Efficacy of FFP3 respirators for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers.

Background: Respiratory protective equipment recommended in the UK for healthcare workers (HCWs) caring for patients with COVID-19 comprises a fluid-resistant surgical mask (FRSM), except in the context of aerosol generating procedures (AGPs). We previously demonstrated frequent pauci- and asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection HCWs during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK, using a comprehensive PCR-based HCW screening programme (Rivett et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2020). Methods: Here, we use observational data and mathematical modelling to analyse infection rates amongst HCWs working on 'red' (coronavirus disease 2019, COVID-19) and 'green' (non-COVID-19) wards during the second wave of the pandemic, before and after the substitution of filtering face piece 3 (FFP3) respirators for FRSMs. Results: Whilst using FRSMs, HCWs working on red wards faced an approximately 31-fold (and at least fivefold) increased risk of direct, ward-based infection. Conversely, after changing to FFP3 respirators, this risk was significantly reduced (52-100% protection). Conclusions: FFP3 respirators may therefore provide more effective protection than FRSMs for HCWs caring for patients with COVID-19, whether or not AGPs are undertaken. Funding: Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, Addenbrooke's Charitable Trust, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, NHS Blood and Transfusion, UKRI.

Screening of healthcare workers for tuberculosis: development and validation of a new health economic model to inform practice.

BACKGROUND: Methods for determining cost-effectiveness of different treatments are well established, unlike appraisal of non-drug interventions, including novel diagnostics and biomarkers. OBJECTIVE: The authors develop and validate a new health economic model by comparing cost-effectiveness of tuberculin skin test (TST); blood test, interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA) and TST followed by IGRA in conditional sequence, in screening healthcare workers for latent or active tuberculosis (TB). DESIGN: The authors focus on healthy life years gained as the benefit metric, rather than quality-adjusted life years given limited data to estimate quality adjustments of life years with TB and complications of treatment, like hepatitis. Healthy life years gained refer to the number of TB or hepatitis cases avoided and the increase in life expectancy. The authors incorporate disease and test parameters informed by systematic meta-analyses and clinical practice. Health and economic outcomes of each strategy are modelled as a decision tree in Markov chains, representing different health states informed by epidemiology. Cost and effectiveness values are generated as the individual is cycled through 20 years of the model. Key parameters undergo one-way and Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses. SETTING: Screening healthcare workers in secondary and tertiary care. RESULTS: IGRA is the most effective strategy, with incremental costs per healthy life year gained of £10 614-£20 929, base case, £8021-£18 348, market costs TST £45, IGRA £90, IGRA specificities of 99%-97%; mean (5%, 95%), £12 060 (£4137-£38 418) by Monte Carlo analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Incremental costs per healthy life year gained, a conservative estimate of benefit, are comparable to the £20 000-£30 000 NICE band for IGRA alone, across wide differences in disease and test parameters. Health gains justify IGRA costs, even if IGRA tests cost three times TST. This health economic model offers a powerful tool for appraising non-drug interventions in the market and under development.