Dataset Information

Transocular entry of seasonal influenza-attenuated virus aerosols and the efficacy of n95 respirators, surgical masks, and eye protection in humans.

ABSTRACT: The efficacy of barrier precautions to prevent influenza transmission is unknown.Twenty-eight participants were exposed to monodispersed live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) particles (4.9 ?m) in 6 groups: group 1, no precautions; group 2, ocular exposure only; group 3, surgical mask without eye protection; group 4, surgical mask with eye protection; group 5, fit-tested N95 respirator without eye protection; and group 6, fit-tested N95 respirator with eye protection. Influenza was detected by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and culture in nasal washes. Exact 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.Influenza was detected in 4 of 4 participants in group 1 (95% CI, 0-.60), 3 of 4 in group 2 (95% CI, .006-.806]), 5 of 5 in group 3 (95% CI, 0-.522), 5 of 5 in group 4, (95% CI, 0-.522), 3 of 5 in group 5 (95% CI, .053-.853), and 1 of 5 in group 6 (95% CI, .05-.72). RT-PCR revealed significant differences between group 1 and all other groups except group 3.Transocular transmission of LAIV occured in most participants suggesting the necessity of eye protection. An N95 respirator provided the best guard further enhanced by eye protection.

SUBMITTER: Bischoff WE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3164472 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Transocular entry of seasonal influenza-attenuated virus aerosols and the efficacy of n95 respirators, surgical masks, and eye protection in humans.

Bischoff Werner E WE Reid Tanya T Russell Gregory B GB Peters Timothy R TR

The Journal of infectious diseases 20110701 2

<h4>Background</h4>The efficacy of barrier precautions to prevent influenza transmission is unknown.<h4>Methods</h4>Twenty-eight participants were exposed to monodispersed live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) particles (4.9 μm) in 6 groups: group 1, no precautions; group 2, ocular exposure only; group 3, surgical mask without eye protection; group 4, surgical mask with eye protection; group 5, fit-tested N95 respirator without eye protection; and group 6, fit-tested N95 respirator with eye p ...[more]

PMID: 21673029

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceClinical studies have been inconclusive about the effectiveness of N95 respirators and medical masks in preventing health care personnel (HCP) from acquiring workplace viral respiratory infections.ObjectiveTo compare the effect of N95 respirators vs medical masks for prevention of influenza and other viral respiratory infections among HCP.Design, setting, and participantsA cluster randomized pragmatic effectiveness study conducted at 137 outpatient study sites at 7 US medical centers between September 2011 and May 2015, with final follow-up in June 2016. Each year for 4 years, during the 12-week period of peak viral respiratory illness, pairs of outpatient sites (clusters) within each center were matched and randomly assigned to the N95 respirator or medical mask groups.InterventionsOverall, 1993 participants in 189 clusters were randomly assigned to wear N95 respirators (2512 HCP-seasons of observation) and 2058 in 191 clusters were randomly assigned to wear medical masks (2668 HCP-seasons) when near patients with respiratory illness.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza. Secondary outcomes included incidence of acute respiratory illness, laboratory-detected respiratory infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory illness, and influenzalike illness. Adherence to interventions was assessed.ResultsAmong 2862 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 43 [11.5] years; 2369 [82.8%]) women), 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCP-seasons. There were 207 laboratory-confirmed influenza infection events (8.2% of HCP-seasons) in the N95 respirator group and 193 (7.2% of HCP-seasons) in the medical mask group (difference, 1.0%, [95% CI, -0.5% to 2.5%]; P = .18) (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.18 [95% CI, 0.95-1.45]). There were 1556 acute respiratory illness events in the respirator group vs 1711 in the mask group (difference, -21.9 per 1000 HCP-seasons [95% CI, -48.2 to 4.4]; P = .10); 679 laboratory-detected respiratory infections in the respirator group vs 745 in the mask group (difference, -8.9 per 1000 HCP-seasons, [95% CI, -33.3 to 15.4]; P = .47); 371 laboratory-confirmed respiratory illness events in the respirator group vs 417 in the mask group (difference, -8.6 per 1000 HCP-seasons [95% CI, -28.2 to 10.9]; P = .39); and 128 influenzalike illness events in the respirator group vs 166 in the mask group (difference, -11.3 per 1000 HCP-seasons [95% CI, -23.8 to 1.3]; P = .08). In the respirator group, 89.4% of participants reported "always" or "sometimes" wearing their assigned devices vs 90.2% in the mask group.Conclusions and relevanceAmong outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01249625.

Project description:BackgroundIt is uncertain if medical masks offer similar protection against COVID-19 compared with N95 respirators.ObjectiveTo determine whether medical masks are noninferior to N95 respirators to prevent COVID-19 in health care workers providing routine care.DesignMulticenter, randomized, noninferiority trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04296643).Setting29 health care facilities in Canada, Israel, Pakistan, and Egypt from 4 May 2020 to 29 March 2022.Participants1009 health care workers who provided direct care to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.InterventionUse of medical masks versus fit-tested N95 respirators for 10 weeks, plus universal masking, which was the policy implemented at each site.MeasurementsThe primary outcome was confirmed COVID-19 on reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test.ResultsIn the intention-to-treat analysis, RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 52 of 497 (10.46%) participants in the medical mask group versus 47 of 507 (9.27%) in the N95 respirator group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.69]). An unplanned subgroup analysis by country found that in the medical mask group versus the N95 respirator group RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 8 of 131 (6.11%) versus 3 of 135 (2.22%) in Canada (HR, 2.83 [CI, 0.75 to 10.72]), 6 of 17 (35.29%) versus 4 of 17 (23.53%) in Israel (HR, 1.54 [CI, 0.43 to 5.49]), 3 of 92 (3.26%) versus 2 of 94 (2.13%) in Pakistan (HR, 1.50 [CI, 0.25 to 8.98]), and 35 of 257 (13.62%) versus 38 of 261 (14.56%) in Egypt (HR, 0.95 [CI, 0.60 to 1.50]). There were 47 (10.8%) adverse events related to the intervention reported in the medical mask group and 59 (13.6%) in the N95 respirator group.LimitationPotential acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 through household and community exposure, heterogeneity between countries, uncertainty in the estimates of effect, differences in self-reported adherence, differences in baseline antibodies, and between-country differences in circulating variants and vaccination.ConclusionAmong health care workers who provided routine care to patients with COVID-19, the overall estimates rule out a doubling in hazard of RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 for medical masks when compared with HRs of RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 for N95 respirators. The subgroup results varied by country, and the overall estimates may not be applicable to individual countries because of treatment effect heterogeneity.Primary funding sourceCanadian Institutes of Health Research, World Health Organization, and Juravinski Research Institute.

Dataset Information

Transocular entry of seasonal influenza-attenuated virus aerosols and the efficacy of n95 respirators, surgical masks, and eye protection in humans.

Publications

Transocular entry of seasonal influenza-attenuated virus aerosols and the efficacy of n95 respirators, surgical masks, and eye protection in humans.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets