• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

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

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
nfluenza Other Respir Viruses. 2017 Aug 11. doi: 10.1111/irv.12474. [Epub ahead of print] [h=1]The efficacy of medical masks and respirators against respiratory infection in health workers.[/h] MacIntyre CR[SUP]1[/SUP], Chughtai AA[SUP]2[/SUP], Rahman B[SUP]2[/SUP], Peng Y[SUP]3[/SUP], Zhang Y[SUP]3[/SUP], Seale H[SUP]2[/SUP], Wang X[SUP]3[/SUP], Wang Q[SUP]3[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]

[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]OBJECTIVE:[/h] We aim 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).
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] 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; a) continuous N95 respirator use, b) targeted N95 respirator use, c) medical mask use and, d) control arm. The outcomes were laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infection, influenza A or B, laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization, and pathogens grouped by mode of transmission.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] Rates of all outcomes were consistently lower in the continuous N95 and/or targeted N95 arms. In adjusted analysis, rates of laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.51), laboratory-confirmed viral infections (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23-0.91), and droplet transmitting 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 colonization (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33-0.87), and droplet transmitting infections (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25-0.72) were also lower in the targeted N95 arm, but not in medical mask arm.
[h=4]CONCLUSION:[/h] The results suggest that classification of infections into droplet versus airborne transmission is an oversimplification. Most guidelines recommend masks for infections spread by droplets. N95 respirators, as "air borne precaution", could provide superior protection for droplet transmitting infections, which should be reflected in infection control guidelines for occupational health and safety. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.


[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Influenza; droplet infections; healthcare workers; masks; medical masks; respirators

PMID: 28799710 DOI: 10.1111/irv.12474
Free full text
 
Back
Top Bottom