Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of public health measures to control COVID-19: a modelling study
BackgroundThe Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first reported in China, which caused a respiratory disease known as Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Since its discovery, the virus has spread to over 160 countries and claimed more than 9800 deaths. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of various response public health measures. MethodsThe stochastic agent-based model was used to simulate the process of COVID-19 outbreak in scenario I (imported one case) and II (imported four cases) with a series of public health measures, involving the personal protection, isolation-and-quarantine, gathering restriction, and community containment. The virtual community was constructed following the susceptible-latent-infectious-recovered framework. The epidemiological and economic parameters derived from the previous literature and field investigation. The main outcomes included avoided infectors, cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The sensitivity analyses were undertaken to assess uncertainty. ResultsIn scenario I and II, the isolation-and-quarantine averted 1696 and 1990 humans infected respectively at the cost of US$12 428 and US$58 555, both with negative value of ICERs. The joint strategy of personal protection and isolation-and-quarantine could avert one more case than single isolation-and-quarantine with additional cost of US$166 871 and US$180 140 respectively. The effectiveness of isolation-and-quarantine decreased as lowering quarantine probability and increasing delay-time. Especially in scenario II, when the quarantine probability was less than 25%, the number of infections raised sharply; when the quarantine delay-time reached six days, more than a quarter of individuals would be infected in the community. The strategy including community containment could protect more lives and was cost-effective, when the number of imported cases was no less than 65, or the delay-time of quarantine was more than five days, or the quarantine probability was below 25%, based on current assumptions. ConclusionsThe isolation-and-quarantine was the most cost-effective intervention. However, personal protection and isolation-and-quarantine was the optimal strategy averting more infectors than single isolation-and-quarantine. Certain restrictions should be considered, such as more initial imported cases, longer quarantine delay-time and lower quarantine probability.
- Downloaded 2,584 times
- Download rankings, all-time:
- Site-wide: 7,143
- In epidemiology: 615
- Year to date:
- Site-wide: 44,779
- Since beginning of last month:
- Site-wide: 23,807
Downloads over time
Distribution of downloads per paper, site-wide
- 27 Nov 2020: The website and API now include results pulled from medRxiv as well as bioRxiv.
- 18 Dec 2019: We're pleased to announce PanLingua, a new tool that enables you to search for machine-translated bioRxiv preprints using more than 100 different languages.
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!