Dynamical SPQEIR model assesses the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 epidemic outbreaks.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Proverbio D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8139462 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate which non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have been more and less effective in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of published and unpublished empirical studies, either observational or interventional, analysing the comparative effectiveness of NPIs against the COVID-19 pandemic. We searched Embase/Medline and medRxiv to identify the relevant literature.ResultsWe identified 34 studies. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, school closing was the most effective NPI, followed by workplace closing, business and venue closing and public event bans. Public information campaigns and mask wearing requirements were also effective in controlling the pandemic while being less disruptive for the population than other NPIs. There was no evidence on the effectiveness of public transport closure, testing and contact tracing strategies and quarantining or isolation of individuals. Early implementation was associated with a higher effectiveness in reducing COVID-19 cases and deaths, while general stringency of the NPIs was not.ConclusionsIn this systematic review, we found that school closing, followed by workplace closing, business and venue closing and public event bans were the most effective NPIs in controlling the spread of COVID-19. An early response and a combination of specific social distancing measures are effective at reducing COVID-19 cases and deaths. Continuous monitoring of NPIs effectiveness is needed in order to adapt decision making.
| S-EPMC8214911 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDuring Feb-Apr. 2020, many countries implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), such as school closures and lockdowns, to control the COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Overall, these interventions seem to have reduced the spread of the pandemic. We hypothesized that the official and effective start dates of NPIs can be noticeably different, for example, due to slow adoption by the population, and that these differences can lead to errors in the estimation of the impact of NPIs.MethodsSEIR models were fitted to case data from 12 regions to infer the effective start dates of interventions and compare these with the official dates. The impact of NPIs was estimated from the inferred model parameters.ResultsWe infer mostly late effective start dates of interventions. For example, Italy implemented a lockdown on Mar 11, but we infer the effective start date on Mar 17 (+3.05-2.01 days 95% CI). Moreover, we find that the impact of NPIs can be underestimated if it is assumed they start on their official date.ConclusionsDifferences between the official and effective start of NPIs are likely. Neglecting such differences can lead to underestimation of the impact of NPIs, which could cause decision-makers to escalate interventions and guidelines.
| S-EPMC8720386 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Non-Pharmaceutical Public Health Interventions (NPHIs) have been used by different countries to control the spread of the COVID-19. Despite available evidence regarding the effectiveness of NPHSs, there is still no consensus about how policymakers can trust these results. Studies on the effectiveness of NPHSs are single studies conducted in specific communities. Therefore, they cannot individually prove if these interventions have been effective in reducing the spread of the infection and its adverse health outcomes. In this systematic review, we aimed to examine the effects of NPHIs on the COVID-19 case growth rate, death growth rate, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, and reproduction number in countries, where NPHIs have been implemented. We searched relevant electronic databases, including Medline (via PubMed), Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, etc. from late December 2019 to February 1, 2021. The key terms were primarily drawn from Medical Subject Heading (MeSh and Emtree), literature review, and opinions of experts. Peer-reviewed quasi-experimental studies were included in the review. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42020186855. Interventions were NPHIs categorized as lockdown, stay-at-home orders, social distancing, and other interventions (mask-wearing, contact tracing, and school closure). We used PRISMA 2020 guidance for abstracting the data and used Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Practice (EPOC) Risk of Bias Tool for quality appraisal of the studies. Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random-effects model was performed. Main outcomes included COVID-19 case growth rate (percentage daily changes), COVID-19 mortality growth rate (percentage daily changes), COVID-19 ICU admission (percentage daily changes), and COVID-19 reproduction number changes. Our search strategies in major databases yielded 12,523 results, which decreased to 7,540 articles after eliminating duplicates. Finally, 35 articles qualified to be included in the systematic review among which 23 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Although studies were from both low-income and high-income countries, the majority of them were from the United States (13 studies) and China (five studies). Results of the meta-analysis showed that adoption of NPHIs has resulted in a 4.68% (95% CI, -6.94 to -2.78) decrease in daily case growth rates, 4.8% (95 CI, -8.34 to -1.40) decrease in daily death growth rates, 1.90 (95% CI, -2.23 to -1.58) decrease in the COVID-19 reproduction number, and 16.5% (95% CI, -19.68 to -13.32) decrease in COVID-19 daily ICU admission. A few studies showed that, early enforcement of lockdown, when the incidence rate is not high, contributed to a shorter duration of lockdown and a lower increase of the case growth rate in the post-lockdown era. The majority of NPHIs had positive effects on restraining the COVID-19 spread. With the problems that remain regarding universal access to vaccines and their effectiveness and considering the drastic impact of the nationwide lockdown and other harsh restrictions on the economy and people's life, such interventions should be mitigated by adopting other NPHIs such as mass mask-wearing, patient/suspected case isolation strategies, and contact tracing. Studies need to address the impact of NPHIs on the population's other health problems than COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8610259 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Contagious respiratory diseases, such as COVID-19, depend on sufficiently prolonged exposures for the successful transmission of the underlying pathogen. It is important that organizations evaluate the efficacy of non-pharmaceutical interventions aimed at mitigating viral transmission among their personnel. We have developed a operational risk assessment simulation framework that couples a spatial agent-based model of movement with an agent-based SIR model to assess the relative risks of different intervention strategies. By applying our model on MIT's Stata center, we assess the impacts of three possible dimensions of intervention: one-way vs unrestricted movement, population size allowed onsite, and frequency of leaving designated work location for breaks. We find that there is no significant impact made by one-way movement restrictions over unrestricted movement. Instead, we find that reducing the frequency at which individuals leave their workstations combined with lowering the number of individuals admitted below the current recommendations lowers the likelihood of highly connected individuals within the contact networks that emerge, which in turn lowers the overall risk of infection. We discover three classes of possible interventions based on their epidemiological effects. By assuming a direct relationship between data on secondary attack rates and transmissibility in the agent-based SIR model, we compare relative infection risk of four respiratory illnesses, MERS, SARS, COVID-19, and Measles, within the simulated area, and recommend appropriate intervention guidelines.
| S-EPMC9007058 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNon-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are the cornerstone of infectious disease outbreak response in the absence of effective pharmaceutical interventions. Outbreak strategies often involve combinations of NPIs that may change according to disease prevalence and population response. Little is known with regard to how costly each NPI is to implement. This information is essential to inform policy decisions for outbreak response.ObjectiveTo address this gap in existing literature, we conducted a systematic review on outbreak costings and simulation studies related to a number of NPI strategies, including isolating infected individuals, contact tracing and quarantine, and school closures.MethodsOur search covered the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, studies published between 1990 and 24 March 2020 were included. We included studies containing cost data for our NPIs of interest in pandemic, epidemic, and outbreak response scenarios.ResultsWe identified 61 relevant studies. There was substantial heterogeneity in the cost components recorded for NPIs in outbreak costing studies. The direct costs of NPIs for which costing studies existed also ranged widely: isolating infected individuals per case: US$141.18 to US$1042.68 (2020 values), tracing and quarantine of contacts per contact: US$40.73 to US$93.59, social distancing: US$33.76 to US$167.92, personal protection and hygiene: US$0.15 to US$895.60.ConclusionWhile there are gaps and heterogeneity in available cost data, the findings of this review and the collated cost database serve as an important resource for evidence-based decision-making for estimating costs pertaining to NPI implementation in future outbreak response policies.
| S-EPMC8192223 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In response to the recent outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus governments have aimed to reduce the virus's spread through, inter alia, non-pharmaceutical intervention. We address the question when such measures should be implemented and, once implemented, when to remove them. These issues are viewed through a real-options lens and we develop an SIRD-like continuous-time Markov chain model to analyze a sequence of options: the option to intervene and introduce measures and, after intervention has started, the option to remove these. Measures can be imposed multiple times. We implement our model using estimates from empirical studies and, under fairly general assumptions, our main conclusions are that: (1) measures should be put in place not long after the first infections occur; (2) if the epidemic is discovered when there are many infected individuals already, then it is optimal never to introduce measures; (3) once the decision to introduce measures has been taken, these should stay in place until the number of susceptible or infected members of the population is close to zero; (4) it is never optimal to introduce a tier system to phase-in measures but it is optimal to use a tier system to phase-out measures; (5) a more infectious variant may reduce the duration of measures being in place; (6) the risk of infections being brought in by travelers should be curbed even when no other measures are in place. These results are robust to several variations of our base-case model.
| S-EPMC9221090 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Non-pharmaceutical interventions to combat COVID-19 transmission have worked to slow the spread of the epidemic but can have high socio-economic costs. It is critical we understand the efficacy of non-pharmaceutical interventions to choose a safe exit strategy. Many current models are not suitable for assessing exit strategies because they do not account for epidemic resurgence when social distancing ends prematurely (e.g., statistical curve fits) nor permit scenario exploration in specific locations. We developed an SEIR-type mechanistic epidemiological model of COVID-19 dynamics to explore temporally variable non-pharmaceutical interventions. We provide an interactive tool and code to estimate the transmission parameter, β, and the effective reproduction number, R eff . We fit the model to Santa Clara County, California, where an early epidemic start date and early shelter-in-place orders could provide a model for other regions. As of April 22, 2020, we estimate an R eff of 0.982 (95% CI: 0.849 - 1.107) in Santa Clara County. After June 1 (the end-date for Santa Clara County shelter-in-place as of April 27), we estimate a shift to partial social distancing, combined with rigorous testing and isolation of symptomatic individuals, is a viable alternative to indefinitely maintaining shelter-in-place. We also estimate that if Santa Clara County had waited one week longer before issuing shelter-in-place orders, 95 additional people would have died by April 22 (95% CI: 7 - 283). Given early life-saving shelter-in-place orders in Santa Clara County, longer-term moderate social distancing and testing and isolation of symptomatic individuals have the potential to contain the size and toll of the COVID-19 pandemic in Santa Clara County, and may be effective in other locations.
| S-EPMC7276010 | biostudies-literature
Project description:COVID-19 vaccination is being conducted in over 200 countries and regions to control SARS-CoV-2 transmission and return to a pre-pandemic lifestyle. However, understanding when non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) can be lifted as immunity builds up remains a key question for policy makers. To address this, we built a data-driven model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission for China. We estimated that, to prevent the escalation of local outbreaks to widespread epidemics, stringent NPIs need to remain in place at least one year after the start of vaccination. Should NPIs alone be capable of keeping the reproduction number (Rt) around 1.3, the synergetic effect of NPIs and vaccination could reduce the COVID-19 burden by up to 99% and bring Rt below the epidemic threshold in about 9 months. Maintaining strict NPIs throughout 2021 is of paramount importance to reduce COVID-19 burden while vaccines are distributed to the population, especially in large populations with little natural immunity.
| S-EPMC8373613 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed significant global public health challenges and created a substantial economic burden. Korea has experienced an extensive outbreak, which was linked to a religion-related super-spreading event. However, the implementation of various non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), including social distancing, spring semester postponing, and extensive testing and contact tracing controlled the epidemic. Herein, we estimated the effectiveness of each NPI using a simulation model.MethodsA compartment model with a susceptible-exposed-infectious-quarantined-hospitalized structure was employed. Using the Monte-Carlo-Markov-Chain algorithm with Gibbs' sampling method, we estimated the time-varying effective contact rate to calibrate the model with the reported daily new confirmed cases from February 12th to March 31st (7 weeks). Moreover, we conducted scenario analyses by adjusting the parameters to estimate the effectiveness of NPI.ResultsRelaxed social distancing among adults would have increased the number of cases 27.4-fold until the end of March. Spring semester non-postponement would have increased the number of cases 1.7-fold among individuals aged 0-19, while lower quarantine and detection rates would have increased the number of cases 1.4-fold.ConclusionAmong the three NPI measures, social distancing in adults showed the highest effectiveness. The substantial effect of social distancing should be considered when preparing for the 2nd wave of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7476801 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prolonging non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) used in the control of pandemics can cause a devastating effect on the overall economic and social welfare levels. Therefore, policymakers are facing a difficult duty in terms of implementing economically and socially sustainable and acceptable measures. The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of NPIs implemented to control the COVID-19 pandemic. To this end, eight NPI measures were analysed, and their effects on the number of cases were investigated for France, Spain, China, and South Korea. In the study, the treatment effect of these mechanisms on the daily increase rate of the total number of cases during a certain period was analysed by using logarithmic linear regression with a dummy variables model. The findings indicate that the measures are effective against the spread of the pandemic at different levels. The findings also suggest that the most effective measure in decreasing the number of cases is workplace closure. An analysis comparing the effectiveness of countrywide measures and regional measures shows that school closing is the most effective measure to decrease the number of cases when implemented countrywide as opposed to regional implementation.
| S-EPMC8251211 | biostudies-literature