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

Observed face mask use outside retail chain stores during the COVID-19 pandemic in two cities in the state of Idaho, USA

During the COVID-19 pandemic, public health authorities have encouraged the use of face masks to minimize transmission within the community. To assess mask wear during a COVID-19 surge and guide public health response efforts, including public messaging on mask recommendations, we compared observed mask use in the largest city in each of Idaho's 2 most populous counties, both without a current mask mandate. We recorded mask usage by every third person exiting stores of 5 retail chains in Boise and Nampa during November 8-December 5, 2021. Observations were conducted during three time periods (morning, afternoon, and evening) on weekday and weekend days. A multivariable model with city, retail chain, and city-chain interaction was used to assess mask wear differences by city for each chain. Of 3021 observed persons, 22.0% wore masks. In Boise, 31.3% (430/1376) of observed persons wore masks; in Nampa, 14.3% (236/1645) wore masks. Among all persons wearing masks, > 94% wore masks correctly; cloth and surgical masks were most common. By retail chain, observed individuals at Boise locations were 2.3-5.7 times as likely to wear masks than persons at respective Nampa locations. This study provided a rapid, nonconfrontational assessment of public use of mitigation measures in 2 Idaho cities during a COVID-19 surge.

Economic evaluation of laboratory diagnostic test types in Covid-19 epidemic: A systematic review

Background

Corona 2 virus (SARS-CoV-2) is known as the causative agent of COVID-19 disease; the World Health Organization (WHO) declared it an epidemic on March 11, 2020. The Joint Guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the WHO including social distancing, the use of face masks, emphasis on hand washing, quarantine, and using diagnosis tests have been used widely, but the value of diagnostic interventions to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is unclear. We compared the economic evaluation of different laboratory diagnostic interventions with each other and also with implementing the conservative CDC & WHO guidelines.

Material and methods

Electronic searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase, Science Direct, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, NHSEED, NHS Health Technology assessment (CRD), and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry databases. Related articles were reviewed from January 2020 to the end of November 2021.

Results

Out of 1791 initial studies, 13 articles had the inclusion criteria. According to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist, ten studies were of excellent quality, and the remaining two studies were of very good quality. Most studies were cost-effectiveness analysis studies. The entered studies had different time horizons. Diagnostic tests reviewed in the studies included real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, immunoglobulin G (IgG) & Antigen, point of care tests. Although polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing improves the quality of life and survival for patients with infected Covid-19 based on its greater effectiveness compared to standard protection protocols, due to the high cost of this intervention, it has been considered a cost-effective method in some countries.

Conclusion

Since most studies have been conducted in developed countries, it unquestionably does not make sense to extend these results to low-income and developing countries. Therefore further studies are required in low-income and developing countries to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of laboratory-based diagnostic methods (RT-PCR) of covid-19 in variable prevalence of infectious cases.

Cost-effectiveness of interventions for the prevention and control of COVID-19: Systematic review of 85 modelling studies

Background

We aimed to quantitatively summarise the health economic evaluation evidence of prevention and control programs addressing COVID-19 globally.

Methods

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the economic and health benefit of interventions for COVID-19. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library of economic evaluation from December 31, 2019, to March 22, 2022, to identify relevant literature. Meta-analyses were done using random-effects models to estimate pooled incremental net benefit (INB). Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics and publication bias was assessed by Egger's test. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021267475.

Results

Of 16 860 studies identified, 85 articles were included in the systematic review, and 25 articles (10 studies about non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs), five studies about vaccinations and 10 studies about treatments) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled INB of NPIs, vaccinations, and treatments were $1378.10 (95% CI = $1079.62, $1676.59), $254.80 (95% CI = $169.84, $339.77) and $4115.11 (95% CI = $1631.09, $6599.14), respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.

Conclusions

NPIs, vaccinations, and treatments are all cost-effective in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. However, evidence was mostly from high-income and middle-income countries. Further studies from lower-income countries are needed.

Inclusive health: modeling COVID-19 in correctional facilities and communities

Background

Mass incarceration, commonly associated with overcrowding and inadequate health resources for incarcerated people, creates a fertile environment for the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in U.S. correctional facilities. The exact role that correctional facilities play in enhancing COVID-19 spread and enabling community re-emergence of COVID-19 is unknown.

Methods

We constructed a novel stochastic model of COVID-19 transmission to estimate the impact of correctional facilities, specifically jails and state prisons, for enhancing disease transmission and enabling disease re-emergence in local communities. Using our model, we evaluated scenarios of testing and quarantining infected incarcerated people at 0.0, 0.5, and 1.0 times the rate that occurs for infected people in the community for population sizes of 5, 10, and 20 thousand people.

Results

Our results illustrate testing and quarantining an incarcerated population of 800 would reduce the probability of a major outbreak in the local community. In addition, testing and quarantining an incarcerated population would prevent between 10 to 2640 incidences of COVID-19 per year, and annually save up to 2010 disability-adjusted life years, depending on community size.

Conclusions

Managing COVID-19 in correctional facilities is essential to mitigate risks to community health, and thereby stresses the importance of improving the health standards of incarcerated people.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13313-7.