The COVID-19 pandemic has placed the world’s population in a state of unprecedented public health and global health vulnerability. Risks to public and global health have escalated due to COVID-19 contamination. This has raised the statistics of inequity and environmental concerns. A possible outlook entails reducing the pandemic consequences by prioritizing development, biodiversity, and adaptability, offering buffer solutions. It contains vital methods for studying, comprehending, and unraveling events—examining early responses to COVID-19, sustainability, and development, relating them with overall Coronaviruses reaction. This study maps out environmental, socioeconomic, and medical/technological issues using as statistical techniques multiple correspondence analysis and validated cluster analysis. The findings encourage rapid, long-term development policy involvement to address the pandemic. The resulting crises have highlighted the necessity for the revival of health justice policies anchored in distinctive public health ethical patterns in response to them. As a general rule, resilience and preparedness will be targeted at developing and vulnerable nations and are prone to include access to vaccines, public health care, and health investment. Our findings show the relevance of innovating on sustainable development routes and yardsticks. Sustainable global health requires crucial measures in prevention, preparation, and response. Long-term policy recommendations are needed to address pandemics and their interrelated crises and foster sustained growth and socioecological protection.

Aim: In this article, we aim to present a tool for the early assessment of medical technologies. This evaluation system was designed and implemented by the National Centre for HTA and the National Centre for Innovative Technologies of the Istituto Superiore di Sanita, Italy, in order to respond to an institutional commitment within the “Health Technologies Assessment Team” that was established to face the huge demand for the evaluation of Health Technologies during the pandemic event caused by COVID-19, with a smart and easy-to-use framework. Methods: Horizon scanning was conducted through a brief assessment carried out according to the multicriteria decision analysis methodology. Each HTA domain was attributed a score according to a pros/cons and opportunities/threats system, derived from evidence in the literature. Scores were weighted according to different perspectives. Scores were presented in a Cartesian graph showing the positioning according to the potential value and the perceived risk associated with the technology. Results: Two case studies regarding the early assessment were reported, concerning two specific technologies: an individual protection device and a contact tracking system.

Trauma is one of the leading causes of uncontrolled haemorrhage, death, and disability. Use of a tourniquet can be considered an optimal anti-haemorrhagic resource, in pre-hospital and emergency settings, and its lifesaving effect is clinically contradictory. This review aims to assess the clinical efficacy of the tourniquet in the emergency pre-hospital care setting for the management of haemorrhage. We conducted the systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, the PRISMA statement. We searched the following electronic databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane-CENTRAL. All studies included were appraised for risk of bias. Prevalent primary outcomes were mortality and use of blood products. Secondary outcomes were related to adverse effects. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE). Four studies were involved (1762 trauma patients). The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.47 (95% confidence Interval (CI) 0.19–1.16; three studies; 377 patients) for overall mortality estimates did not give a clear indication of the benefits of emergency pre-hospital tourniquets (PH-TQ) versus no pre-hospital tourniquet (NO PH-TQ) placement. The adjusted mean difference for blood product use was −3.28 (95% CI −11.22, 4.66) for packed red blood cells (pRBC) and −4.80 (95% CI −5.61, −3.99) for plasma, respectively. The certainty of evidence was downgraded to very low for all outcomes. Our results suggest an unclear effect of emergency pre-hospital tourniquet placement on overall mortality and blood product use. However, this systematic review highlights the availability of only observational studies and the absence of high quality RCTs assessing the efficacy of PH-TQs. Randomized controlled trials are needed.

ObjectivesWhen assessing the economic value of vaccines, decision makers should adopt a full societal perspective. One approach for estimation of the fiscal impact of a disease is to use the human capital method to determine productivity losses. The aim of this study was to test an analytical framework developed for the estimation of the fiscal impacts of vaccination programs for influenza (FLU), pneumococcus (PC), and herpes zoster (HZ), in Italy.MethodsWe tested the framework in a two-stage analysis. First, we estimated the fiscal impact of the disease, second we performed a cost–benefit analysis of the individual benefits of vaccination against the cost of the vaccine. To estimate the fiscal impact of the diseases, the human capital approach was used. Epidemiological data were extrapolated from the literature. A Monte Carlo simulation enabled exploration of the uncertainty in the model variables.ResultsFor FLU, assuming 2.1 million people infected, the total expected impact was EUR 999,371,520; the estimated fiscal impact was EUR 159,563,520. For PC, assuming 90,000 people infected, the total impact was EUR 148,055,040 and the estimated fiscal impact was EUR 23,639,040. For HZ, assuming 6,400 people infected, the total impact was EUR 4,777,200, with EUR 630,000 resulting from a decrease in fiscal taxation.ConclusionsIn conclusion, our work shows how traditional methods aimed at estimating the cost of illness from a social perspective can be improved by additionally considering the fiscal impact, which accounts for the decrease in fiscal revenues due to illness.