Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content
CDC Home

Volume 11, Number 2—February 2005


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
Home isolation 2.13 0
Influenza testing 2.14 5,286 Dominated
Multiplex RT-PCR testing‡
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 of Page The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention   1600 Clifton Rd. Atlanta, GA 30333, USA
800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) TTY: (888) 232-6348 - Contact CDC–INFO