Dataset Information

Decontaminating N95/FFP2 masks for reuse during the COVID-19 epidemic: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

With the current COVID-19 pandemic, many healthcare facilities have been lacking a steady supply of filtering facepiece respirators. To better address this challenge, the decontamination and reuse of these respirators is a strategy that has been studied by an increasing number of institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature review in PubMed, PubMed Central, Embase, and Google Scholar. Studies were eligible when (electronically or in print) up to 17 June 2020, and published in English, French, German, or Spanish. The primary outcome was reduction of test viruses or test bacteria by log3 for disinfection and log6 for sterilization. Secondary outcome was physical integrity (fit/filtration/degradation) of the respirators after reprocessing. Materials from the grey literature, including an unpublished study were added to the findings.

Findings

Of 938 retrieved studies, 35 studies were included in the analysis with 70 individual tests conducted. 17 methods of decontamination were found, included the use of liquids (detergent, benzalkonium chloride, hypochlorite, or ethanol), gases (hydrogen peroxide, ozone, peracetic acid or ethylene oxide), heat (either moist with or without pressure or dry heat), or ultra violet radiation (UVA and UVGI); either alone or in combination. Ethylene oxide, gaseous hydrogen peroxide (with or without peracetic acid), peracetic acid dry fogging system, microwave-generated moist heat, and steam seem to be the most promising methods on decontamination efficacy, physical integrity and filtration capacity.

Interpretation

A number of methods can be used for N95/FFP2 mask reprocessing in case of shortage, helping to keep healthcare workers and patients safe. However, the selection of disinfection or sterilization methods must take into account local availability and turnover capacity as well as the manufacturer; meaning that some methods work better on specific models from specific manufacturers.

Systematic registration number

CRD42020193309.

SUBMITTER: Peters A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8503730 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is global shortage of Personal Protective Equipment due to COVID-19 pandemic. N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators (N95-FFRs) provide respiratory protection against respiratory pathogens including SARS-CoV-2. There is scant literature on reprocessing methods which can enable reuse of N95-FFRs.AimWe conducted this study to evaluate research done, prior to COVID-19 pandemic, on various decontamination methods for reprocessing of N95-FFRs.MethodsWe searched 5 electronic databases (Pubmed, Google Scholar, Crossref, Ovid, ScienceDirect) and 1 Grey literature database (OpenGrey). We included original studies, published prior to year 2020, which had evaluated any decontamination method on FFRs. Studies had evaluated a reprocessing method against parameters namely physical changes, user acceptability, respirator fit, filter efficiency, microbicidal efficacy and presence of chemical residues post-reprocessing.Findings and conclusionsOverall, we found 7887 records amongst which 17 original research articles were finally included for qualitative analysis. Overall, 21 different types of decontamination or reprocessing methods for N95-FFRs were evaluated. Most commonly evaluated method for reprocessing of FFRs was Ultraviolet (Type-C) irradiation (UVGI) which was evaluated in 13/17 (76%) studies. We found published literature was scant on this topic despite warning signs of pandemic of a respiratory illness over the years. Promising technologies requiring expeditious evaluation are UVGI, Microwave generated steam (MGS) and based on Hydrogen peroxide vapor. Global presence of technologies, which have been given Emergency use authorisation for N95-FFR reprocessing, is extremely limited. Reprocessing of N95-FFRs by MGS should be considered for emergency implementation in resource limited settings to tackle shortage of N95-FFRs.Systematic review identifierPROSPERO, PROSPERO ID: CRD42020189684, (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020189684).

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.