Factors Associated With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine Uptake Among Pregnant Women and Nonpregnant Women of Reproductive Age in Jamaica.

Background: Despite high rates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related maternal mortality, Jamaica currently has little data on COVID-19 vaccine uptake among pregnant women. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey of 192 reproductive-aged women in Jamaica from February 1 to 8, 2022. Participants were recruited from a convenience sample of patients, providers, and staff at a teaching hospital. We assessed self-reported COVID-19 vaccination status and COVID-19-related medical mistrust (operationalized as vaccine confidence, government mistrust, and race-based mistrust). We used multivariable modified Poisson regression to test the association between vaccine uptake and pregnancy. Results: Of 192 respondents, 72 (38%) were pregnant. Most (93%) were Black. Vaccine uptake was 35% in pregnant women versus 75% in nonpregnant women. Pregnant women were more likely to cite healthcare providers versus the government as trustworthy sources of COVID-19 vaccine information (65% vs 28%). Pregnancy, low vaccine confidence, and government mistrust were associated with a lower likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 0.68 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .49-.95], aPR = 0.61 [95% CI, .40-.95], and aPR = 0.68 [95% CI, .52-.89], respectively). Race-based mistrust was not associated with COVID-19 vaccination in the final model. Conclusions: Pregnancy, low vaccine confidence, and government mistrust were associated with a lower likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination among reproductive-aged women in Jamaica. Future studies should evaluate the efficacy of strategies proven to improve maternal vaccination coverage, including standing "opt-out" vaccination orders and collaborative provider and patient-led educational videos tailored for pregnant individuals. Strategies that decouple vaccine messaging from government agencies also warrant evaluation.

High-risk US International Travelers Seeking Pretravel Consultation During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: To assess the implications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related travel disruptions, we compared demographics and travel-related circumstances of US travelers seeking pretravel consultation regarding international travel at US Global TravEpiNet (GTEN) sites before and after the initiation of COVID-19 travel warnings. Methods: We analyzed data in the GTEN database regarding traveler demographics and travel-related circumstances with standard questionnaires in the pre-COVID-19 period (January-December 2019) and the COVID-19 period (April 2020-March 2021), excluding travelers from January to March 2020. We conducted descriptive analyses of differences in demographics, travel-related circumstances, routine and travel-related vaccinations, and medications. Results: Compared with 16 903 consultations in the pre-COVID-19 period, only 1564 consultations were recorded at GTEN sites during the COVID-19 period (90% reduction), with a greater proportion of travelers visiting friends and relatives (501/1564 [32%] vs 1525/16 903 [9%]), individuals traveling for >28 days (824/1564 [53%] vs 2522/16 903 [15%]), young children (6 mo-<6 y: 168/1564 [11%] vs 500/16 903 [3%]), and individuals traveling to Africa (1084/1564 [69%] vs 8049/16 903 [48%]). A smaller percentage of vaccine-eligible travelers received vaccines at pretravel consultations during the COVID-19 period than before, except for yellow fever and Japanese encephalitis vaccinations. Conclusions: Compared with the pre-COVID-19 period, a greater proportion of travelers during the COVID-19 period were young children, were planning to visit friends and relatives, were traveling for >28 days, or were traveling to Africa, which are circumstances that contribute to high risk for travel-related infections. Fewer vaccine-eligible travelers were administered travel-related vaccines at pretravel consultations. Counseling and vaccination focused on high-risk international travelers must be prioritized during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Distinguishing SARS-CoV-2 persistence and reinfection: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 reinfection is poorly understood, partly because few studies have systematically applied genomic analysis to distinguish reinfection from persistent RNA detection related to initial infection. We aimed to evaluate the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection and persistent RNA detection using independent genomic, clinical, and laboratory assessments. METHODS: All individuals at a large academic medical center who underwent a SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) ≥ 45 days after an initial positive test, with both tests between March 14th and December 30th, 2020, were analyzed for potential reinfection. Inclusion criteria required having ≥2 positive NAATs collected ≥45 days apart with a cycle threshold (Ct) value <35 at repeat testing. For each included subject, likelihood of reinfection was assessed by viral genomic analysis of all available specimens with a Ct value <35, structured Ct trajectory criteria, and case-by-case review by infectious diseases physicians. RESULTS: Among 1,569 individuals with repeat SARS-CoV-2 testing ≥45 days after an initial positive NAAT, 65 (4%) met cohort inclusion criteria. Viral genomic analysis characterized mutations present, and was successful for 14/65 (22%) subjects. Six subjects had genomically-supported reinfection and eight subjects had genomically-supported persistent RNA detection. Compared to viral genomic analysis, clinical and laboratory assessments correctly distinguished reinfection from persistent RNA detection in 12/14 (86%) subjects but missed 2/6 (33%) genomically-supported reinfections. CONCLUSION: Despite good overall concordance with viral genomic analysis, clinical and Ct value-based assessments failed to identify 33% of genomically-supported reinfections. Scaling-up genomic analysis for clinical use would improve detection of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections.

High-risk US international travelers seeking pretravel consultation during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background To assess implications of COVID-19 related travel disruptions, we compared demographics and travel-related circumstances of US travelers seeking pretravel consultation regarding international travel at US Global TravEpiNet (GTEN) sites before and after the initiation of COVID-19 travel warnings. Methods We analyzed data in the GTEN database regarding traveler demographics and travel-related circumstances with standard questionnaires in the pre-COVID-19 period (January-December 2019) and the COVID-19 period (April 2020-March 2021), excluding travelers from January-March 2020. We conducted descriptive analyses of differences in demographics, travel-related circumstances, routine and travel-related vaccinations, and medications. Results Compared with 16,903 consultations in the pre-COVID-19 period, only 1,564 consultations were recorded at GTEN sites during the COVID-19 period (90% reduction) with a greater proportion of travelers visiting friends and relatives (501/1,564 [32%] vs 1,525/16,903 [9%]), traveling for >28 days (824/1,564 [53%] vs 2,522/16,903 [15%]), young children (6mo-<6y: 168/1,564 [11%] vs 500/16,903 [3%]), and traveling to Africa (1,084/1,564 [69%] vs 8,049/16,903 [48%]). A smaller percentage of vaccine-eligible travelers received vaccines at pretravel consultations during the COVID-19 period than before, except for yellow fever and Japanese encephalitis vaccinations. Conclusions Compared with the pre-COVID-19 period, a greater proportion of travelers during the COVID-19 period were young children, planning to visit friends and relatives, travel for >28 days, or travel to Africa, which are circumstances that contribute to high risk for travel-related infections. Fewer vaccine-eligible travelers were administered travel-related vaccines at pretravel consultations. Counseling and vaccination focused on high-risk international travelers must be priorities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Diagnostic Clinical Decision Support: A Pre-Post Implementation Study of CORAL (COvid Risk cALculator).

BACKGROUND: Isolation of hospitalized persons under investigation (PUIs) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reduces nosocomial transmission risk. Efficient evaluation of PUIs is needed to preserve scarce healthcare resources. We describe the development, implementation, and outcomes of an inpatient diagnostic algorithm and clinical decision support system (CDSS) to evaluate PUIs. METHODS: We conducted a pre-post study of CORAL (COvid Risk cALculator), a CDSS that guides frontline clinicians through a risk-stratified COVID-19 diagnostic workup, removes transmission-based precautions when workup is complete and negative, and triages complex cases to infectious diseases (ID) physician review. Before CORAL, ID physicians reviewed all PUI records to guide workup and precautions. After CORAL, frontline clinicians evaluated PUIs directly using CORAL. We compared pre- and post-CORAL frequency of repeated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), time from NAAT result to PUI status discontinuation, total duration of PUI status, and ID physician work hours, using linear and logistic regression, adjusted for COVID-19 incidence. RESULTS: Fewer PUIs underwent repeated testing after an initial negative NAAT after CORAL than before CORAL (54% vs 67%, respectively; adjusted odd ratio, 0.53 [95% confidence interval, .44-.63]; P < .01). CORAL significantly reduced average time to PUI status discontinuation (adjusted difference [standard error], -7.4 [0.8] hours per patient), total duration of PUI status (-19.5 [1.9] hours per patient), and average ID physician work-hours (-57.4 [2.0] hours per day) (all P < .01). No patients had a positive NAAT result within 7 days after discontinuation of precautions via CORAL. CONCLUSIONS: CORAL is an efficient and effective CDSS to guide frontline clinicians through the diagnostic evaluation of PUIs and safe discontinuation of precautions.

Cost-effectiveness of public health strategies for COVID-19 epidemic control in South Africa

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 (R e ) 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 R e 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 R e 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.

Clinical Impact, Costs, and Cost-effectiveness of Expanded Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Testing in Massachusetts.

BACKGROUND: We projected the clinical and economic impact of alternative testing strategies on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) incidence and mortality in Massachusetts using a microsimulation model. METHODS: We compared 4 testing strategies: (1) hospitalized: polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing only for patients with severe/critical symptoms warranting hospitalization; (2) symptomatic: PCR for any COVID-19-consistent symptoms, with self-isolation if positive; (3) symptomatic + asymptomatic once: symptomatic and 1-time PCR for the entire population; and (4) symptomatic + asymptomatic monthly: symptomatic with monthly retesting for the entire population. We examined effective reproduction numbers (Re = 0.9-2.0) at which policy conclusions would change. We assumed homogeneous mixing among the Massachusetts population (excluding those residing in long-term care facilities). We used published data on disease progression and mortality, transmission, PCR sensitivity/specificity (70%/100%), and costs. Model-projected outcomes included infections, deaths, tests performed, hospital-days, and costs over 180 days, as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, $/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]). RESULTS: At Re = 0.9, symptomatic + asymptomatic monthly vs hospitalized resulted in a 64% reduction in infections and a 46% reduction in deaths, but required >66-fold more tests/day with 5-fold higher costs. Symptomatic + asymptomatic monthly had an ICER <$100 000/QALY only when Re ≥1.6; when test cost was ≤$3, every 14-day testing was cost-effective at all Re examined. CONCLUSIONS: Testing people with any COVID-19-consistent symptoms would be cost-saving compared to testing only those whose symptoms warrant hospital care. Expanding PCR testing to asymptomatic people would decrease infections, deaths, and hospitalizations. Despite modest sensitivity, low-cost, repeat screening of the entire population could be cost-effective in all epidemic settings.

Yield of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Lower Respiratory Tract Testing After a Negative Nasopharyngeal Test Among Hospitalized Persons Under Investigation for Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Among hospitalized persons under investigation for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), more repeated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) after a negative NAAT were positive from lower than from upper respiratory tract specimens (1.9% vs 1.0%, P = .033). Lower respiratory testing should be prioritized among patients displaying respiratory symptoms with moderate-to-high suspicion for COVID-19 after 1 negative upper respiratory NAAT.

College Campuses and COVID-19 Mitigation: Clinical and Economic Value.

BACKGROUND: Colleges in the United States are determining how to operate safely amid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical outcomes, cost, and cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 mitigation strategies on college campuses. DESIGN: The Clinical and Economic Analysis of COVID-19 interventions (CEACOV) model, a dynamic microsimulation model, was used to examine alternative mitigation strategies. The CEACOV model tracks infections accrued by students and faculty, accounting for community transmissions. DATA SOURCES: Data from published literature were used to obtain parameters related to COVID-19 and contact-hours. TARGET POPULATION: Undergraduate students and faculty at U.S. colleges. TIME HORIZON: One semester (105 days). PERSPECTIVE: Modified societal. INTERVENTION: COVID-19 mitigation strategies, including social distancing, masks, and routine laboratory screening. OUTCOME MEASURES: Infections among students and faculty per 5000 students and per 1000 faculty, isolation days, tests, costs, cost per infection prevented, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Among students, mitigation strategies reduced COVID-19 cases from 3746 with no mitigation to 493 with extensive social distancing and masks, and further to 151 when laboratory testing was added among asymptomatic persons every 3 days. Among faculty, these values were 164, 28, and 25 cases, respectively. Costs ranged from about $0.4 million for minimal social distancing to about $0.9 million to $2.1 million for strategies involving laboratory testing ($10 per test), depending on testing frequency. Extensive social distancing with masks cost $170 per infection prevented ($49 200 per QALY) compared with masks alone. Adding routine laboratory testing increased cost per infection prevented to between $2010 and $17 210 (cost per QALY gained, $811 400 to $2 804 600). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results were most sensitive to test costs. LIMITATION: Data are from multiple sources. CONCLUSION: Extensive social distancing with a mandatory mask-wearing policy can prevent most COVID-19 cases on college campuses and is very cost-effective. Routine laboratory testing would prevent 96% of infections and require low-cost tests to be economically attractive. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Outcomes from an infectious disease physician-guided evaluation of hospitalized persons under investigation for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at a large US academic medical center.

We describe an approach to the evaluation and isolation of hospitalized persons under investigation (PUIs) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at a large US academic medical center. Only a small proportion (2.9%) of PUIs with 1 or more repeated severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) after a negative NAAT were diagnosed with COVID-19.

Clinical, Laboratory, and Radiologic Characteristics of Patients With Initial False-Negative Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Test Results.

BACKGROUND: Concerns about false-negative (FN) severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) have prompted recommendations for repeat testing if suspicion for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is moderate to high. However, the frequency of FNs and patient characteristics associated with FNs are poorly understood. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed test results from 15 011 adults who underwent ≥1 SARS-CoV-2 NAATs; 2699 had an initial negative NAAT and repeat testing. We defined FNs as ≥1 negative NAATs followed by a positive NAAT within 14 days during the same episode of illness. We stratified subjects with FNs by duration of symptoms before the initial FN test (≤5 days versus >5 days) and examined their clinical, radiologic, and laboratory characteristics. RESULTS: Sixty of 2699 subjects (2.2%) had a FN result during the study period. The weekly frequency of FNs among subjects with repeat testing peaked at 4.4%, coinciding with peak NAAT positivity (38%). Most subjects with FNs had symptoms (52 of 60; 87%) and chest radiography (19 of 32; 59%) consistent with COVID-19. Of the FN NAATs, 18 of 60 (30%) were performed early (ie, ≤1 day of symptom onset), and 18 of 60 (30%) were performed late (ie, >7 days after symptom onset) in disease. Among 17 subjects with 2 consecutive FNs on NP NAATs, 9 (53%) provided lower respiratory tract (LRT) specimens for testing, all of which were positive. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support repeated NAATs among symptomatic patients, particularly during periods of higher COVID-19 incidence. The LRT testing should be prioritized to increase yield among patients with high clinical suspicion for COVID-19.

Clinical Outcomes, Costs, and Cost-effectiveness of Strategies for Adults Experiencing Sheltered Homelessness During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Approximately 356 000 people stay in homeless shelters nightly in the United States. They have high risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To assess the estimated clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with strategies for COVID-19 management among adults experiencing sheltered homelessness. Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analytic model used a simulated cohort of 2258 adults residing in homeless shelters in Boston, Massachusetts. Cohort characteristics and costs were adapted from Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program. Disease progression, transmission, and outcomes data were taken from published literature and national databases. Surging, growing, and slowing epidemics (effective reproduction numbers [Re], 2.6, 1.3, and 0.9, respectively) were examined. Costs were from a health care sector perspective, and the time horizon was 4 months, from April to August 2020. Exposures: Daily symptom screening with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of individuals with positive symptom screening results, universal PCR testing every 2 weeks, hospital-based COVID-19 care, alternative care sites (ACSs) for mild or moderate COVID-19, and temporary housing were each compared with no intervention. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cumulative infections and hospital-days, costs to the health care sector (US dollars), and cost-effectiveness, as incremental cost per case of COVID-19 prevented. Results: The simulated population of 2258 sheltered homeless adults had a mean (SD) age of 42.6 (9.04) years. Compared with no intervention, daily symptom screening with ACSs for pending tests or confirmed COVID-19 and mild or moderate disease was associated with 37% fewer infections (1954 vs 1239) and 46% lower costs ($6.10 million vs $3.27 million) at an Re of 2.6, 75% fewer infections (538 vs 137) and 72% lower costs ($1.46 million vs $0.41 million) at an Re of 1.3, and 51% fewer infections (174 vs 85) and 51% lower costs ($0.54 million vs $0.26 million) at an Re of 0.9. Adding PCR testing every 2 weeks was associated with a further decrease in infections; incremental cost per case prevented was $1000 at an Re of 2.6, $27 000 at an Re of 1.3, and $71 000 at an Re of 0.9. Temporary housing with PCR every 2 weeks was most effective but substantially more expensive than other options. Compared with no intervention, temporary housing with PCR every 2 weeks was associated with 81% fewer infections (376) and 542% higher costs ($39.12 million) at an Re of 2.6, 82% fewer infections (95) and 2568% higher costs ($38.97 million) at an Re of 1.3, and 59% fewer infections (71) and 7114% higher costs ($38.94 million) at an Re of 0.9. Results were sensitive to cost and sensitivity of PCR and ACS efficacy in preventing transmission. Conclusions and Relevance: In this modeling study of simulated adults living in homeless shelters, daily symptom screening and ACSs were associated with fewer severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and decreased costs compared with no intervention. In a modeled surging epidemic, adding universal PCR testing every 2 weeks was associated with further decrease in SARS-CoV-2 infections at modest incremental cost and should be considered during future surges.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Disease Severity on Admission Chest Radiographs among Patients Admitted with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background Disease severity on chest radiographs has been associated with higher risk of disease progression and adverse outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Few studies have evaluated COVID-19-related racial and/or ethnic disparities in radiology. Purpose To evaluate whether non-White minority patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 infection presented with increased severity on admission chest radiographs compared with White or non-Hispanic patients. Materials and Methods This single-institution retrospective cohort study was approved by the institutional review board. Patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 infection between March 17, 2020, and April 10, 2020, were identified by using the electronic medical record (n = 326; mean age, 59 years ±17 [standard deviation]; male-to-female ratio: 188:138). The primary outcome was the severity of lung disease on admission chest radiographs, measured by using the modified Radiographic Assessment of Lung Edema (mRALE) score. The secondary outcome was a composite adverse clinical outcome of intubation, intensive care unit admission, or death. The primary exposure was the racial and/or ethnic category: White or non-Hispanic versus non-White (ie, Hispanic, Black, Asian, or other). Multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between mRALE scores and race and/or ethnicity. Results Non-White patients had significantly higher mRALE scores (median score, 6.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.4, 6.7) compared with White or non-Hispanic patients (median score, 4.2; 95% CI: 3.6, 4.9) (unadjusted average difference, 1.8; 95% CI: 0.9, 2.8; P < .01). For both White (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.3; 95% CI: 1.2, 1.4; P < .001) and non-White (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.2; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.3; P < .001) patients, increasing mRALE scores were associated with a higher likelihood of experiencing composite adverse outcome with no evidence of interaction (P = .16). Multivariable linear regression analyses demonstrated that non-White patients presented with higher mRALE scores at admission chest radiography compared with White or non-Hispanic patients (adjusted average difference, 1.6; 95% CI: 0.5, 2.7; P < .01). Adjustment for hypothesized mediators revealed that the association between race and/or ethnicity and mRALE scores was mediated by limited English proficiency (P < .01). Conclusion Non-White patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 infection were more likely to have a higher severity of disease on admission chest radiographs than White or non-Hispanic patients, and increased severity was associated with worse outcomes for all patients. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Cost-effectiveness of public health strategies for COVID-19 epidemic control in South Africa: a microsimulation modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Health-care resource constraints in low-income and middle-income countries necessitate the identification of cost-effective public health interventions to address COVID-19. We aimed to develop a dynamic COVID-19 microsimulation model to assess clinical and economic outcomes and cost-effectiveness of epidemic control strategies in KwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa. METHODS: We compared different combinations of five public health interventions: health-care testing alone, where diagnostic testing is done only for individuals presenting to health-care centres; contact tracing in households of cases; isolation centres, for cases not requiring hospital admission; mass symptom screening and molecular testing for symptomatic individuals by community health-care workers; and quarantine centres, for household contacts who test negative. We calibrated infection transmission rates to match effective reproduction number (Re) estimates reported in South Africa. We assessed two main epidemic scenarios for a period of 360 days, with an Re of 1·5 and 1·2. Strategies with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of less than US$3250 per year of life saved were considered cost-effective. We also did sensitivity analyses by varying key parameters (Re values, molecular testing sensitivity, and efficacies and costs of interventions) to determine the effect on clinical and cost projections. FINDINGS: When Re was 1·5, health-care testing alone resulted in the highest number of COVID-19 deaths during the 360-day period. Compared with health-care testing alone, a combination of health-care testing, contact tracing, use of isolation centres, mass symptom screening, and use of quarantine centres reduced mortality by 94%, increased health-care costs by 33%, and was cost-effective (ICER $340 per year of life saved). In settings where quarantine centres were not feasible, a combination of health-care testing, contact tracing, use of isolation centres, and mass symptom screening was cost-effective compared with health-care testing alone (ICER $590 per year of life saved). When Re was 1·2, health-care testing, contact tracing, use of isolation centres, and use of quarantine centres was the least costly strategy, and no other strategies were cost-effective. In sensitivity analyses, a combination of health-care testing, contact tracing, use of isolation centres, mass symptom screening, and use of quarantine centres was generally cost-effective, with the exception of scenarios in which Re was 2·6 and when efficacies of isolation centres and quarantine centres for transmission reduction were reduced. INTERPRETATION: In South Africa, strategies involving household contact tracing, isolation, mass symptom screening, and quarantining household contacts who test negative would substantially reduce COVID-19 mortality and would be cost-effective. The optimal combination of interventions depends on epidemic growth characteristics and practical implementation considerations. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, Royal Society, Wellcome Trust.

Clinical Outcomes, Costs, and Cost-effectiveness of Strategies for People Experiencing Sheltered Homelessness During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

IMPORTANCE: Approximately 356,000 people stay in homeless shelters nightly in the US. They are at high risk for COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To assess clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of strategies for COVID-19 management among sheltered homeless adults. DESIGN: We developed a dynamic microsimulation model of COVID-19 in sheltered homeless adults in Boston, Massachusetts. We used cohort characteristics and costs from Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program. Disease progression, transmission, and outcomes data were from published literature and national databases. We examined surging, growing, and slowing epidemics (effective reproduction numbers [Re] 2.6, 1.3, and 0.9). Costs were from a health care sector perspective; time horizon was 4 months, from April to August 2020. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Simulated cohort of 2,258 adults residing in homeless shelters in Boston. INTERVENTIONS: We assessed daily symptom screening with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of screen-positives, universal PCR testing every 2 weeks, hospital-based COVID-19 care, alternate care sites [ACSs] for mild/moderate COVID-19, and temporary housing, each compared to no intervention. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cumulative infections and hospital-days, costs to the health care sector (US dollars), and cost-effectiveness, as incremental cost per case prevented of COVID-19. RESULTS: We simulated a population of 2,258 sheltered homeless adults with mean age of 42.6 years. Compared to no intervention, daily symptom screening with ACSs for pending tests or confirmed COVID-19 and mild/moderate disease led to 37% fewer infections and 46% lower costs (Re=2.6), 75% fewer infections and 72% lower costs (Re=1.3), and 51% fewer infections and 51% lower costs (Re=0.9). Adding PCR testing every 2 weeks further decreased infections; incremental cost per case prevented was $1,000 (Re=2.6), $27,000 (Re=1.3), and $71,000 (Re=0.9). Temporary housing with PCR every 2 weeks was most effective but substantially more costly than other options. Results were sensitive to cost and sensitivity of PCR and ACS efficacy in preventing transmission. CONCLUSIONS & RELEVANCE: In this modeling study of simulated adults living in homeless shelters, daily symptom screening and ACSs were associated with fewer COVID-19 infections and decreased costs compared with no intervention. In a modeled surging epidemic, adding universal PCR testing every 2 weeks was associated with further decrease in COVID-19 infections at modest incremental cost and should be considered during future surges.

Cost-effectiveness of public health strategies for COVID-19 epidemic control in South Africa: a microsimulation modelling study.

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 molecular testing for symptomatic individuals (MS); and Quarantine Centres (QC), for household 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)