Institute of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Gansu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
BMC Public Health. 2023 Jul 18;23(1):1381. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-16318-y.
From January 2020 to December 2022, China implemented "First-level-response", "Normalized-control" and "Dynamic-COVID-zero" to block the COVID-19 epidemic; however, the immediate and long-term impact of three strategies on other infectious diseases and the difference in their impact is currently unknown. We aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) on infectious diseases in China.
We collected data on the monthly case count of infectious diseases in China from January 2015 to July 2022. After considering long-term trends using the Cox-Stuart test, we performed the two ratio Z tests to preliminary analyze the impact of three strategies on infectious diseases. Next, we used a multistage interrupted-time-series analysis fitted by the Poisson regression to evaluate and compare the immediate and long-term impact of three strategies on infectious diseases in China.
Compared to before COVID-19, the incidence of almost all infectious diseases decreased immediately at stages 1, 2, and 3; meanwhile, the slope in the incidence of many infectious diseases also decreased at the three stages. However, the slope in the incidence of all sexually transmitted diseases increased at stage 1, the slope in the incidence of all gastrointestinal infectious diseases increased at stage 2, and the slope in the incidence of some diseases such as pertussis, influenza, and brucellosis increased at stage 3. The immediate and long-term limiting effects of "Normalized-control" on respiratory-transmitted diseases were weaker than "First-level-response" and the long-term limiting effects of "Dynamic-COVID-zero" on pertussis, influenza, and hydatid disease were weaker than "Normalized-control".
Three COVID-19 control strategies in China have immediate and long-term limiting effects on many infectious diseases, but there are differences in their limiting effects. Evidence from this study shows that pertussis, influenza, brucellosis, and hydatid disease began to recover at stage 3, and relaxation of NPIs may lead to the resurgence of respiratory-transmitted diseases and vector-borne diseases.
从 2020 年 1 月至 2022 年 12 月,中国实施了“一级响应”、“常态化防控”和“动态清零”来阻断新冠肺炎疫情;然而,三种策略对其他传染病的即时和长期影响以及它们影响的差异目前尚不清楚。我们旨在提供对中国非药物干预(NPIs)对传染病影响的更全面了解。
我们从 2015 年 1 月至 2022 年 7 月期间收集了中国每月传染病病例数的数据。在使用 Cox-Stuart 检验考虑长期趋势后,我们进行了两比率 Z 检验,初步分析了三种策略对传染病的影响。接下来,我们使用泊松回归拟合的多阶段中断时间序列分析来评估和比较三种策略对中国传染病的即时和长期影响。
与新冠肺炎之前相比,几乎所有传染病的发病率在第 1、2 和 3 阶段都立即下降;同时,许多传染病的发病率斜率也在这三个阶段下降。然而,所有性传播疾病的发病率斜率在第 1 阶段上升,所有胃肠道传染病的发病率斜率在第 2 阶段上升,而百日咳、流感和布鲁氏菌病等一些疾病的发病率斜率在第 3 阶段上升。“常态化防控”对呼吸道传染病的即时和长期限制作用弱于“一级响应”,“动态清零”对百日咳、流感和包虫病的长期限制作用弱于“常态化防控”。
中国的三种新冠肺炎控制策略对许多传染病都有即时和长期的限制作用,但限制作用存在差异。本研究的证据表明,百日咳、流感、布鲁氏菌病和包虫病在第 3 阶段开始恢复,非药物干预措施的放松可能导致呼吸道传染病和虫媒传染病的再次爆发。