Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.
School of Medicine, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macau.
J Infect Public Health. 2022 May;15(5):499-507. doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2022.03.011. Epub 2022 Mar 24.
Critical questions remain regarding the need for intensity to continue NPIs as the public was vaccinated. We evaluated the association of intensity and duration of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and vaccines with COVID-19 infection, death, and excess mortality in Europe.
Data comes from Our Word in Data. We included 22 European countries from January 20, 2020, to May 30, 2021. The time-varying constrained distribution lag model was used in each country to estimate the impact of different intensities and duration of NPIs on COVID-19 control, considering vaccination coverage. Country-specific effects were pooled through meta-analysis.
This study found that high-intensity and long-duration of NPIs showed a positive main effect on reducing infection in the absence of vaccines, especially in the intensity above the 80th percentile and lasted for 7 days (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89-0.98). However, the adverse effect on excess mortality also increased with the duration and intensity. Specifically, it was associated with an increase of 44.16% (RR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.27-1.64) in the excess mortality under the strict intervention (the intensity above the 80th percentile and lasted for 21 days). As the vaccine rollouts, the inhibition of the strict intervention on cases growth rate was increased (RR dropped from 0.95 to 0.87). Simultaneously, vaccination also alleviated the negative impact of the strict intervention on excess mortality (RR decreased from 1.44 to 1.25). Besides, maintaining the strict intervention appeared to more reduce the cases, as well as avoids more overall burden of death compared with weak intervention.
Our study highlights the importance of continued high-intensity NPIs in low vaccine coverage. Lifting of NPIs in insufficient vaccination coverage may cause increased infections and death burden. Policymakers should coordinate the intensity and duration of NPIs and allocate medical resources reasonably with widespread vaccination.
随着公众接种疫苗,关于是否需要继续强化非药物干预(NPI)以控制新冠疫情,仍存在一些关键问题。本研究评估了 NPI 的强度和持续时间以及疫苗接种对欧洲新冠感染、死亡和超额死亡的影响。
数据来自 Our Word in Data。我们纳入了 2020 年 1 月 20 日至 2021 年 5 月 30 日期间的 22 个欧洲国家。在每个国家中,我们都使用时变约束分布滞后模型来评估不同强度和持续时间的 NPI 对 COVID-19 控制的影响,同时考虑疫苗接种覆盖率。通过荟萃分析汇总了各国的特定影响。
本研究发现,在没有疫苗的情况下,高强度和长时间的 NPI 对减少感染具有积极的主要作用,尤其是在强度超过第 80 个百分位数且持续 7 天的情况下(RR=0.93,95%CI:0.89-0.98)。然而,NPI 的持续时间和强度的增加也会导致超额死亡的不利影响增加。具体而言,在严格干预(强度超过第 80 个百分位数且持续 21 天)下,超额死亡率增加了 44.16%(RR=1.44,95%CI:1.27-1.64)。随着疫苗的推出,严格干预对病例增长率的抑制作用增强(RR 从 0.95 降至 0.87)。同时,疫苗接种也减轻了严格干预对超额死亡的负面影响(RR 从 1.44 降至 1.25)。此外,与弱干预相比,维持严格干预似乎可以进一步减少病例,并避免整体死亡负担的增加。
本研究强调了在疫苗接种率较低的情况下继续强化 NPI 的重要性。在疫苗接种不足的情况下取消 NPI 可能会导致感染和死亡负担增加。决策者应在广泛接种疫苗的同时,合理协调 NPI 的强度和持续时间,并分配医疗资源。