| Literature DB >> 35303953 |
Xuechun Wang1, Yiru Cai2, Bo Zhang3, Xiangyu Zhang1, Lianhao Wang1, Xiangyu Yan1, Mingchen Zhao1, Yuan Zhang4,5, Zhongwei Jia1,6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nucleic acid test (NAT) could effectively control the spread of COVID-19 caused by large-scale sports competitions. However, quantitative analysis on the appropriate frequency of NAT is scarce, and the cost-effectiveness and necessity of high-frequency NAT remain to be fully explored and validated. This study aims to optimize the COVID-19 surveillance strategies through cost-effectiveness analysis for the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games and the upcoming Beijing 2022 Olympic Winter Games.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Cost-effectiveness; Nucleic acid test; Sports competition; Stochastic dynamic model; Surveillance
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35303953 PMCID: PMC8931792 DOI: 10.1186/s40249-022-00955-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Dis Poverty ISSN: 2049-9957 Impact factor: 4.520
COVID-19 surveillance scenarios
| Scenario | Frequency of NAT monitoring (the competition-related personnel) | Frequency of additional NAT monitoring (the national sports delegation with the quarantined infection)a |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Every 7 days | – |
| 2 | Every 6 days | – |
| 3 | Every 5 days | – |
| 4 | Every 4 days | – |
| 5 | Every 3 days | – |
| 6 | Every 2 days | – |
| 7 | Once a day | – |
| 8 | Twice a day | – |
| 9 | Three times a day | – |
| 10 | Every 7 days | Once a day (Quarantine the infection) |
| 11 | Every 6 days | Once a day (Quarantine the infection) |
| 12 | Every 5 days | Once a day (Quarantine the infection) |
| 13 | Every 4 days | Once a day (Quarantine the infection) |
| 14 | Every 3 days | Once a day (Quarantine the infection) |
| 15 | Every 2 days | Once a day (Quarantine the infection) |
| 16 | Once a day | Once a dayb (Quarantine the infection) |
| 17 | Twice a day | Once a day (Quarantine the infection) |
| 18 | Three times a day | Once a day (Quarantine the infection) |
aThe competition-related personnel came from different national sports delegations. When an infection was found in the health monitoring, we would strengthen close-contact control, that was, we would increase the NAT frequency for people from the same national sports delegation for 14 days. bWhen an infection was found, the infection was quarantined and the national sports delegation with the quarantined infection accepted NAT twice a day for 14 days. At the same time, other national sports delegations without the quarantined infection accepted NAT once a day
Fig. 1COVID-19 monitoring process of competition-related personnel during large-scale sports competitions
Fig. 2Stochastic dynamic model transfer chart of COVID-19 monitoring for competition-related personnel
Values and value ranges of model parameters
| Parameter | Value | Value range |
|---|---|---|
| Initial infections rate (IIR) | 0.020 [ | 0.001–0.020 |
| 6.258 [ | – | |
| 2.543 [ | – | |
| 2.9 [ | – | |
| 0.92 [ | 0.69–1.00 | |
| 0.33 [ | 0.20–0.90 | |
| Infectious period (IP) | 12.56 [ | 6.00–20.00 |
| Vaccination rate ( | 0.58 [ | 0.20–1.00 |
| Efficacy against infection ( | 0.39 [ | 0.10–0.60 |
| Efficacy against symptom ( | 0.84 [ | 0.50–1.00 |
| Basic reproductive number ( | 3.38 [ | 2.54–12.00 |
Values and value range of initial cost parameters
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Personnel salary (PS) | 363.31 [ |
| Nucleic acid test cost (NATC) | 5.48 [ |
| Number of audience (NA) | 5000 [ |
| Average medical cost (AMC) | 2662.2 [ |
The monetary unit of this study was United States Dollars (USD), USD 1 = RMB 6.3839, and 1 RMB ≈ USD 0.1566 on October 24, 2021. People infected by competition-related infections were mainly audience. Due to the short time horizon, discount rate was not considered
Fig. 3Composition of COVID-19 infections under different scenarios
COVID-19 transmission and cost effectiveness of different scenarios
| Scenario | Initial infections | COVID-19 transmission | Cost effectiveness | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accumulative infection | Accumulative unfounded number | Accumulative detection ratio/% | Symptom detection ratio/% | Total cost (million dollars) | CER (million dollars) | ICER (million dollars) | |||
| Scenario 1–9a | Scenario 1, 10b | ||||||||
| 1 | 90 | 2369.70 | 681.70 | 71.23 | 17.62 | 133.94 | 0.0565 | – | – |
| 2 | 90 | 2145.60 | 586.30 | 72.67 | 16.48 | 115.33 | 0.0538 | – | 0.0830 |
| 3 | 90 | 1825.90 | 490.40 | 73.14 | 14.19 | 92.20 | 0.0505 | – | 0.0768 |
| 4 | 90 | 1409.40 | 378.00 | 73.18 | 10.80 | 65.43 | 0.0464 | – | 0.0713 |
| 5 | 90 | 1006.20 | 241.26 | 76.02 | 6.13 | 41.59 | 0.0413 | – | 0.0677 |
| 6 | 90 | 641.22 | 132.40 | 79.35 | 3.30 | 22.68 | 0.0354 | – | 0.0644 |
| 7 | 90 | 368.10 | 46.46 | 87.38 | 1.18 | 10.34 | 0.0281 | – | 0.0617 |
| 8 | 90 | 293.68 | 28.90 | 90.16 | 0.82 | 9.17 | 0.0312 | – | 0.0601 |
| 9 | 90 | 268.15 | 25.58 | 90.46 | 0.71 | 9.19 | 0.0343 | – | 0.0594 |
| 10 | 90 | 890.51 | 145.62 | 83.65 | 5.58 | 31.49 | 0.0354 | 0.0693 | – |
| 11 | 90 | 822.96 | 137.25 | 83.32 | 5.51 | 28.96 | 0.0352 | 0.0653 | 0.0375 |
| 12 | 90 | 779.79 | 127.54 | 83.64 | 5.20 | 27.31 | 0.0350 | 0.0620 | 0.0378 |
| 13 | 90 | 665.88 | 102.69 | 84.58 | 4.17 | 22.45 | 0.0337 | 0.0578 | 0.0403 |
| 14 | 90 | 562.55 | 84.06 | 85.06 | 2.80 | 18.15 | 0.0323 | 0.0528 | 0.0407 |
| 15 | 90 | 450.17 | 60.56 | 86.55 | 1.83 | 13.66 | 0.0303 | 0.0472 | 0.0405 |
| 16 | 90 | 320.90 | 30.44 | 90.51 | 0.99 | 8.92 | 0.0278 | 0.0301 | 0.0396 |
| 17 | 90 | 290.44 | 26.47 | 90.89 | 0.74 | 9.33 | 0.0321 | −0.0476 | 0.0369 |
| 18 | 90 | 266.93 | 24.18 | 90.94 | 0.69 | 9.31 | 0.0349 | −0.0924 | 0.0356 |
ICER, Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; CER, Cost-effectiveness ratio
aThese comparisons were Scenario 1–9 without strengthening close-contact control. bThese comparisons were Scenario 1 and Scenario 10 (once NAT weekly)
Fig. 4Composition of total cost under different scenarios