Dataset Information

The cost-effectiveness of common strategies for the prevention of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in universities.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Most universities that re-open in the United States (US) for in-person instruction have implemented the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) guidelines. The value of additional interventions to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is unclear. We calculated the cost-effectiveness and cases averted of each intervention in combination with implementing the CDC guidelines.

Methods

We built a decision-analytic model to examine the cost-effectiveness of interventions to re-open universities. The interventions included implementing the CDC guidelines alone and in combination with 1) a symptom-checking mobile application, 2) university-provided standardized, high filtration masks, 3) thermal cameras for temperature screening, 4) one-time entry ('gateway') polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, and 5) weekly PCR testing. We also modeled a package of interventions ('package intervention') that combines the CDC guidelines with using the symptom-checking mobile application, standardized masks, gateway PCR testing, and weekly PCR testing. The direct and indirect costs were calculated in 2020 US dollars. We also provided an online interface that allows the user to change model parameters.

Results

All interventions averted cases of COVID-19. When the prevalence of actively infectious cases reached 0.1%, providing standardized, high filtration masks saved money and improved health relative to implementing the CDC guidelines alone and in combination with using the symptom-checking mobile application, thermal cameras, and gateway testing. Compared with standardized masks, weekly PCR testing cost $9.27 million (95% Credible Interval [CrI]: cost-saving-$77.36 million)/QALY gained. Compared with weekly PCR testing, the 'package' intervention cost $137,877 (95% CrI: $3,108-$19.11 million)/QALY gained. At both a prevalence of 1% and 2%, the 'package' intervention saved money and improved health compared to all the other interventions.

Conclusions

All interventions were effective at averting infection from COVID-19. However, when the prevalence of actively infectious cases in the community was low, only standardized, high filtration masks clearly provided value.

SUBMITTER: Zafari Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8483333 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic, countries worldwide have enacted unprecedented movement restrictions, physical distancing measures, and face mask requirements. Until safe and efficacious vaccines or antiviral drugs become widely available, viral testing remains the primary mitigation measure for rapid identification and isolation of infected individuals. We aimed to assess the economic trade-offs of expanding and accelerating testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) across the USA in different transmission scenarios.MethodsWe used a multiscale model that incorporates SARS-CoV-2 transmission at the population level and daily viral load dynamics at the individual level to assess eight surveillance testing strategies that varied by testing frequency (from daily to monthly testing) and isolation period (1 or 2 weeks), compared with the status-quo strategy of symptom-based testing and isolation. For each testing strategy, we first estimated the costs (incorporating costs of diagnostic testing and admissions to hospital, and salary lost while in isolation) and years of life lost (YLLs) prevented under rapid and low transmission scenarios. We then assessed the testing strategies across a range of scenarios, each defined by effective reproduction number (Re), willingness to pay per YLL averted, and cost of a test, to estimate the probability that a particular strategy had the greatest net benefit. Additionally, for a range of transmission scenarios (Re from 1·1 to 3), we estimated a threshold test price at which the status-quo strategy outperforms all testing strategies considered.FindingsOur modelling showed that daily testing combined with a 2-week isolation period was the most costly strategy considered, reflecting increased costs with greater test frequency and length of isolation period. Assuming a societal willingness to pay of US$100 000 per YLL averted and a price of $5 per test, the strategy most likely to be cost-effective under a rapid transmission scenario (Re of 2·2) is weekly testing followed by a 2-week isolation period subsequent to a positive test result. Under low transmission scenarios (Re of 1·2), monthly testing of the population followed by 1-week isolation rather than 2-week isolation is likely to be most cost-effective. Expanded surveillance testing is more likely to be cost-effective than the status-quo testing strategy if the price per test is less than $75 across all transmission rates considered.InterpretationExtensive expansion of SARS-CoV-2 testing programmes with more frequent and rapid tests across communities coupled with isolation of individuals with confirmed infection is essential for mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, resources recouped from shortened isolation duration could be cost-effectively allocated to more frequent testing.FundingUS National Institutes of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Love, Tito's.

Project description:The establishment of link between high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and occurrence of cervical cancer has resulted in development of various HPV related control strategies for the prevention of cervical cancer. The objective of the present study was to assess the cost effectiveness of various screening strategies for cervical cancer and human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination in India. A Markov model based on societal perspective was designed to estimate the lifetime costs and consequences of screening (with either visual inspect with acetic acid (VIA), Papanicolaou test or HPV DNA test at various time intervals) in a hypothetical cohort of 30-65 years age women or vaccination among adolescent girls. Diagnostic accuracy of the screening strategies, efficacy of HPV vaccination and data on transition probabilities was based on the results of the existing meta-analyses. Primary data was collected for assessing per person cost of screening, cost of treating cervical cancer and quality of life. We found that introduction of different screening strategies leads to reduction in lifetime occurrence of cervical cancer cases caused by HPV 16/18 from 20% to 61%, and cervical cancer deaths from 28% to 70%, as compared to no screening. Among various screening strategies, screening with both VIA 5 yearly and VIA 10 yearly came out to be cost effective at 1-time per capita GDP, with VIA every 5 years providing greater health benefits as compared to VIA 10 years. Hence, screening with VIA 5 years at an incremental cost of US$ 829 (INR 54,881) per QALY gained is the recommended strategy for India. Further, with regards to HPV vaccination, it leads to 60% reduction in cancer cases and mortality caused by HPV 16/18 as compared to no vaccination. Moreover, when this vaccinated cohort of adolescent girls is also screened later in their life (with VIA every 10 years and VIA 5 years), it leads to 69%-76% reduction in cancer cases and 71%-81% reduction in cancer deaths. As compared to no vaccination and no screening, both HPV vaccination alone and vaccination plus screening (with VIA every 5 yearly and VIA 10 yearly) appears to be cost effective with ICERs in the range of US$ 86 (INR 5,693) to US$ 476 (INR 31,511) per QALY gained. In the long run, when the cohort of adolescent girls, who were immunized for HPV, reach the age of 30 years, the screening frequency using VIA should be determined based on the coverage of HPV vaccination in that cohort.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Data on the cost effectiveness of hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening and vaccination strategies for prevention of vertical transmission of HBV in resource limited settings is sparse. METHODS:A decision tree model of HBV prevention strategies utilised data from a cohort of 7071 pregnant women on the Thailand-Myanmar border using a provider perspective. All options included universal HBV vaccination for newborns in three strategies: (1) universal vaccination alone; (2) universal vaccination with screening of women during antenatal visits with rapid diagnostic test (RDT) plus HBV immune globulin (HBIG) administration to newborns of HBV surface antigen positive women; and (3) universal vaccination with screening of women during antenatal visits plus HBIG administration to newborns of women testing HBV e antigen positive by confirmatory test. At the time of the study, the HBIG after confirmatory test strategy was used. The costs in United States Dollars (US$), infections averted and incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and sensitivity analyses were conducted. A willingness to pay threshold of US$1200 was used. RESULTS:The universal HBV vaccination was the least costly option at US$4.33 per woman attending the clinic. The HBIG after (RDT) strategy had an ICER of US$716.78 per infection averted. The HBIG after confirmatory test strategy was not cost-effective due to extended dominance. The one-way sensitivity analysis showed that while the transmission parameters and cost of HBIG had the biggest impact on outcomes, the HBIG after confirmatory test only became a cost-effective option when a low test cost was used or a high HBIG cost was used. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that HBIG after RDT had an 87% likelihood of being cost-effective as compared to vaccination only at a willingness to pay threshold of US$1200. CONCLUSIONS:HBIG following confirmatory test is not a cost-effective strategy for preventing vertical transmission of HBV in the Thailand-Myanmar border population. By switching to HBIG following rapid diagnostic test, perinatal infections will be reduced by nearly one third. This strategy may be applicable to similar settings for marginalized populations where the confirmatory test is not logistically possible.