TY - JOUR T1 - Cost-effectiveness of public health strategies for COVID-19 epidemic control in South Africa JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.06.29.20140111 SP - 2020.06.29.20140111 AU - Krishna P. Reddy AU - Fatma M. Shebl AU - Julia H. A. Foote AU - Guy Harling AU - Justine A. Scott AU - Christopher Panella AU - Clare Flanagan AU - Emily P. Hyle AU - Anne M. Neilan AU - Amir M. Mohareb AU - Linda-Gail Bekker AU - Richard J. Lessells AU - Andrea L. Ciaranello AU - Robin Wood AU - Elena Losina AU - Kenneth A. Freedberg AU - Pooyan Kazemian AU - Mark J. Siedner Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/01/2020.06.29.20140111.abstract N2 - Background Healthcare resource constraints in low and middle-income countries necessitate selection of cost-effective public health interventions to address COVID-19.Methods We developed a dynamic COVID-19 microsimulation model to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes and cost-effectiveness of epidemic control strategies in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Interventions assessed were Healthcare Testing (HT), where diagnostic testing is performed only for those presenting to healthcare centres; Contact Tracing (CT) in households of cases; Isolation Centres (IC), for cases not requiring hospitalisation; community health worker-led Mass Symptom Screening and diagnostic testing for symptomatic individuals (MS); and Quarantine Centres (QC), for contacts who test negative. Given uncertainties about epidemic dynamics in South Africa, we evaluated two main epidemic scenarios over 360 days, with effective reproduction numbers (Re) of 1·5 and 1·2. We compared HT, HT+CT, HT+CT+IC, HT+CT+IC+MS, HT+CT+IC+QC, and HT+CT+IC+MS+QC, considering strategies with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) <US$1,290/year-of-life saved (YLS) to be cost-effective.Findings With Re 1·5, HT resulted in the most COVID-19 deaths and lowest costs over 360 days. Compared with HT, HT+CT+IC+MS reduced mortality by 76%, increased costs by 16%, and was cost-effective (ICER $350/YLS). HT+CT+IC+MS+QC provided the greatest reduction in mortality, but increased costs by 95% compared with HT+CT+IC+MS and was not cost-effective (ICER $8,000/YLS). With Re 1·2, HT+CT+IC+MS was the least costly strategy, and HT+CT+IC+MS+QC was not cost-effective (ICER $294,320/YLS).Interpretation In South Africa, a strategy of household contact tracing, isolation, and mass symptom screening would substantially reduce COVID-19 mortality and be cost-effective. Adding quarantine centres for COVID-19 contacts is not cost-effective.Funding Royal Society, Wellcome Trust, National Institutes of HealthCompeting Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by a fellowship from the Royal Society and Wellcome Trust [210479/Z/18/Z] and by the National Institutes of Health [K24 AR057827 and T32 AI007433]. The funding sources had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding sources.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Approved by the Partners Human Research Committee under Protocol 2020P000967All 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.YesThe relevant data are contained within the manuscript and appendix, in published papers, or on publicly available websites. ER -