Lewis J Radonovich1, Michael S Simberkoff2,3, Mary T Bessesen4,5, Alexandria C Brown6, Derek A T Cummings7,8, Charlotte A Gaydos9, Jenna G Los9, Amanda E Krosche9,10, Cynthia L Gibert11,12, Geoffrey J Gorse13,14, Ann-Christine Nyquist5,15, Nicholas G Reich6, Maria C Rodriguez-Barradas16,17, Connie Savor Price5,18, Trish M Perl8,19. 1. National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. Veterans Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York. 3. New York University School of Medicine, New York. 4. Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Healthcare System, Denver. 5. University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora. 6. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 7. University of Florida, Gainesville. 8. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 9. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 10. Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York. 11. Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC. 12. George Washington University School of Medical and Health Sciences, Washington, DC. 13. Veterans Affairs St Louis Healthcare System, St Louis, Missouri. 14. St Louis University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri. 15. Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora. 16. Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas. 17. Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. 18. Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, Colorado. 19. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Abstract
Importance: Clinical 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. Objective: To compare the effect of N95 respirators vs medical masks for prevention of influenza and other viral respiratory infections among HCP. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 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. Interventions: Overall, 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 Measures: The 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. Results: Among 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 Relevance: Among 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 Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01249625.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Clinical 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. Objective: To compare the effect of N95 respirators vs medical masks for prevention of influenza and other viral respiratory infections among HCP. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 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. Interventions: Overall, 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 Measures: The 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. Results: Among 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 Relevance: Among 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 Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01249625.
Authors: John D Noti; William G Lindsley; Francoise M Blachere; Gang Cao; Michael L Kashon; Robert E Thewlis; Cynthia M McMillen; William P King; Jonathan V Szalajda; Donald H Beezhold Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2012-03-29 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Melissa J Azur; Elizabeth A Stuart; Constantine Frangakis; Philip J Leaf Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Victoria Ortiz de la Tabla; Mar Masiá; Pedro Antequera; Coral Martin; Gregoria Gazquez; Fernando Buñuel; Félix Gutiérrez Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2010-08-11 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Mark Loeb; Nancy Dafoe; James Mahony; Michael John; Alicia Sarabia; Verne Glavin; Richard Webby; Marek Smieja; David J D Earn; Sylvia Chong; Ashley Webb; Stephen D Walter Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-10-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kai Kisielinski; Paul Giboni; Andreas Prescher; Bernd Klosterhalfen; David Graessel; Stefan Funken; Oliver Kempski; Oliver Hirsch Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Nicolas Dugré; Joey Ton; Danielle Perry; Scott Garrison; Jamie Falk; James McCormack; Samantha Moe; Christina S Korownyk; Adrienne J Lindblad; Michael R Kolber; Betsy Thomas; Anthony Train; G Michael Allan Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Daniel L Chao; Jayanth Sridhar; Ajay E Kuriyan; Theodore Leng; Brad P Barnett; Aaron F Carlin; Charles C Wykoff; Stephen Gayer; Prithvi Mruthyunjaya; Yoshihiro Yonekawa; Amani A Fawzi; Audina M Berrocal; Steven Yeh; Daniel Ting; Yasha Modi; David N Zacks; Nicholas Yannuzzi; Natalie A Afshari; Timothy Murray Journal: J Vitreoretin Dis Date: 2020-07-27