• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

引入和取消非药物干预措施与 SARS-CoV-2 时变繁殖数(R)之间的时间关联:131 个国家的建模研究。

The temporal association of introducing and lifting non-pharmaceutical interventions with the time-varying reproduction number (R) of SARS-CoV-2: a modelling study across 131 countries.

机构信息

Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

出版信息

Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Feb;21(2):193-202. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30785-4. Epub 2020 Oct 22.

DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30785-4
PMID:33729915
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7581351/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were implemented by many countries to reduce the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causal agent of COVID-19. A resurgence in COVID-19 cases has been reported in some countries that lifted some of these NPIs. We aimed to understand the association of introducing and lifting NPIs with the level of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, as measured by the time-varying reproduction number (R), from a broad perspective across 131 countries.

METHODS

In this modelling study, we linked data on daily country-level estimates of R from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (London, UK) with data on country-specific policies on NPIs from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker, available between Jan 1 and July 20, 2020. We defined a phase as a time period when all NPIs remained the same, and we divided the timeline of each country into individual phases based on the status of NPIs. We calculated the R ratio as the ratio between the daily R of each phase and the R from the last day of the previous phase (ie, before the NPI status changed) as a measure of the association between NPI status and transmission of SARS-CoV-2. We then modelled the R ratio using a log-linear regression with introduction and relaxation of each NPI as independent variables for each day of the first 28 days after the change in the corresponding NPI. In an ad-hoc analysis, we estimated the effect of reintroducing multiple NPIs with the greatest effects, and in the observed sequence, to tackle the possible resurgence of SARS-CoV-2.

FINDINGS

790 phases from 131 countries were included in the analysis. A decreasing trend over time in the R ratio was found following the introduction of school closure, workplace closure, public events ban, requirements to stay at home, and internal movement limits; the reduction in R ranged from 3% to 24% on day 28 following the introduction compared with the last day before introduction, although the reduction was significant only for public events ban (R ratio 0·76, 95% CI 0·58-1·00); for all other NPIs, the upper bound of the 95% CI was above 1. An increasing trend over time in the R ratio was found following the relaxation of school closure, bans on public events, bans on public gatherings of more than ten people, requirements to stay at home, and internal movement limits; the increase in R ranged from 11% to 25% on day 28 following the relaxation compared with the last day before relaxation, although the increase was significant only for school reopening (R ratio 1·24, 95% CI 1·00-1·52) and lifting bans on public gatherings of more than ten people (1·25, 1·03-1·51); for all other NPIs, the lower bound of the 95% CI was below 1. It took a median of 8 days (IQR 6-9) following the introduction of an NPI to observe 60% of the maximum reduction in R and even longer (17 days [14-20]) following relaxation to observe 60% of the maximum increase in R. In response to a possible resurgence of COVID-19, a control strategy of banning public events and public gatherings of more than ten people was estimated to reduce R, with an R ratio of 0·71 (95% CI 0·55-0·93) on day 28, decreasing to 0·62 (0·47-0·82) on day 28 if measures to close workplaces were added, 0·58 (0·41-0·81) if measures to close workplaces and internal movement restrictions were added, and 0·48 (0·32-0·71) if measures to close workplaces, internal movement restrictions, and requirements to stay at home were added.

INTERPRETATION

Individual NPIs, including school closure, workplace closure, public events ban, ban on gatherings of more than ten people, requirements to stay at home, and internal movement limits, are associated with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2, but the effect of introducing and lifting these NPIs is delayed by 1-3 weeks, with this delay being longer when lifting NPIs. These findings provide additional evidence that can inform policy-maker decisions on the timing of introducing and lifting different NPIs, although R should be interpreted in the context of its known limitations.

FUNDING

Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support Fund and Data-Driven Innovation initiative.

摘要

背景

许多国家实施了非药物干预措施(NPIs),以降低严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒 2(SARS-CoV-2)的传播,SARS-CoV-2 是 COVID-19 的病原体。一些国家报告 COVID-19 病例出现反弹,这些国家已经取消了部分 NPI。我们旨在从更广泛的角度了解引入和取消 NPI 与 SARS-CoV-2 传播水平之间的关联,该传播水平通过时变繁殖数(R)来衡量。

方法

在这项建模研究中,我们将伦敦卫生与热带医学院(英国伦敦)提供的每日国家层面 R 估计数据与牛津 COVID-19 政府应对追踪器(英国牛津)提供的国家特定 NPI 政策数据联系起来,数据时间为 2020 年 1 月 1 日至 7 月 20 日。我们将一个阶段定义为所有 NPI 保持不变的时间段,我们根据 NPI 的状况将每个国家的时间线划分为单独的阶段。我们将 R 比值定义为每个阶段的每日 R 与前一阶段(即在 NPI 状态发生变化之前的最后一天)的 R 之比,作为 NPI 状态与 SARS-CoV-2 传播之间关联的衡量标准。然后,我们使用对数线性回归模型,将引入和放松每种 NPI 作为第 1 天至第 28 天内对应 NPI 变化后的每一天的独立变量,来对 R 比值进行建模。在一个特别分析中,我们根据观察到的序列,估计引入最大影响的多种 NPI 的效果,以应对 SARS-CoV-2 的可能反弹。

结果

131 个国家的 790 个阶段被纳入分析。引入学校关闭、工作场所关闭、公共活动禁令、居家要求和内部流动限制后,R 比值呈下降趋势;与引入前的最后一天相比,引入后的第 28 天 R 比值下降了 3%至 24%,尽管只有公共活动禁令的下降具有显著意义(R 比值 0.76,95%CI 0.58-1.00);对于所有其他 NPI,95%CI 的上限均高于 1。放松学校关闭、公共活动禁令、禁止超过 10 人的公共集会、居家要求和内部流动限制后,R 比值呈上升趋势;与放松前的最后一天相比,放松后的第 28 天 R 比值增加了 11%至 25%,尽管只有学校重新开放(R 比值 1.24,95%CI 1.00-1.52)和取消超过 10 人的公共集会禁令(1.25,95%CI 1.03-1.51)具有显著意义;对于所有其他 NPI,95%CI 的下限均低于 1。引入 NPI 后,平均需要 8 天(IQR 6-9)才能观察到 R 最大降低的 60%,而放松后需要更长时间(17 天[14-20])才能观察到 R 最大增加的 60%。为应对 COVID-19 的可能反弹,如果实施公共活动和超过 10 人的公共集会禁令,估计控制策略可降低 R,第 28 天的 R 比值为 0.71(95%CI 0.55-0.93),如果再加上工作场所关闭措施,则降至 0.62(0.47-0.82),如果再加上工作场所和内部流动限制措施,则降至 0.58(0.41-0.81),如果再加上工作场所关闭、内部流动限制和居家要求措施,则降至 0.48(0.32-0.71)。

解释

包括学校关闭、工作场所关闭、公共活动禁令、禁止超过 10 人的公共集会、居家要求和内部流动限制在内的个别 NPI 与 SARS-CoV-2 的传播减少有关,但引入和取消这些 NPI 的效果会延迟 1-3 周,取消 NPI 的延迟时间更长。这些发现提供了更多的证据,可以为决策者决定引入和取消不同 NPI 的时间提供参考,尽管应在了解其已知局限性的情况下解释 R。

资金

惠康信托基金机构战略支持基金和数据驱动创新计划。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3cf2/7581351/644195a82161/gr4_lrg.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3cf2/7581351/5d3d3dfd9c13/gr1_lrg.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3cf2/7581351/300735cf5de2/gr2_lrg.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3cf2/7581351/d4055e09eb69/gr3_lrg.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3cf2/7581351/644195a82161/gr4_lrg.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3cf2/7581351/5d3d3dfd9c13/gr1_lrg.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3cf2/7581351/300735cf5de2/gr2_lrg.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3cf2/7581351/d4055e09eb69/gr3_lrg.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3cf2/7581351/644195a82161/gr4_lrg.jpg

相似文献

1
The temporal association of introducing and lifting non-pharmaceutical interventions with the time-varying reproduction number (R) of SARS-CoV-2: a modelling study across 131 countries.引入和取消非药物干预措施与 SARS-CoV-2 时变繁殖数(R)之间的时间关联:131 个国家的建模研究。
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Feb;21(2):193-202. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30785-4. Epub 2020 Oct 22.
2
The impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on SARS-CoV-2 transmission across 130 countries and territories.非药物干预措施对 130 个国家和地区的 SARS-CoV-2 传播的影响。
BMC Med. 2021 Feb 5;19(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01872-8.
3
Non-pharmaceutical interventions, vaccination, and the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant in England: a mathematical modelling study.非药物干预措施、疫苗接种和 SARS-CoV-2 德尔塔变异株在英国:一项数学建模研究。
Lancet. 2021 Nov 13;398(10313):1825-1835. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02276-5. Epub 2021 Oct 28.
4
International travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review.国际旅行相关防控措施以遏制 COVID-19 大流行:快速综述。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 25;3(3):CD013717. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013717.pub2.
5
Mathematical modelling of vaccination rollout and NPIs lifting on COVID-19 transmission with VOC: a case study in Toronto, Canada.基于 COVID-19 变异株的疫苗接种推广和非药物干预措施解除对传播影响的数学建模:以加拿大多伦多为例的案例研究。
BMC Public Health. 2022 Jul 15;22(1):1349. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13597-9.
6
Association of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions to Reduce the Spread of SARS-CoV-2 With Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms: A Multi-National Study of 43 Countries.非药物干预措施对减少 SARS-CoV-2 传播与焦虑和抑郁症状的相关性:多国 43 个国家的研究。
Int J Public Health. 2022 Mar 3;67:1604430. doi: 10.3389/ijph.2022.1604430. eCollection 2022.
7
Factors Associated with the Implementation of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions for Reducing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systematic Review.与实施非药物干预措施降低 2019 年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)相关的因素:系统评价。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Apr 17;18(8):4274. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18084274.
8
Dynamic interventions to control COVID-19 pandemic: a multivariate prediction modelling study comparing 16 worldwide countries.动态干预控制 COVID-19 大流行:比较全球 16 个国家的多变量预测建模研究。
Eur J Epidemiol. 2020 May;35(5):389-399. doi: 10.1007/s10654-020-00649-w. Epub 2020 May 19.
9
The Effects of Non-pharmaceutical Interventions on COVID-19 Mortality: A Generalized Synthetic Control Approach Across 169 Countries.非药物干预措施对新冠病毒疾病死亡率的影响:一项涵盖169个国家的广义合成对照法研究
Front Public Health. 2022 Apr 4;10:820642. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.820642. eCollection 2022.
10
Lifting non-pharmaceutical interventions following the COVID-19 pandemic - the quiet before the storm?解除新冠肺炎大流行后的非药物干预措施——暴风雨前的宁静?
Expert Rev Vaccines. 2022 Nov;21(11):1541-1553. doi: 10.1080/14760584.2022.2117693. Epub 2022 Sep 5.

引用本文的文献

1
Challenges in the mathematical modeling of the spatial diffusion of SARS-CoV-2 in Chile.智利SARS-CoV-2空间扩散数学建模中的挑战。
Math Biosci Eng. 2025 May 27;22(7):1680-1721. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2025062.
2
Preferences for Nonpharmaceutical Interventions During the Endemic Phase of COVID-19: Discrete Choice Experiment.新冠疫情流行阶段非药物干预措施的偏好:离散选择实验
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2025 Jun 4;11:e67725. doi: 10.2196/67725.
3
Epidemiological Shifts in Children Respiratory Pathogens in Shenzhen, China: A Comparative Analysis Before and After the Relaxation of COVID-19 Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions.

本文引用的文献

1
A global panel database of pandemic policies (Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker).一个全球性的大流行病政策面板数据库(牛津 COVID-19 政府应对追踪器)。
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Apr;5(4):529-538. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01079-8. Epub 2021 Mar 8.
2
Age-Related Differences in Nasopharyngeal Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Levels in Patients With Mild to Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).年龄相关的轻度至中度 2019 冠状病毒病(COVID-19)患者鼻咽严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒 2(SARS-CoV-2)水平的差异。
JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Sep 1;174(9):902-903. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3651.
3
中国深圳儿童呼吸道病原体的流行病学转变:新冠疫情非药物干预措施放宽前后的对比分析
Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2025 Apr;19(4):e70114. doi: 10.1111/irv.70114.
4
Simulation-based inference of the time-dependent reproduction number from temporally aggregated and under-reported disease incidence time series data.基于模拟从时间聚合且报告不完整的疾病发病率时间序列数据推断随时间变化的繁殖数。
Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2025 Apr 2;383(2293):20240412. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2024.0412.
5
Evolution of SARS-CoV-2 epidemics in pediatric population in Liguria (North-west Italy) from March 2020 to December 2022: what could we have learned?2020年3月至2022年12月意大利西北部利古里亚地区儿童群体中新冠病毒疫情的演变:我们能学到什么?
J Prev Med Hyg. 2025 Jan 31;65(4):E483-E490. doi: 10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2024.65.4.3348. eCollection 2024 Dec.
6
Uptake and hesitancy of the second booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine among the general population in China after the surge period of the COVID-19 pandemic: a large-scale national study.新冠疫情高峰期过后中国普通人群中新冠疫苗第二剂加强针的接种情况及犹豫程度:一项全国性大规模研究
BMC Public Health. 2025 Feb 7;25(1):503. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-21691-x.
7
The strategy to control the outbreak of an emerging respiratory infectious disease in a simulated Chinese megacity.在一个模拟的中国特大城市中控制新发呼吸道传染病爆发的策略。
Heliyon. 2024 Dec 24;11(1):e41383. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e41383. eCollection 2025 Jan 15.
8
Causal Estimands for Analyses of Averted and Avertible Outcomes due to Infectious Disease Interventions.传染病干预措施所避免和可避免结果分析的因果估计量
Epidemiology. 2025 May 1;36(3):363-373. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001839. Epub 2025 Jan 24.
9
Effect of urban structure, population density and proximity to contagion on COVID-19 infections during the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha and Omicron waves in Málaga, Spain, March 2020 to December 2021.2020年3月至2021年12月西班牙马拉加在新冠病毒阿尔法和奥密克戎毒株传播期间城市结构、人口密度及与传染源的距离对新冠病毒感染的影响
Euro Surveill. 2025 Jan;30(3). doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2025.30.3.2400174.
10
Impact of tiered restrictions in December 2020 on COVID-19 hospitalisations in England: a synthetic control study.2020年12月分层限制措施对英格兰新冠肺炎住院情况的影响:一项合成对照研究
BMJ Open. 2025 Jan 4;15(1):e086802. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086802.
Impact of lockdown on COVID-19 epidemic in Île-de-France and possible exit strategies.
封锁对法兰西岛 COVID-19 疫情的影响及可能的退出策略。
BMC Med. 2020 Jul 30;18(1):240. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01698-4.
4
A large COVID-19 outbreak in a high school 10 days after schools' reopening, Israel, May 2020.2020 年 5 月,以色列一高中在复课后 10 天发生大规模新冠疫情。
Euro Surveill. 2020 Jul;25(29). doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.29.2001352.
5
Impact of delays on effectiveness of contact tracing strategies for COVID-19: a modelling study.新冠病毒接触者追踪策略有效性延迟的影响:建模研究。
Lancet Public Health. 2020 Aug;5(8):e452-e459. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30157-2. Epub 2020 Jul 16.
6
Data-driven inference of the reproduction number for COVID-19 before and after interventions for 51 European countries.51 个欧洲国家干预前后 COVID-19 基本再生数的基于数据的推断。
Swiss Med Wkly. 2020 Jul 10;150:w20313. doi: 10.4414/smw.2020.20313. eCollection 2020 Jul 13.
7
Physical distancing interventions and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019: natural experiment in 149 countries.物理隔离干预措施与 2019 年冠状病毒病发病率:149 个国家的自然实验。
BMJ. 2020 Jul 15;370:m2743. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2743.
8
Reopening schools after the COVID-19 lockdown.新冠疫情封锁后学校重新开学。
J Glob Health. 2020 Jun;10(1):010376. doi: 10.7189/jogh.10.010376.
9
COVID-19 in children and adolescents in Europe: a multinational, multicentre cohort study.欧洲儿童和青少年中的 COVID-19:一项多国家、多中心队列研究。
Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020 Sep;4(9):653-661. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30177-2. Epub 2020 Jun 25.
10
Effectiveness of isolation, testing, contact tracing, and physical distancing on reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in different settings: a mathematical modelling study.隔离、检测、接触者追踪和保持社交距离在不同环境下减少 SARS-CoV-2 传播的效果:一项数学建模研究。
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Oct;20(10):1151-1160. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30457-6. Epub 2020 Jun 16.