tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Ann Work Expo Health
. 2022 Apr 30;wxac031.
doi: 10.1093/annweh/wxac031. Online ahead of print.
SARS-CoV-2 Infection Rates Following Use of Regular Compared With Defective Respirators When Caring for COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Follow-up Study
Henrik A Kolstad[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Morten Frydenberg[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Kent Jacob Nielsen[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Vivi Schlünssen[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Karin Biering[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Mona Kjærsgaard[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Jesper Medom Vestergaard[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Else Toft Würtz[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Kirsten Pugdahl[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Anne Mette Lund Würtz[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Karoline Kærgaard Hansen[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Sanne Jespersen[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Marianne Kragh Thomsen[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Mette Marie Sørensen[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Svend Ellermann-Eriksen[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Jacob Dvinge Redder[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Merete Storgaard[SUP] 6 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Abstract
Background: There is strong observational evidence that respirators are highly effective in protecting the users from being infected with Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), but the evidence for SARS-CoV-2 during daily work is limited. This study utilized a subset of healthcare workers' temporary use of a new brand respirator with frequent defects when caring for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients to assess the protective effect of regular respirators against SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Methods: We retrospectively followed 463 participants wearing a regular respirator and 168 wearing the new brand respirator day-by-day when caring for COVID-19 patients until testing polymerase chain reaction positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 27th December 2020 and 14th January 2021.
Results: We observed seven and eight incident SARS-CoV-2-infected cases. This corresponded with daily infection rates of 0.2 and 0.5%, an incidence rate ratio of 0.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1; 1.0], and an incidence rate difference of 0.3% (95% CI -0.1; 0.8) when comparing a regular with the new brand respirator.
Discussion: We regard the new brand respirator a sham intervention, and this study thus provides further evidence for the protective effect of respirators when exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; follow-up study; healthcare worker; incidence rate ratio; respirator; sham.
. 2022 Apr 30;wxac031.
doi: 10.1093/annweh/wxac031. Online ahead of print.
SARS-CoV-2 Infection Rates Following Use of Regular Compared With Defective Respirators When Caring for COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Follow-up Study
Henrik A Kolstad[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Morten Frydenberg[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Kent Jacob Nielsen[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Vivi Schlünssen[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Karin Biering[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Mona Kjærsgaard[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Jesper Medom Vestergaard[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Else Toft Würtz[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Kirsten Pugdahl[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Anne Mette Lund Würtz[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Karoline Kærgaard Hansen[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Sanne Jespersen[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Marianne Kragh Thomsen[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Mette Marie Sørensen[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Svend Ellermann-Eriksen[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Jacob Dvinge Redder[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Merete Storgaard[SUP] 6 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 35488370
- DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxac031
Abstract
Background: There is strong observational evidence that respirators are highly effective in protecting the users from being infected with Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), but the evidence for SARS-CoV-2 during daily work is limited. This study utilized a subset of healthcare workers' temporary use of a new brand respirator with frequent defects when caring for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients to assess the protective effect of regular respirators against SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Methods: We retrospectively followed 463 participants wearing a regular respirator and 168 wearing the new brand respirator day-by-day when caring for COVID-19 patients until testing polymerase chain reaction positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 27th December 2020 and 14th January 2021.
Results: We observed seven and eight incident SARS-CoV-2-infected cases. This corresponded with daily infection rates of 0.2 and 0.5%, an incidence rate ratio of 0.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1; 1.0], and an incidence rate difference of 0.3% (95% CI -0.1; 0.8) when comparing a regular with the new brand respirator.
Discussion: We regard the new brand respirator a sham intervention, and this study thus provides further evidence for the protective effect of respirators when exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; follow-up study; healthcare worker; incidence rate ratio; respirator; sham.