Effectiveness of Personal Protective Equipment for Healthcare Workers Caring for Patients with Filovirus Disease: A Rapid Review

BACKGROUND: A rapid review, guided by a protocol, was conducted to inform development of the World Health Organization’s guideline on personal protective equipment in the context of the ongoing (2013-present) Western African filovirus disease outbreak, with a focus on health care workers directly caring for patients with Ebola or Marburg virus diseases. METHODS: Electronic databases and grey literature sources were searched. Eligibility criteria initially included comparative studies on Ebola and Marburg virus diseases reported in English or French, but criteria were expanded to studies on other viral hemorrhagic fevers and non-comparative designs due to the paucity of studies. After title and abstract screening (two people to exclude), full-text reports of potentially relevant articles were assessed in duplicate. Fifty-seven percent of extraction information was verified. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to inform the quality of evidence assessments. RESULTS: Thirty non-comparative studies (8 related to Ebola virus disease) were located, and 27 provided data on viral transmission. Reporting of personal protective equipment components and infection prevention and control protocols was generally poor. CONCLUSIONS: Insufficient evidence exists to draw conclusions regarding the comparative effectiveness of various types of personal protective equipment. Additional research is urgently needed to determine optimal PPE for health care workers caring for patients with filovirus

Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Preparedness Strategies and Interventions against Influenza Pandemics

BACKGROUND: Although public health guidelines have implications for resource allocation, these issues were not explicitly considered in previous WHO pandemic preparedness and response guidance. In order to ensure a thorough and informed revision of this guidance following the H1N1 2009 pandemic, a systematic review of published and unpublished economic evaluations of preparedness strategies and interventions against influenza pandemics was conducted. METHODS: The search was performed in September 2011 using 10 electronic databases, 2 internet search engines, reference list screening, cited reference searching, and direct communication with relevant authors. Full and partial economic evaluations considering both costs and outcomes were included. Conversely, reviews, editorials, and studies on economic impact or complications were excluded. Studies were selected by 2 independent reviewers. RESULTS: 44 studies were included. Although most complied with the cost effectiveness guidelines, the quality of evidence was limited. However, the data sources used were of higher quality in economic evaluations conducted after the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Vaccination and drug regimens were varied. Pharmaceutical plus non-pharmaceutical interventions are relatively cost effective in comparison to vaccines and/or antivirals alone. Pharmaceutical interventions vary from cost saving to high cost effectiveness ratios. According to ceiling thresholds (Gross National Income per capita), the reduction of non-essential contacts and the use of pharmaceutical prophylaxis plus the closure of schools are amongst the cost effective strategies for all countries. However, quarantine for household contacts is not cost effective even for low and middle income countries. CONCLUSION: The available evidence is generally inconclusive regarding the cost effectiveness of preparedness strategies and interventions against influenza pandemics. Studies on their effectiveness and cost effectiveness should be readily implemented in forthcoming events that also involve the developing world. Guidelines for assessing the impact of disease and interventions should be drawn up to facilitate these studies

Flow of study selection.

<p>* Records duplicated inside an individual database or internet search results list.</p

Inclusion and exclusion criteria employed in the abstract selection process.

<p>Inclusion and exclusion criteria employed in the abstract selection process.</p

Study setting by year of study and year of publication.

<p>Study setting by year of study and year of publication.</p

Extent to which the studies included met recommendations for reporting of economic evaluations.⁶

<p>*Number of studies in which the recommendation is applicable.</p><p><b>ICER</b> = Incremental cost effectiveness ratio.</p