Search

Background Current approaches are unlikely to achieve the aggressive global tuberculosis (TB) control targets set for 2035 and beyond. Active case finding (ACF) may be an important tool for augmenting existing strategies, but the cost-effectiveness of ACF remains uncertain. Program evaluators can often measure the cost of ACF per TB case detected, but how this accessible measure translates into traditional metrics of cost-effectiveness, such as the cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY), remains unclear. Methods We constructed dynamic models of TB in India, China, and South Africa to explore the medium-term impact and cost-effectiveness of generic ACF activities, conceptualized separately as discrete (2-year) campaigns and as continuous activities integrated into ongoing TB control programs. Our primary outcome was the cost per DALY, measured in relationship to the cost per TB case actively detected and started on treatment. Results Discrete campaigns costing up to $1,200 (95% uncertainty range [UR] 850-2,043) per case actively detected and started on treatment in India, $3,800 (95% UR 2,706-6,392) in China, and $9,400 (95% UR 6,957-13,221) in South Africa were all highly cost-effective (cost per DALY averted less than per capita gross domestic product). Prolonged integration was even more effective and cost-effective. Short-term assessments of ACF dramatically underestimated potential longer term gains; for example, an assessment of an ACF program at 2 years might find a non-significant 11% reduction in prevalence, but a 10-year evaluation of that same intervention would show a 33% reduction. Conclusions ACF can be a powerful and highly cost-effective tool in the fight against TB. Given that short-term assessments may dramatically underestimate medium-term effectiveness, current willingness to pay may be too low. ACF should receive strong consideration as a basic tool for TB control in most high-burden settings, even when it may cost over $1,000 to detect and initiate treatment for each extra case of active TB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A novel human coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was identified in China in December 2019. There is limited support for many of its key epidemiologic features, including the incubation period for clinical disease (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]), which has important implications for surveillance and control activities., Objective: To estimate the length of the incubation period of COVID-19 and describe its public health implications., Design: Pooled analysis of confirmed COVID-19 cases reported between 4 January 2020 and 24 February 2020., Setting: News reports and press releases from 50 provinces, regions, and countries outside Wuhan, Hubei province, China., Participants: Persons with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection outside Hubei province, China., Measurements: Patient demographic characteristics and dates and times of possible exposure, symptom onset, fever onset, and hospitalization., Results: There were 181 confirmed cases with identifiable exposure and symptom onset windows to estimate the incubation period of COVID-19. The median incubation period was estimated to be 5.1 days (95% CI, 4.5 to 5.8 days), and 97.5% of those who develop symptoms will do so within 11.5 days (CI, 8.2 to 15.6 days) of infection. These estimates imply that, under conservative assumptions, 101 out of every 10 000 cases (99th percentile, 482) will develop symptoms after 14 days of active monitoring or quarantine., Limitation: Publicly reported cases may overrepresent severe cases, the incubation period for which may differ from that of mild cases., Conclusion: This work provides additional evidence for a median incubation period for COVID-19 of approximately 5 days, similar to SARS. Our results support current proposals for the length of quarantine or active monitoring of persons potentially exposed to SARS-CoV-2, although longer monitoring periods might be justified in extreme cases., Primary Funding Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.