hpkuy93j

Property	Value
?:abstract	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.
is ?:annotates of	<https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/hpkuy93j_hasAnnotation_C0002055> <https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/hpkuy93j_hasAnnotation_C0020517> <https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/hpkuy93j_hasAnnotation_C3714514> <https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/hpkuy93j_hasAnnotation_C5392207>
?:creator	<https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/Losina%2C_Elena%3B_Leifer%2C_Valia%3B_Millham%2C_Lucia%3B_Panella%2C_Christopher%3B_Hyle%2C_Emily_P.%3B_Mohareb%2C_Amir_M.%3B_Neilan%2C_Anne_M.%3B_Ciaranello%2C_Andrea_L.%3B_Kazemian%2C_Pooyan%3B_Freedberg%2C_Kenneth_A.>
?:doi	10.7326/m20-6558
?:doi	<https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/10.7326/m20-6558>
?:journal	Ann_Intern_Med
?:license	no-cc
?:pdf_json_files	document_parses/pdf_json/7a6e4c64e13f756e1889f1866a3ee3d7852755ba.json; document_parses/pdf_json/0c6b6414287e63bf4a4481825c5587b263bda3ac.json
?:pmc_json_files	document_parses/pmc_json/PMC7755069.xml.json
?:pmcid	<https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/PMC7755069>
?:pmid	<https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/33347322.0>
?:pmid	33347322.0
?:publication_isRelatedTo_Disease	<https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/COVID-19>
?:sha_id	<https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/7a6e4c64e13f756e1889f1866a3ee3d7852755ba%3B%200c6b6414287e63bf4a4481825c5587b263bda3ac>
?:source	Medline; PMC
?:title	College Campuses and COVID-19 Mitigation: Clinical and Economic Value
?:type	<https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/vocab/Publication>
?:year	2020-12-21

Property

Value

?:abstract

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.

is ?:annotates of