masks

Objective: To evaluate the personal protective effects of wearing versus not wearing surgical face masks in public spaces on self-reported respiratory symptoms over a 14 day period.

Design: Pragmatic randomised superiority trial.

Setting: Norway.

Participants: 4647 adults aged ≥18 years: 2371 were assigned to the intervention arm and 2276 to the control arm.

Interventions: Participants in the intervention arm were assigned to wear a surgical face mask in public spaces (eg, shopping centres, streets, public transport) over a 14 day period (mask wearing at home or work was not mentioned). Participants in the control arm were assigned to not wear a surgical face mask in public places.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was self-reported respiratory symptoms consistent with a respiratory infection. Secondary outcomes included self-reported and registered covid-19 infection.

Results: Between 10 February 2023 and 27 April 2023, 4647 participants were randomised of whom 4575 (2788 women (60.9%); mean age 51.0 (standard deviation 15.0) years) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis: 2313 (50.6%) in the intervention arm and 2262 (49.4%) in the control arm. 163 events (8.9%) of self-reported symptoms consistent with respiratory infection were reported in the intervention arm and 239 (12.2%) in the control arm. The marginal odds ratio was 0.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.87; P=0.001) favouring the face mask intervention. The absolute risk difference was -3.2% (95% CI -5.2% to -1.3%; P<0.001). No statistically significant effect was found on self- reported (marginal odds ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.98; P=0.82) or registered covid-19 infection (effect estimate and 95% CI not estimable owing to lack of events in the intervention arm).

Conclusion: Wearing a surgical face mask in public spaces over 14 days reduces the risk of self-reported symptoms consistent with a respiratory infection, compared with not wearing a surgical face mask.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05690516.

Author/s:

Runar Barstad Solberg, Atle Fretheim, Ingeborg Hess Elgersma, Mette Fagernes, Bjørn Gunnar Iversen, Lars G Hemkens, Christopher James Rose, Petter Elstrøm

Masks and Face Coverings for the Lay Public : A Narrative Update

Devin Evans — Thu, 14 Jan 2021 06:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

January 14, 2021

Journal/Publication:

Annals of Internal Medicine

Publication Date:

December 29, 2020

URL:

Masks and Face Coverings for the Lay Public : A Narrative Update

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines, Patient Education Materials

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.7326/M20-6625

Keywords

PMID (1):

33370173

MeSH

Policy

Respiratory Physiological Phenomena

A narrative summary of our current understandings regarding mask wearing and prevention of the spread of COVID-19. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Whether and when to mandate the wearing of facemasks in the community to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 remains controversial. Published literature across disciplines about the role of masks in mitigating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission is summarized. Growing evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne indicates that infection control interventions must go beyond contact and droplet measures (such as handwashing and cleaning surfaces) and attend to masking and ventilation. Observational evidence suggests that masks work mainly by source control (preventing infected persons from transmitting the virus to others), but laboratory studies of mask filtration properties suggest that they could also provide some protection to wearers (protective effect). Even small reductions in individual transmission could lead to substantial reductions in population spread. To date, only 1 randomized controlled trial has examined a community mask recommendation. This trial did not identify a significant protective effect and was not designed to evaluate source control. Filtration properties and comfort vary widely across mask types. Masks may cause discomfort and communication difficulties. However, there is no evidence that masks result in significant physiologic decompensation or that risk compensation and fomite transmission are associated with mask wearing. The psychological effects of masks are culturally shaped; they may include threats to autonomy, social relatedness, and competence. Evidence suggests that the potential benefits of wearing masks likely outweigh the potential harms when SARS-CoV-2 is spreading in a community. However, mask mandates involve a tradeoff with personal freedom, so such policies should be pursued only if the threat is substantial and mitigation of spread cannot be achieved through other means.

Author/s:

Czypionka, Thomas, Greenhalgh, Trisha, Bassler, Dirk, Bryant, Manuel B.

N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial

John Bayhi — Mon, 23 Mar 2020 22:10:43 +0000

Date Added:

March 23, 2020

Journal/Publication:

JAMA

Publisher:

American Medical Association

Publication Date:

September 3, 2019

Issue:

Volume:

222

Pages:

824-833

URL:

N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jama.2019.11645

Keywords

respiratory disease

respiratory infections

PMID (1):

31479137

This large RCT appears to confirm prior studies showing that regular surgical masks work just as well (or poorly) as N95 masks from preventing influenza in front line health care workers. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

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.

Author/s:

Radonovich, LJ Jr, Simberkoff, MS, Bessesen, MT, Brown, AC, Cummings, DAT, Gaydos, CA, Los, JG, Krosche, AE, Gibert, CL, Gorse, GJ, Nyquist, AC, Reich, N.G., Rodriguez-Barradas, MC, Price, CS, Perl, TM, ResPECT investigators