: LLDAS, LA and Toronto-LDA targets were reached in 67%, 73% and 32% of patients, after a median of 18, 15 or 17 months, respectively. Cumulatively, LLDAS, LA and Toronto-LDA was attained for a median of 23%, 31% and 19% of total follow-up-time, respectively. Remission on-treatment was more common (61% cSLEDAI-defined, 42% pBILAG-defined) than remission off-treatment (31% cSLEDAI-defined, 21% pBILAG-defined). Attainment of all target states, and disease duration (>1 year), significantly reduced the hazard of severe flare (P < 0.001). As cumulative time in each target increased, hazard of severe flare progressively reduced. LLDAS attainment reduced the hazard of severe flare more than LA or Toronto-LDA (P < 0.001). Attainment of LLDAS and all remission definitions led to a statistically comparable reduction in the hazards of severe flare (P > 0.05). Attainment of all targets reduced the hazards of new damage (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study demonstrating that adult-SLE-derived definitions of LDA/remission are achievable in cSLE, significantly reducing risk of severe flare/new damage. Of the LDA definitions, LLDAS performed best, leading to a statistically comparable reduction in the hazards of severe flare to attainment of clinical remission.

Assessing healthcare quality using routine data: evaluating the performance of the national tuberculosis programme in South Africa.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of healthcare facilities by means of indicators based on guidelines for clinical care of TB, which is likely a good measure of overall facility quality. METHODS: We assessed quality of care in all public health facilities in South Africa using graphical, correlation and locally weighted kernel regression analysis of routine TB test data. RESULTS: Facility performance falls short of national standards of care. Only 74% of patients with TB provided a second specimen for testing, 18% received follow-up testing and 14% received drug resistance testing. Only resistance testing rates improved over time, tripling between 2004 and 2011. National awareness campaigns and changes in clinical guidelines had only a transient impact on testing rates. The poorest performing facilities remained at the bottom of the rankings over the period of study. CONCLUSION: The optimal policy strategy requires both broad-based policies and targeted resources to poor performers. This approach to assessing facility quality of care can be adapted to other contexts and also provides a low-cost method for evaluating the effectiveness of proposed interventions. Devising targeted policies based on routine data is a cost-effective way to improve the quality of public health care provided.

An econometric method for estimating population parameters from non-random samples: An application to clinical case finding.

The problem of sample selection complicates the process of drawing inference about populations. Selective sampling arises in many real world situations when agents such as doctors and customs officials search for targets with high values of a characteristic. We propose a new method for estimating population characteristics from these types of selected samples. We develop a model that captures key features of the agent's sampling decision. We use a generalized method of moments with instrumental variables and maximum likelihood to estimate the population prevalence of the characteristic of interest and the agents' accuracy in identifying targets. We apply this method to tuberculosis (TB), which is the leading infectious disease cause of death worldwide. We use a national database of TB test data from South Africa to examine testing for multidrug resistant TB (MDR-TB). Approximately one quarter of MDR-TB cases was undiagnosed between 2004 and 2010. The official estimate of 2.5% is therefore too low, and MDR-TB prevalence is as high as 3.5%. Signal-to-noise ratios are estimated to be between 0.5 and 1. Our approach is widely applicable because of the availability of routinely collected data and abundance of potential instruments. Using routinely collected data to monitor population prevalence can guide evidence-based policy making.

Does directly observed therapy improve tuberculosis treatment? More evidence is needed to guide tuberculosis policy.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) now ranks alongside HIV as the leading infectious disease cause of death worldwide and incurs a global economic burden of over $12 billion annually. Directly observed therapy (DOT) recommends that TB patients complete the course of treatment under direct observation of a treatment supporter who is trained and overseen by health services to ensure that patients take their drugs as scheduled. Though the current WHO End TB Strategy does not mention DOT, only "supportive treatment supervision by treatment partners", many TB programs still use it despite the fact that the has not been demonstrated to be statistically significantly superior to self-administered treatment in ensuring treatment success or cure. DISCUSSION: DOT is designed to promote proper adherence to the full course of drug therapy in order to improve patient outcomes and prevent the development of drug resistance. Yet over 8 billion dollars is spent on TB treatment each year and thousands undergo DOT for all or part of their course of treatment, despite the absence of rigorous evidence supporting the superior effectiveness of DOT over self-administration for achieving drug susceptible TB (DS-TB) cure. Moreover, the DOT component burdens patients with financial and opportunity costs, and the potential for intensified stigma. To rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of DOT and identify the essential contributors to both successful treatment and minimized patient burden, we call for a pragmatic experimental trial conducted in real-world program settings, the gold standard for evidence-based health policy decisions. It is time to invest in the rigorous evaluation of DOT and reevaluate the DOT requirement for TB treatment worldwide. Rigorously evaluating the choice of treatment supporter, the frequency of health care worker contact and the development of new educational materials in a real-world setting would build the evidence base to inform the optimal design of TB treatment protocol. Implementing a more patient-centered approach may be a wise reallocation of resources to raise TB cure rates, prevent relapse, and minimize the emergence of drug resistance. Maintaining the status quo in the absence of rigorous supportive evidence may diminish the effectiveness of TB control policies in the long run.

Distance decay and persistent health care disparities in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Access to health care is a particular concern given the important role of poor access in perpetuating poverty and inequality. South Africa's apartheid history leaves large racial disparities in access despite post-apartheid health policy to increase the number of health facilities, even in remote rural areas. However, even when health services are provided free of charge, monetary and time costs of travel to a local clinic may pose a significant barrier for vulnerable segments of the population, leading to overall poorer health. METHODS: Using newly available health care utilization data from the first nationally representative panel survey in South Africa, together with administrative geographic data from the Department of Health, we use graphical and multivariate regression analysis to investigate the role of distance to the nearest facility on the likelihood of having a health consultation or an attended birth. RESULTS: Ninety percent of South Africans live within 7 km of the nearest public clinic, and two-thirds live less than 2 km away. However, 14% of Black African adults live more than 5 km from the nearest facility, compared to only 4% of Whites, and they are 16 percentage points less likely to report a recent health consultation (p < 0.01) and 47 percentage points less likely to use private facilities (p < 0.01). Respondents in the poorest income quintiles live 0.5 to 0.75 km further from the nearest health facility (p < 0.01). Racial differentials in the likelihood of having a health consultation or an attended birth persist even after controlling for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Our results have two policy implications: minimizing the distance that poor South Africans must travel to obtain health care and improving the quality of care provided in poorer areas will reduce inequality. Much has been done to redress disparities in South Africa since the end of apartheid but progress is still needed to achieve equity in health care access.

Differences in management approaches for lupus nephritis within the UK.

Objectives: Outcomes of therapy for LN are often suboptimal. Guidelines offer varied options for treatment of LN and treatment strategies may differ between clinicians and regions. We aimed to assess variations in the usual practice of UK physicians who treat LN. Methods: We conducted an online survey of simulated LN cases for UK rheumatologists and nephrologists to identify treatment preferences for class IV and class V LN. Results: Of 77 respondents, 48 (62.3%) were rheumatologists and 29 (37.7%) were nephrologists. A total of 37 (48.0%) reported having a joint clinic between nephrologists and rheumatologists, 54 (70.0%) reported having a multidisciplinary team meeting for LN and 26 (33.7%) reported having a specialized lupus nurse. Of the respondents, 58 (75%) reported arranging a renal biopsy before starting the treatment. A total of 20 (69%) of the nephrologists, but only 13 (27%) rheumatologists, reported having a formal departmental protocol for treating patients with LN (P < 0.001). The first-choice treatment of class IV LN in pre-menopausal patients was MMF [41 (53.2%)], followed by CYC [15 (19.6%)], rituximab [RTX; 12 (12.5%)] or a combination of immunosuppressive drugs [9 (11.7%)] with differences between nephrologists' and rheumatologists' choices (P = 0.026). For class V LN, MMF was the preferred initial treatment, irrespective of whether proteinuria was in the nephrotic range or not. RTX was the preferred second-line therapy for non-responders. Conclusion: There was variation in the use of protocols, specialist clinic service provision, biopsies and primary and secondary treatment choices for LN reported by nephrologists and rheumatologists in the UK.

Data-driven COVID-19 policy is more effective than a one-size-fits-all approach.

The latest COVID-19 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) discount the best data sources and rely too heavily on outdated, one-size-fits-all decision rules. Instead, the CDC should recommend data-driven guidelines, which are more accurate, adaptable, transparent about implicit tradeoffs, and tailored to the relevant context.