Guiding equitable prioritisation of COVID-19 vaccine distribution and strategic deployment in South Africa to enhance effectiveness and access to vulnerable communities and prevent waste.

BACKGROUND: In South Africa (SA), >2.4 million cases of COVID­19 and >72 000 deaths were recorded between March 2020 and 1 August 2021, affecting the country's 52 districts to various extents. SA has committed to a COVID­19 vaccine roll-out in three phases, prioritising frontline workers, the elderly, people with comorbidities and essential workers. However, additional actions will be necessary to support efficient allocation and equitable access for vulnerable, access-constrained communities. OBJECTIVES: To explore various determinants of disease severity, resurgence risk and accessibility in order to aid an equitable, effective vaccine roll-out for SA that would maximise COVID­19 epidemic control by reducing the number of COVID­19 transmissions and resultant deaths, while at the same time reducing the risk of vaccine wastage. METHODS: For the 52 districts of SA, 26 COVID­19 indicators such as hospital admissions, deaths in hospital and mobility were ranked and hierarchically clustered with cases to identify which indicators can be used as indicators for severity or resurgence risk. Districts were then ranked using the estimated COVID­19 severity and resurgence risk to assist with prioritisation of vaccine roll-out. Urban and rural accessibility were also explored as factors that could limit vaccine roll-out in hard-to-reach communities. RESULTS: Highly populated urban districts showed the most cases. Districts such as Buffalo City, City of Cape Town and Nelson Mandela Bay experienced very severe first and second waves of the pandemic. Districts with high mobility, population size and density were found to be at highest risk of resurgence. In terms of accessibility, we found that 47.2% of the population are within 5 km of a hospital with ≥50 beds, and this percentage ranged from 87.0% in City of Cape Town to 0% in Namakwa district. CONCLUSIONS: The end goal is to provide equal distribution of vaccines proportional to district populations, which will provide fair protection. Districts with a high risk of resurgence and severity should be prioritised for vaccine roll-out, particularly the major metropolitan areas. We provide recommendations for allocations of different vaccine types for each district that consider levels of access, numbers of doses and cold-chain storage capability.

Guiding equitable prioritisation of COVID-19 vaccine distribution and strategic deployment in South Africa to enhance effectiveness and access to vulnerable communities and prevent waste

Background. In South Africa (SA), >2.4 million cases of COVID­19 and >72 000 deaths were recorded between March 2020 and 1 August 2021, affecting the country's 52 districts to various extents. SA has committed to a COVID­19 vaccine roll-out in three phases, prioritising frontline workers, the elderly, people with comorbidities and essential workers. However, additional actions will be necessary to support efficient allocation and equitable access for vulnerable, access-constrained communities. Objectives. To explore various determinants of disease severity, resurgence risk and accessibility in order to aid an equitable, effective vaccine roll-out for SA that would maximise COVID­19 epidemic control by reducing the number of COVID­19 transmissions and resultant deaths, while at the same time reducing the risk of vaccine wastage. Methods. For the 52 districts of SA, 26 COVID­19 indicators such as hospital admissions, deaths in hospital and mobility were ranked and hierarchically clustered with cases to identify which indicators can be used as indicators for severity or resurgence risk. Districts were then ranked using the estimated COVID­19 severity and resurgence risk to assist with prioritisation of vaccine roll-out. Urban and rural accessibility were also explored as factors that could limit vaccine roll-out in hard-to-reach communities. Results. Highly populated urban districts showed the most cases. Districts such as Buffalo City, City of Cape Town and Nelson Mandela Bay experienced very severe first and second waves of the pandemic. Districts with high mobility, population size and density were found to be at highest risk of resurgence. In terms of accessibility, we found that 47.2% of the population are within 5 km of a hospital with ≥50 beds, and this percentage ranged from 87.0% in City of Cape Town to 0% in Namakwa district. Conclusions. The end goal is to provide equal distribution of vaccines proportional to district populations, which will provide fair protection. Districts with a high risk of resurgence and severity should be prioritised for vaccine roll-out, particularly the major metropolitan areas. We provide recommendations for allocations of different vaccine types for each district that consider levels of access, numbers of doses and cold-chain storage capability.

Publication of sports medicine-related randomized controlled trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that a significant proportion of randomized trials in medicine, and recently in orthopaedics, do not go on to publication. PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were (1) to determine publication rates of randomized controlled trials in sports medicine that have been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (CTG) and (2) to compare the registration summaries of randomized trials on CTG with final published manuscripts on pertinent methodological variables. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Two independent investigators searched ClinicalTrials.gov for all closed and completed trials related to sports medicine until June 2009 using a text search strategy. The authors then searched for publications resulting from these registered trials in peer-reviewed journals that are indexed with MEDLINE and/or EMBASE as of February 2012 based on study authors and key words provided in the study protocol. Details of primary outcomes and secondary outcomes, study sponsors, and sample size were extracted and compared between registrations and publications. RESULTS: Of 34 closed and completed trials registered on CTG, there were 20 resultant publications in peer-reviewed journals (58.8%). There was no significant relationship between source of funding and rate of publication (P > .05). The authors found a discrepancy between the CTG registration summary and the manuscript in at least one methodological variable (primary/secondary outcomes, inclusion/exclusion criteria, sample size) in 16 of 20 (80.0%) articles and a discrepancy in the primary outcome in 8 of 20 (40.0%) published trials. CONCLUSION: Although registration of sports medicine trials in CTG does not consistently result in publication or disclosure of results at 32 months from the time of study completion, observed publication rates are higher than in other orthopaedic subspecialties. Changes are also frequently made to the final presentation of eligibility criteria and primary and secondary outcomes that are not reflected in the registered trial data.