Abstract
Importance The added value of interventions to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among university affiliates is uncertain but critically needed as universities attempt to reopen.
Objective To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of the 7 most common prevention strategies used by universities.
Design, Setting, and Participants We use a Markov model with Monte Carlo simulations to examine the cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission within universities. All interventions are compared relative to implementing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines alone. We also provide an online interface that allows users to change model parameters.
Main Outcome Measures The number of days that the university can remain open and the incremental cost per incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.
Results At prevalence rate of actively infectious cases of COVID-19 in the community surrounding the university of 0.1%, using a symptom-checking mobile application is cost-saving relative to CDC guidelines alone. At a prevalence of 1%, providing high quality, 2-ply masks will be cost-saving. At a prevalence rate of 2%, 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. As the prevalence rate increase, the time the university can expect to remain open drops from 90 days to 18.
Conclusions and Relevance. The value of interventions to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 vary greatly with the prevalence 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
Footnotes
Updated authors, minor copyedits
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.
