The cost of the COVID-19 pandemic vs the cost-effectiveness of mitigation strategies in the EU/UK/EEA and OECD countries: a systematic review
=============================================================================================================================================

* Constantine Vardavas
* Konstantinos Zisis
* Katerina Nikitara
* Ioanna Lagou
* Katerina Aslanoglou
* Kostas Athanasakis
* Revati Phalkey
* Jo Leonardi-Bee
* Esteve Fernandez
* Orla Condell
* Favelle Lamb
* Frank Sandmann
* Anastasia Pharris
* Charlotte Deogan
* Jonathan E. Suk

## ABSTRACT

**Objectives** COVID-19 poses a threat of loss of life, economic instability, and social disruption. We conducted a systematic review of published economic analyses to assess the direct and indirect costs of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, and to contrast these with the costs and the cost-benefit of public health surveillance, preparedness, and response measures in averting and/or responding to SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

**Setting** A systematic literature review was conducted to identify peer-reviewed articles estimating the cost of the COVID-19 pandemic and the cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical interventions in EU/EEA/UK and OECD countries, published from the 1st of January 2020 through 22nd April 2021 in Ovid Medline and EMBASE. The cost-effectiveness of interventions was assessed through a dominance ranking matrix approach. All cost data were adjusted to the 2021 Euro, with interventions compared with the null.

**Primary and secondary outcome measures** Direct and indirect costs for SARS-CoV-2 and preparedness and/or response or cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness were measured.

**Results** We included data from 41 economic studies. Ten studies evaluated the cost of COVID-19 pandemic, while 31 assessed the cost-benefit of public health surveillance, preparedness, and response measures. Overall, the economic burden of SARS-CoV-2 was found to be substantial for both the general population and within specific population subgroups. Community screening, bed provision policies, investing in personal protective equipment and vaccination strategies were cost-effective, in most cases due to the representative economic value of below acceptable cost-effectiveness thresholds. Physical distancing measures were associated with health benefits; however, their cost-effectiveness was dependent on the duration, compliance and the phase of the epidemic in which it was implemented.

**Conclusions** SARS-CoV-2 is associated with substantial economic costs to healthcare systems, payers, and societies, both short term and long term, while interventions including testing and screening policies, vaccination and physical distancing policies were identified as those presenting cost-effective options to deal with the pandemic, dependent on population vaccination and the Re at the stage of the pandemic.

## INTRODUCTION

In the aftermath of significant outbreaks since the beginning of the 21st century, including among others those of Ebola, avian influenza (H5N1, H7N9), the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV), it was acknowledged that large-scale infectious disease outbreaks represent a menace for loss of life, economic disturbance, and social disruption (1). The most recent pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has undoubtedly hit hard on societies and healthcare systems. According to the situation update conducted by ECDC, as of week 17 of 2022, 512 690 034 cases of COVID-19 have been reported, including 6 252 316 deaths (2). To mitigate the pandemic and given the lack of preventative treatments until the rollout of vaccines in late 2020, governments worldwide implemented various non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). These measures included personal protective, environmental, and physical distancing strategies as well as travel restrictions (3) which have been loosened and reinforced depending on the variation of the epidemiological situation (4), leading to an unprecedented decline in global economic activities and an economic burden both from direct costs of the NPIs and indirect costs. The closure of businesses led to significant disruptions to the global value chains in the first quarter of 2020 through increased unemployment rates, revenue loss, and a sharp decrease in personal incomes while the earlier action of NPIs implementation contributed to reduced economic impact as was shown in a study assessing the short-term economic consequences of the first-wave Covid-19 pandemic (5).

In the US, the cost of the COVID-19 pandemic has been estimated at $13tn for the first 20 weeks of the pandemic (90% of the country’s annual GDP) when drastic NPIs were predominately implemented, and approximately half of that figure corresponds to the projected 10-year decline in GDP attributable to the pandemic (6). Additionally, the global cost of the COVID-19 crisis has been estimated at 14% of 2019 GDP (around 12,206 mm$), while for Europe, it is even higher: 16% for the Eurozone and 19% for the UK (7). Considering the cost-effectiveness of NPIs, in a recent systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by Zhou et al. (2021), the pooled incremental net benefit (INB) for NPIs was estimated at $972·05, with subgroup analyses indicating the highest pooled INBs were for screening ($2390·89) and suppression ($2156·00) interventions (8).

Robust national preparedness and response strategies require recent data on the health impacts and the economic burden of respiratory infectious disease outbreaks in contrast to those associated with emergency response and preparedness actions. This evidence will ensure well-informed decisions regarding the proper allocation of resources (9, 10), information relevant not only for the COVID-19 pandemic but also for future pandemics.

This systematic review aims to a) summarise the total direct and indirect costs of the COVID-19 pandemic across EU/EEA/UK and OECD countries, and b) to contrast with the costs and the cost-benefit of public health surveillance, preparedness, and response measures in averting and/or responding to COVID-19 pandemic in this setting.

## METHODS

### Search strategy and selection criteria

A systematic review was conducted to identify peer-reviewed articles published from the 1st January 2020 through 22nd April 2021 in Ovid Medline and EMBASE. The review is reported adhering to the PRISMA framework (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) (11) and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) (12). Two sets of inclusion criteria were used to determine the eligibility of the studies based on the two objectives; however, a single search strategy was used to capture eligible studies. The complete search strategy and search terms is available in **Online Supplementary Appendix 1**.

The inclusion criteria for Objective 1: To summarise the total direct and indirect costs of the COVID-19 pandemic) were as follows: 

*   ✓ Population: EU/EEA/UK and remaining OECD countries

*   ✓ Exposure: COVID-19 outbreak or public health preparedness measures or interventions.

*   ✓ Outcome measures: direct and indirect costs for disease and preparedness and/or response.

*   ✓ Perspective: All direct and indirect costs were considered pertaining to all relevant perspectives (e.g., individual, health and social care, and societal-including national and regional).

*   ✓ Study designs: We included all relevant analytical epidemiological designs which estimate cost, including partial cost evaluation studies, cost studies, cost-outcome description studies, cost-description studies, and economic modelling studies.

The inclusion criteria for Objective 2: To contrast with the costs and the cost-effectiveness of public health surveillance, preparedness, and response measures in averting and/or responding to COVID-19 were as follows: 

*   ✓ Population: EU/EEA/UK and remaining OECD countries

*   ✓ Intervention: Public health preparedness measures or interventions.

*   ✓ Comparator: (i) No intervention (cost of inaction) or current practice; (ii) cost of preparedness vs cost of response (for studies reporting cost and benefit of public health preparedness).

*   ✓ Outcome measures: Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness outcomes (e.g., cost per life-year saved). Studies that use other methods to formally combine cost and clinical outcome data (pertinent to infectious diseases) were also included. Typical outcome measures of economic evaluations include: Life years gained (or cost per life-year achieved with the intervention under investigation when incremental costs are combined), Quality-Adjusted Life Years (cost per QALY gained), Cases averted (e.g., cost per case that is averted with the intervention versus the comparator) and monetary outcomes (in the case of a cost-benefit analysis). Where available the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was also provided.

*   ✓ Perspective: All direct and indirect costs were considered pertaining to all relevant perspectives (e.g., individual, health and social care, and societal-including national and regional).

*   ✓ Study designs: We included all designs specific to cost benefit questions either as full economic evaluation studies, including cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses; cost-outcome and economic modelling studies; or partial economic evaluations

### Data analysis and extraction

Studies identified from the searches were uploaded into a bibliographic database (Covidence) in which duplicate entries were removed. Initially, a random sample of 100 titles and abstracts were screened independently for eligibility by two reviewers to enable consistency in screening and identify areas for amendments in the inclusion criteria. Since a high measure of inter-rater agreement was achieved (inter-rater agreement = 88.7%), the remaining titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility by one reviewer. Full-text articles of potentially eligible studies were retrieved and screened independently by two reviewers (inter-rater agreement = 89.3%). Data were extracted with the use of a predefined data extraction sheet. Initially, two reviewers piloted the data extraction template independently on a random sample of five included studies, and given the high consistency in data extraction, the remaining studies were extracted only by one reviewer. Disagreements in every step of the process were subsequently discussed with a third reviewer and agreed upon.

### Appraisal of methodological quality

The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist was used (13) to evaluate the methodological quality of full health economic evaluations, which comprises of 19 questions with answers of “Yes” or “No”. For each positive response of full health economic evaluations, a single point was assigned for the methodological quality, with a maximum score of 19. For the quality appraisal of partial economic evaluations, we used items from the CHEC checklist that was applicable – hence the maximum score was 17. In cases of insufficient information or details reported in both full and partial economic evaluation studies, with regard to a specific item, no point was awarded for that question. Studies were categorised as high (>80%), good (60%–80%), medium (40%–60%), or low (<40%) quality. The quality appraisal process was completed by one reviewer, since piloting of three studies by two independent reviewers had an inter-rater agreement of 85.6%.

### Comparative economic analysis approach

All cost data were adjusted to a common currency (Euro in 2021) and price year, using the Campbell and Cochrane Economics Methods Group–Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating Centre cost converter (13). A two-stage computation is used, where the 2021 implied conversion factor is US $1 = € 0.88. The 2021 implied conversion factor of British pounds is £1 = € 1.18. In our study, we first inflated the cost from the original price year to 2021, using a Gross Domestic Product deflator index (GDP values), obtained from the International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook Database GDP deflator index data set. After that, we converted the original currency to the next rounded 2021 Euros, using conversion rates based on Purchasing Power Parities for GDP (PPP values). For studies that did not state the year of cost calculation, the costs were calculated one year before the publication year.

### Synthesis of cost-effectiveness

The Dominance Ranking Matrix (DRM) was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the interventions noted within the identified studies (14). The DRM is a three-by-three matrix with the following classification options: 

1.  Strong dominance for the intervention when the incremental cost-effectiveness measure shows the intervention vs. the comparator is (i) more effective and less costly; or (ii) as effective and less costly; or (iii) equally costly and more effective. Strong dominance suggests that under the similar circumstances, the intervention is preferable to the comparator.

2.  Weak dominance for the intervention vs. the comparator is notd when the measure shows the intervention as (iv) equally costly and effective; or (v) more effective and more costly; or (vi) less effective and less costly. In principle weak dominance indicates that no conclusion can be drawn and hence judgment by policymakers is required on whether the intervention is preferable when taking into consideration whether the cost/benefit tradeoffs are worth the introduction of the intervention within the particular context.

3.  Non-dominance for the intervention vs. the comparator when the measure shows the intervention as (vii) more costly and less effective ; or (viii) equally as costly and less effective; or (ix) more costly and as effective. In this case the comparator is preferable to the measured intervention, at least under the circumstances of the specific study.

### Patient and public involvement

This study was performed under contract for the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Patients or the public were not explicitly involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of our research.

## RESULTS

10,314 non-duplicate studies were identified, of which 403 proceeded to full text screening with362 full text studies were excluded for the following reasons: inadequate data on costs and/or cost-effectiveness (n=269), reviews/editorials/perspectives/views/opinion papers (n=68), not referring to outbreaks of Covid-19 infectious disease (n=23), and no full text available (2). Subsequently, 41 studies met all inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review (Figure 1).

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/05/31/2022.05.31.22275813/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/31/2022.05.31.22275813/F1)

Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart of the search strategy

Approximately half of the studies (20/41) were of high methodological quality, ten had good quality, and the remaining 11 studies were of medium quality (**Online Supplementary Appendix 2)**. Lower scores were mainly due to missing information relating to the comparative intervention, lack of sensitivity analysis, not reporting incremental costs among comparative interventions (since in some studies alternative strategies were not included).

### Objective 1: Economic impact of COVID-19 infection to healthcare systems and societies

Ten studies evaluated the cost of the COVID-19 pandemic within EU/EEA/UK and OECD countries (**Table 1)**, among which eight studies used a cost of illness analysis approach (15–22). The direct medical costs were presented in seven out of ten studies (15-17, 19, 20, 22, 23), while in eight studies the costs were estimated for a time horizon shorter than one year (16-18, 20-24), and specific discount rates were not applied in seven studies (15-17, 20, 22-24). With regards to the country of origin, five out of the ten studies took place in the European region, including in the UK and Turkey (15–19), three were from the USA (20–22), one from Korea (23) and one from Australia (24). Six of the 10 studies were observational (17-20, 22, 23), while a few used modelling techniques (15, 16, 24) or simulation methods (21). Furthermore, it should be noted that the healthcare system perspective was included in the analysis of four studies (15, 16, 21, 22), the societal in two (17, 18), the third payer perspective was assessed in three (19, 21, 23), and one study (24) assessed data from the public health payer perspective. The perspective considered within onestudy was unclear (20).

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/31/2022.05.31.22275813/T1)

Table 1. Overview of included studies evaluating the economic impact of COVID-19 pandemic in EU/EEA/UK and OECD countries (n=10)

#### Overall economic burden on the population and to the healthcare system

Overall, the economic burden of COVID-19 pandemic was found to be substantial (**Table 2**). The socioeconomic implications of COVID-19 in Italy, appraised by Nurchis et al. (2020) (18) through a cost of illness analysis of indirect costs, showed a temporary productivity loss reaching 114,120,531 € for 110,868 cases (1,029 € per case). Individuals at the age of > 40 years old were found to be affected the most. Furthermore, the permanent productivity losses were estimated at 333,063,591 € for 3,926 deaths (84,836 € per death) with ages >50 years old to consistently having higher indirect costs due to death. Bartsch et al. (2020) (19) at the start of the pandemic, when no vaccines were available showed that the more people infected, the higher medical costs are presented using aa Monte Carlo simulation model to highlight the devastating impact of the pandemic on the US healthcare system and third payers. In the case of 20% of the US population to be infected with COVID-19 over the course of the pandemic (and not accounting for reinfections), the total costs accrued were estimated at 129.8 billion € and reaching 170.3 billion € including post discharge costs after one year. In the case that 80% of the US population is infected, the direct medical costs reached an estimated 519.4 billion €, and 682.6 billion € with the post discharge costs after one year of infection. Mallow et al. (2021) (24) assessed the value of statistical life in a total of 6 429 deaths in Ohio USA, where the economic burden of premature deaths was estimated at 13.8 billion € as of 30 November 2020. Additional analyses have been performed by Kirigia et al. (2020) (21) using the human capital approach to estimate the total present value of human lives lost due to COVID-19 in the UK as of July 2, 2020. Notably, the value for 43 906 lives lost approached 7.8 billion € at a 3% discount rate with, approximately 76.2% of the total present value sustained by those aged 30 - 79 years. Lee et al. (2020) (20) aimed to determine the hospitalisation periods and medical costs among 145 hospitalised children with COVID-19 in Korea. According to the results, the estimated medical expenses reached 252,389 € totally and increased per age as 54 patients in the ages of 16-19y accounted for 156,738 € (more than 60% of the total cost) and per patient at 2 903€ for a mean hospitalization period of approximately 10 days, indicating that these ages contributed to higher costs than younger ages included in the study.

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/31/2022.05.31.22275813/T2)

Table 2. Econometric outcomes of studies ealuating the economic impact of COVID-19 in the EU/EEA/UK and OECD countries (n=10)

DiFusco et al. (2021) (22) by conducting a cost of illness analysis to estimate the direct medical costs of inpatient setting for a time horizon of 8 months, showed that the mean total of hospital costs related to COVID-19 was 19,513 € for 8.3 mean hospital length of stay days (LOS) (SD 9.1). Higher costs were presented for those people treated in the ICU, reaching a mean cost of 20,400€, which represent 21,850€ in case of ICU usage without invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for a mean LOS of 9.1 days and estimated at a mean cost of 62,139€ if both ICU and IMV are used for mean LOS of 18.6 days.

Moreover, Gedik et al. (2020) (23) performed a simple cost-analysis of COVID-19 patients in Turkey and showed that the mean cost per ICU patient was much higher than clinical patients in wards and particularly estimated at 2,322 € for mean hospitalization days of 14.7 compared to 700. € for 9 mean hospitalization days.

#### Overall economic burden to specific population subgroups

With regards to the costs for specific sub-populations, Degeling et al. (2021) (15) estimated the health and economic impacts of delays in treatment initiation of 65,415 cancer cases (breast cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer and melanoma) due to COVID-19 infection in Australia. Apart from the excess deaths and life-years lost, costs to the health care system exceeded more than 6 million € for the 3-month delay while more than 25 million € for a 6-month delay. Czernichow et al. (2021) (16) identified a strong relationship between obese and overweight patients (BMI 25.0 to ≥40) with increased direct medical costs of secondary care related to COVID-19 across the EU, UK and EFTA countries, with 44% of the total treatment costs of COVID□19 in Europe to be associated with those populations (due to the higher probability of being hospitalized, a longer length of stay, and higher risk of severe outcomes). The total costs of 14.2 billion € were the total secondary medical care costs for a 6-month time horizon analysis, with cases with a BMI ≥40 accounting for the highest direct costs per case. In a similar study conducted by Bain et al. (2021) (17), whose aim was to estimate the impact of diabetes on the total secondary care costs of COVID-19 and for the same timeframe and population numbers in regards to the same European countries, poor glycemic control was associated with excess direct medical costs of secondary care due to COVID-19 infection, estimated at 400.4 million € for 6 869 hospitalizations of Type 1 diabetes cases and 1,498 billion € for 31 701 hospitalizations of Type 2 diabetes cases.

### Objective 2: Economic evaluation of strategies for the mitigation of COVID-19 virus transmission

Our systematic review identified 31 studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of interventions for reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission within EU/EEA/UK and OECD countries (**Table 3**). We identified studies that assessed isolation, lockdown policies, physical distancing scenarios (25–35), testing/screening policies (36–42), personal protective equipment intervention (43), vaccinations (44–47) and pharmaceutical treatment strategies (n=4) (47–50). Multiple strategies were evaluated by four studies (51–54), that mainly assessed the combination of testing, isolation, and vaccinations, and one study (55) analysed an ICU bed provision scenario.

View this table:
[Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/31/2022.05.31.22275813/T3)

Table 3. Study characteristics of studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of strategies for mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic (n=31)

Concerning study characteristics, thirteen out of 31 studies were from the USA (25, 26, 36, 38, 40, 41, 44–46, 48, 50, 52, 54), seven from the UK (30-33, 42, 49, 53), three from Germany (28, 51, 55), one from Switzerland (47), Israel (34), and Wales (37), while five of these studies included analyses for multiple OECD countries (27, 29, 35, 39, 43). The societal perspective was followed in 14 studies (26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 39, 41, 43, 51, 52, 54, 55), while 9 studies performed an analysis via a healthcare perspective (25, 27, 37, 38, 40, 42, 46, 47, 49, 53). Various perspectives were included in 4 studies (44, 45, 48, 50), including the payer for some of them (45, 48, 50), while the perspective considered was unclear in three studies (29, 32, 35).

#### Cost-effectiveness of testing & screening policies

Seven studies (**Table 4**) assessed the cost-effectiveness of testing and screening interventions. Stevenson et al. (2021) (42) compared 30 interventions and found that the least costly testing intervention was testing on hospital admission, and routine retesting following hospital admission. The authors noted that strategies with shorter times to test results were more cost-effective, all other things being equal, as were SARS-CoV-2 tests with greater diagnostic accuracy. trategies that included saliva sampling and nasopharyngeal have been assessed within the systematic review and meta-analysis by Bastos et al. (2021) (39). The incremental cost per additional SARS-CoV-2 infection detected with nasopharyngeal swabs versus saliva sampling was 6,427 € if the prevalence was 1%, and the cost-savings of saliva sampling were estimated at 505,177 € (95% CI 371,217-660,568) if 100 000 persons are tested. The clinical and economic value of PCR testing was investigated by Neilan et al. (2020) (38), who showed that under all epidemic growth scenarios considered, testing people with any COVID-19-consistent symptoms would be cost-saving compared to restricting testing to only those with symptoms severe enough to warrant hospital care, leading to lower costs and reducing infections and deaths. According to their results, and within the context of the first wave of the pandemic, the symptomatic and asymptomatic monthly testing scenario ws a cost-effective strategy only with an (Re) > 1.6 but would be no longer cost-effective option for lower reproduction scenarios, unless testing cost was lower. . A cost-minimization analysis performed by Currie et al. (2020) (37) comparing community testing undertaking swabbing of suspected cases in Wales with standard hospital testing showed that community testing for COVID-19 was a superior strategy, resulting in significant benefits for the healthcare system.

View this table:
[Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/31/2022.05.31.22275813/T4)

Table 4. Economic evaluation outcomes concerning interventions and strategies to mitigate Covid-19 (n=31)

Two studies appraised the cost-effectiveness outcomes of different testing strategies within specific settings. Baggett et al. (2020) (40) investigated the clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with strategies for COVID-19 management among adults experiencing sheltered homelessness in Boston, USA. Daily symptom screening with subsequent PCR testing of individuals who screened positively was the most efficient strategy and was cost-saving relative to no intervention in all epidemic scenarios.

Paltiel et al. (2020) (41) examined the SARS-2 screening performance standards that would permit the safe return of students to US residential college campuses for the fall semester of 2020 and noted that screening with a less expensive, less sensitive test dominated the intervention of screening with more expensive, more accurate tests. Paltiel et al. (2021) (36), assessed the clinical and economic effects of widespread home-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing and noted that the cost per infection averted was 6,266 €.

#### Cost-effectiveness of quarantine, isolation, physical distancing, and physical restriction policies

Twelve studies were included to assess the cost-effectiveness across different strategies to prevent or mitigate SARS-COV-2 transmission (**Table 4**).

Kouidere et al. (2021) (35) conducted a mathematical compartmental modelling to assess three different strategies for diabetics and concluded that awareness programs and quarantine for those infected having symptoms as well as those having complications in hospitals with treatment was the most effective strategy and associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -0.6951 (cost per infection averted) compared to sensitisation and prevention.

The cost-effectiveness of comparing the national lockdown policy for the susceptible population with the isolation of those infected or being at high risk in Israel returning to the workforce under social distancing measures after a 14-day isolation period was appraised by Shlomai et al. (2020) (34). The national lockdown of the susceptible population was associated with a higher economic burden but contributed to a reduction in deaths making this intervention superior to the comparator only in terms of health outcomes but was not cost-effective since it contributed to high economic costs, estimated at 36,568,451 € costs per death averted, and 3.6 million € costs per QALY gained. Furthermore, Keogh-Brown et al. (2020) (33) assessed the direct and indirect costs of three different strategies in the UK, and indicated that although mitigation and suppression policies contribute to lower mortality rates, the economic impact of COVID-19 is likely to be dominated by public prevention measures rather than the direct health costs of the disease and indicated thata three-month mitigation scenario resulted in a prediction of 13.5% loss to GDP with the direct-health related economic impact of 2% of the GDP while the suppression scenario was associated with an approximately 22% loss in GDP. Furthermore, Miles et al. (2020) within the context of a cost-benefit analyses (32) noted that a full lockdown policy for four months followed by an extension for three months showed that net extra economic costs of the lockdown relative to the easing of restrictions was estimated at 116.2 billion € with the best scenario of lives not lost at 96.5 billion €. The main factors of the substantial costs in lockdown policy were associated mainly with employment restrictions and physical restrictions. Miles et al (2021) also (31) conducted an additional modelling and simulation study to assess a few physical restriction scenarios in a timeframe of 6 months in the UK and found that the strategy of relatively slowly easing restrictions comes at a cost in terms of GDP reduction of up to 697,121 € /life□year saved. Moreover, the cost per life-year saved with a short transition physical restriction policy (8 weeks medium then 18 weeks low) was associated with a cost of per life-year saved at 206,888 € while keeping the policies strict for 26 weeks was estimated at a cost of per life-year saved of 1,553,988 €.

Suppression and physical distancing interventions was assessed by Zala et al. (2020) (30) and Barnett-Howell et al. (2021) (29). Zala et al., noted that suppression policies compared to an unmitigated scenario strategy was associated with an ICER below 56 972 €, while all of the four suppression policies presented ICER results. Barnett-Howell et al. (29) investigated five physical distancing strategies, including an unmitigated intervention, to assess the value of statistical life lost. Full lockdown policies were associated with lower VSL in the US, UK and Mexico countries (US: 23 billion €, UK: 4.76 billion €, Mexico: 794 million €) while the no-action scenario, which was the unmitigated spread of COVID-19, contributed to higher VSL in those countries (US: 38.9 billion €, UK: 7.1 billion €, Mexico: 1.58 billion €).

Additional studies focusing on policies related to stay-home and shutdown orders, were investigated by Gandjour (2020) (28) and Thom et al. (2021) (27). Gandjour assessed the clinical and economic cost of a shutdown during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Germany to estimate the cost of life-years gained per capita estimating the indirect costs for one year. The results showed that economic cost of the intervention of lockdown was associated with 3,472 € or extrapolated to the total population, 8% of Germany’s GDP in 2019 (ranging from 1% to 12% in the sensitivity analysis). Thom et al. (27) provided an exploratory comparison of health-related benefits and costs saved by government mitigation measures across European countries (UK, Ireland, Germany, Spain and Sweden) over a timeframe of seven months, where the authors concluded that the benefit of government COVID-19 responses might outweigh their economic costs, saving millions of QALYs (0.5 million for Sweden to approximately 5 million for Germany) and ideally those countries with more mask-wearing and testing, had better outcomes.

The last studies focusing on stay-home policies were by the same authors, Chen et al., (2020) (25, 26). Their first study (25) estimated the total medical costs by keeping the US economy open and assessed 13 interventions with different stay home isolation and voluntary home isolation compliance rates for one year. Without mitigation, the total medical costs would be a 5% of the US GDP. In their second study (26), Chen et al compared the epidemiological and economic impact of COVID-19 spread in the US under different mitigation scenarios, comprising NPIs including stay-home with varying compliance rates. The study results indicated that the preferred mitigation scenario in terms of lives saved, and infections averted is when the compliance is at 90%, the stay at home duration is 45 days; with an economic impact of 2.76 trillion €.

#### Cost-effectiveness of vaccination measures

Three included studies (44–46) focused on vaccination interventions used modelling and simulation methods to assess the cost-effectiveness of the included interventions (**Table 4**). Shaker et al. (2021) (44) appraised the universal COVID-19 vaccination versus risk-stratified vaccination approach over the timeframe of one year, and they found that the universal COVID-19 vaccination dominates the risk-stratified approach, making it a cost-effective strategy for the US population from the societal perspective and the healthcare perspective. ICER analyses indicated that in the case of societal perspective, the universal approach presents a cost of 52,033 € per death averted compared to the risk-stratified vaccination , with cost-savings estimated at 395 million €. When considering the healthcare perspective, the cost per death averted of the risk-stratified approach was 52,575 € making it the dominant option. Bartsch et al. (2021) (45) noted that that NPI implementation before vaccination was associated with less total costs compared to the case of non-implementation of NPIs. Finally, Kohli et al. (2021) (46) conducted a CUA to assess the COVID-19 vaccine vs. no vaccine for the US population over one year. Base case analysis presented good value for money outcomes where the ICER per age was found to be 74,652 € for ages 18-49 y, 6,353 € for 50-64 y while for ages 65 + the COVID-19 vaccine dominates. This strategy was also cost-effective under additional scenarios, such as with the per risk-based prioritisation scheme.

#### Cost-effectiveness of treatment measures

Our analysis included four studies (47–50) assessing pharmaceutical interventions (**Table 4**). Lee et al. (2021) (48) simulated the transmission spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the economic and clinical impact of the spread in the US over one year. The authors noted that starting treatment at an of Re3·5 was cost-effective and provided ICER results of 2,690 €/QALY saved from the societal perspective when treating 75% of symptomatic cases and treatment course costs 397 €, and ≤6,267 €/QALY saved from the third-payer perspective when at least 50% of all patients were treated. The study also concluded that treating 25% or 50% of symptomatic patients at Re 2·5 and at a treatment cost of 397 €, was also cost-effective. Accross all Re assessed, the net cost-savings were high from the third-payer perspective and even higher from the societal perspective. Sheinson et al. (2021) (50) assessed the cost-effectiveness of treating hospitalised COVID-19 patients with COVID-19 treatment vs. treating them with the best supportive care (BSC). Under the payer perspective, treatment of patients with COVID-19 was more cost-effective than BSC as it was associated with 15,784 € (with a FFS payment) and 18,593 € (with a bundled payment). The ICER results from a societal perspective were even better, making the COVID-19 treatment process a dominant strategy as treatment of patients with COVID-19 was associated with a cost of 6,508 € (with FFS payment) and 9,317 € (with bundled payment).

With regards to specific pharmaceutical regiments, Águas et al. (2021) (49) estimated that the incremental cost per life-year gained for dexamethasone treatment was 1,071 € compared to no treatment. On the contrary, within a cost-analysis performed by Vernaz et al. (2020) (47) compared standard care among pharmaceutical interventions including lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (a pharmaceutical discussed early in the pandemic but not a legitimate treatment) for hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 in Switzerland. The results highlighted the additional costs attributable to the length of stay presented a mean cost of 648,102 € for 93 patients.

#### Cost-effectiveness of bed provision policies

We identified one study indicating the scenario of increasing ICU bed availability . Gandjour et al. (2021) (55) performed a cost-effectiveness and return on investment (ROI) analysis and estimated that that the provision of a staffed ICU bed reserve capacity was cost-effective even for a low probability of bed utilisation and estimated that the provision of 1 ICU bed would cost 14,306 € to 22,986 € per life-year gained, while the addition of 10,000 ICU beds provided cost 18,389 € to 29,627 € per life-year gained.

#### Cost-effectiveness of personal protective equipment strategies

Risko et al. (2020) (43) conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis indicating that investing in personal protective equipment (PPE) was a cost-effective option for 166 million simulated workers over a period of 7.5 months (**Table 4**). In general, they found that an investment of USD 9.6 billion (7.62 billion €, 2021) concerning the purchasing and distribution of PPE to allow for adequate protection of all HCWs was cost-effective and lead to an ICER of cost per case averted at 57 €, and an ICER of cost per death averted of 4,159 €, which translates to 41.1 billion € (95% CI 39.6 to 42.6) in economic gains.

#### Cost-effectiveness of other combined strategies

The review included four studies (51–54) that assessed multiple combined interventions related to testing, isolation, vaccination and physical distancing strategies (**Table 4**). The value of immunisation alongside physical distancing policies was evaluated by Sandmann et al. (2021) (53), who assessed the clinical and economic value of COVID-19 vaccination in the UK and estimated that without the initial lockdown, vaccination, and increased physical distancing, 3.1 million (0.84 – 4.5) deaths would occur in the UK over ten years with a cost of 169 million €. The introduction of vaccination provided estimations of incremental net monetary values ranging from 13.7 billion € to 381.4 billion € in the best-case scenario and from 1.25 billion € to 64.8 billion € in the worst-case scenario compared to no immunization –under the healthcare perspective. In regard to the wider societal perspective, where GDP income loss was included in the relevant analyses, the incremental net monetary value of introducing vaccination vs. no vaccination was found to be extremely positive across physical distancing scenarios. Pandey et al. (2021) (54) assessed the cost-effectiveness of eight testing measures in conjunction with isolation measures over a timeframe of five months. In cases of an R=2 and assuming the test cost of approximately 4 € and the societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) per year-life lost (YLL) averted of 79,417 €, the optimal strategy was daily testing plus a 2-week isolation. On contrary, at a lower R (1.5 - 1.8) weekly testing plus 1-week isolation was found to be the optimal strategy. Furthermore, the weekly testing plus 2-week isolation was also optimal if R >2 (under the same assumptions and when the test costs <318 €).

The combination of isolation with laboratory testing and self-screening in college campuses over 3.5 months was assessed by Losina et al. (2020) (52), who concluded that a comprehensive physical distancing policy with a mandatory mask-wearing policy can prevent most COVID-19 cases on college campuses and is relatively cost-effective. The last study that assessed multiple interventions was that of Ebigbo et al. (2021) (51) that appraised the use of low vs. high-risk PPE (masks, goggles, gloves and apron, and centralised laboratory-based testing) applied during routine pre-endoscopy procedures. The authors noted that routine pre-endoscopy testing combined with high-risk PPE becomes more cost-effective with rising prevalence rates of COVID-19 while in lower prevalence rates the dominant strategy appeared to be the intervention of point-of-care antigen test without routine high risk PPE use.

## DISCUSSION

This systematic review aimed to assess the economic burden of COVID-19 infection to societies and healthcare systems and to assess the strategies used to prevent and mitigate COVID-19 outbreaks in the EU/UK/EEA and OECD countries from studies published through 22nd April 2021. Our findings indicate that the overall economic impact of the virus is substantial for individuals, healthcare systems and payers, while our review identified that NPIs and pharmaceutical measures, including ICU bed provision implemented within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic from both healthcare and societal perspectives and within one year time horizon are cost effective response and mitigation measures.

Overall, in the studies identified, the economic burden of COVID-19 pandemic was found to be substantial in all studies included in the systematic review, with both direct and indirect costs playing a significant role. Direct costs were primarily attributed to medical expenses from hospitalisations and ICU admissions while the indirect and societal costs yielded by NPIs, mainly from stay-home and isolation strategies, contributed to the further increase of economic costs and also resulted in a decrease in GDP. Moreover, the delays in treatment initiation of other diseases (e.g., cancer) were also found to have substantial economic impact. At the patient level, increased medical costs were also related to comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes. Regarding indirect costs, temporary and permanent productivity loss, as well as human lives lost due to COVID-19 were substantial.

The NPIs implemented for the pandemic control led to a benefit in life years in an individual or societal level compared to the no intervention scenario, although the cost benefit of such interventions differed depending on the perspective, the timeframe, the setting and the epidemiological situation of the pandemic. Considering the testing strategy, results were dependent on the cost per test and the R at the time of assessment. Overall, low-cost repeated community screening was a cost-effective approach, in combination with other NPIs, especially when the cost of testing remains low and at higher Re. As for lockdown strategies, studies showed that if performed early in the pandemic for a limited period of time and with sufficient compliance, they substantially could reduce the medical costs of COVID-19 from a healthcare perspective – especially prior to population immunisation. In general, mitigation scenarios resulted in less GDP loss compared to suppression ones. Finally, quarantine and physical distancing strategies were found to be effective for the containment of the COVID-19 pandemic, while it was indicated that with an increasing R, a combination of NPIs, including screening, physical distancing, and quarantine of contacts would be more efficient. With regards to PPMs they showed a benefit both in health and costs when used by HCWs, as also was the provision of ICU beds. Regarding pharmaceutical measures, vaccination was consistently found to be cost-effective, with the universal COVID-19 vaccination dominating the risk-stratified approach. Additionally, pharmaceutical treatments were also cost-effective when provided in scenarios of high transmissibility (high Re). Finally, the combination of testing, vaccination, physical distancing measures and mask wearing was found to be cost saving, with a significant number prevented cases and deaths.

A systematic review on previous respiratory infectious disease outbreaks prior to COVID-19 (56) concluded to similar results by pointing out the significant burden of both direct and indirect medical costs for management and response activities. Most direct costs occured from the additional personnel hours, the response planning and contact tracing activities, the provision of training and educational materials and the laboratory costs. Indirect costs were greater than direct ones, particularly when school closures and/or workplace closures were implemented, due to lower productivity (56). However, given the strictness of the NPIs in COVID-19 pandemic the economic burden has been found to be high for primary production sectors including industries associated with activities in raw materials extraction, secondary industrial sectors involving the production of finished products and tertiary sectors encompassing service provision industries (57).

This systematic review provides a wide range of cost-effective options across comparative strategies implemented to prevent or mitigate virus transmission. Strategies, including vaccination measures (ideally universal vaccinations), screening policies (with the saliva sampling to be a cost-saving option compared to nasopharyngeal swabs) and expanding a staffed ICU bed reserve capacity were found to be dominant strategies against SARS-COV-2 transmission, indicating the cost-savings as well as the economic value of their implementation. An earlier systematic review by Vandepitte et al. (2021) also showed that frequent and universal testing activities are a cost-effective strategy, highlighting that it would have a greater impact if enacted in a setting with a high Re. Moreover, they noted that PPM was also a cost-effective strategy depending on the compliance, the context, and the Re. (58). Similarly in another review, contact tracing and isolation of cases was a cost-effective NPIs, along with adequate surveillance, PPM for healthcare professionals, and vaccination. Contrastingly, physical distancing strategies including school and workplace closures were found to be effective but costly, making them the least cost-effective options. Additionally, combined NPIs were more cost-effective than individual ones, while the significance of early implementation was emphasised (59).

### Strengths and limitations

This review provides several strengths, including covering within one review both the economic burden of COVID-19 and the cost-effectiveness of the strategies and programs implemented to mitigate the pandemic. Moreover, this review followed a systematic approach to study identification, data extraction and quality apprasial with most of the included studies of good or high quality. Furthermore, this study used the Dominance Ranking Matrix approach, which summarised and interpreted the results of economic evaluation studies. On the other hand there are some limitations, as publication bias can not be excluded and as our search was performed up to the end of April 2021 it only reflects the cost-effectiveness of interventions assessed during the first waves of the pandemic with the majority of the populations unvaccinated, while most studies have a short duration on which modelling was performed. A further limitation is that most studies estimate costs and benefits based on a health care perspective, excluding wider societal effects, with a time horizon of 1 year. As we restricted our search to EU/UK/EEA/US and OECD countries, the studies primarily refer to high-income countries. Finally, as costs and resources varied between different countries, different pandemic settings and over time, and as indicated in this review, dependent on multiple other factors including population vaccination status, preexisting healthcare capacity and the infectivity of the COVID-19 variant at each time point, the comparison of cost-effectiveness measures is a complex process to interpret and the cost effectiveness of each intervention should be weighed by policymakers against the regional circumstances. Moreover, as the complete economic and health consequences are yet unknown, further research is needed on the cost-effectiveness of NPIs, while the cost of the long-term effects of COVID-19 (both physical and mental) should be also assessed in future analyses.

## CONCLUSION

This systematic review assessed economic evaluation studies concerning SARS-CoV-2 and the cost-effectiveness of strategies to prevent and mitigate virus spread within the EU/UK/EEA and OECD country context. Results of this study are based primarily on first wave of the pandemic and mostly from a health care perspective with a short time horizon; particularly within 1 year time horizon. Our review showed that SARS-CoV-2 is associated with substantial economic costs to healthcare systems, payers, and societies, both short term and long term, while interventions including testing and screening policies, vaccination and physical distancing policies were identified as those presenting cost-effective options to deal with the pandemic – dependent on population vaccination and the Re at the stage of the pandemic. Policymakers could benefit from these findings as they indicate the value of both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions to mitigate and respond to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and in preparation for future respiratory pandemics.

## Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript

## CONTRIBUTORS

CV, JLB, and JES designed the study. KN and KZ undertook the systematic review and extracted the data with help from KA, IL and KPA. JLB and RP developed the search strategy and JLB ran the searches. KZ and KA analysed and interpreted the economic data. OC, FL, FS, AP, CD, EF and JES participated in data evaluation and interpretation along with CV, JLB, RP, JES, KN, KZ, KA, and ST. Authors CV, KA and KZ wrote the first draft of the manuscript with input from all authors. All authors reviewed and revised subsequent drafts.

## Declaration of interests

We declare no competing interests.

## Funding

This report was commissioned by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), to the PREP-EU Consortium, coordinated by Dr. Vardavas under specific contract ECD. 11986 within Framework contract ECDC/2019/001. The information and views in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission/Agency. The Commission/Agency do not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission/Agency nor any person acting on the Commission’s/Agency’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.

## Data sharing statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

## Online Supplementary Appendix 1. Search Terms and Strategy

Database: Ovid MEDLINE(R) ALL <1946 to April 22, 2021>

Search Strategy:

\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|--

1 Economics/ (27312)

2 “costs and cost analysis”/ (49453)

3 Cost allocation/ (2008)

4 Cost-benefit analysis/ (84093)

5 Cost control/ (21571)

6 Cost savings/ (12170)

7 Cost of illness/ (28590)

8 Cost sharing/ (2590)

9 “deductibles and coinsurance”/ (1780)

10 Medical savings accounts/ (540)

11 Health care costs/ (41105)

12 Direct service costs/ (1203)

13 Drug costs/ (16530)

14 Employer health costs/ (1094)

15 Hospital costs/ (11434)

16 Health expenditures/ (21201)

17 Capital expenditures/ (1996)

18 Value of life/ (5745)

19 exp economics, hospital/ (25059)

20 exp economics, medical/ (14256)

21 Economics, nursing/ (4002)

22 Economics, pharmaceutical/ (2982)

23 exp “fees and charges”/ (30654)

24 (low adj cost).mp. (64981)

25 (high adj cost).mp. (15874)

26 (health?care adj cost$).mp. (12946)

27 (fiscal or funding or financial or finance).tw. (158630)

28 (cost adj estimate$).mp. (2411)

29 (cost adj variable).mp. (46)

30 (unit adj cost$).mp. (2677)

31 (economic$ or pharmacoeconomic$ or price$ or pricing).tw. (327155)

32 Economic evaluation.mp. (10756)

33 (Cost?effectiveness analysis or CEA).mp. (24032)

34 (Cost?utility analysis or CUA).mp. (1284)

35 (Cost?benefit analysis or CBA).mp. (27076)

36 (Cost?consequence analysis or CCA).mp. (9017)

37 (Cost?minimi?sation analysis or CMA).mp. (4218)

38 (cost?outcome or marginal analysis).mp. (225)

39 exp Cost benefit analysis/ or exp budgets/ (97196)

40 investment$.mp. or investments/ (45688)

41 or/1-40 (873724)

42 exp Coronavirus/ (68433)

43 exp Coronavirus Infections/ (82961)

44 (Coronavir* or nCov or covid or covid-19 or Middle East Respiratory Syndrome or MERS or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome or SARS).ti,ab,kf. (145090)

45 42 or 43 or 44 (152400)

46 41 and 45 (8520)

47 limit 46 to yr=“2020-Current” (7555)

48 limit 47 to english language (7380)

\*\*\*|\\*\*\*|\\*\*\*|\\*\*\*|\\*\*\*|\\*\*\*|\\*\*\*|\\*\*\*|\\***|

Database: Embase <1974 to 2021 April 22>

Search Strategy:

\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|\---|--

1 Socioeconomics/ (143956)

2 Cost benefit analysis/ (86950)

3 Cost effectiveness analysis/ (158695)

4 Cost of illness/ (19775)

5 Cost control/ (70213)

6 Economic aspect/ (116407)

7 Financial management/ (115358)

8 Health care cost/ (195273)

9 Health care financing/ (13885)

10 Health economics/ (33536)

11 Hospital cost/ (22362)

12 (fiscal or financial or finance or funding).tw. (222499)

13 Cost minimization analysis/ (3660)

14 (cost adj estimate$).mp. (3676)

15 (cost adj variables$).mp. (221)

16 (unit adj cost$).mp. (4828)

17 investment$.mp. or investments/ (57568)

18 or/1-17 (1008351)

19 exp coronavirus/ (34348)

20 exp coronavirus infections/ (116308)

21 (Coronavir* or nCov or covid or Middle East Respiratory Syndrome or MERS or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome or SARS).ti,ab,tw. (144234)

22 19 or 20 or 21 (156925)

23 18 and 22 (6304)

24 limit 23 to yr=“2020-Current” (5439)

25 limit 24 to english language (5348)

\*\*\*|\\*\*\*|\\*\*\*|\\*\*\*|\\*\*\*|\\*\*\*|\\*\*\*|\\*\*\*|\\***|

## Online Supplementary Appendix 2. Quality appraisal of the economic evaluation studies for estimating COVID-19 infection and strategies for preventing/mitigating COVID-19

![Figure2](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/05/31/2022.05.31.22275813/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/31/2022.05.31.22275813/F2)

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Chrysa Chatzopoulou, Katerina Papathanasaki and Konstantinos Skouloudakis for contributing to file and data archiving and data management.

*   Received May 31, 2022.
*   Revision received May 31, 2022.
*   Accepted May 31, 2022.


*   © 2022, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

## REFERENCES

1.  1.Jamison DT, Gelband H, Horton S, Jha P, Laxminarayan R, Mock CN, et al. Disease Control Priorities: Improving Health and Reducing Poverty. Washington (DC): The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank © 2018 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank.; 2017.
    
    

2.  2.ECDC. COVID-19 situation update worldwide, as of week 17, updated 5 May 2022. 2022
    
    

3.  3.ECDC. Covid Statistic Measures 2021
    
    

4.  4.ECDC. Latest risk assessment: further emergence and potential impact of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern in the context of ongoing transmission of the Delta variant of concern in the EU/EEA, 15 December 2021. 2021
    
    

5.  5.Demirgüç-Kunt A, Lokshin M, Torre I. The sooner, the better: The economic impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Economics of Transition and Institutional Change. 2021;29(4):551–73.
    
    

6.  6.Cutler DM, Summers LH. The COVID-19 Pandemic and the $16 Trillion Virus. Jama. 2020;324(15):1495–6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2020.19759&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33044484&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2F2022.05.31.22275813.atom) 

7.  7.López-Valcárcel BG, Vallejo-Torres L. The costs of COVID-19 and the cost-effectiveness of testing. Applied Economic Analysis. 2021;29(85):77–89.
    
    

8.  8.Zhou L, Yan W, Li S, Yang H, Zhang X, Lu W, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions for the Prevention and Control of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. SSRN. 2021;3944593.
    
    

9.  9.Meltzer MI, Gambhir M, Atkins CY, Swerdlow DL. Standardizing scenarios to assess the need to respond to an influenza pandemic. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S1–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/cid/civ088&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25878296&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2F2022.05.31.22275813.atom) 

10. 10.WHO. Definitions: Emergencies. World Health Organization2016. . 2016
    
    

11. 11.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19621072&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2F2022.05.31.22275813.atom) 

12. 12.Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ. 2013;346:f1049.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNDYvbWFyMjVfMS9mMTA0OSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzA1LzMxLzIwMjIuMDUuMzEuMjIyNzU4MTMuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

13. 13.CCEMG. EPPI-Centre Cost Converter. 2019.
    
    

14. 14.JB I. The systematic review of economic evaluation evidence. Implement Sci. 2014:1–24.
    
    

15. 15.Degeling K, Baxter NN, Emery J, Jenkins MA, Franchini F, Gibbs P, et al. An inverse stage-shift model to estimate the excess mortality and health economic impact of delayed access to cancer services due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2021;17(4):359–67.
    
    

16. 16.Czernichow S, Bain SC, Capehorn M, Bøgelund M, Madsen ME, Yssing C, et al. Costs of the COVID-19 pandemic associated with obesity in Europe: A health-care cost model. Clin Obes. 2021;11(2):e12442.
    
    

17. 17.Bain SC, Czernichow S, Bøgelund M, Madsen ME, Yssing C, McMillan AC, et al. Costs of COVID-19 pandemic associated with diabetes in Europe: a health care cost model. Curr Med Res Opin. 2021;37(1):27–36.
    
    

18. 18.Nurchis MC, Pascucci D, Sapienza M, Villani L, D’Ambrosio F, Castrini F, et al. Impact of the Burden of COVID-19 in Italy: Results of Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) and Productivity Loss. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(12).
    
    

19. 19.Bartsch SM, Ferguson MC, McKinnell JA, O’Shea KJ, Wedlock PT, Siegmund SS, et al. The Potential Health Care Costs And Resource Use Associated With COVID-19 In The United States. Health Aff (Millwood). 2020;39(6):927–35.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00426&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2F2022.05.31.22275813.atom) 

20. 20.Lee JK, Kwak BO, Choi JH, Choi EH, Kim JH, Kim DH. Financial Burden of Hospitalization of Children with Coronavirus Disease 2019 under the National Health Insurance Service in Korea. J Korean Med Sci. 2020;35(24):e224.
    
    

21. 21.Kirigia JM, Deborah Muthuri RNK. The Present Value of Human Lives Lost Due to COVID-19 in the United Kingdom. Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Research. 2020;6(3):237–46.
    
    

22. 22.Di Fusco M, Shea KM, Lin J, Nguyen JL, Angulo FJ, Benigno M, et al. Health outcomes and economic burden of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the United States. J Med Econ. 2021;24(1):308–17.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/13696998.2021.1886109&link_type=DOI) 

23. 23.Gedik H. The cost analysis of inpatients with COVID-19. Acta Medica Mediterranea. 2020(6):3289–92.
    
    

24. 24.Mallow PJ. Estimates of the value of life lost from COVID-19 in Ohio. J Comp Eff Res. 2021;10(4):281–4.
    
    

25. 25.Chen J, Vullikanti A, Hoops S, Mortveit H, Lewis B, Venkatramanan S, et al. Medical costs of keeping the US economy open during COVID-19. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):18422.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41598-020-75280-6&link_type=DOI) 

26. 26.Chen J, Vullikanti A, Santos J, Venkatramanan S, Hoops S, Mortveit H, et al. Epidemiological and Economic Impact of COVID-19 in the US. medRxiv. 2020.
    
    

27. 27.Thom H, Walker J, Vickerman P, Hollingworth W. Exploratory comparison of Healthcare costs and benefits of the UK’s Covid-19 response with four European countries. Eur J Public Health. 2021;31(3):619–24.
    
    

28. 28.Gandjour A. The Clinical and Economic Value of a Successful Shutdown During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic in Germany. Q Rev Econ Finance. 2020.
    
    

29. 29.Barnett-Howell Z, Watson OJ, Mobarak AM. The benefits and costs of social distancing in high- and low-income countries. Transactions of The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2021;115(7):807–19.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/trstmh/traa140&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33440007&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2F2022.05.31.22275813.atom) 

30. 30.Zala D, Mosweu I, Critchlow S, Romeo R, McCrone P. Costing the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Exploratory Economic Evaluation of Hypothetical Suppression Policy in the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2020;23(11):1432–7.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2F2022.05.31.22275813.atom) 

31. 31.Miles DK, Heald AH, Stedman M. How fast should social restrictions be eased in England as COVID-19 vaccinations are rolled out? Int J Clin Pract. 2021;75(7):e14191.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2F2022.05.31.22275813.atom) 

32. 32.Miles DK, Stedman M, Heald AH. “Stay at Home, Protect the National Health Service, Save Lives”: A cost benefit analysis of the lockdown in the United Kingdom. Int J Clin Pract. 2021;75(3):e13674.
    
    

33. 33.Keogh-Brown MR, Jensen HT, Edmunds WJ, Smith RD. The impact of Covid-19, associated behaviours and policies on the UK economy: A computable general equilibrium model. SSM Popul Health. 2020;12:100651.
    
    

34. 34.Shlomai A, Leshno A, Sklan EH, Leshno M. Modeling Social Distancing Strategies to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Spread in Israel: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Value Health. 2021;24(5):607–14.
    
    

35. 35.Kouidere A, Youssoufi LE, Ferjouchia H, Balatif O, Rachik M. Optimal Control of Mathematical modeling of the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic with highlighting the negative impact of quarantine on diabetics people with Cost-effectiveness. Chaos Solitons Fractals. 2021;145:110777.
    
    

36. 36.Paltiel AD, Zheng A, Sax PE. Clinical and Economic Effects of Widespread Rapid Testing to Decrease SARS-CoV-2 Transmission. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174(6):803–10.
    
    

37. 37.Currie J, Adamson J, Bowden B, Woolls J, Jones R, Healy B, et al. Impact of a novel community testing pathway for people with suspected COVID-19 in Wales: a cost-minimisation analysis. BMJ Open. 2020;10(8):e038017.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTAvOC9lMDM4MDE3IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMDUvMzEvMjAyMi4wNS4zMS4yMjI3NTgxMy5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

38. 38.Neilan AM, Losina E, Bangs AC, Flanagan C, Panella C, Eskibozkurt GE, et al. Clinical Impact, Costs, and Cost-effectiveness of Expanded Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Testing in Massachusetts. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73(9):e2908–e17.
    
    

39. 39.Bastos ML, Perlman-Arrow S, Menzies D, Campbell JR. The Sensitivity and Costs of Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Infection With Saliva Versus Nasopharyngeal Swabs : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174(4):501–10.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2F2022.05.31.22275813.atom) 

40. 40.Baggett TP, Scott JA, Le MH, Shebl FM, Panella C, Losina E, et al. Clinical Outcomes, Costs, and Cost-effectiveness of Strategies for Adults Experiencing Sheltered Homelessness During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(12):e2028195.
    
    

41. 41.Paltiel AD, Zheng A, Walensky RP. Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Screening Strategies to Permit the Safe Reopening of College Campuses in the United States. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(7):e2016818.
    
    

42. 42.Stevenson M, Metry A, Messenger M. Modelling of hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests on admission to hospital from A&E: rapid cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2021;25(21):1–68.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2F2022.05.31.22275813.atom) 

43. 43.Risko N, Werner K, Offorjebe OA, Vecino-Ortiz AI, Wallis LA, Razzak J. Cost-effectiveness and return on investment of protecting health workers in low- and middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLOS ONE. 2020;15(10):e0240503.
    
    

44. 44.Shaker M, Abrams EM, Greenhawt M. A Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Hospitalizations, Fatalities, and Economic Outcomes Associated with Universal Versus Anaphylaxis Risk-Stratified COVID-19 Vaccination Strategies. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9(7):2658–68.e3.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jaip.2021.02.054&link_type=DOI) 

45. 45.Bartsch SM, O’Shea KJ, Wedlock PT, Strych U, Ferguson MC, Bottazzi ME, et al. The Benefits of Vaccinating With the First Available COVID-19 Coronavirus Vaccine. Am J Prev Med. 2021;60(5):605–13.
    
    

46. 46.Kohli M, Maschio M, Becker D, Weinstein MC. The potential public health and economic value of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine in the United States: Use of cost-effectiveness modeling to inform vaccination prioritization. Vaccine. 2021;39(7):1157–64.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.12.078&link_type=DOI) 

47. 47.Vernaz N, Agoritsas T, Calmy A, Gayet-Ageron A, Gold G, Perrier A, et al. Early experimental COVID-19 therapies: associations with length of hospital stay, mortality and related costs. Swiss Med Wkly. 2020;150:w20446.
    
    

48. 48.Lee BY, Bartsch SM, Ferguson MC, Wedlock PT, O’Shea KJ, Siegmund SS, et al. The value of decreasing the duration of the infectious period of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. PLoS Comput Biol. 2021;17(1):e1008470.
    
    

49. 49.Águas R, Mahdi A, Shretta R, Horby P, Landray M, White L, et al. Potential health and economic impacts of dexamethasone treatment for patients with COVID-19. Nature Communications. 2021;12(1):915.
    
    

50. 50.Sheinson D, Dang J, Shah A, Meng Y, Elsea D, Kowal S. A Cost-Effectiveness Framework for COVID-19 Treatments for Hospitalized Patients in the United States. Adv Ther. 2021;38(4):1811–31.
    
    

51. 51.Ebigbo A, Römmele C, Bartenschlager C, Temizel S, Kling E, Brunner J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention strategies including pre-endoscopic virus testing and use of high risk personal protective equipment. Endoscopy. 2021;53(2):156–61.
    
    

52. 52.Losina E, Leifer V, Millham L, Panella C, Hyle EP, Mohareb AM, et al. College Campuses and COVID-19 Mitigation: Clinical and Economic Value. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174(4):472–83.
    
    

53. 53.Sandmann FG, Davies NG, Vassall A, Edmunds WJ, Jit M. The potential health and economic value of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination alongside physical distancing in the UK: a transmission model-based future scenario analysis and economic evaluation. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021;21(7):962–74.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2F2022.05.31.22275813.atom) 

54. 54.Du Z, Pandey A, Bai Y, Fitzpatrick MC, Chinazzi M, Pastore YPA, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies in the USA: a modelling study. Lancet Public Health. 2021;6(3):e184–e91.
    
    

55. 55.Gandjour A. How Many Intensive Care Beds are Justifiable for Hospital Pandemic Preparedness? A Cost-effectiveness Analysis for COVID-19 in Germany. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19(2):181–90.
    
    

56. 56.Fan CY, Fann JC, Yang MC, Lin TY, Chen HH, Liu JT, et al. Estimating global burden of COVID-19 with disability-adjusted life years and value of statistical life metrics. J Formos Med Assoc. 2021;120 Suppl 1:S106–s17.
    
    

57. 57.Vardavas C, Nikitara K, Zisis K, Athanasakis K, Phalkey R, Leonardi-Bee J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of emergency preparedness measures in response to infectious respiratory disease outbreaks: a systematic review and econometric analysis. BMJ Open. 2021;11(4):e045113.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTEvNC9lMDQ1MTEzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMDUvMzEvMjAyMi4wNS4zMS4yMjI3NTgxMy5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

58. 58.Nicola M, Alsafi Z, Sohrabi C, Kerwan A, Al-Jabir A, Iosifidis C, et al. The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): A review. International Journal of Surgery. 2020;78:185–93.
    
    

59. 59.Vandepitte S, Alleman T, Nopens I, Baetens J, Coenen S, De Smedt D. Cost-Effectiveness of COVID-19 Policy Measures: A Systematic Review. Value in Health. 2021;24(11):1551–69.
    
    

60. 60.Juneau C-E, Pueyo T, Bell M, Gee G, Collazzo P, Potvin L. Evidence-Based, Cost-Effective Interventions To Suppress The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review. medRxiv. 2020:2020.04.20.20054726.
    
    

1.  1.Jamison DT, Gelband H, Horton S, Jha P, Laxminarayan R, Mock CN, et al. Disease Control Priorities: Improving Health and Reducing Poverty. Washington (DC): The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank © 2018 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank.; 2017.
    
    

2.  2.ECDC. COVID-19 situation update worldwide, as of week 17, updated 5 May 2022. 2022
    
    

3.  3.ECDC. Covid Statistic Measures 2021
    
    

4.  4.ECDC. Latest risk assessment: further emergence and potential impact of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern in the context of ongoing transmission of the Delta variant of concern in the EU/EEA, 15 December 2021. 2021
    
    

5.  5.Demirgüç-Kunt A, Lokshin M, Torre I. The sooner, the better: The economic impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Economics of Transition and Institutional Change. 2021;29(4):551–73.
    
    

6.  6.Cutler DM, Summers LH. The COVID-19 Pandemic and the $16 Trillion Virus. Jama. 2020;324(15):1495–6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2020.19759&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33044484&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2F2022.05.31.22275813.atom) 

7.  7.López-Valcárcel BG, Vallejo-Torres L. The costs of COVID-19 and the cost-effectiveness of testing. Applied Economic Analysis. 2021;29(85):77–89.
    
    

8.  8.Zhou L, Yan W, Li S, Yang H, Zhang X, Lu W, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions for the Prevention and Control of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. SSRN. 2021;3944593.
    
    

9.  9.Meltzer MI, Gambhir M, Atkins CY, Swerdlow DL. Standardizing scenarios to assess the need to respond to an influenza pandemic. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S1–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/cid/civ088&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25878296&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2F2022.05.31.22275813.atom) 

10. 10.WHO. Definitions: Emergencies. World Health Organization2016. . 2016
    
    

11. 11.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19621072&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2F2022.05.31.22275813.atom) 

12. 12.Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ. 2013;346:f1049.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNDYvbWFyMjVfMS9mMTA0OSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzA1LzMxLzIwMjIuMDUuMzEuMjIyNzU4MTMuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

13. 13.CCEMG. EPPI-Centre Cost Converter. 2019.
    
    

14. 14.JB I. The systematic review of economic evaluation evidence. Implement Sci. 2014:1–24.
    
    

15. 15.Degeling K, Baxter NN, Emery J, Jenkins MA, Franchini F, Gibbs P, et al. An inverse stage-shift model to estimate the excess mortality and health economic impact of delayed access to cancer services due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2021;17(4):359–67.
    
    

16. 16.Czernichow S, Bain SC, Capehorn M, Bøgelund M, Madsen ME, Yssing C, et al. Costs of the COVID-19 pandemic associated with obesity in Europe: A health-care cost model. Clin Obes. 2021;11(2):e12442.
    
    

17. 17.Bain SC, Czernichow S, Bøgelund M, Madsen ME, Yssing C, McMillan AC, et al. Costs of COVID-19 pandemic associated with diabetes in Europe: a health care cost model. Curr Med Res Opin. 2021;37(1):27–36.
    
    

18. 18.Nurchis MC, Pascucci D, Sapienza M, Villani L, D’Ambrosio F, Castrini F, et al. Impact of the Burden of COVID-19 in Italy: Results of Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) and Productivity Loss. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(12).
    
    

19. 19.Bartsch SM, Ferguson MC, McKinnell JA, O’Shea KJ, Wedlock PT, Siegmund SS, et al. The Potential Health Care Costs And Resource Use Associated With COVID-19 In The United States. Health Aff (Millwood). 2020;39(6):927–35.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00426&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2F2022.05.31.22275813.atom) 

20. 20.Lee JK, Kwak BO, Choi JH, Choi EH, Kim JH, Kim DH. Financial Burden of Hospitalization of Children with Coronavirus Disease 2019 under the National Health Insurance Service in Korea. J Korean Med Sci. 2020;35(24):e224.
    
    

21. 21.Kirigia JM, Deborah Muthuri RNK. The Present Value of Human Lives Lost Due to COVID-19 in the United Kingdom. Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Research. 2020;6(3):237–46.
    
    

22. 22.Di Fusco M, Shea KM, Lin J, Nguyen JL, Angulo FJ, Benigno M, et al. Health outcomes and economic burden of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the United States. J Med Econ. 2021;24(1):308–17.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/13696998.2021.1886109&link_type=DOI) 

23. 23.Gedik H. The cost analysis of inpatients with COVID-19. Acta Medica Mediterranea. 2020(6):3289–92.
    
    

24. 24.Mallow PJ. Estimates of the value of life lost from COVID-19 in Ohio. J Comp Eff Res. 2021;10(4):281–4.
    
    

25. 25.Chen J, Vullikanti A, Hoops S, Mortveit H, Lewis B, Venkatramanan S, et al. Medical costs of keeping the US economy open during COVID-19. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):18422.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41598-020-75280-6&link_type=DOI) 

26. 26.Chen J, Vullikanti A, Santos J, Venkatramanan S, Hoops S, Mortveit H, et al. Epidemiological and Economic Impact of COVID-19 in the US. medRxiv. 2020.
    
    

27. 27.Thom H, Walker J, Vickerman P, Hollingworth W. Exploratory comparison of Healthcare costs and benefits of the UK’s Covid-19 response with four European countries. Eur J Public Health. 2021;31(3):619–24.
    
    

28. 28.Gandjour A. The Clinical and Economic Value of a Successful Shutdown During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic in Germany. Q Rev Econ Finance. 2020.
    
    

29. 29.Barnett-Howell Z, Watson OJ, Mobarak AM. The benefits and costs of social distancing in high- and low-income countries. Transactions of The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2021;115(7):807–19.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/trstmh/traa140&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33440007&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2F2022.05.31.22275813.atom) 

30. 30.Zala D, Mosweu I, Critchlow S, Romeo R, McCrone P. Costing the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Exploratory Economic Evaluation of Hypothetical Suppression Policy in the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2020;23(11):1432–7.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2F2022.05.31.22275813.atom) 

31. 31.Miles DK, Heald AH, Stedman M. How fast should social restrictions be eased in England as COVID-19 vaccinations are rolled out? Int J Clin Pract. 2021;75(7):e14191.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2F2022.05.31.22275813.atom) 

32. 32.Miles DK, Stedman M, Heald AH. “Stay at Home, Protect the National Health Service, Save Lives”: A cost benefit analysis of the lockdown in the United Kingdom. Int J Clin Pract. 2021;75(3):e13674.
    
    

33. 33.Keogh-Brown MR, Jensen HT, Edmunds WJ, Smith RD. The impact of Covid-19, associated behaviours and policies on the UK economy: A computable general equilibrium model. SSM Popul Health. 2020;12:100651.
    
    

34. 34.Shlomai A, Leshno A, Sklan EH, Leshno M. Modeling Social Distancing Strategies to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Spread in Israel: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Value Health. 2021;24(5):607–14.
    
    

35. 35.Kouidere A, Youssoufi LE, Ferjouchia H, Balatif O, Rachik M. Optimal Control of Mathematical modeling of the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic with highlighting the negative impact of quarantine on diabetics people with Cost-effectiveness. Chaos Solitons Fractals. 2021;145:110777.
    
    

36. 36.Paltiel AD, Zheng A, Sax PE. Clinical and Economic Effects of Widespread Rapid Testing to Decrease SARS-CoV-2 Transmission. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174(6):803–10.
    
    

37. 37.Currie J, Adamson J, Bowden B, Woolls J, Jones R, Healy B, et al. Impact of a novel community testing pathway for people with suspected COVID-19 in Wales: a cost-minimisation analysis. BMJ Open. 2020;10(8):e038017.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTAvOC9lMDM4MDE3IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMDUvMzEvMjAyMi4wNS4zMS4yMjI3NTgxMy5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

38. 38.Neilan AM, Losina E, Bangs AC, Flanagan C, Panella C, Eskibozkurt GE, et al. Clinical Impact, Costs, and Cost-effectiveness of Expanded Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Testing in Massachusetts. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73(9):e2908–e17.
    
    

39. 39.Bastos ML, Perlman-Arrow S, Menzies D, Campbell JR. The Sensitivity and Costs of Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Infection With Saliva Versus Nasopharyngeal Swabs : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174(4):501–10.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2F2022.05.31.22275813.atom) 

40. 40.Baggett TP, Scott JA, Le MH, Shebl FM, Panella C, Losina E, et al. Clinical Outcomes, Costs, and Cost-effectiveness of Strategies for Adults Experiencing Sheltered Homelessness During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(12):e2028195.
    
    

41. 41.Paltiel AD, Zheng A, Walensky RP. Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Screening Strategies to Permit the Safe Reopening of College Campuses in the United States. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(7):e2016818.
    
    

42. 42.Stevenson M, Metry A, Messenger M. Modelling of hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests on admission to hospital from A&E: rapid cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2021;25(21):1–68.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2F2022.05.31.22275813.atom) 

43. 43.Risko N, Werner K, Offorjebe OA, Vecino-Ortiz AI, Wallis LA, Razzak J. Cost-effectiveness and return on investment of protecting health workers in low- and middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLOS ONE. 2020;15(10):e0240503.
    
    

44. 44.Shaker M, Abrams EM, Greenhawt M. A Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Hospitalizations, Fatalities, and Economic Outcomes Associated with Universal Versus Anaphylaxis Risk-Stratified COVID-19 Vaccination Strategies. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9(7):2658–68.e3.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jaip.2021.02.054&link_type=DOI) 

45. 45.Bartsch SM, O’Shea KJ, Wedlock PT, Strych U, Ferguson MC, Bottazzi ME, et al. The Benefits of Vaccinating With the First Available COVID-19 Coronavirus Vaccine. Am J Prev Med. 2021;60(5):605–13.
    
    

46. 46.Kohli M, Maschio M, Becker D, Weinstein MC. The potential public health and economic value of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine in the United States: Use of cost-effectiveness modeling to inform vaccination prioritization. Vaccine. 2021;39(7):1157–64.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.12.078&link_type=DOI) 

47. 47.Vernaz N, Agoritsas T, Calmy A, Gayet-Ageron A, Gold G, Perrier A, et al. Early experimental COVID-19 therapies: associations with length of hospital stay, mortality and related costs. Swiss Med Wkly. 2020;150:w20446.
    
    

48. 48.Lee BY, Bartsch SM, Ferguson MC, Wedlock PT, O’Shea KJ, Siegmund SS, et al. The value of decreasing the duration of the infectious period of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. PLoS Comput Biol. 2021;17(1):e1008470.
    
    

49. 49.Águas R, Mahdi A, Shretta R, Horby P, Landray M, White L, et al. Potential health and economic impacts of dexamethasone treatment for patients with COVID-19. Nature Communications. 2021;12(1):915.
    
    

50. 50.Sheinson D, Dang J, Shah A, Meng Y, Elsea D, Kowal S. A Cost-Effectiveness Framework for COVID-19 Treatments for Hospitalized Patients in the United States. Adv Ther. 2021;38(4):1811–31.
    
    

51. 51.Ebigbo A, Römmele C, Bartenschlager C, Temizel S, Kling E, Brunner J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention strategies including pre-endoscopic virus testing and use of high risk personal protective equipment. Endoscopy. 2021;53(2):156–61.
    
    

52. 52.Losina E, Leifer V, Millham L, Panella C, Hyle EP, Mohareb AM, et al. College Campuses and COVID-19 Mitigation: Clinical and Economic Value. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174(4):472–83.
    
    

53. 53.Sandmann FG, Davies NG, Vassall A, Edmunds WJ, Jit M. The potential health and economic value of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination alongside physical distancing in the UK: a transmission model-based future scenario analysis and economic evaluation. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021;21(7):962–74.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2F2022.05.31.22275813.atom) 

54. 54.Du Z, Pandey A, Bai Y, Fitzpatrick MC, Chinazzi M, Pastore YPA, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies in the USA: a modelling study. Lancet Public Health. 2021;6(3):e184–e91.
    
    

55. 55.Gandjour A. How Many Intensive Care Beds are Justifiable for Hospital Pandemic Preparedness? A Cost-effectiveness Analysis for COVID-19 in Germany. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19(2):181–90.
    
    

56. 56.Vardavas C, Nikitara K, Zisis K, Athanasakis K, Phalkey R, Leonardi-Bee J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of emergency preparedness measures in response to infectious respiratory disease outbreaks: a systematic review and econometric analysis. BMJ Open. 2021;11(4):e045113.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTEvNC9lMDQ1MTEzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMDUvMzEvMjAyMi4wNS4zMS4yMjI3NTgxMy5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

57. 57.Nicola M, Alsafi Z, Sohrabi C, Kerwan A, Al-Jabir A, Iosifidis C, et al. The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): A review. International Journal of Surgery. 2020;78:185–93.
    
    

58. 58.Vandepitte S, Alleman T, Nopens I, Baetens J, Coenen S, De Smedt D. Cost-Effectiveness of COVID-19 Policy Measures: A Systematic Review. Value in Health. 2021;24(11):1551–69.
    
    

59. 59.Juneau C-E, Pueyo T, Bell M, Gee G, Collazzo P, Potvin L. Evidence-Based, Cost-Effective Interventions To Suppress The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review. medRxiv. 2020:2020.04.20.20054726.