Developing and Implementing a Weighted Lottery to Equitably Allocate Scarce COVID-19 Medications

D. White, E. McCreary, P. Pathak, T. Sonmez, U. Unver, M. Schmidhofer, R. Bariola, N. Jonaissant, D. Yealy, R. Sackrowitz, L. Li, J. Daley, G. Persad, R. Truog
{"title":"Developing and Implementing a Weighted Lottery to Equitably Allocate Scarce COVID-19 Medications","authors":"D. White, E. McCreary, P. Pathak, T. Sonmez, U. Unver, M. Schmidhofer, R. Bariola, N. Jonaissant, D. Yealy, R. Sackrowitz, L. Li, J. Daley, G. Persad, R. Truog","doi":"10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2021.203.1_meetingabstracts.a1013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"RATIONALE: The burdens of the COVID-19 pandemic have fallen disproportionately on disadvantaged groups, including the poor and Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities. We sought to develop and implement a weighted lottery to more equitably allocate scarce COVID-19 medications in a large U.S. health system. METHODS: We convened a multi-institution consortium of experts in bioethics, economics, health disparities, medicine, pharmacy, and health law to develop the weighted lottery. The UPMC Patient and Family Advisory Council and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Ethical Allocation Committee reviewed and endorsed the framework. We implemented the weighted lottery during periods when there was inadequate remdesivir to treat all patients in need. We used administrative data to ascertain the number and characteristics of patients who, on days of drug shortage: 1) were eligible for remdesivir;2) were offered remdesivir;and 3) accepted remdesivir. RESULTS: We implemented the weighted lottery across 23 hospitals in the UPMC health system during periods of drug shortage in May-July 2020. We proactively identified eligible patients using an EHR-and telephone-based screening system. To determine the general population chances in the lottery, each week we divided the number of available treatment courses by the predicted number of patients who would be eligible that week, based on the number of eligible patients in the prior week. The table contains the weighting factors in the remdesivir lottery. An allocation team met daily to apply the weighting system that determined each eligible patient's chance, then used a random number generator to run the lottery. Overall, 93 patients met the clinical eligibility criteria outlined in the FDA's emergency use authorization;44% were from disadvantaged neighborhoods, 20% were essential workers, and 9% had an underlying end-stage medical condition. During the periods of drug shortage, the general population chances to receive treatment ranged from 28%-88%. 59% of eligible patients (55 of 93) were allocated remdesivir, 13% of whom (7 of 55) refused the treatment. Overall 61% of drug was allocated to patients who were from disadvantaged neighborhoods and/or were essential workers, who made up 56% of the population. >CONCLUSIONS: We developed and implemented a weighted lottery to promote equity in the allocation of scarce COVID-19 therapeutics. The lottery resulted in heightened access to treatment among groups that have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, though larger weightings may be needed to substantially mitigate disparities. (Table Presented).","PeriodicalId":339098,"journal":{"name":"A3. A003 MICROBIOME, DISPARITIES, COVID-19, AND MORE: CRITICAL CARE HOT TOPICS","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"A3. A003 MICROBIOME, DISPARITIES, COVID-19, AND MORE: CRITICAL CARE HOT TOPICS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2021.203.1_meetingabstracts.a1013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

RATIONALE: The burdens of the COVID-19 pandemic have fallen disproportionately on disadvantaged groups, including the poor and Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities. We sought to develop and implement a weighted lottery to more equitably allocate scarce COVID-19 medications in a large U.S. health system. METHODS: We convened a multi-institution consortium of experts in bioethics, economics, health disparities, medicine, pharmacy, and health law to develop the weighted lottery. The UPMC Patient and Family Advisory Council and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Ethical Allocation Committee reviewed and endorsed the framework. We implemented the weighted lottery during periods when there was inadequate remdesivir to treat all patients in need. We used administrative data to ascertain the number and characteristics of patients who, on days of drug shortage: 1) were eligible for remdesivir;2) were offered remdesivir;and 3) accepted remdesivir. RESULTS: We implemented the weighted lottery across 23 hospitals in the UPMC health system during periods of drug shortage in May-July 2020. We proactively identified eligible patients using an EHR-and telephone-based screening system. To determine the general population chances in the lottery, each week we divided the number of available treatment courses by the predicted number of patients who would be eligible that week, based on the number of eligible patients in the prior week. The table contains the weighting factors in the remdesivir lottery. An allocation team met daily to apply the weighting system that determined each eligible patient's chance, then used a random number generator to run the lottery. Overall, 93 patients met the clinical eligibility criteria outlined in the FDA's emergency use authorization;44% were from disadvantaged neighborhoods, 20% were essential workers, and 9% had an underlying end-stage medical condition. During the periods of drug shortage, the general population chances to receive treatment ranged from 28%-88%. 59% of eligible patients (55 of 93) were allocated remdesivir, 13% of whom (7 of 55) refused the treatment. Overall 61% of drug was allocated to patients who were from disadvantaged neighborhoods and/or were essential workers, who made up 56% of the population. >CONCLUSIONS: We developed and implemented a weighted lottery to promote equity in the allocation of scarce COVID-19 therapeutics. The lottery resulted in heightened access to treatment among groups that have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, though larger weightings may be needed to substantially mitigate disparities. (Table Presented).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
制定和实施加权摇号制度,公平分配稀缺的COVID-19药物
理由:2019冠状病毒病大流行的负担不成比例地落在弱势群体身上,包括穷人和黑人、拉丁裔和土著社区。我们试图开发和实施加权抽签,以便在美国大型卫生系统中更公平地分配稀缺的COVID-19药物。方法:我们召集了一个由生物伦理学、经济学、健康差异、医学、药学和卫生法专家组成的多机构联盟来开发加权彩票。UPMC患者和家属咨询委员会以及宾夕法尼亚州联邦伦理分配委员会审查并批准了该框架。我们在瑞德西韦不足以治疗所有有需要的患者的时期实施了加权摇号。我们使用管理数据来确定在药物短缺的日子里患者的数量和特征:1)有资格使用瑞德西韦;2)被提供瑞德西韦;3)接受瑞德西韦。结果:在2020年5 - 7月药品短缺期间,我们在UPMC卫生系统的23家医院实施了加权摇号。我们使用电子病历和电话筛查系统主动识别符合条件的患者。为了确定一般人群在彩票中的机会,我们每周将可用疗程的数量除以根据前一周符合条件的患者数量预测的该周符合条件的患者数量。该表包含瑞德西韦彩票的权重因子。分配小组每天开会,应用加权系统确定每个符合条件的患者的机会,然后使用随机数生成器进行抽奖。总体而言,93名患者符合FDA紧急使用授权中概述的临床资格标准;44%来自弱势社区,20%是必要的工作人员,9%有潜在的终末期疾病。在药物短缺期间,一般人群接受治疗的机会在28%-88%之间。59%的符合条件的患者(93名中的55名)分配了remdesivir,其中13%的患者(55名中的7名)拒绝治疗。总体而言,61%的药物分配给了来自弱势社区和/或基本工作人员的患者,他们占人口的56%。结论:我们开发并实施了加权摇号机制,以促进稀缺COVID-19治疗药物分配的公平性。摇号的结果是,受到大流行病不成比例影响的群体获得治疗的机会增加了,尽管可能需要更大的权重来大幅减轻差距。(表)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Metabolomic Analysis of Fecal Microbiota Among Critically Ill Patients Sex- and Age-Based Disparities in Receipt of Rescue Breathing Among Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in Japan: A Nationwide Population-Based Study Combined Vancomycin and Piperacillin-Tazobactam Treatment Is Not Associated with Acute Kidney Injury (AK) When Assessed Using Plasma Cystatin C Mendelian Randomization Analyses Reveals a Casual Effect of Gut Microbiome in the Development of ARDS Developing and Implementing a Weighted Lottery to Equitably Allocate Scarce COVID-19 Medications
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1