Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy of respiratory personal protective equipment against viral respiratory infectious diseases in healthcare workers: a network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

With the epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the healthcare workers (HCWs) require proper respiratory personal protective equipment (rPPE) against viral respiratory infectious diseases (VRIDs). It is necessary to evaluate which type of mask and manner of wearing is the best suitable rPPE for preventing the VRID.

Study design

A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to comprehensively analyze the protective efficacy of various rPPE.

Methods

This network meta-analysis protocol was registered in an international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020179489). Electronic databases were searched for cluster randomized control trials (RCTs) of comparing the effectiveness of rPPE and wearing manner in preventing HCWs from VRID. The primary outcome was the incidence of laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infection reported as an odds ratio (OR) with the associated 95% credibility interval (CrI). The secondary outcome was the incidence of clinical respiratory illness (CRI) reported as an OR with the associated 95% CrI. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve analysis (SUCRA) provided a ranking of each rPPE according to the primary outcome and the secondary outcome as data supplement.

Results

Six studies encompassing 12,265 HCWs were included. In terms of the incidence of laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infection, the continuous wearing of N95 respirators (network OR, 0.48; 95% CrI: 0.27 to 0.86; SUCRA score, 85.4) showed more effective than the control group. However, in terms of reducing the incidence of CRI, there was no rPPE showing superior protective effectiveness.

Conclusions

There are significant differences in preventive efficacy among current rPPE. Our result suggests that continuous wearing of N95 respirators on the whole shift can serve as the best preventive rPPE for HCWs from the VRID.

SUBMITTER: Yin X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7755580 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) use personal protective equipment (PPE) in Ebola virus disease (EVD) situations. However, preventing the contamination of HCWs and the environment during PPE removal crucially requires improved strategies. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of three PPE ensembles, namely, Hospital Authority (HA) Standard Ebola PPE set (PPE1), Dupont Tyvek Model, style 1422A (PPE2), and HA isolation gown for routine patient care and performing aerosol-generating procedures (PPE3) to prevent EVD transmission by measuring the degree of contamination of HCWs and the environment.MethodsA total of 59 participants randomly performed PPE donning and doffing. The trial consisted of PPE donning, applying fluorescent solution on the PPE surface, PPE doffing of participants, and estimation of the degree of contamination as indicated by the number of fluorescent stains on the working clothes and environment. Protocol deviations during PPE donning and doffing were monitored.ResultsPPE2 and PPE3 presented higher contamination risks than PPE1. Environmental contaminations such as those originating from rubbish bin covers, chairs, faucets, and sinks were detected. Procedure deviations were observed during PPE donning and doffing, with PPE1 presenting the lowest overall deviation rate (%) among the three PPE ensembles (p < 0.05).ConclusionContamination of the subjects' working clothes and surrounding environment occurred frequently during PPE doffing. Procedure deviations were observed during PPE donning and doffing. Although PPE1 presented a lower contamination risk than PPE2 and PPE3 during doffing and protocol deviations, the design of PPE1 can still be further improved. Future directions should focus on designing a high-coverage-area PPE with simple ergonomic features and on evaluating the doffing procedure to minimise the risk of recontamination. Regular training for users should be emphasised to minimise protocol deviations, and in turn, guarantee the best protection to HCWs.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether hydroxychloroquine when used with personal protective equipment reduces the proportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among healthcare workers in comparison to the use of personal protective equipment alone.DesignMulticentre, parallel-group, open-label randomised trial. Enrolment started on 29 June 2020 and stopped on 4 February 2021. Participants randomised in HydrOxychloroquine Prophylaxis Evaluation were followed for 6 months.Setting9 hospitals across India.ParticipantsHealthcare workers in an environment with exposure to COVID-19 were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to hydroxychloroquine plus use of personal protective equipment or personal protective equipment alone. 886 participants were screened and 416 randomised (213 hydroxychloroquine arm and 203 personal protective equipment).InterventionParticipants in intervention arm received 800 mg of hydroxychloroquine on day of randomisation and then 400 mg once a week for 12 weeks in addition to the use of personal protective equipment. In the control arm, participants continued to use personal protective equipment alone.Main outcomeProportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in the 6 months after randomisation.ResultsParticipants were young (mean age 32.1 years, SD 9.1 years) with low-comorbid burden. 47.4% were female. In the 6 months after randomisation (primary analysis population=413), 11 participants assigned to the hydroxychloroquine group and 12 participants assigned to the standard practice group met the primary endpoint (5.2% vs 5.9%; OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.07, p=0.72). There was no heterogeneity of treatment effect in any prespecified subgroup. There were no significant differences in the secondary outcomes. The adverse event rates were 9.9% and 6.9% in the hydroxychloroquine and standard practice arms, respectively. There were no serious adverse events in either group.Conclusions and relevanceHydroxychloroquine along with personal protective equipment was not superior to personal protective equipment alone on the proportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Definitive conclusions are precluded as the trial stopped early for futility, and hence was underpowered.Trial registration numberCTRI/2020/05/025067.

Project description:BackgroundThe association between inadequate personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic and an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in frontline healthcare workers has been proven. However, frontline healthcare workers with an adequate supply of personal protective equipment still showed an increased risk of contracting COVID-19. Research on the use of personal protective equipment could provide insight into handling present and future pandemics.ObjectivesThis study aims to investigate the impact of the availability, training and correct selection of personal protective equipment on the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or positive suspect cases in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium.DesignThis was a prospective cohort study involving Belgian healthcare workers: nurses, nursing aides, and midwives working in hospitals, home care services, and residential care services.MethodsRespondents were invited from May to July 2020 (period 1) followed by a second time in October 2020 (period 2) to complete a digital survey on personal protective equipment availability, training, personal protective equipment selection, screening ability, COVID-19 testing and status, and symptoms corresponding with the COVID-19 suspect case definition. The main outcome was a composite of COVID-19 status change (from negative to positive) during the study or a positive suspect case definition in period 2.ResultsFull data were available for 617 participants. The majority of respondents were nurses (93%) employed in a hospital (83%). In total, 379 respondents provided frontline care for COVID-19 patients (61%) and were questioned on personal protective equipment availability and personal protective equipment selection. Nurses were more likely to select the correct personal protective equipment compared with nursing aides and midwives. Respondents working in residential care settings were least likely to choose personal protective equipment correctly. Of all healthcare workers, 10% tested positive for COVID-19 during the course of the study and a composite outcome was reached in 54% of all respondents. Working experience and sufficient personal protective equipment training showed an inverse relation with the composite outcome. The relationship between personal protective equipment availability and the composite outcome was fully mediated by personal protective equipment training (-0.105 [95% confidence interval -0.211 - -0.020]).ConclusionsProper training in personal protective equipment usage is critical to reduce the risk of COVID infection in healthcare workers. During a pandemic, rapid dissemination of video guidelines could improve personal protective equipment knowledge in practitioners. Tweetable abstract: Proper training in personal protective equipment usage is critical to reduce the risk of COVID infection in healthcare workers.