...
首页> 外文期刊>Trends in Ecology & Evolution >Dynamic interventions to control COVID-19 pandemic: a multivariate prediction modelling study comparing 16 worldwide countries
【24h】

Dynamic interventions to control COVID-19 pandemic: a multivariate prediction modelling study comparing 16 worldwide countries

机译:控制Covid-19大流行的动态干预措施:一个多变量预测建模研究比较16个全球9个国家

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

To date, non-pharmacological interventions (NPI) have been the mainstay for controlling the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While NPIs are effective in preventing health systems overload, these long-term measures are likely to have significant adverse economic consequences. Therefore, many countries are currently considering to lift the NPIs-increasing the likelihood of disease resurgence. In this regard, dynamic NPIs, with intervals of relaxed social distancing, may provide a more suitable alternative. However, the ideal frequency and duration of intermittent NPIs, and the ideal "break" when interventions can be temporarily relaxed, remain uncertain, especially in resource-poor settings. We employed a multivariate prediction model, based on up-to-date transmission and clinical parameters, to simulate outbreak trajectories in 16 countries, from diverse regions and economic categories. In each country, we then modelled the impacts on intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and deaths over an 18-month period for following scenarios: (1) no intervention, (2) consecutive cycles of mitigation measures followed by a relaxation period, and (3) consecutive cycles of suppression measures followed by a relaxation period. We defined these dynamic interventions based on reduction of the mean reproduction number during each cycle, assuming a basic reproduction number (R-0) of 2.2 for no intervention, and subsequent effective reproduction numbers (R) of 0.8 and 0.5 for illustrative dynamic mitigation and suppression interventions, respectively. We found that dynamic cycles of 50-day mitigation followed by a 30-day relaxation reduced transmission, however, were unsuccessful in lowering ICU hospitalizations below manageable limits. By contrast, dynamic cycles of 50-day suppression followed by a 30-day relaxation kept the ICU demands below the national capacities. Additionally, we estimated that a significant number of new infections and deaths, especially in resource-poor countries, would be averted if these dynamic suppression measures were kept in place over an 18-month period. This multi-country analysis demonstrates that intermittent reductions of R below 1 through a potential combination of suppression interventions and relaxation can be an effective strategy for COVID-19 pandemic control. Such a "schedule" of social distancing might be particularly relevant to low-income countries, where a single, prolonged suppression intervention is unsustainable. Efficient implementation of dynamic suppression interventions, therefore, confers a pragmatic option to: (1) prevent critical care overload and deaths, (2) gain time to develop preventive and clinical measures, and (3) reduce economic hardship globally.
机译:迄今为止,非药理学干预(NPI)是控制冠状病毒疾病-109(Covid-19)大流行的主干。虽然NPI有效地防止卫生系统过载,但这些长期措施可能具有显着的不利经济后果。因此,许多国家目前正在考虑提升NPI,提高疾病复兴的可能性。在这方面,动态NPI,间隔放松的社会偏移,可以提供更合适的替代方案。然而,在干预措施可以暂时放宽时,间歇性NPI的理想频率和持续时间,并且仍然不确定,特别是在资源差的环境中。我们基于最新的传输和临床参数,雇用多元预测模型,以模拟16个国家的爆发轨迹,来自各种各样的地区和经济类别。在每个国家,我们在18个月的期间内模拟了对重症监护单元(ICU)入学和死亡的影响:(1)没有干预,(2)连续的缓解措施循环,然后是放松期,以及(3)连续抑制措施循环,然后是放松期。我们根据每个循环期间的平均再现数的减少来定义这些动态干预,假设对于没有干预的基本再现数(R-0),以及用于说明动态缓解的0.8和0.5的后续有效再现数(R)。抑制干预措施。我们发现50天缓解的动态周期随之而来,减少了30天的放松减少传输,但在降低ICU住院区低于可管理范围内的情况下不成功。相比之下,动态周期为50天的抑制,然后30天放松,使ICU要求低于国家能力。此外,如果在18个月内保存在18个月内,我们估计,如果保留这些动态抑制措施,则避免了大量的新感染和死亡,特别是在资源贫困国家。这种多国分析表明,通过抑制干预措施和放松的潜在组合,r低于1的间歇减少可以是Covid-19大流行控制的有效策略。社会偏差的这种“时间表”可能与低收入国家特别相关,其中单一长期的抑制干预是不可持续的。因此,有效地实施动态抑制干预措施,赋予了务实的选择:(1)防止关键护理过载和死亡,(2)增加制定预防和临床措施的时间,(3)全球降低经济困难。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号