Abstract
Background The added value of interventions to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among university affiliates is uncertain.
Methods We use Monte Carlo simulations to examine the cost-effectiveness of seven interventions to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission within universities relative to implementing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines alone. We examine the incremental cost per incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. We provide an online interface for our model so that input parameters can be tailored to local conditions.
Results When there are 100 infectious cases per 100,000 people in the community (0.1%), the university will likely remain open for the entire semester. At this prevalence rate, using a symptom-checking mobile application is cost-saving relative to CDC guidelines alone. If the community active infectious case rate reaches 1%, the university will likely close after 36 days. At this prevalence rate, providing high quality, 2-ply masks will be cost-saving. As the community prevalence rate of infectious cases reaches 2%, the university can be expected to close after 18 days. At this prevalence rate, thermal imaging cameras cost $965,070 (95% credible interval [CrI] = $198,821, $2.15 million)/QALY gained. One-time testing on entry costs $1.08 million (95% CrI = $170,703, $3.33 million)/QALY gained. Weekly testing costs $820,119 (95% CrI = $452,673, $1.68 million)/QALY gained. Upgrades to ventilation systems or installation of far-ultraviolet C lighting systems will be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $200,000/QALY gained if aerosols account for 86-90% of all on-campus transmission of SARS-CoV-2.
Conclusions The value of interventions to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and the time that a university can expect to remain open vary greatly with the rate of actively infectious cases of COVID-19 in the community surrounding the university.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Columbia University.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This paper is based on a mathematical model and does not require IRB review.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data and the model code are available under a GNU 3.0 license. Feel free to use the model. If you have any bugs to report, please contact the authors.
