• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of N95 respirators and medical masks to protect healthcare workers in China from respiratory infections

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Jul 3;17(1):464. doi: 10.1186/s12879-017-2564-9.
[h=1]Cost-effectiveness analysis of N95 respirators and medical masks to protect healthcare workers in China from respiratory infections.[/h] Mukerji S[SUP]1[/SUP], MacIntyre CR[SUP]2,[/SUP][SUP]3[/SUP], Seale H[SUP]2[/SUP], Wang Q[SUP]4[/SUP], Yang P[SUP]4[/SUP], Wang X[SUP]4[/SUP], Newall AT[SUP]2[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]

[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h] There are substantial differences between the costs of medical masks and N95 respirators. Cost-effectiveness analysis is required to assist decision-makers evaluating alternative healthcare worker (HCW) mask/respirator strategies. This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of N95 respirators and medical masks for protecting HCWs in Beijing, China.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] We developed a cost-effectiveness analysis model utilising efficacy and resource use data from two cluster randomised clinical trials assessing various mask/respirator strategies conducted in HCWs in Level 2 and 3 Beijing hospitals for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 influenza seasons. The main outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per clinical respiratory illness (CRI) case prevented. We used a societal perspective which included intervention costs, the healthcare costs of CRI in HCWs and absenteeism costs.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] The incremental cost to prevent a CRI case with continuous use of N95 respirators when compared to medical masks ranged from US $490-$1230 (approx. 3000-7600 RMB). One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the CRI attack rate and intervention effectiveness had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness.
[h=4]CONCLUSIONS:[/h] The determination of cost-effectiveness for mask/respirator strategies will depend on the willingness to pay to prevent a CRI case in a HCW, which will vary between countries. In the case of a highly pathogenic pandemic, respirator use in HCWs would likely be a cost-effective intervention.


[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Cost-effectiveness; Economic evaluation; Healthcare worker; Mask; N95 respirator

PMID: 28673259 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-017-2564-9
Free PMC Article
 
Back
Top Bottom