The 'haves' and 'have-nots' of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic: the ethics of emerging inequalities amongst healthcare workers

Disproportionate infection, hospitalisation and death from COVID-19 in ethnic minority groups and Indigenous Peoples: an application of the Priority Public Health Conditions analytical framework

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in disproportionate consequences for ethnic minority groups and Indigenous Peoples. We present an application of the Priority Public Health Conditions (PPHC) framework from the World Health Organisation (WHO), to explicitly address COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses of pandemic potential. This application is supported by evidence that ethnic minority groups were more likely to be infected, implying differential exposure (PPHC level two), be more vulnerable to severe disease once infected (PPHC level three) and have poorer health outcomes following infection (PPHC level four). These inequities are driven by various interconnected dimensions of racism, that compounds with socioeconomic context and position (PPHC level one). We show that, for respiratory viruses, it is important to stratify levels of the PPHC framework by infection status and by societal, community, and individual factors to develop optimal interventions to reduce inequity from COVID-19 and future infectious diseases outbreaks.

Bubble-PAPR: a phase 1 clinical evaluation of the comfort and perception of a prototype powered air-purifying respirator for use by healthcare workers in an acute hospital setting

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to design and produce a low-cost, ergonomic, hood-integrated powered air-purifying respirator (Bubble-PAPR) for pandemic healthcare use, offering optimal and equitable protection to all staff. We hypothesised that participants would rate Bubble-PAPR more highly than current filtering face piece (FFP3) face mask respiratory protective equipment (RPE) in the domains of comfort, perceived safety and communication.

DESIGN

Rapid design and evaluation cycles occurred based on the identified user needs. We conducted diary card and focus group exercises to identify relevant tasks requiring RPE. Lab-based safety standards established against British Standard BS-EN-12941 and EU2016/425 covering materials; inward particulate leakage; breathing resistance; clean air filtration and supply; carbon dioxide elimination; exhalation means and electrical safety. Questionnaire-based usability data from participating front-line healthcare staff before (usual RPE) and after using Bubble-PAPR.

SETTING

Overseen by a trial safety committee, evaluation progressed sequentially through laboratory, simulated, low-risk, then high-risk clinical environments of a single tertiary National Health Service hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

15 staff completed diary cards and focus groups. 91 staff from a range of clinical and non-clinical roles completed the study, wearing Bubble-PAPR for a median of 45 min (IQR 30-80 (15-120)). Participants self-reported a range of heights (mean 1.7 m (SD 0.1, range 1.5-2.0)), weights (72.4 kg (16.0, 47-127)) and body mass indices (25.3 (4.7, 16.7-42.9)).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Preuse particulometer 'fit testing' and evaluation against standards by an independent biomedical engineer.Primary:Perceived comfort (Likert scale).Secondary: Perceived safety, communication.

RESULTS

Mean fit factor 16 961 (10 participants). Bubble-PAPR mean comfort score 5.64 (SD 1.55) vs usual FFP3 2.96 (1.44) (mean difference 2.68 (95% CI 2.23 to 3.14, p<0.001). Secondary outcomes, Bubble-PAPR mean (SD) versus FFP3 mean (SD), (mean difference (95% CI)) were: how safe do you feel? 6.2 (0.9) vs 5.4 (1.0), (0.73 (0.45 to 0.99)); speaking to other staff 7.5 (2.4) vs 5.1 (2.4), (2.38 (1.66 to 3.11)); heard by other staff 7.1 (2.3) vs 4.9 (2.3), (2.16 (1.45 to 2.88)); speaking to patients 7.8 (2.1) vs 4.8 (2.4), (2.99 (2.36 to 3.62)); heard by patients 7.4 (2.4) vs 4.7 (2.5), (2.7 (1.97 to 3.43)); all p<0.01.

CONCLUSIONS

Bubble-PAPR achieved its primary purpose of keeping staff safe from airborne particulate material while improving comfort and the user experience when compared with usual FFP3 masks. The design and development of Bubble-PAPR were conducted using a careful evaluation strategy addressing key regulatory and safety steps.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04681365.

Are distributional preferences for safety stable? A longitudinal analysis before and after the COVID-19 outbreak

Policy makers aim to respect public preferences when making trade-offs between policies, yet most estimates of the value of safety neglect individuals' preferences over how safety is distributed. Incorporating these preferences into policy first requires measuring them. Arroyos-Calvera et al. (2019) documented that people cared most about efficiency, but that equity followed closely, and self-interest mattered too, but not enough to override preferences for efficiency and equity. Early 2020 saw the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. This event would impose major changes in how people perceived and experienced risk to life, creating an opportunity to test whether safety-related preferences are stable and robust to important contextual changes. Further developing Arroyos-Calvera et al.’s methodology and re-inviting an international general population sample of participants that had taken part in pre-pandemic online surveys in 2017 and 2018, we collected an April 2020 wave of the survey and showed that overall preferences for efficiency, equity and self-interest were remarkably stable before and after the pandemic outbreak. We hope this offers policy makers reassurance that once these preferences have been elicited from a representative sample of the population, they need not be re-estimated after important contextual changes.

Attributable Mortality of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia Among Patients with COVID-19

Rationale: Patients with a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are at higher risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and may have an increased attributable mortality (increased or decreased risk of death if VAP occurs in a patient) and attributable fraction (proportion of deaths that are attributable to an exposure) of VAP-related mortality compared with subjects without coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Objectives: Estimation of the attributable mortality of the VAP among patients with COVID-19. Methods: Using the REA-REZO surveillance network, three groups of adult medical ICU patients were computed: control group (patients admitted between 2016 and 2019; prepandemic patients), pandemic COVID-19 group (PandeCOV⁺), and pandemic non-COVID-19 group (PandeCOV^-) admitted during 2020. The primary outcome was the estimation of attributable mortality and attributable fraction related to VAP in these patients. Using multistate modeling with causal inference, the outcomes related to VAP were also evaluated. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 64,816 patients were included in the control group, 7,442 in the PandeCOV^- group, and 1,687 in the PandeCOV⁺ group. The incidence of VAP was 14.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.9 to 14.6), 18.3 (95% CI, 17.3 to 19.4), and 31.9 (95% CI, 29.8 to 34.2) per 1,000 ventilation-days in each group, respectively. Attributable mortality at 90 days was 3.15% (95%, CI, 2.04% to 3.43%), 2.91% (95% CI, -0.21% to 5.02%), and 8.13% (95% CI, 3.54% to 12.24%), and attributable fraction of mortality at 90 days was 1.22% (95% CI, 0.83 to 1.63), 1.42% (95% CI, -0.11% to 2.61%), and 9.17% (95% CI, 3.54% to 12.24%) for the control, PandeCOV^-, and PandeCOV⁺ groups, respectively. Except for the higher risk of developing VAP, the PandeCOV^- group shared similar VAP characteristics with the control group. PandeCOV⁺ patients were at lower risk of death without VAP (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.74) than the control group. Conclusions: VAP-attributable mortality was higher for patients with COVID-19, with more than 9% of the overall mortality related to VAP.