Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Department of Epidemiology, National Heart Foundation Hospital and Research Institute, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Eur J Epidemiol. 2020 Aug;35(8):743-748. doi: 10.1007/s10654-020-00660-1. Epub 2020 Jul 13.
In low and middle-income countries (LMICs), strict social distancing measures (e.g., nationwide lockdown) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic are unsustainable in the long-term due to knock-on socioeconomic and psychological effects. However, an optimal epidemiology-focused strategy for 'safe-reopening' (i.e., balancing between the economic and health consequences) remain unclear, particularly given the suboptimal disease surveillance and diagnostic infrastructure in these settings. As the lockdown is now being relaxed in many LMICs, in this paper, we have (1) conducted an epidemiology-based "options appraisal" of various available non-pharmacological intervention options that can be employed to safely lift the lockdowns (namely, sustained mitigation, zonal lockdown and rolling lockdown strategies), and (2) propose suitable application, pre-requisites, and inherent limitations for each measure. Among these, a sustained mitigation-only approach (adopted in many high-income countries) may not be feasible in most LMIC settings given the absence of nationwide population surveillance, generalised testing, contact tracing and critical care infrastructure needed to tackle the likely resurgence of infections. By contrast, zonal or local lockdowns may be suitable for some countries where systematic identification of new outbreak clusters in real-time would be feasible. This requires a generalised testing and surveillance structure, and a well-thought out (and executed) zone management plan. Finally, an intermittent, rolling lockdown strategy has recently been suggested by the World Health Organization as a potential strategy to get the epidemic under control in some LMI settings, where generalised mitigation and zonal containment is unfeasible. This strategy, however, needs to be carefully considered for economic costs and necessary supply chain reforms. In conclusion, while we propose three community-based, non-pharmacological options for LMICs, a suitable measure should be context-specific and based on: (1) epidemiological considerations, (2) social and economic costs, (3) existing health systems capabilities and (4) future-proof plans to implement and sustain the strategy.
在中低收入国家(LMICs),由于连锁的社会经济和心理影响,针对 COVID-19 大流行采取的严格社交距离措施(如全国性封锁)从长期来看是不可持续的。然而,对于“安全重启”(即在经济和健康后果之间取得平衡)的最佳以流行病学为重点的策略仍不清楚,特别是考虑到这些环境中疾病监测和诊断基础设施不完善。由于许多 LMIC 现在正在放宽封锁,在本文中,我们(1)进行了基于流行病学的“方案评估”,评估了可用于安全解除封锁的各种可用非药物干预措施(即持续缓解、区域封锁和滚动封锁策略),以及(2)为每种措施提出了适当的应用、前提条件和固有局限性。在这些措施中,由于缺乏全国人口监测、广泛检测、接触者追踪和处理感染可能再次爆发所需的重症监护基础设施,持续缓解的单一方法(在许多高收入国家采用)在大多数 LMIC 环境中可能不可行。相比之下,区域或局部封锁可能适用于一些国家,在这些国家中,实时系统地识别新的暴发集群是可行的。这需要一个广泛的检测和监测结构,以及一个深思熟虑的(和执行的)区域管理计划。最后,世界卫生组织最近建议间歇性、滚动封锁策略作为一些 LMIC 中控制疫情的潜在策略,在这些国家,普遍缓解和区域遏制是不可行的。然而,这种策略需要仔细考虑经济成本和必要的供应链改革。总之,虽然我们为 LMIC 提出了三种基于社区的非药物干预措施,但合适的措施应该是具体情况具体分析,并基于以下因素:(1)流行病学考虑,(2)社会和经济成本,(3)现有卫生系统能力,以及(4)实施和维持策略的未来证明计划。