RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Wastewater surveillance pilot at US military installations: a cost model analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.11.14.23298310
DO 10.1101/2023.11.14.23298310
A1 Sanjak, Jaleal
A1 McAuley, Erin M
A1 Pinkham, Richard
A1 Tarnowski, Jacob
A1 Miko, Nicole
A1 Rasmussen, Bridgette
A1 Manalo, Christian
A1 Goodson, Michael
A1 Stamps, Blake
A1 Necciai, Bryan D
A1 Sozhamannan, Shanmuga
A1 Maier, Ezekiel J
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/11/20/2023.11.14.23298310.abstract
AB Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted the need for pathogen surveillance systems to augment both early warning and outbreak monitoring/control efforts. Wastewater samples provide a rapid and accurate source of environmental surveillance data to complement direct patient sampling. Due to its global presence and critical missions, the US military is a leader in global pandemic preparedness efforts. Clinical testing for COVID-19 on US Air Force (USAF) bases (AFBs) was effective, but costly with respect to direct costs and indirect costs of lost time. To remain operating at peak capacity such bases sought a more passive surveillance option and piloted wastewater surveillance (WWS) at 17 AFBs to demonstrate feasibility, safety, and utility from May 2021 to January 2022.Objective Here we model the costs of a wastewater program for pathogens of pandemic potential within the specific context of US military installations using assumptions based on the results of the USAF and Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense (JPEO-CBRND) pilot program. The objective was to determine the cost of deploying WWS to all AFBs, relative to clinical swab testing surveillance regimes.Methods A simple WWS cost projection model was built based on subject matter expert input and actual costs incurred during a WWS pilot program at USAF AFBs. Several SARS-CoV-2 circulation scenarios were considered and costs of both WWS and clinical swab testing were projected. Break even analysis was conducted to determine how reduction in swab testing could open up space to enable WWS to occur in complement.Results Our model confirms that wastewater surveillance is complementary and highly cost-effective when compared to existing alternative forms of biosurveillance. We find that the cost of WWS was between $10.5 - $18.5 million less expensive annually in direct costs as compared to clinical swab testing surveillance. When indirect cost of lost work is incorporated, including assumed lost work required to go obtain a clinical swab test, we estimate that over two thirds of clinical swab testing could be maintained with no additional costs upon implementation of WWS.Conclusions Our results support adoption of wastewater surveillance across US military installations as part of a more comprehensive and early warning system that will enable adaptive monitoring during disease outbreaks.Competing Interest StatementThis study was funded/supported by the United States Air Force and the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense (JPEO-CBRND). Contract Support was provided by Booz Allen Hamilton.Funding StatementThis study was funded/supported by the United States Air Force and the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense (JPEO-CBRND).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI 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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript