Protective efficient comparisons among all kinds of respirators and masks for health-care workers against respiratory viruses: A PRISMA-compliant network meta-analysis

Evaluation of health worker acceptance and tolerance of respirators in clinical practice-An Australian perspective

BACKGROUND

One of the main infection prevention and control measures introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic was the focused application of respiratory protection to ensure health worker safety and the effective use of personal protective equipment. However, user acceptance of these strategies is paramount in sustainable compliance. This study explores various aspects of respirator use and provides recommendations to improve and maximize health worker safety. The aim of this study was to understand the relationship between respirator (P2/N95) comfort and user experience toward respiratory protection. The aim of this study was to understand the relationship between respirator (P2/N95) comfort and user experience toward respiratory protection.

METHODS

The nonexperimental cross-sectional design study was conducted in New South Wales, Australia between November and December 2022 using an anonymous self-administered online questionnaire in Microsoft Forms.

RESULTS

Of 2,514 respondents, 65% reported to have used a respirator every working day with only a few using a respirator once weekly or less (9%). Almost all respondents had completed at least one quantitative fit test (96%) prior to the survey. Fifty-nine percent reported to have experienced discomfort from wearing a respirator and the most reported adverse effect was difficulty communicating (64%), followed by skin irritation or acne (62%) and headache (56%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite somewhat less favorable ratings on comfort and communication, health workers are in favor of respiratory protection. However, a focus on tolerance of respirators and strategies to address adverse effects from prolonged respirator use must be considered when implementing policies and procedures. Moreover, resources must be allocated to improve the design, breathability, and sustainability of a respirator along with education and training on how to use respiratory protection safely and effectively.

Effect of Face Masking on Transmission of SARS-CoV-2

The efficacy of face masking for the public is not convincing to prevent the transmission of respiratory tract viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 when the criteria of evidence-based medicine are applied. This finding is mainly explained by the results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) when a high prevalence of the infection and a high compliance in mask wearing was assured. Throughout these studies no significant protective effect was observed. Observational studies with surgical masks describe a significant protective effect, but are prone to confounders such as physical distance. Respirators do not provide an additional health benefit compared to surgical or medical masks (RCTs). Community masks can even increase the risk of infection (RCTs). Based on the categories of evidence-based medicine, the efficacy results can best be categorized as conflicting evidence. Many relevant adverse events are described when masks are worn for hours such as dyspnea (12.2-52.8%), headache (3.9-73.4%), pruritus (0.0-60.0%), and skin reactions (0.0-85.0%). Their frequency is often higher with respirators. In future pandemics, masks should only be recommended or mandated for settings in which a clinically relevant health benefit can be expected, defined as the prevention of severe, critical or fatal disease, that clearly outweighs the expectable associated adverse reactions.

Masking strategy to protect healthcare workers from COVID-19: An umbrella meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The burden of severe disease and death due to SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic among healthcare workers (HCWs) worldwide has been substantial. Masking is a critical control measure to effectively protect HCWs from respiratory infectious diseases, yet for COVID-19, masking policies have varied considerably across jurisdictions. As Omicron variants began to be predominant, the value of switching from a permissive approach based on a point of care risk assessment (PCRA) to a rigid masking policy needed to be assessed.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid platform), Cochrane Library, Web of Science (Ovid platform), and PubMed to June 2022. An umbrella review of meta-analyses investigating protective effects of N95 or equivalent respirators and medical masks was then conducted. Data extraction, evidence synthesis and appraisal were duplicated.

RESULTS

While the results of Forest plots slightly favoured N95 or equivalent respirators over medical masks, eight of the ten meta-analyses included in the umbrella review were appraised as having very low certainty and the other two as having low certainty.

CONCLUSION

The literature appraisal, in conjunction with risk assessment of the Omicron variant, side-effects and acceptability to HCWs, along with the precautionary principle, supported maintaining the current policy guided by PCRA rather than adopting a more rigid approach. Well-designed prospective multi-centre trials, with systematic attention to the diversity of healthcare settings, risk levels and equity concerns are needed to support future masking policies.

Oral Lesions Associated with COVID-19 and the Participation of the Buccal Cavity as a Key Player for Establishment of Immunity against SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

Some oral lesions have been described in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2); the possibility has been raised that the buccal lesions observed in patients with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are due to this virus and the patient's systemic condition. The aim of this review was to integrate the knowledge related to the oral lesions associated with COVID-19 and the participation of the buccal cavity in the establishment of immunity against SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

A literature search on the manifestations of buccal lesions from the beginning of the pandemic until October 2021 was carried out by using the PubMed database. A total of 157 scientific articles were selected from the library, which included case reports and reports of lesions appearing in patients with COVID-19.

RESULTS

Oral lesions included erosions, ulcers, vesicles, pustules, plaques, depapillated tongue, and pigmentations, among others. The oral cavity is a conducive environment for the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 with the mucosal immune system and target cells; direct effects of the virus in this cavity worsen the antiviral inflammatory response of underlying oral disorders, immunodeficiencies, and autoimmunity primarily.

CONCLUSIONS

The oral cavity is an accessible and privileged environment for the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 with the mucosal immune system and target cells; the direct effects of the virus in this cavity worsen the antiviral inflammatory response of underlying oral disorders, in particular those related to immunodeficiencies and autoimmunity.

Patients' expectations of preventive measures of medical institutions during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Germany in women with an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer: a cross-sectional, web-based survey

OBJECTIVES

To identify patient-approved contingency measures for protection of patients and healthcare workers (HCWs) from COVID-19 infection and to use these findings to improve staff's preparedness to cope with the course of this pandemic or similar situations.

METHODS DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTIONS

We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey of women with an increased risk of breast or ovarian cancer, regardless of whether they had experienced an active malignant disease during the pandemic. A self-reported questionnaire, developed for this study, was used to assess expectations and opinions about preventive measures within medical institutions.

RESULTS

Sixty-four (71.9%) of the 89 potential participants responded to at least one question regarding contingency measures within medical institutions. Approximately 37% of the respondents preferred having information about their facility's hygiene protocols before appointment; 57.8% of the respondents endorsed regular SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients prior to medical appointments and 95.3% endorsed regular testing of HCWs. Additionally, 84.4% of the respondents supported HCWs' use of surgical masks and 68.8% supported HCWs' use of masks with greater protection. Notably, 75.0% of the respondents advocated for the presence of a significant other during medical consultations; 71.9% approved the use of telemedicine and 93.8% endorsed changes in appointment practices to enable social distancing. No significant associations were found between respondents' sociodemographic, disease-specific or pandemic-specific factors and their opinions on hygiene precautions.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients at high risk of infection or severe course of COVID-19 approve strict contingency measures designed to lower the transmission of COVID-19 in medical facilities. Moreover, vulnerable groups may profit from contingency plans in healthcare facilities in order to follow preventive measures, avoid diagnostic delay or avoid worsening of pre-existing conditions. However, they also value the presence of a significant other during medical consultations and procedures.

P2/N95 respirators & surgical masks to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection: Effectiveness & adverse effects

BACKGROUND

Millions of people have acquired and died from SARS-CoV-2 infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE), including surgical masks and P2/N95 respirators, to prevent infection while treating patients. However, the comparative effectiveness of respirators and masks in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and the likelihood of experiencing adverse events (AEs) with wear are unclear.

METHODS

Searches were carried out in PubMed, Europe PMC and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to 14 June 2021. A systematic review of comparative epidemiological studies examining SARS-CoV-2 infection or AE incidence in HCWs wearing P2/N95 (or equivalent) respirators and surgical masks was performed. Article screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were duplicated. Meta-analysis of extracted data was carried out in RevMan.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included, with most having high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference in respirator or surgical mask effectiveness in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.85, [95%CI 0.72, 1.01]). Healthcare workers experienced significantly more headaches (OR 2.62, [95%CI 1.18, 5.81]), respiratory distress (OR 4.21, [95%CI 1.46, 12.13]), facial irritation (OR 1.80, [95%CI 1.03, 3.14]) and pressure-related injuries (OR 4.39, [95%CI 2.37, 8.15]) when wearing respirators compared to surgical masks.

CONCLUSION

The existing epidemiological evidence does not enable definitive assessment of the effectiveness of respirators compared to surgical masks in preventing infection. Healthcare workers wearing respirators may be more likely to experience AEs. Effective mitigation strategies are important to ensure the uptake and correct use of respirators by HCWs.