Abstract
Abstract
Background
In an unparalleled global response, during the COVID-19 pandemic, 90 countries asked 3.9 billion people to stay home. Yet other countries avoided lockdowns and focused on other strategies, like contact tracing. How effective and cost-effective are these strategies? We aimed to provide a comprehensive summary of the evidence on past pandemic controls, with a focus on cost-effectiveness.
Methods
Following PRISMA guidelines, MEDLINE (1946 to April week 2, 2020) and EMBASE (1974 to April 17, 2020) were searched using a range of terms related to pandemic control. Articles reporting on the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of at least one intervention were included.
Results
We found 1653 papers; 62 were included. The effectiveness of hand-washing and face masks was supported by randomized trials. These measures were highly cost-effective. For other interventions, only observational and modelling studies were found. They suggested that (1) the most cost-effective interventions are swift contact tracing and case isolation, surveillance networks, protective equipment for healthcare workers, and early vaccination (when available); (2) home quarantines and stockpiling antivirals are less cost-effective; (3) social distancing measures like workplace and school closures are effective but costly, making them the least cost-effective options; (4) combinations are more cost-effective than single interventions; and (5) interventions are more cost-effective when adopted early. For 2009 H1N1 influenza, contact tracing was estimated to be 4363 times more cost-effective than school closure ($2260 vs. $9,860,000 per death prevented).
Conclusions and contributions
For COVID-19, a cautious interpretation suggests that (1) workplace and school closures are effective but costly, especially when adopted late, and (2) scaling up as early as possible a combination of interventions that includes hand-washing, face masks, ample protective equipment for healthcare workers, and swift contact tracing and case isolation is likely to be the most cost-effective strategy.
Funder
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference91 articles.
1. Sandford A. Coronavirus: half of humanity now on lockdown as 90 countries call for confinement: Euronews; 2020. https://www.euronews.com/2020/04/02/coronavirus-in-europe-spain-s-death-toll-hits-10-000-after-record-950-new-deaths-in-24-hou. Accessed 14 June 2020
2. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) situation report – 77. 2020. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200406-sitrep-77-covid-19.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2020.
3. Madhav N, Oppenheim B, Gallivan M, Mulembakani P, Rubin E, Wolfe N. In: Jamison DT, Gelband H, Horton S, et al., editors. Pandemics: risks, impacts, and mitigation in disease control priorities: improving health and reducing poverty. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank; 2017.
4. Lempel H, Epstein JM, Hammond RA. Economic cost and health care workforce effects of school closure in the U.S. PLoS Curr. 2009;1:RRN1051.
5. Smith SM, Sonego S, Wallen GR, Waterer G, Cheng AC, Thompson P. Use of non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce the transmission of influenza in adults: a systematic review. Respirology. 2015;20(6):896–903. https://doi.org/10.1111/resp.12541.
Cited by
13 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献