Role of modelling in COVID-19 policy development.

Models have played an important role in policy development to address the COVID-19 outbreak from its emergence in China to the current global pandemic. Early projections of international spread influenced travel restrictions and border closures. Model projections based on the virus's infectiousness demonstrated its pandemic potential, which guided the global response to and prepared countries for increases in hospitalisations and deaths. Tracking the impact of distancing and movement policies and behaviour changes has been critical in evaluating these decisions. Models have provided insights into the epidemiological differences between higher and lower income countries, as well as vulnerable population groups within countries to help design fit-for-purpose policies. Economic evaluation and policies have combined epidemic models and traditional economic models to address the economic consequences of COVID-19, which have informed policy calls for easing restrictions. Social contact and mobility models have allowed evaluation of the pathways to safely relax mobility restrictions and distancing measures. Finally, models can consider future end-game scenarios, including how suppression can be achieved and the impact of different vaccination strategies.

Cost-effectiveness of 3 months of weekly rifapentine and isoniazid compared with other standard treatment regimens for latent tuberculosis infection: a decision analysis study.

Background: Latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is a critical driver of the global burden of active TB, and therefore LTBI treatment is key for TB elimination. Treatment regimens for LTBI include self-administered daily isoniazid for 6 (6H) or 9 (9H) months, self-administered daily rifampicin plus isoniazid for 3 months (3RH), self-administered daily rifampicin for 4 months (4R) and weekly rifapentine plus isoniazid for 3 months self-administered (3HP-SAT) or administered by a healthcare worker as directly observed therapy (3HP-DOT). Data on the relative cost-effectiveness of these regimens are needed to assist policymakers and clinicians in selecting an LTBI regimen. Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of all regimens for treating LTBI. Methods: We developed a Markov model to investigate the cost-effectiveness of 3HP-DOT, 3HP-SAT, 4R, 3RH, 9H and 6H for LTBI treatment in a cohort of 10000 adults with LTBI. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from a health system perspective over a 20 year time horizon. Results: Compared with no preventive treatment, 3HP-DOT, 3HP-SAT, 4R, 3RH, 9H and 6H prevented 496, 470, 442, 418, 370 and 276 additional cases of active TB per 10000 patients, respectively. All regimens reduced costs and increased QALYs compared with no preventive treatment. 3HP was more cost-effective under DOT than under SAT at a cost of US$27948 per QALY gained. Conclusions: Three months of weekly rifapentine plus isoniazid is more cost-effective than other regimens. Greater recognition of the benefits of short-course regimens can contribute to the scale-up of prevention and achieving the 'End TB' targets.