A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing fit-tested and non-fit-tested N95 respirators to medical masks to prevent respiratory virus infection in health care workers
Open Access
- 27 January 2011
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses
- Vol. 5 (3), 170-179
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00198.x
Abstract
Background We compared the efficacy of medical masks, N95 respirators (fit tested and non fit tested), in health care workers (HCWs). Methods A cluster randomized clinical trial (RCT) of 1441 HCWs in 15 Beijing hospitals was performed during the 2008/2009 winter. Participants wore masks or respirators during the entire work shift for 4 weeks. Outcomes included clinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza-like illness (ILI), laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection and influenza. A convenience no-mask/respirator group of 481 health workers from nine hospitals was compared. Findings The rates of CRI (3 center dot 9% versus 6 center dot 7%), ILI (0 center dot 3% versus 0 center dot 6%), laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus (1 center dot 4% versus 2 center dot 6%) and influenza (0 center dot 3% versus 1%) infection were consistently lower for the N95 group compared to medical masks. By intention-to-treat analysis, when P values were adjusted for clustering, non-fit-tested N95 respirators were significantly more protective than medical masks against CRI, but no other outcomes were significant. The rates of all outcomes were higher in the convenience no-mask group compared to the intervention arms. There was no significant difference in outcomes between the N95 arms with and without fit testing. Rates of fit test failure were low. In a post hoc analysis adjusted for potential confounders, N95 masks and hospital level were significant, but medical masks, vaccination, handwashing and high-risk procedures were not. Interpretation Rates of infection in the medical mask group were double that in the N95 group. A benefit of respirators is suggested but would need to be confirmed by a larger trial, as this study may have been underpowered. The finding on fit testing is specific to the type of respirator used in the study and cannot be generalized to other respirators. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN: ACTRN12609000257268 (http://www.anzctr.org.au).Keywords
This publication has 27 references indexed in Scilit:
- Novel H1N1 Influenza and Respiratory Protection for Health Care WorkersThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2009
- Feasibility Exercise to Evaluate the Use of Particulate Respirators by Emergency Department Staff During the 2007 Influenza SeasonInfection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 2009
- Pandemic Potential of a Strain of Influenza A (H1N1): Early FindingsScience, 2009
- Face Mask Use and Control of Respiratory Virus Transmission in HouseholdsEmerging Infectious Diseases, 2009
- Comparison of Performance of Three Different Types of Respiratory Protection DevicesJournal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 2006
- Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks?American Journal of Infection Control, 2006
- Handwashing and risk of respiratory infections: a quantitative systematic reviewTropical Medicine & International Health, 2006
- Headaches and the N95 face-mask amongst healthcare providersActa Neurologica Scandinavica, 2006
- A Stepwise Resampling Method of Multiple Hypothesis TestingJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1995
- Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms—a costly and unnecessary ritual?Journal of Hospital Infection, 1991