Skip to main content

Table 3 Sensitivity analysis on the ICER based on variation in intervention efficacy and costs for Beijing Trial 1 (2008/09) and Trial 2 (2009/10)

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

Parameter input value Trial 1   Trial 2 Source
   Continuous All N95 (without fit testing cost)
2014 USD, (RMB)
Continuous All N95 (with fit testing cost)
2014 USD, (RMB)
Continuous N95 fit tested
2014 USD, (RMB)
 
Base case results - 549 (3404) 1224 (7589) 489 (3032) -
Intervention efficacy vs. Medical Mask
 Lowest effectivenessa 14% (Trial 1)
39% (Trial 2)
2473 (15333) 5462 (33864) 1038 (6436) [14]
[15]
 Highest effectivenessa 83% (Trial 1)
79% (Trial 2)
407 (2523) 911 (5648) 376 (2331) [14]
[15]
Alternative costs
 Max treatment costs $525b (3255 RMB) 30 (186) 704 (4365) Cost savingb [22]
 Min treatment costs $0 (0 RMB) 555 (3441) 1230 (7626) 492 (3050) Assumption
 N95 purchase cost doubled $1.58 (8 RMB) 1313 (8141) 1988 (12326) 825 (5115) Assumption
 N95 purchase cost halved $0.40
(2 RMB)
167 (1035) 842 (5220) 321 (1984) Assumption
  1. aHigh and low efficacy estimates calculated from the confidence intervals generated for the clustering and confounder adjusted results from Trial 1 and 2 respectively
  2. bThis severe illness treatment cost for each CRI case [22] is unlikely except in a highly pathogenic influenza epidemic/pandemic where an average case requires substantial healthcare treatment