Medical Masks Versus N95 Respirators for Preventing COVID-19 Among Health Care Workers : A Randomized Trial

Deisolation in the Healthcare Setting Following Recent COVID-19 Infection

BACKGROUND

Deisolation of persons infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, presented a substantial challenge for healthcare workers and policy makers, particularly during the early phases of the pandemic. Data to guide deisolation of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients remain limited, and the risk of transmitting and acquiring infection has changed with the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 variants and population immunity from previous vaccination or infection, or both.

AIMS

This review examines the evidence to guide the deisolation of SARS-CoV-2-infected inpatients within the hospital setting when clinically improving and also of healthcare workers with COVID-19 prior to returning to work.

METHODS

A review was performed using relevant search terms in Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and PubMed.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The evidence is reviewed with regards to the nature of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, the role of testing to guide deisolation, and the impact of SARS-CoV-2-specific immunity. A paradigm and recommendations are proposed to guide deisolation for inpatients and return to work for healthcare workers.

Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review

SUMMARYThis narrative review and meta-analysis summarizes a broad evidence base on the benefits-and also the practicalities, disbenefits, harms and personal, sociocultural and environmental impacts-of masks and masking. Our synthesis of evidence from over 100 published reviews and selected primary studies, including re-analyzing contested meta-analyses of key clinical trials, produced seven key findings. First, there is strong and consistent evidence for airborne transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and other respiratory pathogens. Second, masks are, if correctly and consistently worn, effective in reducing transmission of respiratory diseases and show a dose-response effect. Third, respirators are significantly more effective than medical or cloth masks. Fourth, mask mandates are, overall, effective in reducing community transmission of respiratory pathogens. Fifth, masks are important sociocultural symbols; non-adherence to masking is sometimes linked to political and ideological beliefs and to widely circulated mis- or disinformation. Sixth, while there is much evidence that masks are not generally harmful to the general population, masking may be relatively contraindicated in individuals with certain medical conditions, who may require exemption. Furthermore, certain groups (notably D/deaf people) are disadvantaged when others are masked. Finally, there are risks to the environment from single-use masks and respirators. We propose an agenda for future research, including improved characterization of the situations in which masking should be recommended or mandated; attention to comfort and acceptability; generalized and disability-focused communication support in settings where masks are worn; and development and testing of novel materials and designs for improved filtration, breathability, and environmental impact.

Nasopharyngeal angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) expression as a risk-factor for SARS-CoV-2 transmission in concurrent hospital associated outbreaks

BACKGROUND

Widespread human-to-human transmission of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus two (SARS-CoV-2) stems from a strong affinity for the cellular receptor angiotensin converting enzyme two (ACE2). We investigate the relationship between a patient's nasopharyngeal ACE2 transcription and secondary transmission within a series of concurrent hospital associated SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in British Columbia, Canada.

METHODS

Epidemiological case data from the outbreak investigations was merged with public health laboratory records and viral lineage calls, from whole genome sequencing, to reconstruct the concurrent outbreaks using infection tracing transmission network analysis. ACE2 transcription and RNA viral load were measured by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. The transmission network was resolved to calculate the number of potential secondary cases. Bivariate and multivariable analyses using Poisson and Negative Binomial regression models was performed to estimate the association between ACE2 transcription the number of SARS-CoV-2 secondary cases.

RESULTS

The infection tracing transmission network provided n = 76 potential transmission events across n = 103 cases. Bivariate comparisons found that on average ACE2 transcription did not differ between patients and healthcare workers (P = 0.86). High ACE2 transcription was observed in 98.6% of transmission events, either the primary or secondary case had above average ACE2. Multivariable analysis found that the association between ACE2 transcription (log2 fold-change) and the number of secondary transmission events differs between patients and healthcare workers. In health care workers Negative Binomial regression estimated that a one-unit change in ACE2 transcription decreases the number of secondary cases (β = -0.132 (95%CI: -0.255 to -0.0181) adjusting for RNA viral load. Conversely, in patients a one-unit change in ACE2 transcription increases the number of secondary cases (β = 0.187 (95% CI: 0.0101 to 0.370) adjusting for RNA viral load. Sensitivity analysis found no significant relationship between ACE2 and secondary transmission in health care workers and confirmed the positive association among patients.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that ACE2 transcription has a positive association with SARS-CoV-2 secondary transmission in admitted inpatients, but not health care workers in concurrent hospital associated outbreaks, and it should be further investigated as a risk-factor for viral transmission.

Sports despite masks: no negative effects of FFP2 face masks on cardiopulmonary exercise capacity in children

Face masks were recognized as one of the most effective ways to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus in adults. These benefits were extended to children and adolescents. However, the fear of negative consequences from wearing a face mask during physical exercise led to cancellations of physical education lessons. This further decreased the amount of physical activity available to children and adolescents during the pandemic. However, there is little published data on the potential adverse effects of wearing the most effective and partially mandatory FFP2/N95 face masks during PE or physical activity (PA) in this age. Even though the pandemic has been declared as passed by the WHO, the rise of a new pandemic and thus the use of face masks for limiting its spread is inevitable, so we need to be better prepared for alternative options to lockdown and limitation of PA in such a scenario. Twenty healthy children aged 8-10 years performed two identical cardiopulmonary exercise tests as an incremental step test on a treadmill within an interval of 2 weeks, one time without wearing a protective mask and one time wearing an FFP2 mask. The cardiopulmonary exercise parameter and especially the end-expiratory gas exchange for oxygen and carbon dioxide (petO2 and petCO2) were documented for each step, at rest and 1 min after reaching physical exhaustion. Twelve boys (mean age 8.5 ± 1.4 years) and 8 girls (mean age 8.8 ± 1.4 years) showed no adverse events until maximal exertion. The mean parameters measured at peak exercise did not differ significantly between both examinations (mean peak VO2 = 42.7 ± 9.5 vs 47.8 ± 12.9 ml/min/kg, p = 0.097, mean O2pulse 7.84 ± 1.9 ml/min vs. 6.89 ± 1.8, p = 0.064, mean VE/VCO2slope 33.4 ± 5.9 vs. 34.0 ± 5.3, p = 0.689). The only significant difference was the respiratory exchange rate (RER, 1.01 ± 0.08 vs 0.95 ± 0.08, p = 0.004). The measured respiratory gases (end-tidal O2 and CO2) decreased and respectively increased significantly in almost every step when wearing an FFP2 mask. However, these levels were well below hypercapnia and above hypoxia.

CONCLUSION

 In this study, no significant differences in the cardiorespiratory function at peak exercise could be discerned when wearing an FFP2/N95 face mask. While the end-tidal values for CO2 increased significantly and the end-tidal values for O2 decreased significantly, these values did never reach levels of hypercapnia or hypoxia. Furthermore, the children terminated the exercise at a lower RER and heart rate (HR) suggesting a subconscious awareness of the higher strain. Since the detrimental effects of limiting sports during the pandemic are well documented, stopping PE lessons altogether because of the minor physiological effects of wearing these masks instead of simply stopping pushing children to perform at their best seems premature and should be reconsidered in the future.

WHAT IS KNOWN

• Wearing a face mask has an influence on psychological, social, and physiological functions in adults. • Because of the observed effects of wearing face masks in adults, physical activity in children was limited during the pandemic.

WHAT IS NEW

• Wearing an FFP2/N95 mask during physical activity did not lead to hypercapnia or hypoxia in children in this study. • Even though end-tidal CO2 values were significantly higher and end-tidal O2 values significantly lower when wearing an FFP2/N95 face mask, no pathological values were reached.

P2/N95 fit testing and the risk of COVID-19 in Healthcare Workers

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend healthcare workers (HCWs) undertake fit testing of P2/N95 respirators to mitigate the risk of infectious aerosols, however few studies have assessed whether fit testing reduces COVID-19 infection.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted amongst HCWs across two tertiary health services in Melbourne, Australia during a period of low community transmission. Institution-wide quantitative fit testing and detailed questionnaires assessing COVID-19 acquisition risk factors were undertaken from September 2020. HCWs diagnosed with COVID-19 in the period prior to the fit testing program (February 1st - August 31st 2020) were matched on a 1:3 ratio to HCWs who had not been diagnosed with COVID-19. Risk factors for COVID-19 acquisition, including fit testing outcome, were compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 1571 HCWs took part in fit testing programs. Seventy-two (4.6%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 within the study period. Younger age, nursing staff, close contact with a COVID-19 case, and working longer periods in wards with COVID-19 patients, were associated with COVID-19 infection. After matching for intensity of occupational exposure to infectious aerosols, close contact was the only independent variable associated with COVID-19 infection (OR 3.50, 95% CI:1.65-7.44, p = 0.001). Adequate fit test for the respirator predominately worn before the fit testing period was not associated with COVID-19 (OR 1.08, 95% CI:0.59-1.98, p = 0.815).

CONCLUSION

After controlling for intensity of occupational exposure to infectious aerosols, P2/N95 respirator fit testing was not associated with reduced risk of COVID-19 infection. The utility of widespread fit testing to reduce HCW COVID-19 infections should be reconsidered.

A descriptive study on the potential transmission of COVID-19 to hospitalized patients from a nursery school affiliated with it

INTRODUCTION

During the epidemic of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, nosocomial transmissions from healthcare workers (HCWs) to patients occur frequently. The influence of COVID-19 on hospitalized patients from nursing schools affiliated with the hospitals is a concern but it had not been well studied.

METHODS

We here describe COVID-19 outbreaks at the nursery school affiliated with an acute-care hospital, during the surges of the Omicron variants on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 children as well as for the patients who were judged to be the close contacts of patients of COVID-19 by contact investigation by PCR testing.

RESULTS

A total of 36 children and five caregivers were diagnosed with COVID-19 during the study period. Of the 206 preschoolers who had close contact with the infected persons, only 16 became positive (7.6%). Secondary transmission from the 36 preschool children to the parents as HCWs occurred in 19 (61%) out of 31 parents. Three hospitalized patients were judged to have unsafe contact with the infected HCWs but this did not result in their infections, making a total of zero transmission from the nursery school to the hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Children at the nursery school are potential reservoirs for nosocomial transmissions at the affiliated hospital, but multiple practical measures might have prevented them to occur.

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.

Respiratory viral infections including COVID-19 in solid organ transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Respiratory viral infections are prevalent and contribute to significant morbidity and mortality among solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. We review updates from literature on respiratory viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in the SOT recipient.

RECENT FINDINGS

With the wider availability and use of molecular diagnostic tests, our understanding of the epidemiology and impact of respiratory viruses in the SOT population continues to expand. While considerable attention has been given to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the advances in prevention and treatment strategies of SARS-CoV-2 offered valuable insights into the development of new therapeutic options for managing other respiratory viruses in both the general and SOT population.

SUMMARY

Respiratory viruses can present with a diverse range of symptoms in SOT recipients, with potentially associated acute rejection and chronic lung allograft dysfunction in lung transplant recipients. The epidemiology, clinical presentations, diagnostic approaches, and treatment and preventive strategies for clinically significant RNA and DNA respiratory viruses in SOT recipients are reviewed. This review also covers novel antivirals, immunologic therapies, and vaccines in development for various community-acquired respiratory viruses.

Perspectives on research needs in healthcare epidemiology and antimicrobial stewardship: what's on the horizon - Part I

In this overview, we articulate research needs and opportunities in the field of infection prevention that have been identified from insights gained during operative infection prevention work, our own research in healthcare epidemiology, and from reviewing the literature. The 10 areas of research need are: 1) transmissions and interruptions, 2) personal protective equipment and other safety issues in occupational health, 3) climate change and other crises, 4) device, diagnostic, and antimicrobial stewardship, 5) implementation and de-implementation, 6) health care outside the acute care hospital, 7) low- and middle-income countries, 8) networking with the "neighbors", 9) novel research methodologies, and 10) the future state of surveillance. An introduction and chapters 1-5 are presented in part I of the article, and chapters 6-10 and the discussion in part II. There are many barriers to advancing the field, such as finding and motivating the future IP workforce including professionals interested in conducting research, a constant confrontation with challenges and crises, the difficulty of performing studies in a complex environment, the relative lack of adequate incentives and funding streams, and how to disseminate and validate the often very local quality improvement projects. Addressing research gaps now (i.e., in the postpandemic phase) will make healthcare systems more resilient when facing future crises.

Non-Pharmacological Strategies and Interventions for Effective COVID-19 Control: A Narrative Review

The COVID-19 pandemic had a devastating impact on the world, causing widespread illness and death. Focusing on prevention strategies to limit the spread of the disease remains essential. Despite the advent of vaccines, maintaining a vigilant approach to prevention remains paramount. We reviewed effective strategies to prevent COVID-19 transmission, including various prevention measures and interventions and both established practices and unresolved issues that have been addressed in meta-analyses, literature reviews, or in the health care context. Standard precautions are the cornerstone of infection control, with hand hygiene and mask use as key components. The use of surgical masks is recommended to prevent droplet transmission, while eye protection is recommended in combination with masks. In terms of room occupancy, ventilation is critical in reducing the risk of transmission in poorly ventilated environments. Chemical disinfection of indoor air with Triethylene glycol-based products can provide safe additional protection. Since viral RNA detection on surfaces does not necessarily indicate infectivity, the risk of transmission by surface contact remains low if surfaces are properly maintained and hand hygiene is practiced regularly. Thus, prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission requires a multifaceted approach, including reducing particle emissions from infected persons by wearing masks, eliminating aerosols by ventilation and air treatment, ensuring physical separation, and protecting exposed persons with masks and eye protection.

Effectiveness of face masks for reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid systematic review

This rapid systematic review of evidence asks whether (i) wearing a face mask, (ii) one type of mask over another and (iii) mandatory mask policies can reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, either in community-based or healthcare settings. A search of studies published 1 January 2020-27 January 2023 yielded 5185 unique records. Due to a paucity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies were included in the analysis. We analysed 35 studies in community settings (three RCTs and 32 observational) and 40 in healthcare settings (one RCT and 39 observational). Ninety-five per cent of studies included were conducted before highly transmissible Omicron variants emerged. Ninety-one per cent of observational studies were at 'critical' risk of bias (ROB) in at least one domain, often failing to separate the effects of masks from concurrent interventions. More studies found that masks (n = 39/47; 83%) and mask mandates (n = 16/18; 89%) reduced infection than found no effect (n = 8/65; 12%) or favoured controls (n = 1/65; 2%). Seven observational studies found that respirators were more protective than surgical masks, while five found no statistically significant difference between the two mask types. Despite the ROB, and allowing for uncertain and variable efficacy, we conclude that wearing masks, wearing higher quality masks (respirators), and mask mandates generally reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission in these study populations. This article is part of the theme issue 'The effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: the evidence'.

COVID-19

COVID-19, the illness caused by SARS-CoV-2, became a worldwide pandemic in 2020. Initial clinical manifestations range from asymptomatic infection to mild upper respiratory illness but may progress to pulmonary involvement with hypoxemia and, in some cases, multiorgan involvement, shock, and death. Older adults, pregnant persons, those with common comorbidities, and those with immunosuppression are at greatest risk for progression. Vaccination is effective in preventing symptomatic infection and reducing risk for severe disease, hospitalization, and death. Antiviral treatment and immunomodulators have been shown to benefit certain patients. This article summarizes current recommendations on prevention, diagnosis, management, and treatment of COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 risk in household contacts of healthcare workers: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have assessed whether the increased SARS-CoV-2 risk of healthcare workers (HCW) is carried on to their household contacts. Within a prospective HCW cohort, we assessed the SARS-CoV-2 risk of household contacts of HCW depending on the HCWs cumulative exposure to COVID-19 patients and identified factors influencing this association.

METHODS

HCW aged ≥ 16 years from nine Swiss healthcare networks participated. HCW without any household contacts were excluded. For HCW, cumulative patient exposure (number of COVID-19 patient contacts times average contact duration during a 12-month follow-up) was calculated. During follow-up, HCW reported SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab results and positive swab results of their household contacts. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify variables associated with SARS-CoV-2 household positivity.

RESULTS

Of 2406 HCW, 466 (19%) reported ≥ 1 SARS-CoV-2 positive household. In multivariable analysis, patient exposure of HCW (adjusted OR [aOR] 1.08 per category, 95% CI 1.04-1.12), household size (aOR 1.53 per household member, 95% CI 1.35-1.73) and having children (aOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.94) remained associated with household positivity. Vaccinated HCW had a lower risk (aOR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.77) of reporting a positive contact, as were those using respirator masks in contact with COVID-19 patients (aOR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49-0.86). Among vaccinated HCW, delayed first vaccination was associated with increased household SARS-CoV-2 positivity (aOR 1.14 per month, 95% CI 1.08-1.21).

CONCLUSIONS

SARS-CoV-2 positivity in household contacts of HCW increases with higher cumulative COVID-19 patient exposure of HCWs. Measures reducing the SARS-CoV-2 risk in HCW might indirectly reduce the infection risk of their households.

Revisiting the personal protective equipment components of transmission-based precautions for the prevention of COVID-19 and other respiratory virus infections in healthcare

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted some potential limitations of transmission-based precautions. The distinction between transmission through large droplets vs aerosols, which have been fundamental concepts guiding infection control measures, has been questioned, leading to considerable variation in expert recommendations on transmission-based precautions for COVID-19. Furthermore, the application of elements of contact precautions, such as the use of gloves and gowns, is based on low-quality and inconclusive evidence and may have unintended consequences, such as increased incidence of healthcare-associated infections and spread of multidrug-resistant organisms. These observations indicate a need for high-quality studies to address the knowledge gaps and a need to revisit the theoretical background regarding various modes of transmission and the definitions of terms related to transmission. Further, we should examine the implications these definitions have on the following components of transmission-based precautions: (i) respiratory protection, (ii) use of gloves and gowns for the prevention of respiratory virus infections, (iii) aerosol-generating procedures and (iv) universal masking in healthcare settings as a control measure especially during seasonal epidemics. Such a review would ensure that transmission-based precautions are consistent and rationally based on available evidence, which would facilitate decision-making, guidance development and training, as well as their application in practice.

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.

Policies on children and schools during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Western Europe

During the pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), mitigation policies for children have been a topic of considerable uncertainty and debate. Although some children have co-morbidities which increase their risk for severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19), and complications such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome and long COVID, most children only get mild COVID-19. On the other hand, consistent evidence shows that mass mitigation measures had enormous adverse impacts on children. A central question can thus be posed: What amount of mitigation should children bear, in response to a disease that is disproportionally affecting older people? In this review, we analyze the distinct child versus adult epidemiology, policies, mitigation trade-offs and outcomes in children in Western Europe. The highly heterogenous European policies applied to children compared to adults did not lead to significant measurable differences in outcomes. Remarkably, the relative epidemiological importance of transmission from school-age children to other age groups remains uncertain, with current evidence suggesting that schools often follow, rather than lead, community transmission. Important learning points for future pandemics are summarized.

Major Update: Masks for Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 in Health Care and Community Settings-Final Update of a Living, Rapid Review

BACKGROUND

Optimal use of masks for preventing COVID-19 is unclear.

PURPOSE

To update an evidence synthesis on N95, surgical, and cloth mask effectiveness in community and health care settings for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, medRxiv (3 June 2022 to 2 January 2023), and reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials of interventions to increase mask use and risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and observational studies of mask use that controlled for potential confounders.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two investigators sequentially abstracted study data and rated quality.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Three randomized trials and 21 observational studies were included. In community settings, mask use may be associated with a small reduced risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection versus no mask use, on the basis of 2 randomized trials and 7 observational studies. In routine patient care settings, surgical masks and N95 respirators may be associated with similar risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, on the basis of 1 new randomized trial with some imprecision and 4 observational studies. Evidence from observational studies was insufficient to evaluate other mask comparisons due to methodological limitations and inconsistency.

LIMITATION

Few randomized trials, studies had methodological limitations and some imprecision, suboptimal adherence and pragmatic aspects of randomized trials potentially attenuated benefits, very limited evidence on harms, uncertain applicability to Omicron variant predominant era, meta-analysis not done due to heterogeneity, unable to formally assess for publication bias, and restricted to English-language articles.

CONCLUSION

Updated evidence suggests that masks may be associated with a small reduction in risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in community settings. Surgical masks and N95 respirators may be associated with similar infection risk in routine patient care settings, but a beneficial effect of N95 respirators cannot be ruled out.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Advanced and Smart Textiles during and after the COVID-19 Pandemic: Issues, Challenges, and Innovations

The COVID-19 pandemic has hugely affected the textile and apparel industry. Besides the negative impact due to supply chain disruptions, drop in demand, liquidity problems, and overstocking, this pandemic was found to be a window of opportunity since it accelerated the ongoing digitalization trends and the use of functional materials in the textile industry. This review paper covers the development of smart and advanced textiles that emerged as a response to the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2. We extensively cover the advancements in developing smart textiles that enable monitoring and sensing through electrospun nanofibers and nanogenerators. Additionally, we focus on improving medical textiles mainly through enhanced antiviral capabilities, which play a crucial role in pandemic prevention, protection, and control. We summarize the challenges that arise from personal protective equipment (PPE) disposal and finally give an overview of new smart textile-based products that emerged in the markets related to the control and spread reduction of SARS-CoV-2.

Physio-metabolic and clinical consequences of wearing face masks—Systematic review with meta-analysis and comprehensive evaluation

Background

As face masks became mandatory in most countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, adverse effects require substantiated investigation.

Methods

A systematic review of 2,168 studies on adverse medical mask effects yielded 54 publications for synthesis and 37 studies for meta-analysis (on n = 8,641, m = 2,482, f = 6,159, age = 34.8 ± 12.5). The median trial duration was only 18 min (IQR = 50) for our comprehensive evaluation of mask induced physio-metabolic and clinical outcomes.

Results

We found significant effects in both medical surgical and N95 masks, with a greater impact of the second. These effects included decreased SpO2 (overall Standard Mean Difference, SMD = −0.24, 95% CI = −0.38 to −0.11, p < 0.001) and minute ventilation (SMD = −0.72, 95% CI = −0.99 to −0.46, p < 0.001), simultaneous increased in blood-CO2 (SMD = +0.64, 95% CI = 0.31–0.96, p < 0.001), heart rate (N95: SMD = +0.22, 95% CI = 0.03–0.41, p = 0.02), systolic blood pressure (surgical: SMD = +0.21, 95% CI = 0.03–0.39, p = 0.02), skin temperature (overall SMD = +0.80 95% CI = 0.23–1.38, p = 0.006) and humidity (SMD +2.24, 95% CI = 1.32–3.17, p < 0.001). Effects on exertion (overall SMD = +0.9, surgical = +0.63, N95 = +1.19), discomfort (SMD = +1.16), dyspnoea (SMD = +1.46), heat (SMD = +0.70), and humidity (SMD = +0.9) were significant in n = 373 with a robust relationship to mask wearing (p < 0.006 to p < 0.001). Pooled symptom prevalence (n = 8,128) was significant for: headache (62%, p < 0.001), acne (38%, p < 0.001), skin irritation (36%, p < 0.001), dyspnoea (33%, p < 0.001), heat (26%, p < 0.001), itching (26%, p < 0.001), voice disorder (23%, p < 0.03), and dizziness (5%, p = 0.01).

Discussion

Masks interfered with O2-uptake and CO2-release and compromised respiratory compensation. Though evaluated wearing durations are shorter than daily/prolonged use, outcomes independently validate mask-induced exhaustion-syndrome (MIES) and down-stream physio-metabolic disfunctions. MIES can have long-term clinical consequences, especially for vulnerable groups. So far, several mask related symptoms may have been misinterpreted as long COVID-19 symptoms. In any case, the possible MIES contrasts with the WHO definition of health.

Conclusion

Face mask side-effects must be assessed (risk-benefit) against the available evidence of their effectiveness against viral transmissions. In the absence of strong empirical evidence of effectiveness, mask wearing should not be mandated let alone enforced by law.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021256694, identifier: PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021256694.

Overview of tight fit and infection prevention benefits of respirators (filtering face pieces)

Regulations for measures to protect against SARS-CoV-2 transmission vary widely around the world, with very strict regulations in Germany where respirators (filtering face piece FFP2 or comparable) are often mandatory. The efficiency of respirators, however, depends essentially on the tight facial fit avoiding the bypass of contaminated air via gaps between mask and wearer's face. The facial fit can be verified in a fit test. The aim of this review was to describe the quantitative fit test results depending on the respirator designs. A literature search revealed 29 suitable studies. Of all respirators with circumferential head straps, three-panel folded dome-shaped respirators showed the best fit (80.8% of 4625 fit tests passed), followed by rigid-dome-shaped respirators (72.4% of 8234 fit tests passed), duckbill-shaped respirators (31.6% of 2120 fit tests passed), and coffee-filter-shaped respirators (30.9% of 3392 fit tests passed). Respirators with ear loops showed very poor tight fit (3.6% of 222 fit tests passed). In four randomized control trials, single-use respirators were not shown to be superior to surgical masks for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections, even when adjusted with a fit test. Therefore, we consider the mandatory use of respirators to be disproportionate and not supported by evidence. Further evidence should be generated, in which scenarios respirators might provide an effective benefit as part of occupational health and safety. For situations with confirmed benefits, only high-quality disposable respirators with head straps or respiratory protective equipment of higher protective levels should be used.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020. We include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers in October 2022, with backwards and forwards citation analysis on the new studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, glasses, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included 12 trials (10 cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low-certainty evidence).  One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.  Hand hygiene compared to control Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta-analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low-certainty evidence), and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low-certainty evidence). We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

A Review of Filtration Performance of Protective Masks

Masks are essential and effective small protective devices used to protect the general public against infections such as COVID-19. However, available systematic reviews and summaries on the filtration performance of masks are lacking. Therefore, in order to investigate the filtration performance of masks, filtration mechanisms, mask characteristics, and the relationships between influencing factors and protective performance were first analyzed through mask evaluations. The summary of filtration mechanisms and mask characteristics provides readers with a clear and easy-to-understand theoretical cognition. Then, a detailed analysis of influencing factors and the relationships between the influencing factors and filtration performance is presented in. The influence of the aerosol size and type on filtration performance is nonlinear and nonconstant, and filtration efficiency decreases with an increase in the gas flow rate; moreover, fitness plays a decisive role in the protective effects of masks. It is recommended that the public should wear surgical masks to prevent COVID-19 infection in low-risk and non-densely populated areas. Future research should focus on fitness tests, and the formulation of standards should also be accelerated. This paper provides a systematic review that will be helpful for the design of masks and public health in the future.