Introduction With COVID-19, there is urgency for policymakers to understand and respond to the health needs of slum communities. Lockdowns for pandemic control have health, social and economic consequences. We consider access to healthcare before and during COVID-19 with those working and living in slum communities. Methods In seven slums in Bangladesh, Kenya, Nigeria and Pakistan, we explored stakeholder perspectives and experiences of healthcare access for non-COVID-19 conditions in two periods: pre-COVID-19 and during COVID-19 lockdowns. Results Between March 2018 and May 2020, we engaged with 860 community leaders, residents, health workers and local authority representatives. Perceived common illnesses in all sites included respiratory, gastric, waterborne and mosquitoborne illnesses and hypertension. Pre-COVID, stakeholders described various preventive, diagnostic and treatment services, including well-used antenatal and immunisation programmes and some screening for hypertension, tuberculosis, HIV and vectorborne disease. In all sites, pharmacists and patent medicine vendors were key providers of treatment and advice for minor illnesses. Mental health services and those addressing gender-based violence were perceived to be limited or unavailable. With COVID-19, a reduction in access to healthcare services was reported in all sites, including preventive services. Cost of healthcare increased while household income reduced. Residents had difficulty reaching healthcare facilities. Fear of being diagnosed with COVID-19 discouraged healthcare seeking. Alleviators included provision of healthcare by phone, pharmacists/drug vendors extending credit and residents receiving philanthropic or government support; these were inconsistent and inadequate. Conclusion Slum residents’ ability to seek healthcare for non-COVID-19 conditions has been reduced during lockdowns. To encourage healthcare seeking, clear communication is needed about what is available and whether infection control is in place. Policymakers need to ensure that costs do not escalate and unfairly disadvantage slum communities. Remote consulting to reduce face-to-face contact and provision of mental health and gender-based violence services should be considered.

Health Technology Assessment Volume: 10, Issue: 42, Published in November 2006

Background Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an inflammatory condition that typically causes a symmetrical chronic arthritis. Timely use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is an essential aspect of disease management, but many patients may not respond even when conventional agents are used optimally. Objective To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab (ADA), etanercept (ETN), infliximab (IFX), rituximab (RTX) and abatacept (ABT) when used in patients with RA who have tried conventional agents and have failed to improve after trying a first tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Data sources A systematic review of primary studies was undertaken. Databases searched included the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE up to July 2009. Study selection Two reviewers assessed titles and abstracts of studies identified by the search strategy, obtained the full text of relevant papers and screened them against inclusion criteria. Study appraisal Data from included studies were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. The quality of included studies was assessed independently by two reviewers, with any disagreements resolved by discussion and consultation with a third reviewer if necessary. Results Thirty-five studies were included in the systematic review: five randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one comparative study, one controlled study and 28 uncontrolled studies. One RCT (REFLEX) demonstrated the effectiveness of RTX. At 6 months significantly more patients treated with RTX achieved American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 [relative risk (RR) = 2.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.08 to 3.91] and ACR70 (RR = 12.14, 95% CI 2.96 to 49.86) compared with those treated with the placebo. Differences between groups in favour of RTX were observed at 6 months for mean change from baseline in Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) (mean difference –1.50, 95% CI –1.74 to –1.26) and mean change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score (mean difference –0.30, 95% CI –0.40 to –0.20). One RCT (ATTAIN) demonstrated the effectiveness of ABT. At 6 months significantly more patients treated with ABT achieved ACR20 (RR = 2.56, 95% CI 1.77 to 3.69) and ACR70 (RR = 6.70, 95% CI 1.62 to 27.80) compared with those treated with placebo. Significant differences between groups in favour of ABT were observed at 6 months for mean change from baseline in DAS28 score (mean difference –1.27, 95% CI –1.62 to –0.93) and mean change from baseline in HAQ score (mean difference –0.34). Twenty-eight uncontrolled studies observed improvement of effectiveness compared with before switching, in patients who switched to ADA, ETN or IFX after discontinued previous TNF inhibitor(s). Four studies were included in the systematic review of cost-effectiveness. Independent economic evaluation undertaken by the assessment group showed that compared with DMARDs, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were £34,300 [per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] for ADA, £38,800 for ETN, £36,200 for IFX, £21,200 for RTX and £38,600 for ABT. RTX dominates the TNF inhibitors and the ICER for ABT compared with RTX is over £100,000 (per QALY). Limitations Paucity of evidence from RCTs for assessing the clinical effectiveness of TNF inhibitors and an absence of head-to-head trials comparing the five technologies. Conclusions Evidence from RCTs suggests that RTX and ABT are more effective than supportive care. Data from observational studies suggest that the use of an alternative TNF inhibitor in patients who exhibit an inadequate response to a first TNF inhibitor may offer some benefit, but there remain uncertainties with regard to the magnitude of treatment effects and their cost-effectiveness. Future research should include head-to-head trials comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the technologies against each other and emerging biologics. Funding This study was funded by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research.

Background:. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common sleep disorder associated with several adverse health outcomes. Given the close association betw

Objective To investigate the agreement between direct and indirect comparisons of competing healthcare interventions. Design Meta-epidemiological study based on sample of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and PubMed. Inclusion criteria Systematic reviews that provided sufficient data for both direct comparison and independent indirect comparisons of two interventions on the basis of a common comparator and in which the odds ratio could be used as the outcome statistic. Main outcome measure Inconsistency measured by the difference in the log odds ratio between the direct and indirect methods. Results The study included 112 independent trial networks (including 1552 trials with 478 775 patients in total) that allowed both direct and indirect comparison of two interventions. Indirect comparison had already been explicitly done in only 13 of the 85 Cochrane reviews included. The inconsistency between the direct and indirect comparison was statistically significant in 16 cases (14%, 95% confidence interval 9% to 22%). The statistically significant inconsistency was associated with fewer trials, subjectively assessed outcomes, and statistically significant effects of treatment in either direct or indirect comparisons. Owing to considerable inconsistency, many (14/39) of the statistically significant effects by direct comparison became non-significant when the direct and indirect estimates were combined. Conclusions Significant inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons may be more prevalent than previously observed. Direct and indirect estimates should be combined in mixed treatment comparisons only after adequate assessment of the consistency of the evidence.