Can vaccination roll-out be more equitable if population risk is taken into account?

Background COVID-19 vaccination in many countries, including England, has been prioritised primarily by age. However, people of the same age can have very different health statuses. Frailty is a commonly used metric of health and has been found to be more strongly associated with mortality than age among COVID-19 inpatients. Methods We compared the number of first vaccine doses administered across the 135 NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) of England to both the over 50 population and the estimated frail population in each area. Area-based frailty estimates were generated using the English Longitudinal Survey of Ageing (ELSA), a national survey of older people. We also compared the number of doses to the number of people with other risk factors associated with COVID-19: atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, learning disabilities, obesity and smoking status. Results We estimate that after 79 days of the vaccine program, across all Clinical Commissioning Group areas, the number of people who received a first vaccine per frail person ranged from 4.4 (95% CI 4.0-4.8) and 20.1 (95% CI 18.3-21.9). The prevalences of other risk factors were also poorly associated with the prevalence of vaccination across England. Conclusions Vaccination with age-based priority created area-based inequities in the number of doses administered relative to the number of people who are frail or have other risk factors associated with COVID-19. As frailty has previously been found to be more strongly associated with mortality than age for COVID-19 inpatients, an age-based priority system may increase the risk of mortality in some areas during the vaccine roll-out period. Authorities planning COVID-19 vaccination programmes should consider the disadvantages of an age-based priority system.

Demand for Intensive Care beds and patient classification according to the priority criterion

Objective: to assess the demand for Intensive Care Unit beds as well as the classification of the patients for admission, according to the priority system. Method: a retrospective and cross-sectional study, developed from January2014 to December2018 in two Intensive Care Units for adults of a university hospital. The sample consisted of the requests for vacancies according to the priority system(scale from 1 to 4, where 1 is the highest priority and 4 is no priority), registered in the institution’s electronic system. Results: a total of 8,483 vacancies were requested, of which 4,389(51.7%) were from unitB. The highest percentage in unitA was of Priority2 patients(32.6%); and Priority1 was prevalent in unitB(45.4%). The median lead time between request and admission to unitA presented a lower value for priority1 patients(2h57) and a higher value for priority4 patients(11h24); in unitB, priority4 patients presented shorter time(5h54) and priority3 had longer time(11h54). 40.5% of the requests made to unitA and 48.5% of those made to unitB were fulfilled, with 50.7% and 48.5% of these patients being discharged from the units, respectively. Conclusion: it is concluded that the demand for intensive care beds was greater than their availability. Most of the patients assisted were priorities1 and2, although a considerable percentage of those classified as priorities3 and4 is observed.

Filling the Organ Donor Pool by Giving Priority

Context: Many of the alternatives for procuring donor organs are considered either ineffective, unethical, or illegal. One possibility that may not face such challenges is a priority system whereby individuals who register as an organ donor are given priority to receive an organ over those who have not registered. However, providing extrinsic rewards can sometimes paradoxically reduce the target behavior, especially for those who are more altruistically motivated. Methods: Two behavioral experiments were employed and data were analyzed using regressions as well as examining open-ended responses. Findings: The results suggest that giving priority to receive an organ to those who register to donate postmortem could increase overall registration rates. Further, the effect of providing priority appears to work by inducing anticipated regret, which can be used to overcome common obstacles to registration. Finally, it was found that a priority system is most effective in increasing donor rates for those individuals who are less altruistically motivated and does not reduce registration rates for those who are more altruistically motivated. Conclusions: Given the unabated shortage of transplant organs, the finding that a priority system could increase the willingness to register as a donor without crowding out altruistically motivated individuals is highly encouraging.