Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Volume 11, Number 2—February 2005

Perspective

Managing Febrile Respiratory Illnesses during Hypothetical SARS Outbreaks

Kamran Khan*Comments to Author , Peter Muennig†, Michael Gardam‡, and Joshua Graff Zivin†
Author affiliations: *St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; †Columbia University, New York, New York, USA; ‡University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Main Article

Table 3

Cost-effectiveness of strategies for managing FRIs of undetermined etiology*

Available public health strategies Monthly total
Incremental cost-effectiveness (cost per QALY gained)
Costs ($ billion)† QALY gained
Home isolation 2.13 0
Influenza testing
2.14
5,286
$1,702
Home isolation 2.13 0
Influenza testing 2.14 5,286 Dominated
Multiplex RT-PCR testing‡
2.05
8,474
Savings
Home isolation 2.13 0
SARS + influenza testing 2.19 5,280 Dominated
Influenza testing 2.14 5,286 Dominated
SARS + multiplex RT-PCR testing‡ 2.14 8,429 Dominated
Multiplex RT-PCR testing‡ 2.05 8,474 Savings

*FRI, febrile respiratory illness; QALY, quality-adjusted life-year; RT-PCR, reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction; –, reference category.
†Shown in 2004 U.S. dollars rounded to the nearest 10 million.
‡Multiplex RT-PCR testing to detect influenza viruses A and B, respiratory syncytial viruses A and B, parainfluenza viruses 1–3, human metapneumovirus, Bordetella pertussis, Chlamydia pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Legionella pneumophila, and L. micdadei.

Main Article

TOP