PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Peng, Amy
AU  - Simmons, Alison E.
AU  - Amoako, Afia
AU  - Tuite, Ashleigh R.
AU  - Fisman, David N.
TI  - Relative Pandemic Severity in Canada and Four Peer Nations During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic
AID  - 10.1101/2021.03.23.21253873
DP  - 2022 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.03.23.21253873
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/08/08/2021.03.23.21253873.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/08/08/2021.03.23.21253873.full
AB  - Introduction National responses to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic have been highly variable, which may explain some of the heterogeneity in the pandemic’s health and economic impacts across the world. We sought to explore the effectiveness of the Canadian pandemic response relative to responses in four peer countries with similar political, economic and health systems, and with close historical and cultural ties to Canada (the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Australia) from March 2020 to May 2022.Methods We used reported age-specific mortality data to generate estimates of pandemic mortality standardized to the Canadian population. Age-specific case fatality, hospitalization, and intensive care admission probabilities for the Canadian province of Ontario were applied to estimated deaths in order to calculate hospitalizations and intensive care admissions averted by the Canadian response. The monetary value of averted hospitalizations was estimated using cost estimates from the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Age-specific quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) lost due to fatality were estimated using published estimates. QALY were monetized using a net expected benefit approach.Results Relative to the United States, United Kingdom, and France, the Canadian pandemic response was estimated to have averted 94,492, 64,306 and 13,641 deaths respectively, with more than 480,000 hospitalizations averted, and 1 million QALY saved, relative to the United States. A United States pandemic response applied to Canada would have resulted in more than $40 billion in economic losses due to healthcare expenditures and lost QALY; losses relative to the United Kingdom and France would have been $21 billion and $5 billion respectively. By contrast, an Australian pandemic response would have averted over 28,000 additional deaths and averted nearly $9 billion in costs in Canada.Conclusions Canada outperformed peer countries that aimed for mitigation, rather than elimination, of SARS-CoV-2 in the first two years of the pandemic, likely because of a more stringent public health response to disease transmission. This resulted in substantial numbers of lives saved and economic costs averted. However, comparison with Australia demonstrates that an elimination focus would have allowed Canada to save tens of thousands of lives, and would have saved substantial economic costs.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe research was supported by a grant to DNF from the Canadians Institutes for Health Research (2019 COVID-19 rapid researching funding OV4-170360).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:This specific piece of work is IRB exempt (data are in the public domain) but work done under approval by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board for COVID-19 research by the Ontario Modelling Table.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.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.YesAll data used for analyses are publicly available. A link to data files is included in the manuscript. https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Estimated_Deaths_Intensive_Care_Admissions_and_Hospitalizations_Averted_in_Canada_during_the_COVID-19_Pandemic/14036549