ABSTRACT
Background In an unparalleled global response, during the COVID-19 pandemic, 90 countries asked 3.9 billion people to stay home. Yet some countries avoided lockdowns and focused on other strategies, like contact tracing and case isolation. How effective and cost-effective are these strategies? We aimed to provide a comprehensive summary of the evidence on pandemic control, with a focus on cost-effectiveness.
Methods Following PRISMA systematic review 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 and grouped into higher-quality evidence (randomized trials) and lower-quality evidence (other study designs).
Results We found 1,653 papers; 62 were included. Higher-quality evidence was only available to support the effectiveness of hand washing and face masks. Modelling studies indicated that these measures are highly cost-effective. For other interventions, lower-quality evidence 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; (5) interventions are more cost-effective when adopted early and for severe viruses like SARS-CoV-2. For H1N1 influenza, contact tracing was estimated to be 4,363 times more cost-effective than school closures ($2,260 vs. $9,860,000 per death prevented).
Conclusions A cautious interpretation of the evidence suggests that for COVID-19: (1) social distancing is effective but costly, especially when adopted late and (2) adopting 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.
Funding LP holds the Canada Research Chair in Community Approaches and Health Inequalities (CRC 950232541). This funding source had no role in the design, conduct, or reporting of the study.
Competing Interest Statement
CEJ, TP, MB, PC, and LP declare no conflict of interest. GG holds a contractual position with the Millar Group (a provider of personal protective equipment) and executive roles at Panacea Health Solutions and Angular Momentum (providers of diabetes and corporate wellness programs).
Funding Statement
LP holds the Canada Research Chair in Community Approaches and Health Inequalities (CRC 950-232541). This funding source had no role in the design, conduct, or reporting of the study.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data extracted from cited work.
