Dataset Information

The efficacy of medical masks and respirators against respiratory infection in healthcare workers.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:We aimed to examine the efficacy of medical masks and respirators in protecting against respiratory infections using pooled data from two homogenous randomised control clinical trials (RCTs). METHODS:The data collected on 3591 subjects in two similar RCTs conducted in Beijing, China, which examined the same infection outcomes, were pooled. Four interventions were compared: (i) continuous N95 respirator use, (ii) targeted N95 respirator use, (iii) medical mask use and (iv) control arm. The outcomes were laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infection, influenza A or B, laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonisation and pathogens grouped by mode of transmission. RESULTS:Rates of all outcomes were consistently lower in the continuous N95 and/or targeted N95 arms. In adjusted analysis, rates of laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonisation (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.51), laboratory-confirmed viral infections (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23-0.91) and droplet-transmitted infections (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.16-0.42) were significantly lower in the continuous N95 arm. Laboratory-confirmed influenza was also lowest in the continuous N95 arm (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.10-1.11), but the difference was not statistically significant. Rates of laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonisation (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33-0.87) and droplet-transmitted infections (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25-0.72) were also lower in the targeted N95 arm, but not in medical mask arm. CONCLUSION:The results suggest that the classification of infections into droplet versus airborne transmission is an oversimplification. Most guidelines recommend masks for infections spread by droplets. N95 respirators, as "airborne precautions," provide superior protection for droplet-transmitted infections. To ensure the occupational health and safety of healthcare worker, the superiority of respirators in preventing respiratory infections should be reflected in infection control guidelines.

SUBMITTER: MacIntyre CR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5705692 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The efficacy of medical masks and respirators against respiratory infection in healthcare workers.

MacIntyre Chandini Raina CR Chughtai Abrar Ahmad AA Rahman Bayzidur B Peng Yang Y Zhang Yi Y Seale Holly H Wang Xiaoli X Wang Quanyi Q

Influenza and other respiratory viruses 20170830 6

<h4>Objective</h4>We aimed to examine the efficacy of medical masks and respirators in protecting against respiratory infections using pooled data from two homogenous randomised control clinical trials (RCTs).<h4>Methods</h4>The data collected on 3591 subjects in two similar RCTs conducted in Beijing, China, which examined the same infection outcomes, were pooled. Four interventions were compared: (i) continuous N95 respirator use, (ii) targeted N95 respirator use, (iii) medical mask use and (iv ...[more]

PMID: 28799710

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks. SETTING:14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam. PARTICIPANTS:1607 hospital HCWs aged ?18?years working full-time in selected high-risk wards. INTERVENTION:Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:Clinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection. RESULTS:The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. CONCLUSIONS:This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12610000887077.

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.

Project description:BackgroundThere is no definite conclusion about comparison of better effectiveness between N95 respirators and medical masks in preventing health-care workers (HCWs) from respiratory infectious diseases, so that conflicting results and recommendations regarding the protective effects may cause difficulties for selection and compliance of respiratory personal protective equipment use for HCWs, especially facing with pandemics of corona virus disease 2019.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv, and Google Scholar from initiation to November 10, 2020 for randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies that reported protective effects of masks or respirators for HCWs against respiratory infectious diseases. We gathered data and pooled differences in protective effects according to different types of masks, pathogens, occupations, concurrent measures, and clinical settings. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO (registration number: 42020173279).ResultsWe identified 4165 articles, reviewed the full text of 66 articles selected by abstracts. Six randomized clinical trials and 26 observational studies were included finally. By 2 separate conventional meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials of common respiratory viruses and observational studies of pandemic H1N1, pooled effects show no significant difference between N95 respirators and medical masks against common respiratory viruses for laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection (risk ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.13, I2 = 0.0%), clinical respiratory illness (risk ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.45-1.09, I2 = 83.7%, P = .002), influenza-like illness (risk ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.54-1.05, I2 = 0.0%), and pandemic H1N1 for laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection (odds ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.49-1.70, I2 = 0.0%, P = .967). But by network meta-analysis, N95 respirators has a significantly stronger protection for HCWs from betacoronaviruses of severe acute respiratory syndrome, middle east respiratory syndrome, and corona virus disease 2019 (odds ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.20-0.94).ConclusionsOur results provide moderate and very-low quality evidence of no significant difference between N95 respirators and medical masks for common respiratory viruses and pandemic H1N1, respectively. And we found low quality evidence that N95 respirators had a stronger protective effectiveness for HCWs against betacoronaviruses causative diseases compared to medical masks. The evidence of comparison between N95 respirators and medical masks for corona virus disease 2019 is open to question and needs further study.

Dataset Information

The efficacy of medical masks and respirators against respiratory infection in healthcare workers.

Publications

The efficacy of medical masks and respirators against respiratory infection in healthcare workers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets