Evidence mapPaperPMID 35977202Full record

ArticleJAMA health forum2021

Association of Simulated COVID-19 Policy Responses for Social Restrictions and Lockdowns With Health-Adjusted Life-Years and Costs in Victoria, Australia.

Tony Blakely, Jason Thompson, Laxman Bablani, Patrick Andersen, Driss Ait Ouakrim, Natalie Carvalho, Patrick Abraham, Marie-Anne Boujaoude, Ameera Katar, Edifofon Akpan and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA health forum, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Modelling herd immunity requirements in Queensland: impact of vaccination effectiveness, hesitancy and variants of SARS-CoV-2.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2022
    Article
  9. Public Health Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia: The Role of the Morrison Government.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Tony BlakelyPopulation Interventions Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics Research, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Jason ThompsonTransport, Health and Urban Design Research Lab (THUD), Melbourne School of Design, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Laxman BablaniPopulation Interventions Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics Research, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Patrick AndersenPopulation Interventions Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics Research, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Driss Ait OuakrimPopulation Interventions Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics Research, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Natalie CarvalhoHealth Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Patrick AbrahamHealth Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Marie-Anne BoujaoudePopulation Interventions Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics Research, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Ameera KatarPopulation Interventions Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics Research, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Edifofon AkpanPopulation Interventions Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics Research, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Nick WilsonBurden of Disease Epidemiology, Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Programme (BODE), Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Mark StevensonTransport, Health and Urban Design Research Lab (THUD), Melbourne School of Design, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
University of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Otago · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Countries have varied enormously in how they have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic, ranging from elimination strategies (eg, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan) to tight suppression (not aiming for elimination but rather to keep infection rates low [eg, South Korea]) to loose suppression (eg, Europe, United States) to virtually unmitigated (eg, Brazil, India). Weighing the best option, based on health and economic consequences due to lockdowns, is necessary. Objective: To determine the optimal policy response, using a net monetary benefit (NMB) approach, for policies ranging from aggressive elimination and moderate elimination to tight suppression (aiming for 1-5 cases per million per day) and loose suppression (5-25 cases per million per day). Design Setting and Participants: Using governmental data from the state of Victoria, Australia, and other collected data, 2 simulation models in series were conducted of all residents (population, 6.4 million) for SARS-CoV-2 infections for 1 year from September 1, 2020. An agent-based model (ABM) was used to estimate daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and time in 5 stages of social restrictions (stages 1, 1b, 2, 3, and 4) for 4 policy response settings (aggressive elimination, moderate elimination, tight suppression, and loose suppression), and a proportional multistate life table (PMSLT) model was used to estimate health-adjusted life-years (HALYs) associated with COVID-19 and costs (health systems and health system plus gross domestic product [GDP]). The ABM is a generic COVID-19 model of 2500 agents, or simulants, that was scaled up to the population of interest. Models were specified with data from 2019 (eg, epidemiological data in the PMSLT model) and 2020 (eg, epidemiological and cost consequences of COVID-19). The NMB of each policy option at varying willingness to pay (WTP) per HALY was calculated: NMB = HALYs × WTP - cost. The estimated most cost-effective (optimal) policy response was that with the highest NMB. Main Outcome and Measures: Estimated SARS-CoV-2 infection rates, time under 5 stages of restrictions, HALYs, health expenditure, and GDP losses. Results: In 100 runs of both the ABM and PMSLT models for each of the 4 policy responses, 31.0% of SARS-CoV-2 infections, 56.5% of hospitalizations, and 84.6% of deaths occurred among those 60 years and older. Aggressive elimination was associated with the highest percentage of days with the lowest level of restrictions (median, 31.7%; 90% simulation interval [SI], 6.6%-64.4%). However, days in hard lockdown were similar across all 4 strategies. The HALY losses (compared with a scenario without COVID-19) were similar for aggressive elimination (median, 286 HALYs; 90% SI, 219-389 HALYs) and moderate elimination (median, 314 HALYs; 90% SI, 228-413 HALYs), and nearly 8 and 40 times higher for tight suppression and loose suppression, respectively. The median GDP loss was least for moderate elimination (median, $41.7 billion; 90% SI, $29.0-$63.6 billion), but there was substantial overlap in simulation intervals between the 4 strategies. From a health system perspective, aggressive elimination was optimal in 64% of simulations above a WTP of $15 000 per HALY, followed by moderate elimination in 35% of simulations. Moderate elimination was optimal from a GDP perspective in half of the simulations, followed by aggressive elimination in a quarter. Conclusions and Relevance: In this simulation modeling economic evaluation of estimated SARS-CoV-infection rates, time under 5 stages of restrictions, HALYs, health expenditure, and GDP losses in Victoria, Australia, an elimination strategy was associated with the least health losses and usually the fewest GDP losses.

Indexed as

COVID-19Communicable Disease ControlHumansPandemicsPolicySARS-CoV-2Victoria

Identifiers

PMID35977202
PMCPMC8796885
OpenAlexW3189155443

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.