Cost effectiveness and decision analysis for national airport screening options to reduce risk of COVID-19 introduction in Uganda, 2020
Abstract Background Early during the COVID-19 outbreak, various approaches were utilized to prevent COVID-19 introductions from incoming airport travellers. However, the costs and effectiveness of airport-specific interventions have not been evaluated. Methods We evaluated policy options for COVID-19-specific interventions at Entebbe International Airport for costs and impact on COVID-19 case counts, we took the government payer perspective. Policy options included; (1) no screening, testing, or mandatory quarantine for any incoming traveller; (2) mandatory symptom screening for all incoming travellers with RT-PCR testing only for the symptomatic and isolation of positives; and (3) mandatory 14-day quarantine and one-time testing for all, with 10-day isolation of persons testing positive. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in US$ per additional case averted. Results Expected costs per incoming traveller were $0 (Option 1), $19 (Option 2), and $766 (Option 3). ICERs per case averted were $257 for Option 2 (which averted 4,948 cases), and $10,139 for Option 3 (which averted 5,097 cases) compared with Option I. Two-week costs were $0 for Option 1, $1,271,431 Option 2, and $51,684,999 Option 3. The per-case ICER decreased with increase in prevalence. The cost-effectiveness of our interventions was modestly sensitive to the prevalence of COVID-19, diagnostic test sensitivity, and testing costs. Conclusion Screening all incoming travellers, testing symptomatic persons, and isolating positives (Option 2) was the most cost-effective option. A higher COVID-19 prevalence among incoming travellers increased cost-effectiveness of airport-specific interventions. This model could be used to evaluate prevention options at the airport for COVID-19 and other infectious diseases with similar requirements for control..
| Medienart: |
|
|---|
Preprint| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
ResearchSquare.com - (2024) vom: 14. Feb. Zur Gesamtaufnahme - year:2024 |
|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Amanya, Geofrey [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
Volltext [kostenfrei] |
|---|
| Themen: |
|---|
| doi: |
10.21203/rs.3.rs-3944638/v1 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
XRA042516935 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | XRA042516935 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240215153125.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240215s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3944638/v1 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)XRA042516935 | ||
| 035 | |a (ResearchSquare)10.21203/rs.3.rs-3944638/v1 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Amanya, Geofrey |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Cost effectiveness and decision analysis for national airport screening options to reduce risk of COVID-19 introduction in Uganda, 2020 |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Background Early during the COVID-19 outbreak, various approaches were utilized to prevent COVID-19 introductions from incoming airport travellers. However, the costs and effectiveness of airport-specific interventions have not been evaluated. Methods We evaluated policy options for COVID-19-specific interventions at Entebbe International Airport for costs and impact on COVID-19 case counts, we took the government payer perspective. Policy options included; (1) no screening, testing, or mandatory quarantine for any incoming traveller; (2) mandatory symptom screening for all incoming travellers with RT-PCR testing only for the symptomatic and isolation of positives; and (3) mandatory 14-day quarantine and one-time testing for all, with 10-day isolation of persons testing positive. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in US$ per additional case averted. Results Expected costs per incoming traveller were $0 (Option 1), $19 (Option 2), and $766 (Option 3). ICERs per case averted were $257 for Option 2 (which averted 4,948 cases), and $10,139 for Option 3 (which averted 5,097 cases) compared with Option I. Two-week costs were $0 for Option 1, $1,271,431 Option 2, and $51,684,999 Option 3. The per-case ICER decreased with increase in prevalence. The cost-effectiveness of our interventions was modestly sensitive to the prevalence of COVID-19, diagnostic test sensitivity, and testing costs. Conclusion Screening all incoming travellers, testing symptomatic persons, and isolating positives (Option 2) was the most cost-effective option. A higher COVID-19 prevalence among incoming travellers increased cost-effectiveness of airport-specific interventions. This model could be used to evaluate prevention options at the airport for COVID-19 and other infectious diseases with similar requirements for control. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Biology |7 (dpeaa)DE-84 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a 570 |7 (dpeaa)DE-84 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Migisha, Richard |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kadobera, Daniel |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ario, Alex Riolexus |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Washington, Michael L. |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Harris, Julie R. |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t ResearchSquare.com |g (2024) vom: 14. Feb. |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g year:2024 |g day:14 |g month:02 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3944638/v1 |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_XRA | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |j 2024 |b 14 |c 02 | ||