Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Infect Dis Poverty ; 12(1): 1, 2023 Jan 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2196466

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spreads rapidly and insidiously. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) screening is an important means of blocking community transmission in China, but the costs associated with testing are high. Quarantine capacity and medical resources are also threatened. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate different screening strategies to balance outbreak control and consumption of resources. METHODS: A community network of 2000 people, considering the heterogeneities of household size and age structure, was generated to reflect real contact networks, and a stochastic individual-based dynamic model was used to simulate SARS-CoV-2 transmission and assess different whole-area nucleic acid screening strategies. We designed a total of 87 screening strategies with different sampling methods, frequencies of screening, and timings of screening. The performance of these strategies was comprehensively evaluated by comparing the cumulative infection rates, the number of tests, and the quarantine capacity and consumption of medical resource, which were expressed as medians (95% uncertainty intervals, 95% UIs). RESULTS: To implement COVID-19 nucleic acid testing for all people (Full Screening), if the screening frequency was four times/week, the cumulative infection rate could be reduced to 13% (95% UI: 1%, 51%), the miss rate decreased to 2% (95% UI: 0%, 22%), and the quarantine and medical resource consumption was lower than higher-frequency Full Screening or sampling screening. When the frequency of Full Screening increased from five to seven times/week (which resulted in a 2581 increase in the number of tests per positive case), the cumulative infection rate was only reduced by 2%. Screening all people weekly by splitting them equally into seven batches could reduce infection rates by 73% compared to once per week, which was similar to Full Screening four times/week. Full Screening had the highest number of tests per positive case, while the miss rate, number of tests per positive case, and hotel quarantine resource consumption in Household-based Sampling Screening scenarios were lower than Random Sampling Screening. The cumulative infection rate of Household-based Sampling Screening or Random Sampling Screening seven times/week was similar to that of Full Screening four times/week. CONCLUSIONS: If hotel quarantine, hospital and shelter hospital capacity are seriously insufficient, to stop the spread of the virus as early as possible, high-frequency Full Screening would be necessary, but intermediate testing frequency may be more cost-effective in non-extreme situations. Screening in batches is recommended if the testing capacity is low. Household-based Sampling Screening is potentially a promising strategy to implement.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Testing , Disease Outbreaks
2.
Infect Dis Poverty ; 11(1): 95, 2022 Sep 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2009472

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The continuous mutation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has made the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic complicated to predict and posed a severe challenge to the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics and Winter Paralympics held in February and March 2022. METHODS: During the preparations for the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics, we established a dynamic model with pulse detection and isolation effect to evaluate the effect of epidemic prevention and control measures such as entry policies, contact reduction, nucleic acid testing, tracking, isolation, and health monitoring in a closed-loop management environment, by simulating the transmission dynamics in assumed scenarios. We also compared the importance of each parameter in the combination of intervention measures through sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: At the assumed baseline levels, the peak of the epidemic reached on the 57th day. During the simulation period (100 days), 13,382 people infected COVID-19. The mean and peak values of hospitalized cases were 2650 and 6746, respectively. The simulation and sensitivity analysis showed that: (1) the most important measures to stop COVID-19 transmission during the event were daily nucleic acid testing, reducing contact among people, and daily health monitoring, with cumulative infections at 0.04%, 0.14%, and 14.92% of baseline levels, respectively (2) strictly implementing the entry policy and reducing the number of cases entering the closed-loop system could delay the peak of the epidemic by 9 days and provide time for medical resources to be mobilized; (3) the risk of environmental transmission was low. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive measures under certain scenarios such as reducing contact, nucleic acid testing, health monitoring, and timely tracking and isolation could effectively prevent virus transmission. Our research results provided an important reference for formulating prevention and control measures during the Winter Olympics, and no epidemic spread in the closed-loop during the games indirectly proved the rationality of our research results.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Nucleic Acids , Beijing , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Infect Dis Poverty ; 11(1): 72, 2022 Jun 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1962900

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic, considered as the worst global public health event in nearly a century, has severely affected more than 200 countries and regions around the world. To effectively prevent and control the epidemic, researchers have widely employed dynamic models to predict and simulate the epidemic's development, understand the spread rule, evaluate the effects of intervention measures, inform vaccination strategies, and assist in the formulation of prevention and control measures. In this review, we aimed to sort out the compartmental structures used in COVID-19 dynamic models and provide reference for the dynamic modeling for COVID-19 and other infectious diseases in the future. MAIN TEXT: A scoping review on the compartmental structures used in modeling COVID-19 was conducted. In this scoping review, 241 research articles published before May 14, 2021 were analyzed to better understand the model types and compartmental structures used in modeling COVID-19. Three types of dynamics models were analyzed: compartment models expanded based on susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered (SEIR) model, meta-population models, and agent-based models. The expanded compartments based on SEIR model are mainly according to the COVID-19 transmission characteristics, public health interventions, and age structure. The meta-population models and the agent-based models, as a trade-off for more complex model structures, basic susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered or simply expanded compartmental structures were generally adopted. CONCLUSION: There has been a great deal of models to understand the spread of COVID-19, and to help prevention and control strategies. Researchers build compartments according to actual situation, research objectives and complexity of models used. As the COVID-19 epidemic remains uncertain and poses a major challenge to humans, researchers still need dynamic models as the main tool to predict dynamics, evaluate intervention effects, and provide scientific evidence for the development of prevention and control strategies. The compartmental structures reviewed in this study provide guidance for future modeling for COVID-19, and also offer recommendations for the dynamic modeling of other infectious diseases.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Epidemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Disease Susceptibility , Forecasting , Humans , Public Health , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL