Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Determining the optimal COVID-19 policy response using agent-based modelling linked to health and cost modelling: Case study for Victoria, Australia

Tony Blakely, Jason Thompson, Laxman Bablani, Patrick Andersen, Driss Ait Ouakrim, Natalie Carvalho, Patrick Abraham, Marie-Anne Boujaoude, Ameera Katar, Edifofon Akpan, Nick Wilson, Mark Stevenson
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.11.21249630
Tony Blakely
1University of Melbourne
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: ablakely@unimelb.edu.au
Jason Thompson
1University of Melbourne
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laxman Bablani
1University of Melbourne
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patrick Andersen
1University of Melbourne
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Driss Ait Ouakrim
1University of Melbourne
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Natalie Carvalho
1University of Melbourne
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patrick Abraham
1University of Melbourne
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marie-Anne Boujaoude
1University of Melbourne
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ameera Katar
1University of Melbourne
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Edifofon Akpan
1University of Melbourne
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nick Wilson
2University of Otago, Wellington
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark Stevenson
1University of Melbourne
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background We compared the health and economic consequences for the State of Victoria, Australia, of four COVID-19 strategies: aggressive and moderate elimination, tight suppression (aiming for 1 to 5 cases per million per day) and loose suppression (5 to 25 cases per million per day). The strategies shifted up and down through five levels of policy stringency based on the number of cases per day, for one year.

Methods An agent-based model (ABM) generated 100 runs of daily SARS-CoV-2 case numbers, that then fed into a proportional multistate lifetable to estimate health adjusted life years (HALYs) and costs. We used a net monetary benefit approach to estimate the optimal strategy.

Findings Aggressive elimination resulted in the highest percentage of days with the lowest level of restrictions (median 31.7%, 90% simulation interval 6.6% to 64.4%). However, days in hard lockdown were similar across all four strategies (medians 27.5% to 36.1%).

HALY losses (compared to a no-COVID-19 scenario) were similar for moderate elimination (286, 219 to 389) and moderate elimination (314, 228 to 413), and nearly eight and 40-times higher for tight and loose suppression. The median GDP loss was least for moderate elimination ($US41.7 billion, $29.0 to $63.6 billion), but there was substantial overlap in simulation intervals between the four strategies.

From a health system perspective aggressive elimination was optimal in 64% of simulations above a willingness to pay of $15,000 per HALY, followed by moderate elimination in 35% of simulations. Moderate elimination was optimal from a partial societal perspective in half the simulations followed by aggressive elimination in a quarter.

Shortening the pandemic duration to 6 months saw loose suppression become preferable under a partial societal perspective.

Interpretation For this single high-income jurisdiction, elimination strategies were preferable over a 1-year pandemic duration.

Funding Anonymous philanthropic donation to the University of Melbourne.

Evidence before this study There have been varying approaches across countries and jurisdictions as to how to manage the COVID-19 pandemic, ranging from elimination of community transmission (e.g. Australasia, Taiwan and other East Asian and Pacific Island countries) to loose suppression or mitigation that attempts to keep the case numbers within health services capacity (e.g. Sweden, USA, India, UK and some continental European countries). The best or optimal approach is unknown, and involves an invidious balancing of health, social and economic consequences of the pandemic. But it has become apparent that in high income countries using loose suppression that one still has to use lock-downs from time to time to keep case numbers within health service capacity, raising the question as to what is the best for the economy – attempting elimination, tight suppression or loose suppression?

One approach to integrating the health and economic consequences is cost effectiveness analysis, but to date such approaches have mainly been focused on SARS-CoV-2 treatments rather than societal intervention, and have not incorporated a counterfactual approach to compare the same jurisdiction across the many (stochastically varying) realizations for different policy options.

Added value of this study This study uses one high-income jurisdiction, the state of Victoria in Australia as it exited its second wave, to estimate the health and economic consequences of four policy options: aggressive and moderate elimination strategies, and tight and loose suppression strategies. The modeling is done in two steps: first, an agent-based model to simulate 100 possible trajectories of daily SARS-CoV-2 infections over one year for each of the four policy options; and second, an integrated epidemiological and economic model that estimates health and economic costs. Whilst there is considerable uncertainty in outcomes for all of the four policy options, the two elimination options are usually optimal from both a health system and a partial societal (health expenditure plus GDP cost) perspective. However, if the remaining duration of the pandemic is lessened from 1 year to half a year (as may be the case with vaccine roll-outs), loose suppression becomes more favorable – suggesting countries with already high infection rates ‘ride it out’ till vaccination coverage is adequate.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

Anonymous philanthropic donation to the University of Melbourne.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

We confirm that we have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines.

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

The Victorian Department of Health and Human Services provided Victorian SARS-CoV-2 notification data for calculation of hospitalisation, ICU admission and fatality rates.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted January 13, 2021.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Determining the optimal COVID-19 policy response using agent-based modelling linked to health and cost modelling: Case study for Victoria, Australia
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Determining the optimal COVID-19 policy response using agent-based modelling linked to health and cost modelling: Case study for Victoria, Australia
Tony Blakely, Jason Thompson, Laxman Bablani, Patrick Andersen, Driss Ait Ouakrim, Natalie Carvalho, Patrick Abraham, Marie-Anne Boujaoude, Ameera Katar, Edifofon Akpan, Nick Wilson, Mark Stevenson
medRxiv 2021.01.11.21249630; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.11.21249630
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Determining the optimal COVID-19 policy response using agent-based modelling linked to health and cost modelling: Case study for Victoria, Australia
Tony Blakely, Jason Thompson, Laxman Bablani, Patrick Andersen, Driss Ait Ouakrim, Natalie Carvalho, Patrick Abraham, Marie-Anne Boujaoude, Ameera Katar, Edifofon Akpan, Nick Wilson, Mark Stevenson
medRxiv 2021.01.11.21249630; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.11.21249630

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Epidemiology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (174)
  • Allergy and Immunology (419)
  • Anesthesia (97)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (895)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (167)
  • Dermatology (101)
  • Emergency Medicine (257)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (404)
  • Epidemiology (8757)
  • Forensic Medicine (4)
  • Gastroenterology (403)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (1856)
  • Geriatric Medicine (176)
  • Health Economics (386)
  • Health Informatics (1283)
  • Health Policy (642)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (490)
  • Hematology (206)
  • HIV/AIDS (389)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (10535)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (564)
  • Medical Education (193)
  • Medical Ethics (52)
  • Nephrology (217)
  • Neurology (1747)
  • Nursing (100)
  • Nutrition (265)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (342)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (458)
  • Oncology (961)
  • Ophthalmology (279)
  • Orthopedics (107)
  • Otolaryngology (174)
  • Pain Medicine (117)
  • Palliative Medicine (41)
  • Pathology (263)
  • Pediatrics (556)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (264)
  • Primary Care Research (218)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (1840)
  • Public and Global Health (3971)
  • Radiology and Imaging (650)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (341)
  • Respiratory Medicine (532)
  • Rheumatology (215)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (178)
  • Sports Medicine (165)
  • Surgery (196)
  • Toxicology (37)
  • Transplantation (106)
  • Urology (79)