Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Covid-19 pandemic led to threatening shortages in healthcare of medical products such as face masks. Due to this major impact on our healthcare society an initiative was conducted between March and July 2020 for reprocessing of face masks from 19 different hospitals. This exceptional opportunity was used to study the costs impact and the carbon footprint of reprocessed face masks relative to new disposable face masks. The aim of this study is to conduct a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to assess and compare the climate change impact of disposed versus reprocessed face masks. In total 18.166 high quality medical FFP2 face masks were reprocessed through steam sterilization between March and July 2020. Greenhouse gas emissions during production, transport, sterilization and end-of-life processes were assessed. The background life cycle inventory data were retrieved from the ecoinvent database. The life cycle impact assessment method ReCiPe was used to translate emissions into climate change impact. The cost analysis is based on actual sterilization as well as associated costs compared to the prices of new disposable face masks. A Monte Carlo sampling was used to propagate the uncertainty of different inputs to the LCA results. The carbon footprint appears to be 58% lower for face masks which were reused for five times compared to new face masks which were used for one time only. The sensitivity analysis indicated that the loading capacity of the autoclave and rejection rate of face masks has a large influence on the carbon footprint. The estimated cost price of a reprocessed mask was €1.40 against €1.55. The Life Cycle Assessment demonstrates that reprocessed FFP2 face masks from a circular economy perspective have a lower climate change impact on the carbon footprint than new face masks. For policymakers it is important to realize that the carbon footprint of medical products such as face masks may be reduced by means of circular economy strategies. This study demonstrated a lower climate change impact and lower costs when reprocessing and reusing disposable face masks for five times. Therefore, this study may serve as an inspiration for investigating reprocessing of other medical products that may become scarce. Finally, this study advocates that circular design engineering principles should be taken into account when designing medical devices. This will lead to more sustainable products that have a lower carbon footprint and may be manufactured at lower costs.

Community-based mask wearing has been shown to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. However, few studies have conducted an economic evaluation of mask mandates, specifically in public transportation settings. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of implementing mask mandates for subway passengers in the United States by evaluating its potential to reduce COVID-19 transmission during subway travel. We assessed the health impacts and costs of subway mask mandates compared to mask recommendations based on the number of infections that would occur during subway travel in the U.S. Using a combined box and Wells-Riley infection model, we estimated monthly infections, hospitalizations, and deaths averted under a mask mandate scenario as compared to a mask recommendation scenario. The analysis included costs of implementing mask mandates and COVID-19 treatment from a limited societal perspective. The cost-effectiveness (net cost per averted death) of mandates was estimated for three different periods based on dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants: Alpha, Beta, and Gamma (November 2020 to February 2021); Delta (July to October 2021); and early Omicron (January to March 2022). Compared with mask recommendations only, mask mandates were cost-effective across all periods, with costs per averted death less than a threshold of $11.4 million (ranging from cost-saving to $3 million per averted death). Additionally, mask mandates were more cost-effective during the early Omicron period than the other two periods and were cost saving in January 2022. Our findings showed that mandates remained cost-effective when accounting for uncertainties in input parameters (e.g., even if mandates only resulted in small increases in mask usage by subway ridership). The findings highlight the economic value of mask mandates on subways, particularly during high virus transmissibility periods, during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study may inform stakeholders on mask mandate decisions during future outbreaks of novel viral respiratory diseases.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused severe health and economic impacts globally. Strategies to safely reopen economies, travel and trade are a high priority. Until a reliable vaccine is available, non-pharmaceutical techniques are the only available means of disease control. In this paper, we aim to evaluate the extent to which social distancing (SD) and facemask (FM) use can mitigate the transmission of COVID-19 when restrictions are lifted. We used a microsimulation activity-based model for Sydney Greater Metropolitan Area, to evaluate the power of SD and FM in controlling the pandemic under numerous scenarios. The hypothetical scenarios are designed to picture feasible futures under different assumptions. Assuming that the isolation of infected cases and the quarantining of close contacts are in place, different numerical tests are conducted and a full factorial two-way MANOVA test is used to evaluate the effectiveness of the FM and SD control strategies. The main and interactive effects of the containment strategies are evaluated by the total number of infections, percentage of infections reduction, the time it takes to get the pandemic under control, and the intensity of active cases.

Federal government must improve the infrastructure that supports people’s access to masks and tests, say Deshira D Wallace and colleagues

Nonpharmacological interventions, such as personal protective equipment for example, surgical masks and respirators, and maintenance of hand hygiene along with COVID-19 vaccines have been recommended to reduce viral transmission in the community and health care settings. There is evidence from the literature that surgical and N95 masks may reduce the initial degree of exposure to the virus. A limited research that has studied the cost-effective analysis of surgical masks and N95 masks among health care workers in the prevention of COVID-19 in India. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of N95 and surgical mask compared to wearing no mask in public hospital settings for preventing COVID-19 infection among Health care workers (HCWs) from the health care provider's perspective. A deterministic baseline model, without any mask use, based on Eikenberry et al was used to form the foundation for parameter estimation and to estimate transmission rates among HCWs. Information on mask efficacy, including the overall filtering efficiency of a mask and clinical efficiency, in terms of either inward efficiency(ei) or outward efficiency(e0), was obtained from published literature. Hospitalized HCWs were assumed to be in one of the disease states i.e., mild, moderate, severe, or critical. A total of 10,000 HCWs was considered as representative of the size of a tertiary care institution HCW population. The utility values for the mild, moderate and severe model health states were sourced from the primary data collection on quality-of-life of HCWs COVID-19 survivors. The utility scores for mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 conditions were 0.88, 0.738 and 0.58, respectively. The cost of treatment for mild sickness (6,500 INR per day), moderate sickness (10,000 INR per day), severe (require ICU facility without ventilation, 15,000 INR per day), and critical (require ICU facility with ventilation per day, 18,000 INR) per day as per government and private COVID-19 treatment costs and capping were considered. One way sensitivity analyses were performed to identify the model inputs which had the largest impact on model results. The use of N95 masks compared to using no mask is cost-saving of $1,454,632 (INR 0.106 billion) per 10,000 HCWs in a year. The use of N95 masks compared to using surgical masks is cost-saving of $63,919 (INR 0.005 billion) per 10,000 HCWs in a year. the use of surgical masks compared to using no mask is cost-saving of $1,390,713 (INR 0.102 billion) per 10,000 HCWs in a year. The uncertainty analysis showed that considering fixed transmission rate (1.7), adoption of mask efficiency as 20%, 50% and 80% reduces the cumulative relative mortality to 41%, 79% and 94% respectively. On considering ei = e0 (99%) for N95 and surgical mask with ei = e0 (90%) the cumulative relative mortality was reduced by 97% and the use of N95 masks compared to using surgical masks is cost-saving of $24,361 (INR 0.002 billion) per 10,000 HCWs in a year. Both considered interventions were dominant compared to no mask based on the model estimates. N95 masks were also dominant compared to surgical masks.

Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.

After the comprehensive easing of COVID-19 restrictions in China in December 2022, the emergence of additional virus variants and repeat infections has garnered increased attention, particularly among key populations such as medical staff. Our study aims to evaluate various combinations of vaccination and mask-wearing strategies to identify the optimal strategy for the post-COVID-19 era. A Markov model simulated a cohort of 100 000 Chinese medical staff five years after the complete lifting of epidemic restrictions. The health care system's perspective was adopted, and parameters were sourced from Chinese government-released data and relevant literature. Strategies with varying vaccination coverage (0/25/50/75%) and mask-wearing coverage (0/30/60/90%) were considered. All costs were expressed as USD with a 3% annual discounting rate, and effectiveness was measured via quality-adjusted life year. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate cost-effectiveness uncertainty. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of one-time gross domestic product per capita in China (12 440 USD), the strategy of 90% mask-wearing and 75% vaccination coverage among medical staff was the most cost-effective (501 USD/quality-adjusted life year). This intervention reduced infection and mortality rates by 24.5% and 24.6%, while minimising health care costs with a cost per reversed infection of 1040 USD. Above 30% mask coverage, higher vaccine coverage further increased cost-effectiveness further. On the 16th day after lifting COVID-19 restrictions in the Markov model, there were 19 586 fewer symptomatic cases of first-time COVID-19 infection compared to the status quo (peak infections on that day = 22 293), with a reinfection circle around 197 days. Sensitivity analysis indicated that monthly mask costs is the most sensitive factor influencing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; beyond 6.2 USD/mo, the optimal strategy lost cost-effectiveness. In managing multiple waves of the epidemic, prioritising mask usage over vaccination is recommended for medical staff to achieve optimal cost-effectiveness. Exploring ways to extend vaccine efficacy duration would further enhance protection.

Background: COVID-19 is a global pandemic. The virus spreads through respiratory droplets and close contact. Therefore, the availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare professionals is essential. 3D printing technology could represent a valid option to ameliorate PPE shortages. Methodology: Custom-made face mask were designed on the basis of facial scan and then 3D-printed. The whole protocol is executed with freeware software and only required a 3D printer. Six healthcare workers wore the device weekly thus expressing a judgment regarding quality of work, respiratory and skin comfort. Results: The estimated total cost of a single mask is approximately 5 USD. The virtual design of a complete mask lasted 68 minutes on average. Most healthcare workers rated comfort as very good. Conclusions: Based on the encouraging results obtained, we can confidently confirm that custom-made masks are novel and useful devices that may be used in the fight against COVID-19.

A number of laryngeal masks are available, including both re-usable and single-use masks. Single-use laryngeal masks may decrease the risk of transmitting prion infections. We performed a single-blind randomized trial in 200 spontaneously breathing female patients under general anaesthesia with nitrous oxide, to compare a new single-use laryngeal mask, the SoftSeal ™ (Portex Ltd, U.K.), with a re-usable laryngeal mask, the LMA Classic ™ (Laryngeal Mask Company Ltd., Cyprus). The primary outcome was successful insertion at the first attempt. Size 4 single-use (n=99) or re-usable (n=100) laryngeal masks, inserted by experienced anaesthetists, were equivalent for successful placement at the first attempt (90% versus 91% respectively). The single-use mask was less easy to insert (47% difficult versus 9%, P<0.001). Clinical and anatomical tests of position and function were similar. The cuff pressure of the re-usable mask increased significantly compared with the single-use mask (median +10 cm versus –2 cm H 2 O, P<0.001). Forty per cent of patients allocated the single-use mask and 20% of those allocated the re-usable mask experienced sore throat at 24 hours postoperatively (P<0.05). An estimation of cost per patient use was greater for the re-usable mask. We conclude that the SoftSeal ™ single-use laryngeal mask and the LMA Classic ™ re-usable laryngeal mask airway are of similar clinical utility in terms of successful insertion and airway maintenance. The re-usable laryngeal mask was easier to insert and associated with less postoperative sore throat, but costs were higher.

Background There has been increasing debate surrounding mask and respirator interventions to control respiratory infection transmission in both healthcare and community settings. As decision makers are considering the recommendations they should evaluate how to provide the most efficient protection strategies with minimum costs. The aim of this review is to identify and evaluate the existing economic evaluation literature in this area and to offer advice on how future evaluations on this topic should be conducted. Methods We searched the Scopus database for all literature on economic evaluation of mask or respirator use to control respiratory infection transmission. Reference lists from the identified studies were also manually searched. Seven studies met our inclusion criteria from the initial 806 studies identified by the search strategy and our manual search. Results Five studies considered interventions for seasonal and/or pandemic influenza, with one also considering SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome). The other two studies focussed on tuberculosis transmission control interventions. The settings and methodologies of the studies varied greatly. No low-middle income settings were identified. Only one of the reviewed studies cited clinical evidence to inform their mask/respirator intervention effectiveness parameters. Mask and respirator interventions were generally reported by the study authors to be cost saving or cost-effective when compared to no intervention or other control measures, however the evaluations had important limitations. Conclusions Given the large cost differential between masks and respirators, there is a need for more comprehensive economic evaluations to compare the relative costs and benefits of these interventions in situations and settings where alternative options are potentially applicable. There are at present insufficient well conducted cost-effectiveness studies to inform decision-makers on the value for money of alternative mask/respirator options.