Morality and markets in the NHS

Since its establishment in 1948, the history of the National Health Service (NHS) has been characterized by organisational turbulence and system reform. At the same time, progress in science, medicine and technology throughout the western world have revolutionized the delivery of healthcare. The NHS has become a much loved, if much critiqued, national treasure. It is against this backdrop that the role of this state-funded health service has been brought into moral question. Certainly, the challenges facing healthcare policy-makers are numerous and complex, but in the wake of the Health and Social Care Act (2012), no issue is more divisive than that of market-based reform. Here we explore the turbulent history of the NHS, from its foundation to the birth of the healthcare marketplace. We explore arguments for and against the healthcare market and resolve that, amid an evolving economic and moral framework, the NHS must ensure that its original tenets of equity and autonomy remain at its core. We propose a values-explicit, systems-based approach to renew focus on both the processes and the outcomes of care

How community ART delivery may improve HIV treatment outcomes: Qualitative inquiry into mechanisms of effect in a randomized trial of community-based ART initiation, monitoring and re-supply (DO ART) in South Africa and Uganda

INTRODUCTION: UNAIDS fast track targets for ending the AIDS epidemic by 2030 call for viral suppression in 95% of people using antiretroviral therapy (ART) to treat HIV infection. Difficulties in linking to care following a positive HIV test have impeded progress towards meeting treatment targets. Community-based HIV services may reduce linkage barriers and have been associated with high retention and favourable clinical outcomes. We use qualitative data from The Delivery Optimization of Antiretroviral Therapy (DO ART) Study, a three-arm randomized trial of community ART initiation, monitoring and re-supply conducted in western Uganda and KwaZulu-Natal South Africa, to identify mechanisms through which community ART delivery may improve treatment outcomes, defined as viral suppression in people living with HIV (PLHIV). METHODS: We conducted open-ended interviews with a purposeful sample of 150 DO ART participants across study arms and study sites, from October 2016 to November 2019. Interviews covered experiences of: (1) HIV testing; (2) initiating and refilling ART; and (3) participating in the DO ART Study. A combined inductive content analytic and thematic approach was used to characterize mechanisms through which community delivery of ART may have contributed to viral suppression in the DO ART trial. RESULTS: The analysis yielded four potential mechanisms drawn from qualitative data representing the perspectives and priorities of DO ART participants. Empowering participants to schedule, re-schedule and select the locations of community-based visits via easy phone contact with clinical staff is characterized as flexibility. Integration refers to combining the components of clinic-based visits into single interaction with a healthcare provider. Providers" willingness to talk at length with participants during visits, addressing non-HIV as well as HIV-related concerns, is termed "a slower pace". Finally, increased efficiency denotes the time savings and increased income-generating opportunities for participants brought about by delivering services in the community. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the mechanisms through which HIV service delivery innovations produce an effect is key to transferability and potential scale-up. The perspectives and priorities of PLHIV can indicate actionable changes for HIV care programs that may increase engagement in care and improve treatment outcomes

Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in people living with and without HIV in South Africa: an interim analysis of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1B/2A trial.

BACKGROUND: People living with HIV are at an increased risk of fatal outcome when admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19 compared with HIV-negative individuals. We aimed to assess safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in people with HIV and HIV-negative individuals in South Africa. METHODS: In this ongoing, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1B/2A trial (COV005), people with HIV and HIV-negative participants aged 18-65 years were enrolled at seven South African locations and were randomly allocated (1:1) with full allocation concealment to receive a prime-boost regimen of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, with two doses given 28 days apart. Eligibility criteria for people with HIV included being on antiretroviral therapy for at least 3 months, with a plasma HIV viral load of less than 1000 copies per mL. In this interim analysis, safety and reactogenicity was assessed in all individuals who received at least one dose of ChAdOx1 nCov 19 between enrolment and Jan 15, 2021. Primary immunogenicity analyses included participants who received two doses of trial intervention and were SARS-CoV-2 seronegative at baseline. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04444674, and the Pan African Clinicals Trials Registry, PACTR202006922165132. FINDINGS: Between June 24 and Nov 12, 2020, 104 people with HIV and 70 HIV-negative individuals were enrolled. 102 people with HIV (52 vaccine; 50 placebo) and 56 HIV-negative participants (28 vaccine; 28 placebo) received the priming dose, 100 people with HIV (51 vaccine; 49 placebo) and 46 HIV-negative participants (24 vaccine; 22 placebo) received two doses (priming and booster). In participants seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline, there were 164 adverse events in those with HIV (86 vaccine; 78 placebo) and 237 in HIV-negative participants (95 vaccine; 142 placebo). Of seven serious adverse events, one severe fever in a HIV-negative participant was definitely related to trial intervention and one severely elevated alanine aminotranferase in a participant with HIV was unlikely related; five others were deemed unrelated. One person with HIV died (unlikely related). People with HIV and HIV-negative participants showed vaccine-induced serum IgG responses against wild-type Wuhan-1 Asp614Gly (also known as D614G). For participants seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 antigens at baseline, full-length spike geometric mean concentration (GMC) at day 28 was 163·7 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL (95% CI 89·9-298·1) for people with HIV (n=36) and 112·3 BAU/mL (61·7-204·4) for HIV-negative participants (n=23), with a rising day 42 GMC booster response in both groups. Baseline SARS-CoV-2 seropositive people with HIV demonstrated higher antibody responses after each vaccine dose than did people with HIV who were seronegative at baseline. High-level binding antibody cross-reactivity for the full-length spike and receptor-binding domain of the beta variant (B.1.351) was seen regardless of HIV status. In people with HIV who developed high titre responses, predominantly those who were receptor-binding domain seropositive at enrolment, neutralising activity against beta was retained. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was well tolerated, showing favourable safety and immunogenicity in people with HIV, including heightened immunogenicity in SARS-CoV-2 baseline-seropositive participants. People with HIV showed cross-reactive binding antibodies to the beta variant and Asp614Gly wild-type, and high responders retained neutralisation against beta. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, South African Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, UK National Institute for Health Research, and the South African Medical Research Council

Global economic burden of unmet surgical need for appendicitis

Background: There is a substantial gap in provision of adequate surgical care in many low-and middle-income countries. This study aimed to identify the economic burden of unmet surgical need for the common condition of appendicitis. Methods: Data on the incidence of appendicitis from 170 countries and two different approaches were used to estimate numbers of patients who do not receive surgery: as a fixed proportion of the total unmet surgical need per country (approach 1); and based on country income status (approach 2). Indirect costs with current levels of access and local quality, and those if quality were at the standards of high-income countries, were estimated. A human capital approach was applied, focusing on the economic burden resulting from premature death and absenteeism. Results: Excess mortality was 4185 per 100 000 cases of appendicitis using approach 1 and 3448 per 100 000 using approach 2. The economic burden of continuing current levels of access and local quality was US $92 492 million using approach 1 and$73 141 million using approach 2. The economic burden of not providing surgical care to the standards of high-income countries was $95 004 million using approach 1 and$75 666 million using approach 2. The largest share of these costs resulted from premature death (97.7 per cent) and lack of access (97.0 per cent) in contrast to lack of quality. Conclusion: For a comparatively non-complex emergency condition such as appendicitis, increasing access to care should be prioritized. Although improving quality of care should not be neglected, increasing provision of care at current standards could reduce societal costs substantially

Pooled analysis of WHO Surgical Safety Checklist use and mortality after emergency laparotomy

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist has fostered safe practice for 10 years, yet its place in emergency surgery has not been assessed on a global scale. The aim of this study was to evaluate reported checklist use in emergency settings and examine the relationship with perioperative mortality in patients who had emergency laparotomy. Methods In two multinational cohort studies, adults undergoing emergency laparotomy were compared with those having elective gastrointestinal surgery. Relationships between reported checklist use and mortality were determined using multivariable logistic regression and bootstrapped simulation. Results Of 12 296 patients included from 76 countries, 4843 underwent emergency laparotomy. After adjusting for patient and disease factors, checklist use before emergency laparotomy was more common in countries with a high Human Development Index (HDI) (2455 of 2741, 89.6 per cent) compared with that in countries with a middle (753 of 1242, 60.6 per cent; odds ratio (OR) 0.17, 95 per cent c.i. 0.14 to 0.21, P <0001) or low (363 of 860, 422 per cent; OR 008, 007 to 010, P <0.001) HDI. Checklist use was less common in elective surgery than for emergency laparotomy in high-HDI countries (risk difference -94 (95 per cent c.i. -11.9 to -6.9) per cent; P <0001), but the relationship was reversed in low-HDI countries (+121 (+7.0 to +173) per cent; P <0001). In multivariable models, checklist use was associated with a lower 30-day perioperative mortality (OR 0.60, 0.50 to 073; P <0.001). The greatest absolute benefit was seen for emergency surgery in low- and middle-HDI countries. Conclusion Checklist use in emergency laparotomy was associated with a significantly lower perioperative mortality rate. Checklist use in low-HDI countries was half that in high-HDI countries.Peer reviewe

Efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Covid-19 Vaccine against the B.1.351 Variant.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the safety and efficacy of vaccines against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in different populations is essential, as is investigation of the efficacy of the vaccines against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including the B.1.351 (501Y.V2) variant first identified in South Africa. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) in people not infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in South Africa. Participants 18 to less than 65 years of age were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses of vaccine containing 5×1010 viral particles or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride solution) 21 to 35 days apart. Serum samples obtained from 25 participants after the second dose were tested by pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization assays against the original D614G virus and the B.1.351 variant. The primary end points were safety and efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic coronavirus 2019 illness (Covid-19) more than 14 days after the second dose. RESULTS: Between June 24 and November 9, 2020, we enrolled 2026 HIV-negative adults (median age, 30 years); 1010 and 1011 participants received at least one dose of placebo or vaccine, respectively. Both the pseudovirus and the live-virus neutralization assays showed greater resistance to the B.1.351 variant in serum samples obtained from vaccine recipients than in samples from placebo recipients. In the primary end-point analysis, mild-to-moderate Covid-19 developed in 23 of 717 placebo recipients (3.2%) and in 19 of 750 vaccine recipients (2.5%), for an efficacy of 21.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], -49.9 to 59.8). Among the 42 participants with Covid-19, 39 cases (95.1% of 41 with sequencing data) were caused by the B.1.351 variant; vaccine efficacy against this variant, analyzed as a secondary end point, was 10.4% (95% CI, -76.8 to 54.8). The incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between the vaccine and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: A two-dose regimen of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine did not show protection against mild-to-moderate Covid-19 due to the B.1.351 variant. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04444674; Pan African Clinical Trials Registry number, PACTR202006922165132)