Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions

Diagnostic performance of two different maternal near-miss approaches in a High Obstetric Risk Unit

Maternal near-miss (MNM) is a maternal quality care indicator. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines it as a state in which a woman nearly dies but survives due to a complication during pregnancy, birth, or puerperium. The Latin American Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (FLASOG) and the Colombian National Health Institute (INS) established recommendations for the event's epidemiological surveillance; nonetheless, the operational definitions of the cases are different. This retrospective study examined the approaches of FLASOG and INS versus the WHO approach (gold standard) for the assessment of MNM in a high obstetric risk unit. Patients admitted with at least one criterion of the WHO, FLASOG, or INS approach for the definition of MNM from March 2016 to March 2017 were included. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV) were evaluated, as well as the Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve of the FLASOG and INS. MNM classification compared to WHO system as reference. The results highlight that the WHO classification establishes very high boundaries for some of the diagnostic criteria and the lack of standardization of the MNM criteria among the different proposals in Latin America hinders the applicability in Colombia and other countries with a similar situation.

The Grandview Medical Center Bioethics Consultation Service Perspective on the Peril of Isolated and Vulnerable Individuals due to COVID-19

We present the perspective of a Bioethics Consultation Service operating in an urban hospital in Dayton, Ohio, USA, as it adapted to treating Sars-CoV-2 patients throughout 2020. Since the first case of COVID-19 was reported in Ohio on 9 March 2020, until 1 January 2021, the Bioethics Consultation Service was consulted 60 times, a 22.5% increase from the same period of 2019. The most common diagnoses requiring consultation included end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and sepsis. Only 10% of consultations were for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. This is a qualitative analysis of the cases we saw and a discussion of factors that affected our service while adapting to COVID-19 standards of care.

Ethics of split liver transplantation: should a large liver always be split if medically safe?

Split liver transplantation (SLT) provides an opportunity to divide a donor liver, offering transplants to two small patients (one or both could be a child) rather than keeping it whole and providing a transplant to a single larger adult patient. In this article, we attempt to address the following question that is identified by the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network and United Network for Organ Sharing: 'Should a large liver always be split if medically safe?' This article aims to defend an answer-'not always'-and clarify under what circumstances SLT is ethically desirable. Our answer will show why a more dynamic approach is needed to the ethics of SLT. First, we discuss a case that does not need a dynamic approach. Then, we explain what is meant by a dynamic approach and why it is needed.

Balancing the Needs of Acute and Maintenance Dialysis Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Proposed Ethical Framework for Dialysis Allocation

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to strain health care systems and drive shortages in medical supplies and equipment around the world. Resource allocation in times of scarcity requires transparent, ethical frameworks to optimize decision making and reduce health care worker and patient distress. The complexity of allocating dialysis resources for both patients receiving acute and maintenance dialysis has not previously been addressed. Using a rapid, collaborative, and iterative process, BC Renal, a provincial network in Canada, engaged patients, doctors, ethicists, administrators, and nurses to develop a framework for addressing system capacity, communication challenges, and allocation decisions. The guiding ethical principles that underpin this framework are (1) maximizing benefits, (2) treating people fairly, (3) prioritizing the worst-off individuals, and (4) procedural justice. Algorithms to support resource allocation and triage of patients were tested using simulations, and the final framework was reviewed and endorsed by members of the provincial nephrology community. The unique aspects of this allocation framework are the consideration of two diverse patient groups who require dialysis (acute and maintenance), and the application of two allocation criteria (urgency and prognosis) to each group in a sequential matrix. We acknowledge the context of the Canadian health care system, and a universal payer in which this framework was developed. The intention is to promote fair decision making and to maintain an equitable reallocation of limited resources for a complex problem during a pandemic.

Why should HCWs receive priority access to vaccines in a pandemic?

Background

Viral pandemics present a range of ethical challenges for policy makers, not the least among which are difficult decisions about how to allocate scarce healthcare resources. One important question is whether healthcare workers (HCWs) should receive priority access to a vaccine in the event that an effective vaccine becomes available. This question is especially relevant in the coronavirus pandemic with governments and health authorities currently facing questions of distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.

Main text

In this article, we critically evaluate the most common ethical arguments for granting healthcare workers priority access to a vaccine. We review the existing literature on this topic, and analyse both deontological and utilitarian arguments in favour of HCW prioritisation. For illustrative purposes, we focus in particular on the distribution of a COVID-19 vaccine. We also explore some practical complexities attendant on arguments in favour of HCW prioritisation.

Conclusions

We argue that there are deontological and utilitarian cases for prioritising HCWs. Indeed, the widely held view that we should prioritise HCWs represents an example of ethical convergence. Complexities arise, however, when considering who should be included in the category of HCW, and who else should receive priority in addition to HCWs.

Who should be tested in a pandemic? Ethical considerations

BACKGROUND

In the initial phase of the Covid-19 pandemic, difficult decisions had to be made on the allocation of testing resources. Similar situations can arise in future pandemics. Therefore, careful consideration of who should be tested is an important part of pandemic preparedness. We focus on four ethical aspects of that problem: how to prioritize scarce testing resources, the regulation of commercial direct-to-consumer test services, testing of unauthorized immigrants, and obligatory testing.

MAIN TEXT

The distribution of scarce resources for testing: We emphasize the use of needs-based criteria, but also acknowledge the importance of choosing a testing strategy that contributes efficiently to stopping the overall spread of the disease. Commercial direct-to-consumer test services: Except in cases of acute scarcity, such services will in practice have to be allowed. We propose that they should be subject to regulation that ensures test quality and adequate information to users. Testing of unauthorized immigrants, their children and other people with unclear legal status: Like everyone else, these individuals may be in need of testing, and it is in society's interest to reach them with testing in order to stop the spread of the disease. A society that offers comprehensive medical services to unauthorized immigrants is in a much better position to reach them in a pandemic than a society that previously excluded them from healthcare. Obligatory testing: While there are often strong reasons for universal testing in residential areas or on workplaces, there are in most cases better ways to achieve testing coverage than to make testing mandatory.

CONCLUSION

In summary, we propose (1) decision-making primarily based on needs-based criteria, (2) strict regulation but not prohibition of direct-to-consumer test services, (3) test services offered to unauthorized immigrants, preferably as part of comprehensive medical services, and (4) broad outreach of testing services whenever possible, but in general not obligatory testing.

Ethics of ICU triage during COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has placed intensive care units (ICU) triage at the center of bioethical discussions. National and international triage guidelines emerged from professional and governmental bodies and have led to controversial discussions about which criteria-e.g. medical prognosis, age, life-expectancy or quality of life-are ethically acceptable. The paper presents the main points of agreement and disagreement in triage protocols and reviews the ethical debate surrounding them.

SOURCES OF DATA

Published articles, news articles, book chapters, ICU triage guidelines set out by professional societies and health authorities.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Points of agreement in the guidelines that are widely supported by ethical arguments are (i) to avoid using a first come, first served policy or quality-adjusted life-years and (ii) to rely on medical prognosis, maximizing lives saved, justice as fairness and non-discrimination.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Points of disagreement in existing guidelines and the ethics literature more broadly regard the use of exclusion criteria, the role of life expectancy, the prioritization of healthcare workers and the reassessment of triage decisions.

GROWING POINTS

Improve outcome predictions, possibly aided by Artificial intelligence (AI); develop participatory approaches to drafting, assessing and revising triaging protocols; learn from experiences with implementation of guidelines with a view to continuously improve decision-making.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

Examine the universality vs. context-dependence of triaging principles and criteria; empirically test the appropriateness of triaging guidelines, including impact on vulnerable groups and risk of discrimination; study the potential and challenges of AI for outcome and preference prediction and decision-support.

Pandemic ICU triage challenge and medical ethics

The COVID-19 pandemic has made unprecedented global demands on healthcare in general and especially the intensive care unit (ICU). the virus is spreading out of control. To this day, there is no clear, published directive for doctors regarding the allocation of ICU beds in times of scarcity. This means that many doctors do not feel supported by their government and are afraid of the medicolegal consequences of the choices they have to make. Consequently, there has been no transparent discussion among professionals and the public. The thought of being at the mercy of absolute arbitrariness leads to fear among the population, especially the vulnerable groups.

Development and Validation of a Model to Predict Long-Term Survival After Liver Transplantation

Patients are prioritized for liver transplantation (LT) under an "urgency-based" system using the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score. This system focuses solely on waitlist mortality, without considerations of posttransplant morbidity, mortality, and health care use. We sought to develop and internally validate a continuous posttransplant risk score during 5-year and 10-year time horizons. This retrospective cohort study used national registry data of adult deceased donor LT (DDLT) recipients with ≥90 days of pretransplant waiting time from February 27, 2002 to December 31, 2018. We fit Cox regression models at 5 and 10 years to estimate beta coefficients for a risk score using manual variable selection and calculated the absolute predicted survival time. Among 21,103 adult DDLT recipients, 11 variables were selected for the final model. The area under the curves at 5 and 10 years were 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.66) and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.64-0.70), respectively. The group with the highest ("best") scores had 5-year and 10-year survivals of 89.4% and 85.4%, respectively, compared with 45.9% and 22.2% for those with the lowest ("worst") scores. Our score was significantly better at predicting long-term survival compared with the existing scores. We developed and validated a risk score using nearly 17 years of data to prioritize patients with end-stage liver disease based on projected posttransplant survival. This score can serve as the building block by which the transplant field can change the entire approach to prioritizing patients to an approach that is based on considerations of maximizing benefits (ie, survival benefit-based allocation) rather than simply waitlist mortality.

Predicting survival after liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma using the LiTES-HCC score

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Liver transplant priority in the US and Europe follows the 'sickest-first' principle. However, for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), priority is based on binary tumor criteria to expedite transplant for patients with 'acceptable' post-transplant outcomes. Newer risk scores developed to overcome limitations of these binary criteria are insufficient to be used for waitlist priority as they focus solely on HCC-related pre-transplant variables. We sought to develop a risk score to predict post-transplant survival for patients using HCC- and non-HCC-related variables.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using national registry data on adult deceased-donor liver transplant (DDLT) recipients with HCC from 2/27/02-12/31/18. We fit Cox regression models focused on 5- and 10-year survival to estimate beta coefficients for a risk score using manual variable selection. We then calculated absolute predicted survival time and compared it to available risk scores.

RESULTS

Among 6,502 adult DDLT recipients with HCC, 11 variables were selected in the final model. The AUCs at 5- and 10-years were: 0.62, 95% CI 0.57-0.67 and 0.65, 95% CI 0.58-0.72, which was not statistically significantly different to the Metroticket and HALT-HCC scores. The LiTES-HCC score was able to discriminate patients based on post-transplant survival among those meeting Milan and UCSF criteria.

CONCLUSION

We developed and validated a risk score to predict post-transplant survival for patients with HCC. By including HCC- and non-HCC-related variables (e.g., age, chronic kidney disease), this score could allow transplant professionals to prioritize patients with HCC in terms of predicted survival. In the future, this score could be integrated into survival benefit-based models to lead to meaningful improvements in life-years at the population level.

LAY SUMMARY

We created a risk score to predict how long patients with liver cancer will live if they get a liver transplant. In the future, this could be used to decide which waitlisted patients should get the next transplant.

Fair allocation of cryopreserved donor oocytes: towards an accountable process

A growing number of people desire ART with cryopreserved donor oocytes. The allocation of these oocytes to couples and mothers to be is a 2-fold process. The first step is to select a pool of recipients. The second step is to decide who should be treated first. Prioritizing recipients is critical in settings where demand outstrips supply. So far, the issue of how to fairly allocate cryopreserved donor oocytes has been poorly addressed. Our ethical analysis aims to support clinics involved in allocation decisions by formulating criteria for recipient selection irrespective of supply (Part I) and recipient prioritization in case supply is limited (Part II). Relevant criteria for recipient selection are: a need for treatment to experience parenthood; a reasonable chance for successful treatment; the ability to safely undergo an oocyte donation pregnancy; and the ability to establish a stable and loving relationship with the child. Recipients eligible for priority include those who: have limited time left for treatment; have not yet experienced parenthood; did not undergo previous treatment with cryopreserved donor oocytes; and contributed to the supply of donor oocytes by bringing a donor to the bank. While selection criteria function as a threshold principle, we argue that the different prioritization criteria should be carefully balanced. Since specifying and balancing the allocation criteria undoubtedly raises a moral dispute, a fair and legitimate allocation process is warranted (Part III). We argue that allocation decisions should be made by a multidisciplinary committee, staffed by relevant experts with a variety of perspectives. Furthermore, the committees' reasoning behind decisions should be transparent and accessible to those affected: clinicians, donors, recipients and children born from treatment. Insight into the reasons that underpin allocation decisions allows these stakeholders to understand, review and challenge decisions, which is also known as accountability for reasonableness.

Within-country age-based prioritisation, global allocation, and public health impact of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: A mathematical modelling analysis

The worldwide endeavour to develop safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines has been extraordinary, and vaccination is now underway in many countries. However, the doses available in 2021 are likely to be limited. We extend a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission across different country settings to evaluate the public health impact of potential vaccines using WHO-developed target product profiles. We identify optimal vaccine allocation strategies within- and between-countries to maximise averted deaths under constraints on dose supply. We find that the health impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination depends on the cumulative population-level infection incidence when vaccination begins, the duration of natural immunity, the trajectory of the epidemic prior to vaccination, and the level of healthcare available to effectively treat those with disease. Within a country we find that for a limited supply (doses for < 20% of the population) the optimal strategy is to target the elderly. However, with a larger supply, if vaccination can occur while other interventions are maintained, the optimal strategy switches to targeting key transmitters to indirectly protect the vulnerable. As supply increases, vaccines that reduce or block infection have a greater impact than those that prevent disease alone due to the indirect protection provided to high-risk groups. Given a 2 billion global dose supply in 2021, we find that a strategy in which doses are allocated to countries proportional to population size is close to optimal in averting deaths and aligns with the ethical principles agreed in pandemic preparedness planning.

Identifying ethical values for guiding triage decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic: an Italian ethical committee perspective using Delphi methodology

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the guiding ethical principles that should be considered for critical resource allocation during pandemic emergency situations, and especially for the COVID-19 outbreak. The secondary objective was to define the priority to be assigned to each principle.

SETTING

The study was conducted from March to June 2020 within the context of an ethical committee (EC) in Northern Italy.

PARTICIPANTS

Eleven EC members and five additional external healthcare and bioethical professionals, forming a multidisciplinary panel, took part in the study.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The compilation of a list of ethical principles (maximum of 10 items) and their priority ranking and application within an emergency pandemic context was established as the expected outcome of this work.

RESULTS

A consensus on 10 guiding ethical principles was reached by the multidisciplinary panel. Transparency ranked first on the priority list as the most frequently voted principle, followed by the number of lives saved, life-years saved, respect for individuals' autonomy and equity. Other principles including life cycle, 'sickest first', reciprocity, instrumental value and lottery were also considered appropriate as potential tiebreakers. These principles were discussed and made consistent with the current Italian pandemic context by producing an explanatory document.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified principles could be used in preparedness plans to guide resource allocation during pandemic events. By combining their rank and relevance in relation to disease, health system organisations, social and economic settings, and critical resources at risk of scarcity, these principles could help to maximise the benefit of resource use for the community, thus reducing inequalities for individuals.

Real-Time Electronic Health Record Mortality Prediction During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective Cohort Study

Objective

To rapidly develop, validate, and implement a novel real-time mortality score for the COVID-19 pandemic that improves upon sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) for decision support for a Crisis Standards of Care team.

Materials and Methods

We developed, verified, and deployed a stacked generalization model to predict mortality using data available in the electronic health record (EHR) by combining 5 previously validated scores and additional novel variables reported to be associated with COVID-19-specific mortality. We verified the model with prospectively collected data from 12 hospitals in Colorado between March 2020 and July 2020. We compared the area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) for the new model to the SOFA score and the Charlson Comorbidity Index.

Results

The prospective cohort included 27 296 encounters, of which 1358 (5.0%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2, 4494 (16.5%) required intensive care unit care, 1480 (5.4%) required mechanical ventilation, and 717 (2.6%) ended in death. The Charlson Comorbidity Index and SOFA scores predicted mortality with an AUROC of 0.72 and 0.90, respectively. Our novel score predicted mortality with AUROC 0.94. In the subset of patients with COVID-19, the stacked model predicted mortality with AUROC 0.90, whereas SOFA had AUROC of 0.85.

Discussion

Stacked regression allows a flexible, updatable, live-implementable, ethically defensible predictive analytics tool for decision support that begins with validated models and includes only novel information that improves prediction.

Conclusion

We developed and validated an accurate in-hospital mortality prediction score in a live EHR for automatic and continuous calculation using a novel model that improved upon SOFA.

Priority Setting as an Ethical Imperative in Managing Global Dialysis Access and Improving Kidney Care

Priority-setting dilemmas arise when trade-offs must be made regarding the kinds of services that should be provided and to whom, thereby withholding other services from individuals or groups that could benefit from them. Currently, it is practically impossible for lower-income countries to provide dialysis for all patients with kidney failure; however, the fundamental premise of the human right to health, while acknowledging the current resource constraints, is the progressive realization of access to care for all. In this article we outline the rationale for priority setting, starting with the global goal of achieving universal health coverage, the prerequisites for fair and transparent priority setting, and discuss how these may apply to expensive care such as dialysis. Priority is inherently a value-laden process, and cannot be whittled down to technical considerations of clinical or cost effectiveness alone. Fair and transparent priority setting should originate from population health needs, be based on evidence, and be associated with ethical values or principles. This requires effective engagement with relevant stakeholders. Once policies are developed and implemented, good oversight is crucial to ensure accountability and to provide iterative feedback such that the goals of universal health coverage may be progressively realized.

Ethical Duties of Nephrologists: When Patients Are Nonadherent to Treatment

When providing care, nephrologists are subject to various ethical duties. Beyond the Hippocratic notion of doing no harm, nephrologists also have duties to respect their patients' autonomy and dignity, to meet their patients' care goals in the least invasive way, to act impartially, and, ultimately, to do what is (clinically) beneficial for their patients. Juggling these often-conflicting duties can be challenging at the best of times, but can prove especially difficult when patients are not fully adherent to treatment. When a patient's nonadherence begins to cause harm to themselves and/or others, it may be questioned whether discontinuation of care is appropriate. We discuss how nephrologists can meet their ethical duties when faced with nonadherence in patients undergoing hemodialysis, including episodic extreme agitation, poor renal diet, missed hemodialysis sessions, and emergency presentations brought on by nonadherence. Furthermore, we consider the impact of cognitive impairment and provider-family conflict when making care decisions in a nonadherence context, as well as how the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic might affect responses to nonadherence. Suggestions are provided for ethically informed responses, prioritizing a patient-narrative approach that is attentive to patients' values and preferences, multidisciplinarity, and the use of behavioral contracts and/or technology where appropriate.

Allocating scarce intensive care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic: practical challenges to theoretical frameworks

The COVID-19 pandemic strained health-care systems throughout the world. For some, available medical resources could not meet the increased demand and rationing was ultimately required. Hospitals and governments often sought to establish triage committees to assist with allocation decisions. However, for institutions operating under crisis standards of care (during times when standards of care must be substantially lowered in the setting of crisis), relying on these committees for rationing decisions was impractical-circumstances were changing too rapidly, occurring in too many diverse locations within hospitals, and the available information for decision making was notably scarce. Furthermore, a utilitarian approach to decision making based on an analysis of outcomes is problematic due to uncertainty regarding outcomes of different therapeutic options. We propose that triage committees could be involved in providing policies and guidance for clinicians to help ensure equity in the application of rationing under crisis standards of care. An approach guided by egalitarian principles, integrated with utilitarian principles, can support physicians at the bedside when they must ration scarce resources.

Healthcare resource allocation in the COVID-19 pandemic: Ethical considerations from the perspective of distributive justice within public health

Objectives

One of the many challenges public health practitioners have faced during the COVID-19 pandemic is deciding on the optimal allocation of limited healthcare resources. The current paper addresses the normative question of how medical resources can be optimally distributed during the current pandemic.

Methods

As an article of short communication, an ethical analysis from the moral perspectives of distributive justice was conducted.

Results

As multiple moral considerations must be analyzed to construct an ethically grounded and systematic allocation system, conflicting notions regarding efficiency, equity, and distributive justice are considered. Several practical recommendations were derived by leveraging the values of utilitarian, egalitarian, and prioritarian approaches to the proposed normative question.

Conclusions

Transparent, equitable, and consistent allocation mechanisms underpinned by the ethical values and recommendations presented in this paper should inform prioritization guidelines when medical resources are stretched.

Incorporating Stakeholder Perspectives on Scarce Resource Allocation: Lessons Learned from Policymaking in a Time of Crisis

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) crisis provoked an organizational ethics dilemma: how to develop ethical pandemic policy while upholding our organizational mission to deliver relationship- and patient-centered care. Tasked with producing a recommendation about whether healthcare workers and essential personnel should receive priority access to limited medical resources during the pandemic, the bioethics department and survey and interview methodologists at our institution implemented a deliberative approach that included the perspectives of healthcare professionals and patient stakeholders in the policy development process. Involving the community more, not less, during a crisis required balancing the need to act quickly to garner stakeholder perspectives, uncertainty about the extent and duration of the pandemic, and disagreement among ethicists about the most ethically supportable way to allocate scarce resources. This article explains the process undertaken to garner stakeholder input as it relates to organizational ethics, recounts the stakeholder perspectives shared and how they informed the triage policy developed, and offers suggestions for how other organizations may integrate stakeholder involvement in ethical decision-making as well as directions for future research and public health work.

Telemedicine and Virtual Reality at Time of COVID-19 Pandemic: An Overview for Future Perspectives in Neurorehabilitation

In catastrophic situations such as pandemics, patients' healthcare including admissions to hospitals and emergency services are challenged by the risk of infection and by limitations of healthcare resources. In such a setting, the use of telemedicine interventions has become extremely important. New technologies have proved helpful in pandemics as a solution to improve the quality of life in vulnerable patients such as persons with neurological diseases. Moreover, telemedicine interventions provide at-home solutions allowing clinicians to telemonitor and assess patients remotely, thus minimizing risk of infection. After a review of different studies using telemedicine in neurological patients, we propose a telemedicine process flow for healthcare of subjects with chronic neurological disease to respond to the new challenges for delivering quality healthcare during the transformation of public and private healthcare organizations around the world forced by COVID-19 pandemic contingency. This telemedicine process flow represents a replacement for in-person treatment and thereby the provision equitable access to the care of vulnerable people. It is conceptualized as comprehensive service including (1) teleassistance with patient counseling and medical treatment, (2) telemonitoring of patients' health conditions and any changes over time, as well as (3) telerehabilitation, i.e., interventions to assess and promote body functions, activities, and consecutively participation. The hereby proposed telemedicine process flow could be adopted on a large scale to improve the public health response during healthcare crises like the COVID-19 pandemic but could equally promote equitable health care independent of people's mobility or location with respect to the specialized health care center.

Between hoping to die and longing to live longer

Drawing on Ezekiel Emanuel's controversial piece 'Why I hope to die at 75,' I distinguish two types of concern in ethical debates about extending the human lifespan. The first focusses on the value of living longer from prudential and social perspectives. The second type of concern, which has received less attention, focusses on the value of aiming for longer life. This distinction, which is overlooked in the ethical literature on life extension, is significant because there are features of human psychology and the structure of a life that should give pause when considering how long one should aim to live, but which do not neatly coincide with considerations about how valuable additional life is likely to be. I argue that, while Emanuel's case for hoping to die at 75 is unconvincing, he nonetheless provides weak pro tanto considerations in favour of taking a moderate life span as a prudential aim around which to base at least some significant life plans.

Leveling-up versus leveling-down to address health disparities in transplantation

Health disparities are best addressed by improving the underserved up to the level afforded to those with the greatest opportunities. See the Viewpoint from Reese et al. on page 958.

Expert opinion in Alzheimer disease: The silent scream of patients and their family during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic

COVID-19 pandemic is expected to be the greatest challenge for mental health since World War II in general, but the toll exacted on patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and their family is the greatest in several respects. AD patients are at the highest risk for contagion and death from the disease, but also at the very bottom in the list of priorities to access critical care services at times of medical resource scarcity. In this communication we examine the impact of the pandemic on AD patients and their family from the general medical, neurological, and mental health perspectives. We propose that instances of undue restriction of access to care based upon age and diagnosis show that society, governments, and health professionals need to exert maximum care, human compassion, and adherence to original Hippocratic values when addressing the needs of persons with AD and other major neurocognitive disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that psychiatry is called to contribute to societal measures oriented to diminish human burden in this population.

Racial disparities in preemptive waitlisting and deceased donor kidney transplantation: Ethics and solutions

Kidney transplantation prior to dialysis, known as "preemptive transplant," enables patients to live longer and avoid the substantial quality of life burdens due to chronic dialysis. Deceased donor kidneys are a public resource that ought to provide health benefits equitably. Unfortunately, White, better educated, and privately insured patients enjoy disproportionate access to preemptive transplantation using deceased donor kidneys. This problem has persisted for decades and is exacerbated by the first-come, first-served approach to kidney allocation for predialysis patients. In this Personal Viewpoint, we describe the diverse barriers to preemptive waitlisting and kidney transplant. The analysis focuses on healthcare system features that particularly disadvantage Black patients, such as the waitlisting eligibility criterion of a single glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance ≤20 ml/min, and neglect of wide variation in the rate of progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in allocating preemptive transplants. We propose initiatives to improve equity including: (1) standardization of waitlisting eligibility criteria related to kidney function; (2) aggressive education for clinicians about early transplant referral; (3) innovations in electronic medical record capabilities; and (4) rapid status 7 listing by centers. If those initiatives fail, the transplant field should consider eliminating preemptive waitlisting and transplantation with deceased donor kidneys.

Ethical obligations for supporting healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, some healthcare facilities have, at times, reached the limits of their capacity to handle the surge in patient volume. Hospital beds and other medical resources became scarce as a consequence. Healthcare workers (HCWs), both clinical and non-clinical, were required to increase their workload, under extremely stressful circumstances.

Based on considerations of justice, healthcare workers must be able to rely on support and protection from the societies in which they work. Prioritisation of healthcare workers for vaccines may be a way to maintain a functioning healthcare system.https://bit.ly/3pouzQu

Reflective disequilibrium: a critical evaluation of the complete lives framework for healthcare rationing

One prominent view in recent literature on resource allocation is Persad, Emanuel and Wertheimer's complete lives framework for the rationing of lifesaving healthcare interventions (CLF). CLF states that we should prioritise the needs of individuals who have had less opportunity to experience the events that characterise a complete life. Persad et al argue that their system is the product of a successful process of reflective equilibrium-a philosophical methodology whereby theories, principles and considered judgements are balanced with each other and revised until we achieve an acceptable coherence between our various beliefs. Yet I argue that many of the principles and intuitions underpinning CLF conflict with each other, and that Persad et al have failed to achieve an acceptable coherence between them. I focus on three tensions in particular: the conflict between the youngest first principle and Persad et al's investment refinement; the conflict between current medical need and a concern for lifetime equality; and the tension between adopting an objective measure of complete lives and accommodating for differences in life narratives.

Priorities, actions and risks in the COVID-19 pandemic: a flash SoMe survey among surgical oncologists

Objectives

Corona virus-induced disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has globally affected the surgical treatment of cancer patients and has challenged the ethical principles of surgical oncologists around the world. Not only treatment but also diagnosis and follow-up have been disrupted.

Methods

An online survey was sent through Twitter and by the surgical societies worldwide. The survey consisted of 29 closed-ended questions and was conducted over a period of 24 days beginning in March 26, 2020.

Results

Overall, 394 surgical oncologists from 41 different countries answered the questionnaire. The predominant guiding principle was “saving lives” 240 (62%), and the different aspects of lock-down found hence large support (mean 7.1–9.3 out of 10). Shut-down of elective surgery and modification of cancer care found a mean support of 7.0 ± 3.0 and 5.8 ± 3.1, respectively. Modification of cancer care longer than two weeks was considered unacceptable to 114 (29%) responders. Hundred and fifty six (40%) and 138 (36%) expect “return to normal” beyond six months for surgical practice and cancer care, respectively.

Conclusions

Surgical oncologists show strong and long-lasting support for lock-down measures aiming to save lives. The impact of the pandemic on surgical oncology is perceived controversially, but the majority was forced already now to accept what is inacceptable for many of their colleagues.

Cost-effectiveness of intensive care for hospitalized COVID-19 patients: experience from South Africa

BACKGROUND

Given projected shortages of critical care capacity in public hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic, the South African government embarked on an initiative to purchase this capacity from private hospitals. In order to inform purchasing decisions, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of intensive care management for admitted COVID-19 patients across the public and private health systems in South Africa.

METHODS

Using a modelling framework and health system perspective, costs and health outcomes of inpatient management of severe and critical COVID-19 patients in (1) general ward and intensive care (GW + ICU) versus (2) general ward only (GW) were assessed. Disability adjusted life years (DALYs) were evaluated and the cost per admission in public and private sectors was determined. The model made use of four variables: mortality rates, utilisation of inpatient days for each management approach, disability weights associated with severity of disease, and the unit cost per general ward day and per ICU day in public and private hospitals. Unit costs were multiplied by utilisation estimates to determine the cost per admission. DALYs were calculated as the sum of years of life lost (YLL) and years lived with disability (YLD). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) - representing difference in costs and health outcomes of the two management strategies - was compared to a cost-effectiveness threshold to determine the value for money of expansion in ICU services during COVID-19 surges.

RESULTS

A cost per admission of ZAR 75,127 was estimated for inpatient management of severe and critical COVID-19 patients in GW as opposed to ZAR 103,030 in GW + ICU. DALYs were 1.48 and 1.10 in GW versus GW + ICU, respectively. The ratio of difference in costs and health outcomes between the two management strategies produced an ICER of ZAR 73,091 per DALY averted, a value above the cost-effectiveness threshold of ZAR 38,465.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicated that purchasing ICU capacity from the private sector during COVID-19 surges may not be a cost-effective investment. The 'real time', rapid, pragmatic, and transparent nature of this analysis demonstrates an approach for evidence generation for decision making relating to the COVID-19 pandemic response and South Africa's wider priority setting agenda.

The Ethics of Research That May Disadvantage Others

In prospective interventional research, a treatment may provide an advantage for the recipient over other people who do not receive it. If the intervention proves successful, the treated are better able to compete for such things as a scarce ventilator, a class grade, or a litigation outcome, potentially risking the deaths, jobs, or incomes of nontreated persons. Discussions of ethical concerns related to "bystanders" have typically focused on direct harms (such as infecting them with a virus), rather than the competition for a rivalrous good (such as a ventilator or clinical outcome). After broadly scoping this problem of advantage, this article reveals several reasons that such interventional research is typically permissible, notwithstanding the potential setbacks to nonparticipants. I consider the almost-dispositive concept of clinical equipoise and then glean insights from the harm principle, status quo bias, the leveling-down problem, and a potential bias against prospective interventional research versus program interventions with retrospective study. My consideration of institutional relationships does not change the analysis that such research is permissible.

Real-Time Electronic Health Record Mortality Prediction During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective Cohort Study

Background

The SARS-CoV-2 virus has infected millions of people, overwhelming critical care resources in some regions. Many plans for rationing critical care resources during crises are based on the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. The COVID-19 pandemic created an emergent need to develop and validate a novel electronic health record (EHR)-computable tool to predict mortality.

Research Questions

To rapidly develop, validate, and implement a novel real-time mortality score for the COVID-19 pandemic that improves upon SOFA.

Study Design and Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study of a regional health system with 12 hospitals in Colorado between March 2020 and July 2020. All patients >14 years old hospitalized during the study period without a do not resuscitate order were included. Patients were stratified by the diagnosis of COVID-19. From this cohort, we developed and validated a model using stacked generalization to predict mortality using data widely available in the EHR by combining five previously validated scores and additional novel variables reported to be associated with COVID-19-specific mortality. We compared the area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) for the new model to the SOFA score and the Charlson Comorbidity Index.

Results

We prospectively analyzed 27,296 encounters, of which 1,358 (5.0%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2, 4,494 (16.5%) included intensive care unit (ICU)-level care, 1,480 (5.4%) included invasive mechanical ventilation, and 717 (2.6%) ended in death. The Charlson Comorbidity Index and SOFA scores predicted overall mortality with an AUROC of 0.72 and 0.90, respectively. Our novel score predicted overall mortality with AUROC 0.94. In the subset of patients with COVID-19, we predicted mortality with AUROC 0.90, whereas SOFA had AUROC of 0.85.

Interpretation

We developed and validated an accurate, in-hospital mortality prediction score in a live EHR for automatic and continuous calculation using a novel model, that improved upon SOFA.

Take Home Points

Study Question: Can we improve upon the SOFA score for real-time mortality prediction during the COVID-19 pandemic by leveraging electronic health record (EHR) data?Results: We rapidly developed and implemented a novel yet SOFA-anchored mortality model across 12 hospitals and conducted a prospective cohort study of 27,296 adult hospitalizations, 1,358 (5.0%) of which were positive for SARS-CoV-2. The Charlson Comorbidity Index and SOFA scores predicted all-cause mortality with AUROCs of 0.72 and 0.90, respectively. Our novel score predicted mortality with AUROC 0.94.Interpretation: A novel EHR-based mortality score can be rapidly implemented to better predict patient outcomes during an evolving pandemic.

The Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources: A Comparative Study From Jordan

The allocation strategies during challenging situations among the different social groups is based on 9 principles which can be considered either individually: sickest first, waiting list, prognosis, youngest first, instrumental values, lottery, monetary contribution, reciprocity, and individual behavior, or in combination; youngest first and prognosis, for example. In this study, we aim to look into the most important prioritization principles amongst different groups in the Jordanian population, in order to facilitate the decision-making process for any potential medical crisis. We conducted an online survey that tackled how individuals would deal with three different scenarios of medical scarcity: (1) organ donation, (2) limited hospital beds during an influenza epidemic, and (3) allocation of novel therapeutics for lung cancer. In addition, a free-comment option was included at the end of the survey if respondents wished to contribute further. Seven hundred and fifty-four survey responses were gathered, including 372 males (49.3%), and 382 females (50.7%). Five groups of individuals were represented including religion scholars, physicians, medical students, allied health practitioners, and lay people. Of the five surveyed groups, four found “sickest-first” to be the most important prioritization principle in all three scenarios, and only the physicians group documented a disagreement. In the first scenario, physicians regarded “sickest-first” and “combined-criteria” to be of equal importance. In general, no differences were documented between the examined groups in comparison with lay people in the preference of options in all three scenarios; however, physicians were more likely to choose “combination” in both the second and third scenarios (OR 3.70, 95% CI 1.62–8.44, and 2.62, 95% CI 1.48–4.59; p < 0.01), and were less likely to choose “sickest-first” as the single most important prioritization principle (OR 0.57, CI 0.37–0.88, and 0.57; 95% CI 0.36–0.88; p < 0.01). Out of 100 free comments, 27 (27.0%) thought that the “social-value” of patients should also be considered, adding the 10th potential allocation principle. Our findings are concordant with literature in terms of allocating scarce medical resources. However, “social-value” appeared as an important principle that should be addressed when prioritizing scarce medical resources in Jordan.

The Many Faces of Covid-19 at a Glance: A University Hospital Multidisciplinary Account From Milan, Italy

In March 2020, northern Italy became the second country worldwide most affected by Covid-19 and the death toll overtook that in China. Hospital staff soon realized that Covid-19 was far more severe than expected from the few data available at that time. The Covid-19 pandemic forced hospitals to adjust to rapidly changing circumstances. We report our experience in a general teaching hospital in Milan, the capital of Lombardy, the most affected area in Italy. First, we briefly describe Lombardy's regional Covid-19-related health organizational changes as well as general hospital reorganization. We also provide a multidisciplinary report of the main clinical, radiological and pathological Covid-19 findings we observed in our patients.

Ethical considerations in neurology during the COVID-19 pandemic

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has struck many countries and caused a great number of infected cases and death. Healthcare system across all countries is dealing with the increasing medical, social, and legal issues caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the standards of care are being altered. Admittedly, neurology units have been influenced greatly since the first days, as aggressive policies adopted by many hospitals caused eventual shut down of numerous neurologic wards. Considering these drastic alterations, traditional ethical principles have to be integrated with state-of-the-art ethical considerations. This review will consider different ethical aspects of care in neurologic patients during COVID-19 and how this challenging situation has affected standards of care in these patients.

Fair Allocation of Potential COVID-19 Vaccines Using an Optimization-Based Strategy

The fair allocation of resources among multiple stakeholders in any area is a complex challenge for decision-making. This paper presents an optimization strategy for the allocation of COVID-19 vaccines, when they are available, through different fairness schemes (social welfare, Nash, Rawlsian justice, and social welfare II scheme). The applicability of the proposed model is illustrated using the case study of Mexico, including the states of the country as stakeholders. We involve several parameters to guide the allocation, such as the size, risk profiles, and fraction of vulnerable groups in the population. Furthermore, different scenarios of the availability of potential COVID-19 vaccines were evaluated. The social welfare approach is the most commonly used scheme for the allocation of resources. However, we demonstrate that this scheme yields non-unique or multiple solutions (through the social welfare II approach). These social welfare approaches provide inequalities in the allocations that become critical when resources are scarce. Specifically, the social welfare scheme favors large stakeholders (greater population) in all scenarios. We also observe how the complexity of the allocation increases with the higher availability of vaccines. Hence, it is relevant to consider allocation schemes to identify fair solutions.

Fair and equitable subject selection in concurrent COVID-19 clinical trials

Clinical trials emerged in rapid succession as the COVID-19 pandemic created an unprecedented need for life-saving therapies. Fair and equitable subject selection in clinical trials offering investigational therapies ought to be an urgent moral concern. Subject selection determines the distribution of risks and benefits, and impacts the applicability of the study results for the larger population. While Research Ethics Committees monitor fair subject selection within each trial, no standard oversight exists for subject selection across multiple trials for the same disease. Drawing on the experience of multiple clinical trials at a single academic medical centre in the USA, we posit that concurrent COVID-19 trials are liable to unfair and inequitable subject selection on account of scientific uncertainty, lack of transparency, scarcity and, lastly, structural barriers to equity compounded by implicit bias. To address the critical gap in the current literature and international regulation, we propose new ethical guidelines for research design and conduct that bolsters fair and equitable subject selection. Although the proposed guidelines are tailored to the research design and protocol of concurrent trials in the COVID-19 pandemic, they may have broader relevance to single COVID-19 trials.

Critical Ethics: How to Balance Patient Autonomy With Fairness When Patients Refuse Coronavirus Disease 2019 Testing

OBJECTIVES

A cornerstone of our healthcare system's response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is widespread testing to facilitate both isolation and early treatment. When patients refuse to undergo coronavirus disease testing, they compromise not only just their own health but also the health of those around them. The primary objective of our review is to identify the most ethical way a given healthcare system may respond to a patient's refusal to undergo coronavirus disease 2019 testing.

DATA SOURCES

We apply a systematic approach to a true clinical case scenario to evaluate the ethical merits of four plausible responses to a patient's refusal to undergo coronavirus disease testing. Although our clinical case is anecdotal, it is representative of our experience at our University Tertiary Care Center.

DATA EXTRACTION

Each plausible response in the case is rigorously analyzed by examining relevant stakeholders, facts, norms, and ethical weight both with respect to individuals' rights and to the interests of public health. We use the "So Far No Objections" method as the ethical approach of choice because it has been widely used in the Ethics Modules of the Surgical Council on Resident Education Curriculum of the American College of Surgeons.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Two ethically viable options may be tailored to individual circumstances depending on the severity of the patient's condition. Although unstable patients must be assumed to be coronavirus disease positive and treated accordingly even in the absence of a test, stable patients who refuse testing may rightfully be asked to seek care elsewhere.

CONCLUSIONS

Although patient autonomy is a fundamental principle of our society's medical ethic, during a pandemic we must, in the interest of vulnerable and critically ill patients, draw certain limits to obliging the preferences of noncritically ill patients with decisional capacity.

The principle of salvage in the context of COVID-19

The prioritisation of scarce resources has a particular urgency within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. This paper sets out a hypothetical case of Patient X (who is a nurse) and Patient Y (who is a non-health care worker). They are both in need of a ventilator due to COVID-19 with the same clinical situation and expected outcomes. However, there is only one ventilator available. In addressing the question of who should get priority, the proposal is made that the answer may lie in how the pandemic is metaphorically described using military terms. If nursing is understood to take place at the 'frontline' in the 'battle' against COVID-19, a principle of military medical ethics-namely the principle of salvage-can offer guidance on how to prioritise access to a life-saving resource in such a situation. This principle of salvage purports a moral direction to return wounded soldiers back to duty on the battlefield. Applying this principle to the hypothetical case, this paper proposes that Patient X (who is a nurse) should get priority of access to the ventilator so that he/she can return to the 'frontline' in the fight against COVID-19.

COVID-19 Among African Americans: An Action Plan for Mitigating Disparities

As the COVID-19 pandemic has unfolded across the United States, troubling disparities in mortality have emerged between different racial groups, particularly African Americans and Whites. Media reports, a growing body of COVID-19-related literature, and long-standing knowledge of structural racism and its myriad effects on the African American community provide important lenses for understanding and addressing these disparities.However, troubling gaps in knowledge remain, as does a need to act. Using the best available evidence, we present risk- and place-based recommendations for how to effectively address these disparities in the areas of data collection, COVID-19 exposure and testing, health systems collaboration, human capital repurposing, and scarce resource allocation.Our recommendations are supported by an analysis of relevant bioethical principles and public health practices. Additionally, we provide information on the efforts of Chicago, Illinois' mayoral Racial Equity Rapid Response Team to reduce these disparities in a major urban US setting.

Cancer treatment in the coronavirus disease pandemic

•

COVID-19 patients with cancer had increased risk of death and severe outcomes compared to those without cancer.

•

There is no conclusive evidence indicating that antineoplastic treatment aggravates COVID-19 disease

•

There was no significant difference in COVID-19 severity regardless of PD-1 blockade exposure.

Half a year after its emergence, severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has resulted in a pandemic, with cases continuing to increase in nearly every country. Surges in coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) cases have clearly had profound effects on current cancer treatment paradigms. Considering the effect of antineoplastic treatment and the immunosuppressive properties of cancer itself, cancer patients are deemed to be more vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2. Hence, the specific risk of SARS-CoV-2 must be carefully weighed against the benefit of antineoplastic treatment for cancer patients in the COVID-19 era. In this review, we discuss the current evidence in this important field, and in particular, the effect of SARS-CoV-2 on antineoplastic treatment.

General Public Preferences for Allocating Scarce Medical Resources During COVID-19

COVID-19 has overwhelmed healthcare systems across the globe with an unprecedented surge in the demand for hospitalizations. Consequently, many hospitals are facing precarious conditions due to limited capacity, especially in the provision of ventilators. The governing ethical principles of medical practice delineated in (1) favor prioritizing younger patients, largely because of their relatively higher expected life years. We conduct a survey of the general public in the United States to elicit their preferences for the allocation of a limited number of ventilators. The results show that the general public views align with the established ethical principles, which favor younger patients. JEL Classification: C91.

Which factors should be included in triage? An online survey of the attitudes of the UK general public to pandemic triage dilemmas

OBJECTIVE

As cases of COVID-19 infections surge, concerns have renewed about intensive care units (ICUs) being overwhelmed and the need for specific triage protocols over winter. This study aimed to help inform triage guidance by exploring the views of lay people about factors to include in triage decisions.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Online survey between 29th of May and 22nd of June 2020 based on hypothetical triage dilemmas. Participants recruited from existing market research panels, representative of the UK general population. Scenarios were presented in which a single ventilator is available, and two patients require ICU admission and ventilation. Patients differed in one of: chance of survival, life expectancy, age, expected length of treatment, disability and degree of frailty. Respondents were given the option of choosing one patient to treat or tossing a coin to decide.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and sixty-three participated. A majority of respondents prioritised patients who would have a higher chance of survival (72%-93%), longer life expectancy (78%-83%), required shorter duration of treatment (88%-94%), were younger (71%-79%) or had a lesser degree of frailty (60%-69%, all p<0.001). Where there was a small difference between two patients, a larger proportion elected to toss a coin to decide which patient to treat. A majority (58%-86%) were prepared to withdraw treatment from a patient in intensive care who had a lower chance of survival than another patient currently presenting with COVID-19. Respondents also indicated a willingness to give higher priority to healthcare workers and to patients with young children.

CONCLUSION

Members of the UK general public potentially support a broadly utilitarian approach to ICU triage in the face of overwhelming need. Survey respondents endorsed the relevance of patient factors currently included in triage guidance, but also factors not currently included. They supported the permissibility of reallocating treatment in a pandemic.

Disability Discrimination, Medical Rationing and COVID-19

The current public health crisis has exposed deep cracks in social equality and justice for marginalised and vulnerable communities around the world. The reported rise in the number of 'do not resuscitate' orders being imposed on people with disabilities has caused particular concerns from a human rights perspective. While the evidence of this is contested, this article will consider the human rights implications at stake and the dangers associated with using 'quality of life' measures as determinant of care in medical decision-making and triage assessments.