PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Blakely, Tony
AU  - Thompson, Jason
AU  - Bablani, Laxman
AU  - Andersen, Patrick
AU  - Ouakrim, Driss Ait
AU  - Carvalho, Natalie
AU  - Abraham, Patrick
AU  - Boujaoude, Marie-Anne
AU  - Katar, Ameera
AU  - Akpan, Edifofon
AU  - Wilson, Nick
AU  - Stevenson, Mark
TI  - Determining the optimal COVID-19 policy response using agent-based modelling linked to health and cost modelling: Case study for Victoria, Australia
AID  - 10.1101/2021.01.11.21249630
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.01.11.21249630
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/10/2021.01.11.21249630.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/10/2021.01.11.21249630.full
AB  - Importance Determining the best policy on social restrictions and lockdowns for the COVID-19 pandemic is challenging.Objective To determine the optimal policy response ranging from aggressive and moderate elimination, tight suppression (aiming for 1 to 5 cases per million per day) and loose suppression (5 to 25 cases per million per day).Design Two simulation models in series: an agent-based model to estimate daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and time in four stages of social restrictions; a proportional multistate lifetable model to estimate long-run health impacts (health adjusted life years (HALYs) arising from SARS-CoV-2) and costs (health systems, and health system plus GDP).The net monetary benefit (NMB) of each policy option at varying willingness to pay (WTP) per HALY was calculated: NMB = HALYs × WTP – cost. The optimal policy response was that with the highest NMB.Setting and participants The State of Victoria, Australia, using simulation modeling of all residents.Main Outcome and Measures SARS-CoV-2 infection rates, time under various stages of restrictions, HALYs, health expenditure and GDP losses.Results Aggressive elimination resulted in the highest percentage of days with the lowest level of restrictions (median 31.7%, 90% simulation interval 6.6% to 64.4%). However, days in hard lockdown were similar across all four strategies (medians 27.5% to 36.1%).HALY losses (compared to a no-COVID-19 scenario) were similar for aggressive elimination (286, 219 to 389) and moderate elimination (314, 228 to 413), and nearly eight and 40-times higher for tight and loose suppression. The median GDP loss was least for moderate elimination ($US41.7 billion, $29.0 to $63.6 billion), but there was substantial overlap in simulation intervals between the four strategies.From a health system perspective aggressive elimination was optimal in 64% of simulations above a willingness to pay of $15,000 per HALY, followed by moderate elimination in 35% of simulations.Moderate elimination was optimal from a partial societal perspective in half the simulations followed by aggressive elimination in a quarter.Shortening the pandemic duration to 6 months saw loose suppression become preferable under a partial societal perspective.Conclusions and Relevance Elimination strategies were preferable over a 1-year pandemic duration.Funding Anonymous philanthropic donation to the University of Melbourne.Question To determine the optimal of four policy responses to COVID-19 in the State of Victoria, Australia (aggressive and moderate elimination, tight suppression (aiming for 1 to 5 cases per million per day) and loose suppression (5 to 25 cases per million per day), based on estimated future health loss and costs from both a health system and partial societal perspective.Findings From a health system perspective aggressive elimination was optimal in 64% of simulations above a willingness to pay of $15,000 per HALY, followed by moderate elimination in 35% of simulations. Moderate elimination was optimal from a partial societal perspective (i.e., including GDP losses) in half the simulations followed by aggressive elimination in a quarter.Meaning Whilst there is considerable uncertainty in outcomes for all the four policy options, the two elimination options are usually optimal from both a health system and a partial societal (health expenditure plus GDP cost) perspective.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementAnonymous philanthropic donation to the University of Melbourne.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:We confirm that we have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesThe Victorian Department of Health and Human Services provided Victorian SARS-CoV-2 notification data for calculation of hospitalisation, ICU admission and fatality rates.