Cost-effectiveness of surgical mask, N-95 respirator, hand-hygiene and surgical mask with hand hygiene in the prevention of COVID-19: Cost effectiveness analysis from Indian context

Cost-effectiveness of preventive COVID-19 interventions: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of comparative economic evaluation studies based on real-world data

Background

There is a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness and utility of various preventive interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various COVID-19 preventive interventions, including non-medical interventions (NMIs) and vaccination programs, using real-world data across different demographic and socioeconomic contexts worldwide.

Methods

We searched Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection from December 2019 to March 2024. We identified 75 studies which compared 34 COVID-19 preventive interventions. We conducted a network meta-analysis to assess the incremental net benefits (INB) of these interventions from both societal and health care system perspectives. We adjusted purchasing power parity (PPP) and standardised willingness to pay (WTP) to enhance the comparability of cost-effectiveness across different economic levels. We performed sensitivity and subgroup analyses to examine the robustness of the results.

Results

Movement restrictions and expanding testing emerged as the most cost-effective strategies from a societal perspective, with WTP-standardised INB values of USD 21 050 and USD 11 144. In contrast, combinations of NMIs with vaccination were less cost-effective, particularly in high-income regions. From a health care system perspective, vaccination plus distancing and test, trace, and isolate strategy were highly cost-effective, while masking requirements were less economically viable. The effectiveness of interventions varied significantly across different economic contexts, underlining the necessity for region-specific strategies.

Conclusions

In this study, we highlight significant variations in the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 preventive interventions. Tailoring strategies to specific regional economic and infrastructural conditions is crucial. Continuous evaluation and adaptation of these strategies are essential for effective management of ongoing and future public health threats.

Registration

PROSPERO: CRD42023385169.

Prevalence of COVID-19 in prison population: a meta-analysis of 35 studies

PURPOSE

COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Considering the restricted and enclosed nature of prisons and closed environments and the prolonged and close contact between individuals, COVID-19 is more likely to have a higher incidence in these settings. This study aims to assess the prevalence of COVID-19 among prisoners.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

Papers published in English from 2019 to July 7, 2023, were identified using relevant keywords such as prevalence, COVID-19 and prisoner in the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and Google Scholar. For the meta-analysis of the prevalence, Cochrane's Q statistics were calculated. A random effect model was used due to the heterogeneity in COVID-19 prevalence across included studies in the meta-analysis. All analyses were performed in STATA-13.

FINDINGS

The pooled data presented a COVID-19 prevalence of 20% [95%CI: 0.13, 0.26] and 24% [95%CI: 0.07, 0.41], respectively, in studies that used PCR and antibody tests. Furthermore, two study designs, cross-sectional and cohort, were used. The results of the meta-analysis showed studies with cross-sectional and cohort designs reported 20% [95%CI: 0.11, 0.29] and 25% [95%CI: 0.13, 0.38], respectively.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

Through more meticulous planning, it is feasible to reduce the number of individuals in prison cells, thereby preventing the further spread of COVID-19.

COVID-19-related health utility values and changes in COVID-19 patients and the general population: a scoping review

PURPOSE

To summarise the diverse literature reporting the impact of COVID-19 on health utility in COVID-19 patients as well as in general populations being affected by COVID-19 control policies.

METHODS

A literature search up to April 2023 was conducted to identify papers reporting health utility in COVID-19 patients or in COVID-19-affected general populations. We present a narrative synthesis of the health utility values/losses of the retained studies to show the mean health utility values/losses with 95% confidence intervals. Mean utility values/losses for categories defined by medical attendance and data collection time were calculated using random-effects models.

RESULTS

In total, 98 studies-68 studies on COVID-19 patients and 30 studies on general populations-were retained for detailed review. Mean (95% CI) health utility values were 0.83 (0.81, 0.86), 0.78 (0.73, 0.83), 0.82 (0.78, 0.86) and 0.71 (0.65, 0.78) for general populations, non-hospitalised, hospitalised and ICU patients, respectively, irrespective of the data collection time. Mean utility losses in patients and general populations ranged from 0.03 to 0.34 and from 0.02 to 0.18, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review provides a summary of the health utility impact of COVID-19 and COVID-19 control policies. COVID-19-affected populations were reported to have poor health utility, while a high degree of heterogeneity was observed across studies. Population- and/or country-specific health utility is recommended for use in future economic evaluation on COVID-19-related interventions.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of surgical masks, N95 masks compared to wearing no mask for the prevention of COVID-19 among health care workers: Evidence from the public health care setting in India

BACKGROUND

Nonpharmacological interventions, such as personal protective equipment for example, surgical masks and respirators, and maintenance of hand hygiene along with COVID-19 vaccines have been recommended to reduce viral transmission in the community and health care settings. There is evidence from the literature that surgical and N95 masks may reduce the initial degree of exposure to the virus. A limited research that has studied the cost-effective analysis of surgical masks and N95 masks among health care workers in the prevention of COVID-19 in India. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of N95 and surgical mask compared to wearing no mask in public hospital settings for preventing COVID-19 infection among Health care workers (HCWs) from the health care provider's perspective.

METHODS

A deterministic baseline model, without any mask use, based on Eikenberry et al was used to form the foundation for parameter estimation and to estimate transmission rates among HCWs. Information on mask efficacy, including the overall filtering efficiency of a mask and clinical efficiency, in terms of either inward efficiency(ei) or outward efficiency(e0), was obtained from published literature. Hospitalized HCWs were assumed to be in one of the disease states i.e., mild, moderate, severe, or critical. A total of 10,000 HCWs was considered as representative of the size of a tertiary care institution HCW population. The utility values for the mild, moderate and severe model health states were sourced from the primary data collection on quality-of-life of HCWs COVID-19 survivors. The utility scores for mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 conditions were 0.88, 0.738 and 0.58, respectively. The cost of treatment for mild sickness (6,500 INR per day), moderate sickness (10,000 INR per day), severe (require ICU facility without ventilation, 15,000 INR per day), and critical (require ICU facility with ventilation per day, 18,000 INR) per day as per government and private COVID-19 treatment costs and capping were considered. One way sensitivity analyses were performed to identify the model inputs which had the largest impact on model results.

RESULTS

The use of N95 masks compared to using no mask is cost-saving of $1,454,632 (INR 0.106 billion) per 10,000 HCWs in a year. The use of N95 masks compared to using surgical masks is cost-saving of $63,919 (INR 0.005 billion) per 10,000 HCWs in a year. the use of surgical masks compared to using no mask is cost-saving of $1,390,713 (INR 0.102 billion) per 10,000 HCWs in a year. The uncertainty analysis showed that considering fixed transmission rate (1.7), adoption of mask efficiency as 20%, 50% and 80% reduces the cumulative relative mortality to 41%, 79% and 94% respectively. On considering ei = e0 (99%) for N95 and surgical mask with ei = e0 (90%) the cumulative relative mortality was reduced by 97% and the use of N95 masks compared to using surgical masks is cost-saving of $24,361 (INR 0.002 billion) per 10,000 HCWs in a year.

DISCUSSION

Both considered interventions were dominant compared to no mask based on the model estimates. N95 masks were also dominant compared to surgical masks.

Cost-effectiveness of mask mandates on subways to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the United States

BACKGROUND

Community-based mask wearing has been shown to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. However, few studies have conducted an economic evaluation of mask mandates, specifically in public transportation settings. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of implementing mask mandates for subway passengers in the United States by evaluating its potential to reduce COVID-19 transmission during subway travel.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We assessed the health impacts and costs of subway mask mandates compared to mask recommendations based on the number of infections that would occur during subway travel in the U.S. Using a combined box and Wells-Riley infection model, we estimated monthly infections, hospitalizations, and deaths averted under a mask mandate scenario as compared to a mask recommendation scenario. The analysis included costs of implementing mask mandates and COVID-19 treatment from a limited societal perspective. The cost-effectiveness (net cost per averted death) of mandates was estimated for three different periods based on dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants: Alpha, Beta, and Gamma (November 2020 to February 2021); Delta (July to October 2021); and early Omicron (January to March 2022).

RESULTS

Compared with mask recommendations only, mask mandates were cost-effective across all periods, with costs per averted death less than a threshold of $11.4 million (ranging from cost-saving to $3 million per averted death). Additionally, mask mandates were more cost-effective during the early Omicron period than the other two periods and were cost saving in January 2022. Our findings showed that mandates remained cost-effective when accounting for uncertainties in input parameters (e.g., even if mandates only resulted in small increases in mask usage by subway ridership).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings highlight the economic value of mask mandates on subways, particularly during high virus transmissibility periods, during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study may inform stakeholders on mask mandate decisions during future outbreaks of novel viral respiratory diseases.

Estimating spatially disaggregated probability of severe COVID-19 and the impact of handwashing interventions: The case of Zimbabwe

INTRODUCTION

The severity of COVID-19 disease varies substantially between individuals, with some infections being asymptomatic while others are fatal. Several risk factors have been identified that affect the progression of SARS-CoV-2 to severe COVID-19. They include age, smoking and presence of underlying comorbidities such as respiratory illness, HIV, anemia and obesity. Given that respiratory illness is one such comorbidity and is affected by hand hygiene, it is plausible that improving access to handwashing could lower the risk of severe COVID-19 among a population. In this paper, we estimate the potential impact of improved access to handwashing on the risk of respiratory illness and its knock-on impact on the risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease across Zimbabwe.

METHODS

Spatial generalized additive models were applied to cluster level data from the 2015 Demographic and Health Survey. These models were used to generate continuous (1km resolution) estimates of risk factors for severe COVID-19, including prevalence of major comorbidities (respiratory illness, HIV without viral load suppression, anemia and obesity) and prevalence of smoking, which were aggregated to district level alongside estimates of the proportion of the population under 50 from Worldpop data. The risk of severe COVID-19 was then calculated for each district using published estimates of the relationship between comorbidities, smoking and age (under 50) and severe COVID-19. Two scenarios were then simulated to see how changing access to handwashing facilities could have knock on implications for the prevalence of severe COVID-19 in the population.

RESULTS

This modeling conducted in this study shows that (1) current risk of severe disease is heterogeneous across the country, due to differences in individual characteristics and household conditions and (2) that if the quantifiable estimates on the importance of handwashing for transmission are sound, then improvements in handwashing access could lead to reductions in the risk of severe COVID-19 of up to 16% from the estimated current levels across all districts.

CONCLUSIONS

Taken alongside the likely impact on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 itself, as well as countless other pathogens, this result adds further support for the expansion of access to handwashing across the country. It also highlights the spatial differences in risk of severe COVID-19, and thus the opportunity for better planning to focus limited resources in high-risk areas in order to potentially reduce the number of severe cases.

Cost-benefit analysis of partnership working between fire and rescue and health services across England and Wales during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

Fire and rescue services undertook a range of additional activities to support the National Health Service (NHS) in managing extreme service demand during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to examine the cost-benefit of partnership work between fire and rescue services and the NHS during the COVID-19 pandemic.

SETTING

England and Wales.

DESIGN

A cost-benefit approach was used. Data relating to resources and outcomes was accessed from a National Data Portal commissioned by the National Fire Chiefs Council to record fire and rescue service responses throughout the pandemic. Literature-based economic estimates were applied to establish the potential cost-benefit of fire and rescue services undertaking support activities.

RESULTS

Fire and rescue services commonly undertook eight activities to support ambulance services and hospitals in three key areas: (1) driving ambulances, (2) provision of personal protective equipment for healthcare workers and (3) mass testing and mass vaccination. Benefits outweighed costs for all activities. Total costs were estimated at £93.26 million and total benefits were between £171.46 million and £1.10 billion.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first economic evaluation of partnership working between fire and rescue and health services during a pandemic. Findings highlight the social and economic value of co-operation between fire and rescue services and the NHS and provides important evidence for informing public sector decisions regarding the allocation of resources in future public health crises.

Polymer Additives to Personal Protective Equipment can Inactivate Pathogens

Face masks have been proven to be medicine's best public health tool for preventing transmission of airborne pathogens. However, in situations with continuous exposure, lower quality and "do-it-yourself" face masks cannot provide adequate protection against pathogens, especially when mishandled. In addition, the use of multiple face masks each day places a strain on personal protective equipment (PPE) supply and is not environmentally sustainable. Therefore, there is a significant clinical and commercial need for a reusable, pathogen-inactivating face mask. Herein, we propose adding quaternary poly(dimethylaminohexadecyl methacrylate), q(PDMAHDM), abbreviated to q(PDM), to existing fabric networks to generate "contact-killing" face masks-effectively turning cotton, polypropylene, and polyester into pathogen resistant materials. It was found that q(PDM)-integrated face masks were able to inactivate both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria in liquid culture and aerosolized droplets. Furthermore, q(PDM) was electrospun into homogeneous polymer fibers, which makes the polymer practical for low-cost, scaled-up production.

Economic evaluation of strategies against coronavirus: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 outbreak was defined as a pandemic on 11 March 2020 by the World Health Organization. After that, COVID-19 has enormously influenced health systems around the world, and it has claimed more than 4.2 million deaths until July 2021. The pandemic has led to global health, social and economic costs. This situation has prompted a crucial search for beneficial interventions and treatments, but little is known about their monetary value. This study is aimed at systematically reviewing the articles conducted on the economic evaluation of preventive, control and treatment strategies against COVID-19.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar from December 2019 to October 2021 to find applicable literature to the economic evaluation of strategies against COVID-19. Two researchers screened potentially eligible titles and abstracts. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to quality assessment of studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies were included in this review, and the average CHEERS score was 72. Cost-effectiveness analysis was the most common type of economic evaluation, used in 21 studies. And the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was the main outcome applied to measure the effectiveness of interventions, which was used in 19 studies. In addition, articles were reported a wide range of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and the lowest cost per QALY ($321.14) was related to the use of vaccines.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of this systematic review, it seems that all strategies are likely to be more cost-effective against COVID-19 than no intervention and vaccination was the most cost-effective strategy. This research provides insight for decision makers in choosing optimal interventions against the next waves of the current pandemic and possible future pandemics.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of vaccination against COVID-19 in China

Introduction

Since September 2020, Chinese populations aged > 3 years have been encouraged to receive a two-dose inoculation with vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the current vaccination strategy amongst the general population in mainland China from a societal perspective.

Methods

In this study, we construct a decision tree with Markov models to compare the economic and health consequences of the current vaccination strategy versus a no-vaccination scenario, over a time horizon of one year and an annual discount rate of 5%. Transition probabilities, health utilities, healthcare costs, and productivity losses are estimated from literature. Outcome measures include infection rates, death rates, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is then calculated to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the current vaccination strategy, and both one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) are applied to assess the impact of uncertainties on results.

Results

Our simulation indicates that compared with a no-vaccination scenario, vaccination amongst the general population in mainland China would reduce the infection rate from 100% to 45.3% and decrease the death rate from 6.8% to 3.1%. Consequently, the strategy will lead to a saving of 37,664.77 CNY (US$5,256.70) and a gain of 0.50 QALYs per person per year on average (lifetime QALY and productivity loss due to immature death are included). The cost-saving for each QALY gain is 74,895.69 CNY (US$10,452.85). Result of the PSA indicates that vaccination is the dominating strategy with a probability of 97.9%, and the strategy is cost-effective with a probability of 98.5% when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) is 72,000 CNY (US$10,048.71) per QALY.

Conclusion

Compared with a no-vaccination scenario, vaccination among the general population in mainland China is the dominating strategy from a societal perspective. The conclusion is considered robust in the sensitivity analyses.

Self-Perceived Halitosis and Related Factors Among the Mask-Wearing Population During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Delhi, India: A Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction Halitosis (oral malodor) is a common health condition throughout the world. In India, data on self-reported halitosis and related factors is limited. Mouth mask usage has been made compulsory after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This could possibly alter oral microflora and environment and contribute to halitosis. The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence of self-perceived halitosis (SPH) among mask-wearing patients visiting a tertiary care dental hospital in Delhi, India. Methods A cross‑sectional study was conducted among a convenience sample of 300 patients visiting a tertiary care dental hospital in the capital of India. SPH status was measured using a self-designed and structured questionnaire containing socio-demographic factors, mask-related habits, and self-perceived oral health status. Statistical analysis was done using Jamovi software (The jamovi project, Sydney, Australia) version 1.8. Descriptive analysis followed by a chi-square test and a multivariate logistic regression test was applied. Results Bad breath was perceived by 86 study subjects. Of the participants, 16.7% felt that they had bad breath before the pandemic, and 38% of the participants had an increased perception or feeling of bad breath since regular mask usage. Of the participants, 42.7% felt that they had an increased feeling of dryness in the mouth post-pandemic. SPH status was associated with mask usage frequency (p<0.001), change (p<0.001) and type of mask (p=0.004), increased feeling of dryness (p<0.001), frequency of toothbrushing (p<0.001), self-reported oral disease (p=0.007), and dental treatment in the past 12 months (p=0.005). Conclusion The SPH status of the study population was associated with mask-related habits and self-reported oral health status. The findings highlight the importance of possible amendments in preventive and curative care for patients with halitosis post-COVID-19 pandemic.

How can health technology assessment support our response to public health emergencies?

Public health emergencies (PHEs), such as the COVID-19 crisis, are threats to global health and public order. We recommend that countries bolster their PHE responses by investing in health technology assessment (HTA), defined as a systematic process of gathering pertinent information on and evaluating health technologies from a medical, economic, social and ethical standpoint. We present examples of how HTA organizations in low- and middle-income countries have adapted to supporting PHE-related decisions during COVID-19 and describe the ways HTA can help the response to a PHE. In turn, we advocate for HTA capacity to be further developed globally and for increased institutional acceptance of these methods as a building block for preparedness and response to future PHEs. Finally, the long-term potential of HTA in strengthening health systems and embedding confidence and transparency into scientific policy should be recognized.

Economic evaluations of interventions against viral pandemics: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to suggestions that cost-effectiveness analyses should adopt a broader perspective when estimating costs. This review aims to provide an overview of economic evaluations of interventions against viral pandemics in terms of the perspective taken, types of costs included, comparators, type of economic model, data sources and methods for estimating productivity costs.

STUDY DESIGN

Scoping literature review.

METHODS

Publications were eligible if they conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, cost-benefit analysis or cost-minimisation analysis and evaluated interventions aimed at viral pandemics or for patients infected with viral pandemic disease. We searched PubMed, Embase and Scopus for relevant references and charted data from the selected full-text publications into a predefined spreadsheet based on research sub-questions, summary tables and figures.

RESULTS

From 5410 references, 36 full-text publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The economic evaluations were mainly model based and included direct medical costs of hospital treatment. Around half of the studies included productivity costs and the proportion of total costs attributed to productivity costs ranged from 10% to 90%, depending on estimation methods, assumptions about valuation of time, type of intervention, severity of illness and degree of transmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluations of interventions against viral pandemics differed in terms of estimation methods and reporting of productivity costs, even for similar interventions. Hence, the literature on economic evaluations for pandemic response would benefit from having standards for conducting and reporting economic evaluations, especially for productivity costs.

Cost-effectiveness of interventions for the prevention and control of COVID-19: Systematic review of 85 modelling studies

BACKGROUND

We aimed to quantitatively summarise the health economic evaluation evidence of prevention and control programs addressing COVID-19 globally.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the economic and health benefit of interventions for COVID-19. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library of economic evaluation from December 31, 2019, to March 22, 2022, to identify relevant literature. Meta-analyses were done using random-effects models to estimate pooled incremental net benefit (INB). Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics and publication bias was assessed by Egger's test. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021267475.

RESULTS

Of 16 860 studies identified, 85 articles were included in the systematic review, and 25 articles (10 studies about non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs), five studies about vaccinations and 10 studies about treatments) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled INB of NPIs, vaccinations, and treatments were $1378.10 (95% CI = $1079.62, $1676.59), $254.80 (95% CI = $169.84, $339.77) and $4115.11 (95% CI = $1631.09, $6599.14), respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.

CONCLUSIONS

NPIs, vaccinations, and treatments are all cost-effective in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. However, evidence was mostly from high-income and middle-income countries. Further studies from lower-income countries are needed.

Diagnostics and Treatments of COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

OBJECTIVES

As healthcare systems continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, cost-effectiveness evidence will be needed to identify which tests and treatments for COVID-19 offer value for money. We sought to review economic evaluations of diagnostic tests and treatments for COVID-19, critically appraising the methodological approaches used and reporting cost-effectiveness estimates, using a "living" systematic review approach.

METHODS

Key databases (including MEDLINE, EconLit, Embase) were last searched on July 12, 2021. Gray literature and model repositories were also searched. Only full economic evaluations published in English were included. Studies were quality assessed and data were extracted into standard tables. Results were narratively summarized. The review was completed by 2 reviewers independently, with disagreements resolved through discussion with a senior reviewer.

RESULTS

Overall, 3540 records were identified, with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. After quality assessment, 6 were excluded because of very severe limitations. Of the 7 studies included, 5 were cost-utility analyses and 2 were cost-effectiveness analyses. All were model-based analyses. A total of 5 evaluated treatments (dexamethasone, remdesivir, hypothetical) and 2 evaluated hypothetical testing strategies. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to the treatment effect on survival and hospitalization, testing speed and accuracy, disease severity, and price.

CONCLUSIONS

Presently, there are few economic evaluations for COVID-19 tests and treatments. They suggest treatments that confer a survival benefit and fast diagnostic tests may be cost effective. Nevertheless, studies are subject to major evidence gaps and take inconsistent analytical approaches. The evidence may improve for planned updates of this "living" review.

Coronavirus disease-2019: Challenges, opportunities, and benefits in India

BACKGROUND

The human coronavirus was first identified in 1965, belongs to the same family of Viruses as SARS, MERS-Co. The current virus that affected worldwide came into existence in late 2019, recently found in Wuhan, China, and caused a global pandemic called coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). This disease became a quick global pandemic due to the rapid transmission of the virus from one human to another. In the history of humankind, people were inside the four walls for more than a month. The COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant problems in a variety of fields. The current pandemic created many changes that are seen as challenges worldwide. However, it created opportunities and benefits for many, extend a helping hand towards the people in need, in the society, community, and the nation. This paper focuses on challenges, opportunities, and benefits during the (COVID-19) pandemic in India.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Online search engines like PubMed and Google Scholar were used to conduct the research. The review article's dates were not restricted in any way. A total of 48 articles were chosen. The data was tabulated based on the kind of study and the outcomes. There are just a few papers available that demonstrate the necessity for more study.

RESULTS

COVID-19 caused unforeseen changes in the health care industry, unequal distribution of health care, and consequences on mental health, according to the review studies. Teleconsultation, Internet use, and E-learning have all become more accessible. A period of transitory economic collapse and an increase in the number of migrants left many despondent. Improvement in family bonding, use of a face mask, and hygiene measures to adapt to the current scenario. There was also an impact on water sources, waste management systems, and environmental resource conservation.

CONCLUSION

Difficult conditions can provide both problems and opportunities and advantages to the people during a pandemic outbreak.

Cost-Effectiveness of COVID-19 Policy Measures: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on our society, with drastic policy restrictions being implemented to contain the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. This study aimed to provide an overview of the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of various coronavirus disease 2019 policy measures.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Health economic evaluations considering both costs and outcomes were included. Their quality was comprehensively assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria checklist. Next, the quality of the epidemiological models was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 3688 articles were identified (March 2021), of which 23 were included. The studies were heterogeneous with regard to methodological quality, contextual factors, strategies' content, adopted perspective, applied models, and outcomes used. Overall, testing/screening, social distancing, personal protective equipment, quarantine/isolation, and hygienic measures were found to be cost-effective. Furthermore, the most optimal choice and combination of strategies depended on the reproduction number and context. With a rising reproduction number, extending the testing strategy and early implementation of combined multiple restriction measures are most efficient.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality assessment highlighted numerous flaws and limitations in the study approaches; hence, their results should be interpreted with caution because the specific context (country, target group, etc) is a key driver for cost-effectiveness. Finally, including a societal perspective in future evaluations is key because this pandemic has an indirect impact on the onset and treatment of other conditions and on our global economy.

Review of epidemic, containment strategies, clinical management, and economic evaluation of COVID-19 pandemic

The spread of the emerging pathogen, named as SARS-CoV-2, has led to an unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic since 1918 influenza pandemic. This review first sheds light on the similarity on global transmission, surges of pandemics, and the disparity of prevention between two pandemics. Such a brief comparison also provides an insight into the potential sequelae of COVID-19 based on the inference drawn from the fact that a cascade of successive influenza pandemic occurred after 1918 and also the previous experience on the epidemic of SARS and MERS occurring in 2003 and 2015, respectively. We then propose a systematic framework for elucidating emerging infectious disease (EID) such as COVID-19 with a panorama viewpoint from natural infection and disease process, public health interventions (non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and vaccine), clinical treatments and therapies (antivirals), until global aspects of health and economic loss, and economic evaluation of interventions with emphasis on mass vaccination. This review not only concisely delves for evidence-based scientific literatures from the origin of outbreak, the spread of SARS-CoV-2 to three surges of pandemic, and NPIs and vaccine uptakes but also provides a new insight into how to apply big data analytics to identify unprecedented discoveries through COVID-19 pandemic scenario embracing from biomedical to economic viewpoints.