Bringing Generalists to Global Health: a Missed Opportunity and Call to Action.

The credo of the generalist physician has always been the promotion of health for all, in every aspect: not just multiple vulnerable organ systems, but multiple social, cultural, and political factors that contribute to poor health and exacerbate health inequity. In recent years, the field of global health has also adopted this same mission: working across both national and clinical specialty borders to improve health for all and end health disparities worldwide. Yet within the Society for General Internal Medicine, and among American generalists, engagement in global health, both within and outside the USA, remains uncommon. We see this gap as an opportunity, because in fact generalists in America already have the skills and experience that global health badly needs. SGIM could promote generalists to global health's vanguard, with three core steps. First, we generalists must continue to integrate health for the vulnerable into our domestic work, generating care models applicable in low-resource settings around the globe. Conversely, we must also engage with and implement international ideas and solutions for universal access to primary care for vulnerable patients in the USA. And lastly, we must build platforms to connect ourselves with colleagues worldwide to exchange these learnings.

Essential medicines for cardiovascular diseases in India: Rapid appraisal of policies and processes at the subnational level.

Background The burden of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and response to health systems vary widely at the subnational level in India. Our study aimed to assess the variation in state-level access to medicines for CVDs by comparing the essential medicines lists (EMLs) at the national and subnational levels in India and by rapid appraisal of the existing policies and processes of drug procurement. Methods We assessed the inclusion of six classes of medicines for CVDs in the recent and publicly available national and subnational EMLs from July to September 2018 in the states of Telangana and Madhya Pradesh. We examined the drug procurement and distribution policies and processes using documentary review and five key informant interviews between March and June 2018. Results The WHO's EML, India's national EML, and 21 of 28 publicly available (75%) Indian state and Union Territory EMLs included all six classes of essential medicines for CVDs. However, some medicines were not included in the policy packages of essential medicines meant for primary health centres. Both the states used centralized tendering and decentralized distribution as part of the public sector drug procurement process. The requirement was based on the previous year's consumption. The approximate time between procurement planning and distribution was 7-8 months in both the states. Conclusion Substantial variation exists in the selection of drugs for CVDs in EMLs at the subnational level in India. Improving forecasting techniques for requirement of medicines and reducing time lags between forecasting and distribution to health facilities may allow for better access to essential medicines.

Performance of crisis standards of care guidelines in a cohort of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the United States.

Many US states published crisis standards of care (CSC) guidelines for allocating scarce critical care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the performance of these guidelines in maximizing their population benefit has not been well tested. In 2,272 adults with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation drawn from the Study of the Treatment and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 (STOP-COVID) multicenter cohort, we test the following three approaches to CSC algorithms: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores grouped into ranges, SOFA score ranges plus comorbidities, and a hypothetical approach using raw SOFA scores not grouped into ranges. We find that area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves for all three algorithms demonstrate only modest discrimination for 28-day mortality. Adding comorbidity scoring modestly improves algorithm performance over SOFA scores alone. The algorithm incorporating comorbidities has modestly worse predictive performance for Black compared to white patients. CSC algorithms should be empirically examined to refine approaches to the allocation of scarce resources during pandemics and to avoid potential exacerbation of racial inequities.

Empirical Assessment of U.S. Coronavirus Disease 2019 Crisis Standards of Care Guidelines.

To establish the feasibility of empirically testing crisis standards of care guidelines. DESIGN: Retrospective single-center study. SETTING: ICUs at a large academic medical center in the United States. SUBJECTS: Adult, critically ill patients admitted to ICU, with 27 patients admitted for acute respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 and 37 patients admitted for diagnoses other than coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Review of electronic health record. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Many U.S. states released crisis standards of care guidelines with algorithms to allocate scarce healthcare resources during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. We compared state guidelines that represent different approaches to incorporating disease severity and comorbidities: New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Colorado. Following each algorithm, we calculated priority scores at the time of ICU admission for a cohort of patients with primary diagnoses of coronavirus disease 2019 and diseases other than coronavirus disease 2019 (n = 64). We assessed discrimination of 28-day mortality by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. We simulated real-time decision-making by applying the triage algorithms to groups of two, five, or 10 patients. For prediction of 28-day mortality by priority scores, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.56, 0.49, 0.53, 0.66, and 0.69 for New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and raw Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score algorithms, respectively. For groups of five patients, the percentage of decisions made without deferring to a lottery were 1%, 57%, 80%, 88%, and 95% for New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and raw Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score algorithms, respectively. The percentage of decisions made without lottery was higher in the subcohort without coronavirus disease 2019, compared with the subcohort with coronavirus disease 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of comorbidities does not consistently improve an algorithm's performance in predicting 28-day mortality. Crisis standards of care algorithms result in a substantial percentage of tied priority scores. Crisis standards of care algorithms operate differently in cohorts with and without coronavirus disease 2019. This proof-of-principle study demonstrates the feasibility and importance of empirical testing of crisis standards of care guidelines to understand whether they meet their goals.

Variation in the availability and cost of essential medicines for non-communicable diseases in Uganda: A descriptive time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Availability of essential medicines for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is poor in low- and middle-income countries. Availability and cost are conventionally assessed using cross-sectional data. However, these characteristics may vary over time. METHODS: We carried out a prospective, descriptive analysis of the availability and cost of essential medicines in 23 Ugandan health facilities over a five-week period. We surveyed facility pharmacies in-person up to five times, recording availability and cost of 19 essential medicines for NCDs and four essential medicines for communicable diseases. RESULTS: Availability of medicines varied substantially over time, especially among public facilities. Among private-for-profit facilities, the cost of the same medicine varied from week to week. Private-not-for-profit facilities experienced less dramatic fluctuations in price. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there is a need for standardized, continuous monitoring to better characterize the availability and cost of essential medicines, understand demand for these medicines, and reduce uncertainty for patients.

Two-drug fixed-dose combinations of blood pressure-lowering drugs as WHO essential medicines: An overview of efficacy, safety, and cost.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the world's leading cause of death. High blood pressure (BP) is the leading global risk factor for all-cause preventable morbidity and mortality. Globally, only about 14% of patients achieve BP control to systolic BP <140 mm Hg and diastolic BP <90 mm Hg. Most patients (>60%) require two or more drugs to achieve BP control, yet poor adherence to therapy is a major barrier to achieving this control. Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of BP-lowering drugs are one means to improve BP control through greater adherence and efficacy, with favorable safety and cost profiles. The authors present a review of the supporting data from a successful application to the World Health Organization (WHO) for the inclusion of FDCs of two BP-lowering drugs on the 21st WHO Essential Medicines List. The authors discuss the efficacy and safety of FDCs of two BP-lowering drugs for the management of hypertension in adults, relevant hypertension guideline recommendations, and the estimated cost of such therapies.

Empirical Assessment of COVID-19 Crisis Standards of Care Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Several states have released Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) guidelines for the allocation of scarce critical care resources. Most guidelines rely on Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores to maximize lives saved, but states have adopted different stances on whether to maximize long-term outcomes (life-years saved) by accounting for patient comorbidities. METHODS: We compared 4 representative state guidelines with varying approaches to comorbidities and analyzed how CSC prioritization correlates with clinical outcomes. We included 27 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to ICUs at Brigham and Women's Hospital from March 12 to April 3, 2020. We compared prioritization algorithms from New York, which assigns priority based on SOFA alone; Maryland, which uses SOFA plus severe comorbidities; Pennsylvania, which uses SOFA plus major and severe comorbidities; and Colorado, which uses SOFA plus a modified Charlson comorbidity index. RESULTS: In pairwise comparisons across all possible pairs, we found that state guidelines frequently resulted in tie-breakers based on age or lottery: New York 100% of the time (100% resolved by lottery), Pennsylvania 86% of the time (18% by lottery), Maryland 93% of the time (35% by lottery), and Colorado: 32% of the time (10% by lottery). The prioritization algorithm with the strongest correlation with 14-day outcomes was Colorado (rs = -0.483. p = 0.011) followed by Maryland (rs = -0.394, p =0.042), Pennsylvania (rs = -0.382, p = 0.049), and New York (rs = 0). An alternative model using raw SOFA scores alone was moderately correlated with outcomes (rs = -0.448, p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: State guidelines for scarce resource allocation frequently resulted in identical priority scores, requiring tie-breakers based on age or lottery. These findings suggest that state CSC guidelines should be further assessed empirically to understand whether they meet their goals.

Access to Cardiovascular Disease and Hypertension Medicines in Developing Countries: An Analysis of Essential Medicine Lists, Price, Availability, and Affordability.

Background Access to medicines is important for long-term care of cardiovascular diseases and hypertension. This study provides a cross-country assessment of availability, prices, and affordability of cardiovascular disease and hypertension medicines to identify areas for improvement in access to medication treatment. Methods and Results We used the World Health Organization online repository of national essential medicines lists (EMLs) for 53 countries to transcribe the information on the inclusion of 12 cardiovascular disease/hypertension medications within each country's essential medicines list. Data on availability, price, and affordability were obtained from 84 surveys in 59 countries that used the World Health Organization's Health Action International survey methodology. We summarized and compared the indicators across lowest-price generic and originator brand medicines in the public and private sectors and by country income groups. The average availability of the select medications was 54% in low- and lower-middle-income countries and 60% in high- and upper-middle-income countries, and was higher for generic (61%) than brand medicines (41%). The average patient median price ratio was 80.3 for brand and 16.7 for generic medicines and was higher for patients in low- and lower-middle-income countries compared with high- and upper-middle-income countries across all medicine categories. The costs of 1 month's antihypertensive medications were, on average, 6.0 days' wage for brand medicine and 1.8 days' wage for generics. Affordability was lower in low- and lower-middle-income countries than high- and upper-middle-income countries for both brand and generic medications. Conclusions The availability and accessibility of pharmaceuticals is an ongoing challenge for health systems. Low availability and high costs are major barriers to the use of and adherence to essential cardiovascular disease and antihypertensive medications worldwide, particularly in low- and lower-middle-income countries.

Assessment of Barriers and Facilitators to the Delivery of Care for Noncommunicable Diseases by Nonphysician Health Workers in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Analysis.

Importance: Cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading causes of mortality in low- and middle-income countries. Previous studies show that nonphysician health workers (NPHWs), including nurses and volunteers, can provide effective diagnosis and treatment of NCDs. However, the factors that facilitate and impair these programs are incompletely understood. Objective: To identify health system barriers to and facilitators of NPHW-led care for NCDs in low- and middle-income countries. Data Sources: All systematic reviews in PubMed published by May 1, 2018. Study Selection: The search terms used for this analysis included "task shifting" and "non-physician clinician." Only reviews of NPHW care that occurred entirely or mostly in low- and middle-income countries and focused entirely or mostly on NCDs were included. All studies cited within each systematic review that cited health system barriers to and facilitators of NPHW care were reviewed. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Assessment of study eligibility was performed by 1 reviewer and rechecked by another. The 2 reviewers extracted all data. Reviews were performed from November 2017 to July 2018. All analyses were descriptive. Main Outcomes and Measures: All barriers and facilitators mentioned in all studies were tallied and sorted according to the World Health Organization's 6 building blocks for health systems. Results: This systematic review and qualitative analysis identified 15 review articles, which cited 156 studies, of which 71 referenced barriers to and facilitators of care. The results suggest 6 key lessons: (1) select qualified NPHWs embedded within the community they serve; (2) provide detailed, ongoing training and supervision; (3) authorize NPHWs to prescribe medication and render autonomous care; (4) equip NPHWs with reliable systems to track patient data; (5) furnish NPHWs consistently with medications and supplies; and (6) compensate NPHWs adequately commensurate with their roles. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the health system barriers to NPHW screening, treatment, and control of NCDs and their risk factors are numerous and complex, a diverse set of care models has demonstrated strategies to address nearly all of these challenges. These facilitating approaches-which relate chiefly to strong, consistent NPHW training, guidance, and logistical support-generate a blueprint for the creation and scale-up of such programs adaptable across multiple chronic diseases, including in high-income countries.

Multiple chronic conditions at a major urban health system: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of frequencies, costs and comorbidity patterns.

OBJECTIVE: To (1) examine the burden of multiple chronic conditions (MCC) in an urban health system, and (2) propose a methodology to identify subpopulations of interest based on diagnosis groups and costs. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: Mount Sinai Health System, set in all five boroughs of New York City, USA. PARTICIPANTS: 192 085 adult (18+) plan members of capitated Medicaid contracts between the Healthfirst managed care organisation and the Mount Sinai Health System in the years 2012 to 2014. METHODS: We classified adults as having 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5+ chronic conditions from a list of 69 chronic conditions. After summarising the demographics, geography and prevalence of MCC within this population, we then described groups of patients (segments) using a novel methodology: we combinatorially defined 18 768 potential segments of patients by a pair of chronic conditions, a sex and an age group, and then ranked segments by (1) frequency, (2) cost and (3) ratios of observed to expected frequencies of co-occurring chronic conditions. We then compiled pairs of conditions that occur more frequently together than otherwise expected. RESULTS: 61.5% of the study population suffers from two or more chronic conditions. The most frequent dyad was hypertension and hyperlipidaemia (19%) and the most frequent triad was diabetes, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia (10%). Women aged 50 to 65 with hypertension and hyperlipidaemia were the leading cost segment in the study population. Costs and prevalence of MCC increase with number of conditions and age. The disease dyads associated with the largest observed/expected ratios were pulmonary disease and myocardial infarction. Inter-borough range MCC prevalence was 16%. CONCLUSIONS: In this low-income, urban population, MCC is more prevalent (61%) than nationally (42%), motivating further research and intervention in this population. By identifying potential target populations in an interpretable manner, this segmenting methodology has utility for health services analysts.

Scaling up effective treatment of hypertension-A pathfinder for universal health coverage.

High blood pressure is the world's leading cause of death, but despite treatment for hypertension being safe, effective, and low cost, most people with hypertension worldwide do not have it controlled. This article summarizes lessons learned in the first 2 years of the Resolve to Save Lives (RTSL) hypertension management program, operated in coordination with the World Health Organization (WHO) and other partners. Better diagnosis, treatment, and continuity of care are all needed to improve control rates, and five necessary components have been recommended by RTSL, WHO and other partners as being essential for a successful hypertension control program. Several hurdles to hypertension control have been identified, with most related to limitations in the health care system rather than to patient behavior. Treatment according to standardized protocols should be started as soon as hypertension is diagnosed, and medical practices and health systems must closely monitor patient progress and system performance. Improvement in hypertension management and control, along with elimination of artificial trans fat and reduction of dietary sodium consumption, will improve many aspects of primary care, contribute to goals for universal health coverage, and could save 100 million lives worldwide over the next 30 years.

Efficacy and safety of dual combination therapy of blood pressure-lowering drugs as initial treatment for hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of dual combination of blood pressure (BP)-lowering drugs as initial treatment for hypertension. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL were searched until August 2017 for randomized, double-blind trials of dual combination therapy vs. monotherapy in adults with hypertension who were either treatment naïve or untreated for at least 4 weeks. Regimens were classified with reference to usual daily 'standard-dose'; for example, <1 + <1 for a combination of two drugs both at less than one standard-dose. Random-effects models were used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-three trials (13 095 participants) with mean baseline mean BP 155/100 mmHg were included. Compared with standard-dose monotherapy, dual combinations of <1 + <1, 1 + <1 and 1 + 1 (i.e. low-to-standard dose), showed a dose-response relationship in reducing SBP [mean differences (95% confidence interval) of 2.8 (1.6-4.0), 4.6 (3.4-5.7) and 7.5 (5.4-9.5) mmHg, respectively], and in improving BP control [risk ratio (RR) (95% confidence interval) 1.11 (0.92-1.34), 1.25 (1.16-1.35) and 1.42 (1.27-1.58), respectively]. Withdrawals due to adverse events were uncommon with low-to-standard dose dual combinations, with no significant difference compared with standard-dose monotherapy [2.9 vs. 2.2%; RR 1.28 (0.85 to 1.92)]. There were fewer data for higher dose dual combinations, which did not appear to produce substantial additional efficacy and could potentially be less tolerable. CONCLUSION: Compared with standard-dose monotherapy, initiating treatment with low-to-standard dose dual combination therapy is more efficacious without increasing withdrawals due to adverse events. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42016032822.

Prevalence of multiple chronic conditions in New York State, 2011-2016.

INTRODUCTION: To design effective policy and interventions, public health officials must have an accurate and granular picture of the state of multiple chronic conditions (MCC) in their region. The objective of this research is to describe the prevalence and distribution of MCC in New York State. METHODS: We performed a secondary data analysis of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) from 2011 through 2016 for New York adults (n = 76,186). We analyzed the self-reported prevalence of individuals having 0, 1, 2, or ≥ 3 chronic conditions by sex, race/ethnicity, age, health insurance type, annual household income, and whether respondents lived in New York City. We also examined the most common condition dyads and triads. Finally, we assessed the prevalence of MCC (2 or more chronic conditions) by county across New York State, and neighborhood within New York City. RESULTS: During 2011-2016, 25.2% of adults in New York State had zero chronic conditions, 24.1% had 1 condition, 18.4% had 2 conditions, and 32.4% had 3 or more. The most prevalent dyad was hypertension and high cholesterol in 17.0% of individuals. The most prevalent triad was hypertension, high cholesterol, and arthritis in 4.5% of individuals. County prevalence of MCC ranged from 42.6% in Westchester County to 66.1% in Oneida County. The prevalence of MCC in New York City neighborhoods ranged from 33.5% in Gramercy Park-Murray Hill to 60.6% in High Bridge-Morrisania. CONCLUSION: This research contributes to the field's understanding of multiple chronic conditions and allows policy and public health leaders in New York to better understand the prevalence and distribution of MCC.