To share or not to share - What the general public thinks about global COVID-19 vaccine distribution

BackgroundDespite ongoing calls for more equity in the global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, there remains a great disparity between high- and low- or middle-income countries. Based on the principles of distributive justice, we assessed the public opinion on this issue in the United States and Germany as examples for high-income countries with a high potential for redistribution. MethodsWe conducted representative surveys among the adult population in the United States (N=1,000) and Germany (N=1,003) in June 2021 using two instances of an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to elicit how the public weighs different principles and criteria according to which the vaccines should be allocated as well as discrete choice experiments to split a limited supply of vaccine doses between a hypothetical high-income and low-income country. FindingsIn the first AHP, respondents in the United States and Germany gave weight to "medical urgency" by 37{middle dot}4% (37{middle dot}2-37{middle dot}5) and 49{middle dot}4% (49{middle dot}2-49{middle dot}5), "equal access for all" 32{middle dot}7% (32{middle dot}6-32{middle dot}8) and 25{middle dot}4% (25{middle dot}2-25{middle dot}5), "production contribution" 13{middle dot}7% (13{middle dot}6-13{middle dot}8) and 13{middle dot}3% (13{middle dot}2-13{middle dot}4), and "free market rules" 16{middle dot}3% (16{middle dot}2-16{middle dot}4) and 12{middle dot}0% (11{middle dot}9-12{middle dot}1), respectively. In the discrete choice experiment responds in the United States split available vaccine doses such that the low-income country on average received 53{middle dot}9 percent (95% CI: 52{middle dot}6-55{middle dot}1). For Germany this number was 57{middle dot}5 percent (95% CI: 56{middle dot}3-58{middle dot}7). The low-income country had three times as many inhabitants as the high-income country. When facing the dilemma where a vulnerable family member was waiting for a vaccine as opposed to when there was no clear self-interest, 20{middle dot}7% (18{middle dot}2-23{middle dot}3) of respondents in the United States and 18{middle dot}2% (15{middle dot}8-20{middle dot}6) in Germany reduced the amount they allocated to the low-income country InterpretationsThe public in the United States and Germany favours utilitarian and egalitarian distribution principles of vaccines for COVID-19 over the currently prevailing libertarian or meritocratic principles. This implies that political approaches and decision favouring higher levels of redistribution would be supported by the public opinion in these two countries. FundingGerman Research Foundation DFG RTG 1723.

A national retrospective cohort study of mechanical ventilator availability and its association with mortality risk in intensive care patients with COVID-19

ObjectivesTo determine if there is an association between survival rates in intensive care units (ICU) and occupancy of the unit on the day of admission. DesignNational retrospective observational cohort study during the COVID-19 pandemic. Setting90 English hospital trusts (i.e. groups of hospitals functioning as single operational units). Participants6,686 adults admitted to an ICU in England between 2nd April and 1st December, 2020 (inclusive), with presumed or confirmed COVID-19, for whom data was submitted to the national surveillance programme and met study inclusion criteria. InterventionsN/A Main Outcomes and MeasuresA Bayesian hierarchical approach was used to model the association between hospital trust level (mechanical ventilation compatible) bed occupancy, and in-hospital all-cause mortality. Results were adjusted for unit characteristics (pre-pandemic size), individual patient-level demographic characteristics (age, sex, ethnicity, time-to-ICU admission), and recorded chronic comorbidities (obesity, diabetes, respiratory disease, liver disease, heart disease, hypertension, immunosuppression, neurological disease, renal disease). Results121,151 patient-days were observed, with a mortality rate of 20.8 per 1,000 patient days. Adjusting for patient-level factors, mortality was higher for admissions during periods of high occupancy (>85% occupancy versus the baseline of 45 to 85%) [OR 1.18 (95% posterior credible interval (PCI): 1.00 to 1.38)]. In contrast, mortality was decreased for admissions during periods of low occupancy (<45% relative to the baseline) [OR 0.79 (95% PCI: 0.69 to 0.90)]. Conclusion and RelevanceIncreasing occupancy of beds compatible with mechanical ventilation, a proxy for operational strain, is associated with a higher mortality risk for individuals admitted to ICU. Public health interventions (such as expeditious vaccination programmes and non-pharmaceutical interventions) to control both incidence and prevalence of COVID-19, and therefore keep ICU occupancy low in the context of the pandemic, are necessary to mitigate the impact of this type of resource saturation. O_TEXTBOXSummary Box What is already known on this topicPre-pandemic, higher occupancy of intensive care units was shown to be associated with increased mortality risk. However, there is limited data on the extent to which occupancy levels impacted patient outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in light of the mobilisation of significant additional resources. A recent study from Belgium reported a 42% higher mortality during periods of ICU surge capacity deployment, although in the analysis surge capacity was evaluated only as a binary variable, and notably this contradicts earlier results from smaller studies in Australia and Wales, where no association between ICU occupancy and mortality was identified. What this study addsThe results of this study suggest that survival rates for patients with COVID-19 in intensive care settings appears to deteriorate as the occupancy of (surge capacity) beds compatible with mechanical ventilation (a proxy for operational pressure), increases. Moreover, this risk doesnt occur above a specific threshold, but rather appears linear; whereby going from 0% occupancy to 100% occupancy increases risk of mortality by 69% (after adjusting for relevant individual-level factors). Furthermore, risk of mortality based on occupancy on the date of recorded outcome is even higher; OR 2.98 (95% posterior credible interval: 2.33 - 3.83). As such, this national-level cohort study of England provides compelling evidence for a relationship between occupancy and critical care mortality, and highlights the needs for decisive action to control the incidence and prevalence of COVID-19. C_TEXTBOX

Improving COVID-19 critical care mortality over time in England: A national cohort study, March to June 2020

ObjectivesTo determine the trend in mortality risk over time in people with severe COVID-19 requiring critical care (high intensive unit [HDU] or intensive care unit [ICU]) management. MethodsWe accessed national English data on all adult COVID-19 specific critical care admissions from the COVID-19 Hospitalisation in England Surveillance System (CHESS), up to the 29th June 2020 (n=14,958). The study period was 1st March until 30th May, meaning every patient had 30 days of potential follow-up available. The primary outcome was in-hospital 30-day all-cause mortality. Hazard ratios for mortality were estimated for those admitted each week using a Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age (non-linear restricted cubic spline), sex, ethnicity, comorbidities, and geographical region. Results30-day mortality peaked for people admitted to critical care in early April (peak 29.1% for HDU, 41.5% for ICU). There was subsequently a sustained decrease in mortality risk until the end of the study period. As a linear trend from the first week of April, adjusted mortality risk decreased by 11.2% (adjusted HR 0.89 [95% CI 0.87 - 0.91]) per week in HDU, and 9.0% (adjusted HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.88 - 0.94]) in ICU. ConclusionsThere has been a substantial mortality improvement in people admitted to critical care with COVID-19 in England, with markedly lower mortality in people admitted in mid-April and May compared to earlier in the pandemic. This trend remains after adjustment for patient demographics and comorbidities suggesting this improvement is not due to changing patient characteristics. Possible causes include the introduction of effective treatments as part of clinical trials and a falling critical care burden.