Introduction: Early during the COVID-19 outbreak, various approaches were utilized to prevent COVID-19 introductions from incoming airport travellers. However, the costs and effectiveness of airport-specific interventions have not been evaluated.
Methods: We evaluated policy options for COVID-19-specific interventions at Entebbe International Airport for costs and impact on COVID-19 case counts, we took the government payer perspective. Policy options included; (1)no screening, testing, or mandatory quarantine for any incoming traveller; (2)mandatory symptom screening for all incoming travellers with RT-PCR testing only for the symptomatic and isolation of positives; and (3)mandatory 14-day quarantine and one-time testing for all, with 10-day isolation of persons testing positive. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in US$ per additional case averted.
Results: Expected costs per incoming traveller were $0 (Option 1), $19 (Option 2), and $766 (Option 3). ICERs per case averted were $257 for Option 2 (which averted 4,948 cases), and $10,139 for Option 3 (which averted 5,097 cases) compared with Option I. Two-week costs were $0 for Option 1, $1,271,431 Option 2, and $51,684,999 Option 3. The per-case ICER decreased with increase in prevalence. The cost-effectiveness of our interventions was modestly sensitive to the prevalence of COVID-19, diagnostic test sensitivity, and testing costs.
Conclusion: Screening all incoming travellers, testing symptomatic persons, and isolating positives (Option 2) was the most cost-effective option. A higher COVID-19 prevalence among incoming travellers increased cost-effectiveness of airport-specific interventions. This model could be used to evaluate prevention options at the airport for COVID-19 and other infectious diseases with similar requirements for control.
Keywords: COVID-19; Cases averted; Cost-effectiveness; Pandemic; Policy; Screening.
© 2024. The Author(s).