Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of surgical mask, N-95 respirator, hand-hygiene and surgical mask with hand hygiene in the prevention of COVID-19: Cost effectiveness analysis from Indian context.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

In the absence of specific treatment, preventive strategies are of paramount importance in management of coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19) pandemic. We estimated cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions such as hand-hygiene, surgical-mask N-95 respirators and surgical mask in general population.

Methods

We performed a decision tree and markov-model based economic evaluation. We estimated total costs and outcomes from public payer's perspective, based on information available through systematic literature search on relative intervention effect during early pandemic phase. We estimated outcomes as number COVID-19 prevented and Quality Adjusted life year (QALY) over one-year time-horizon with one-day cycle-length. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) was calculated multiple sensitivity analyses were applied to assess parameter uncertainty.

Results

Use of surgical mask with hand hygiene, fit tested N-95 respirator, surgical-mask, non-fit tested N-95 and hand-hygiene interventions prevented additional 1139, 1124, 1121, 1043 and 975 COVID-19 cases per-million as compared to using none. Additional costs incurred (in billion) were ₹29.78 ($0.40), ₹148.09 ($1.99), ₹72.51 ($0.98), ₹26.84 ($0.36) and ₹2.48 ($0.03) as well as additional QALYs gained were 357.4, 353.01, 327.95, 351.52 and 307.04 for surgical mask with hand hygiene, fit-tested N-95, non-fit-tested N-95, surgical mask and hand-hygiene respectively. ICERs with surgical with hand hygiene, hand-hygiene alone, surgical-mask alone, N-95 respirator fit and non-fit test were 83.32($1.12), 8.07($0.11), 76.36($1.03), 419.51($5.65) and 221.10 ($2.98) million ₹ ($)/QALY respectively. Results were robust on uncertainty analysis.

Discussion

Among the non-pharmacological interventions to be considered for preventing spread of COVID-19, hand hygiene was cost-effective and avoidance of use of surgical masks and respirators by the general public could save resources.

SUBMITTER: Bagepally BS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7859732 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAn automated hand-hygiene monitoring system (AHHMS) was implemented in October 2019 at the Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez (HIMFG), a tertiary pediatric referral hospital, in four of the hospital wards with the highest rates of Healthcare Associated Infections (HAIs). The clinical and economic impact of this system had not yet been assessed prior to this study. This study aimed to evaluate if the AHHMS is a cost-effective alternative in reducing HAIs in the HIMFG.MethodologyA full cost-effectiveness economic assessment was carried out for the hospital. The alternatives assessed were AHHMS implementation vis-a-vis AHHMS non-implementation (historical tendency). The outcomes of interest were infection rate per 1,000 patient-days and cost savings as a result of prevented infections. Infection rate data per 1,000 patient-days (PD) were obtained from the hospital's Department of Epidemiology with respect to the AHHMS. As regards historical tendency, an infection-rate model was designed for the most recent 6-year period. Infection costs were obtained from a review of available literature on the subject, and the cost of the implemented AHHMS was provided by the hospital. The assessment period was 6 months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated. Costs are reported in US Dollars (2021). Univariate sensitivity and threshold analysis for different parameters was conducted.ResultsThe total estimated cost of the AHHMS alternative represented potential savings of $308,927-$546,795 US Dollars compared to non-implementation of the system (US$464,102 v. US$773,029-$1,010,898) for the period. AHHMS effectiveness was reflected in a diminished number of infections, 46-79 (-43.4-56.7%) compared to non-implementation (60 v. 106-139 infections).ConclusionThe AHHMS was found to be a cost-saving alternative for the HIMFG given its cost-effectiveness and lower cost vis-a-vis the alternate option. Accordingly, the recommendation was made of extending its use to other areas in the hospital.

Project description:During the current COVID-19 pandemic, the use of face masks has become increasingly recommended and even mandatory in community settings. To evaluate the risk of bacterial cross-contamination, this study analyzed the bacterial bioburden of disposable surgical masks and homemade cotton masks, and surveyed the habits and face mask preferences of the Flemish population. Using culture approaches and 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing, we analyzed the microbial community on surgical and/or cotton face masks of 13 healthy volunteers after 4 h of wearing. Cotton and surgical masks contained on average 1.46 × 105 CFU/mask and 1.32 × 104 CFU/mask, respectively. Bacillus, Staphylococcus, and Acinetobacter spp. were mostly cultured from the masks and 43% of these isolates were resistant to ampicillin or erythromycin. Microbial profiling demonstrated a consistent difference between mask types. Cotton masks mainly contained Roseomonas, Paracoccus, and Enhydrobacter taxa and surgical masks Streptococcus and Staphylococcus. After 4 h of mask wearing, the microbiome of the anterior nares and the cheek showed a trend toward an altered beta-diversity. According to dedicated questions in the large-scale Corona survey of the University of Antwerp with almost 25,000 participants, only 21% of responders reported to clean their cotton face mask daily. Laboratory results indicated that the best mask cleaning methods were boiling at 100°C, washing at 60°C with detergent or ironing with a steam iron. Taken together, this study suggests that a considerable number of bacteria, including pathobionts and antibiotic resistant bacteria, accumulate on surgical and even more on cotton face masks after use. Based on our results, face masks should be properly disposed of or sterilized after intensive use. Clear guidelines for the general population are crucial to reduce the bacteria-related biosafety risk of face masks, and measures such as physical distancing and increased ventilation should not be neglected when promoting face mask use.

Project description:BackgroundThe objective is to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of the Australian National Hand Hygiene Inititiave implemented between 2009 and 2012 using healthcare associated Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia as the outcome. Baseline comparators are the eight existing state and territory hand hygiene programmes. The setting is the Australian public healthcare system and 1,294,656 admissions from the 50 largest Australian hospitals are included.MethodsThe design is a cost-effectiveness modelling study using a before and after quasi-experimental design. The primary outcome is cost per life year saved from reduced cases of healthcare associated Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia, with cost estimated by the annual on-going maintenance costs less the costs saved from fewer infections. Data were harvested from existing sources or were collected prospectively and the time horizon for the model was 12 months, 2011-2012.FindingsNo useable pre-implementation Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia data were made available from the 11 study hospitals in Victoria or the single hospital in Northern Territory leaving 38 hospitals among six states and territories available for cost-effectiveness analyses. Total annual costs increased by $2,851,475 for a return of 96 years of life giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $29,700 per life year gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a 100% chance the initiative was cost effective in the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland, with ICERs of $1,030 and $8,988 respectively. There was an 81% chance it was cost effective in New South Wales with an ICER of $33,353, a 26% chance for South Australia with an ICER of $64,729 and a 1% chance for Tasmania and Western Australia. The 12 hospitals in Victoria and the Northern Territory incur annual on-going maintenance costs of $1.51M; no information was available to describe cost savings or health benefits.ConclusionsThe Australian National Hand Hygiene Initiative was cost-effective against an Australian threshold of $42,000 per life year gained. The return on investment varied among the states and territories of Australia.