Dataset Information

Experience from five Asia-Pacific countries during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: Mitigation strategies and epidemiology outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

With no vaccines or specific treatments, non-pharmaceutical interventions are the only tools for controlling the human-to-human transmission of the COVID-19 disease, which appeared in Wuhan, China last December and has spread globally since. Here we describe and compare the first-wave mitigation strategies and epidemiology of five Asia-Pacific countries that responded rapidly to the epidemic.

Methods

From January to April 2020, mitigation measures and epidemiological data for Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong were screened from official local government websites and a review of investigational studies was conducted. Daily case reports and mitigation measures information were extracted. Epidemiological estimates were calculated and compared between countries.

Results

All five countries combined measures, focusing on contact tracing, testing, isolation efforts and healthcare management. Epidemiological data varied temporally and geographically: incubation period ranged 3.9-7.1 days, effective reproduction number at time t (Rt) ranged 0.48-1.5, with intensive care admissions 1-3% of hospitalised patients, and case fatality rates were 0.1-3%. Extrinsic estimates to the virus were lower than global estimates.

Conclusion

Implemented mitigation strategies in these countries allowed a rapid and successful control or delay of the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. These are valuable examples to inform subsequent waves.

SUBMITTER: El Guerche-Seblain C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8505019 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe threat of emergence of a human-to-human transmissible strain of highly pathogenic influenza A(H5N1) is very real, and is reinforced by recent results showing that genetically modified A(H5N1) may be readily transmitted between ferrets. Public health authorities are hesitant in introducing social distancing interventions due to societal disruption and productivity losses. This study estimates the effectiveness and total cost (from a societal perspective, with a lifespan time horizon) of a comprehensive range of social distancing and antiviral drug strategies, under a range of pandemic severity categories.MethodsAn economic analysis was conducted using a simulation model of a community of ~30,000 in Australia. Data from the 2009 pandemic was used to derive relationships between the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) and hospitalization rates for each of five pandemic severity categories, with CFR ranging from 0.1% to 2.5%.ResultsFor a pandemic with basic reproduction number R0 = 1.8, adopting no interventions resulted in total costs ranging from $441 per person for a pandemic at category 1 (CFR 0.1%) to $8,550 per person at category 5 (CFR 2.5%). For severe pandemics of category 3 (CFR 0.75%) and greater, a strategy combining antiviral treatment and prophylaxis, extended school closure and community contact reduction resulted in the lowest total cost of any strategy, costing $1,584 per person at category 5. This strategy was highly effective, reducing the attack rate to 5%. With low severity pandemics costs are dominated by productivity losses due to illness and social distancing interventions, whereas higher severity pandemic costs are dominated by healthcare costs and costs arising from productivity losses due to death.ConclusionsFor pandemics in high severity categories the strategies with the lowest total cost to society involve rigorous, sustained social distancing, which are considered unacceptable for low severity pandemics due to societal disruption and cost.

Project description:BackgroundAnesthesia leads to impairments in central and peripheral thermoregulatory responses. Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia is hence a common perioperative complication, and is associated with coagulopathy, increased surgical site infection, delayed drug metabolism, prolonged recovery, and shivering. However, surveys across the world have shown poor compliance to perioperative temperature management guidelines. Therefore, we evaluated the prevalent practices and attitudes to perioperative temperature management in the Asia-Pacific region, and determined the individual and institutional factors that lead to noncompliance.MethodsA 40-question anonymous online questionnaire was distributed to anesthesiologists and anesthesia trainees in six countries in the Asia-Pacific (Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, India and South Korea). Participants were polled about their current practices in patient warming and temperature measurement across the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative periods. Questions were also asked regarding various individual and environmental barriers to compliance.ResultsIn total, 1154 valid survey responses were obtained and analyzed. 279 (24.2%) of respondents prewarm, 508 (44.0%) perform intraoperative active warming, and 486 (42.1%) perform postoperative active warming in the majority of patients. Additionally, 531 (46.0%) measure temperature preoperatively, 767 (67.5%) measure temperature intraoperatively during general anesthesia, and 953 (82.6%) measure temperature postoperatively in the majority of patients. The availability of active warming devices in the operating room (p < 0.001, OR 10.040), absence of financial restriction (p < 0.001, OR 2.817), presence of hospital training courses (p = 0.011, OR 1.428), and presence of a hospital SOP (p < 0.001, OR 1.926) were significantly associated with compliance to intraoperative active warming.ConclusionsCompliance to international perioperative temperature management guidelines in Asia-Pacific remains poor, especially in small hospitals. Barriers to compliance were limited temperature management equipment, lack of locally-relevant standard operating procedures and training. This may inform international guideline committees on the needs of developing countries, or spur local anesthesiology societies to publish their own national guidelines.