PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Juneau, Carl-Etienne
AU  - Pueyo, Tomas
AU  - Bell, Matt
AU  - Gee, Genevieve
AU  - Potvin, Louise
TI  - Evidence-based, cost-effective interventions to suppress the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid systematic review
AID  - 10.1101/2020.04.20.20054726
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.04.20.20054726
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/24/2020.04.20.20054726.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/24/2020.04.20.20054726.full
AB  - Background Countries vary in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some emphasise social distancing, while others focus on other interventions. Evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these interventions is urgently needed to guide public health policy and avoid unnecessary damage to the economy and other harms. We aimed to provide a comprehensive summary of the evidence on epidemic control, with a focus on cost-effectiveness.Methods MEDLINE (1946 to March week 3, 2020) and Embase (1974 to March 27, 2020) were searched using a range of terms related to epidemic control. Reviews, randomized trials, observational studies, and modelling studies were included. Articles reporting on the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of at least one intervention were included and grouped into higher-quality (randomized trials) and lower-quality evidence (other study designs).Findings We found 1,653 papers; 34 were included. Higher-quality evidence was only available to support the effectiveness of hand washing and face masks. Modelling studies suggested that these measures are highly cost-effective. For other interventions, only evidence from observational and modelling studies was available. A cautious interpretation of this body of lower-quality evidence suggests 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 this body of 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, swift contact tracing and case isolation, and protective equipment for healthcare workers is likely to be the most cost-effective strategy.Funding 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.Competing Interest StatementCEJ, TP, MB, and LP declare no conflict of interest. GG holds a contractual position with the Millar Group (provider of personal protective equipment) and executive roles at Panacea Health Solutions and Angular Momentum (providers of diabetes and corporate wellness programs).Funding StatementLP 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 DeclarationsAll 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.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesData extracted from cited work.