We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Medical Masks Versus N95 Respirators for Preventing COVID-19 Among Health Care Workers : A Randomized Trial.
Annals of Internal Medicine 2022 December
BACKGROUND: It is uncertain if medical masks offer similar protection against COVID-19 compared with N95 respirators.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether medical masks are noninferior to N95 respirators to prevent COVID-19 in health care workers providing routine care.
DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04296643).
SETTING: 29 health care facilities in Canada, Israel, Pakistan, and Egypt from 4 May 2020 to 29 March 2022.
PARTICIPANTS: 1009 health care workers who provided direct care to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
INTERVENTION: Use of medical masks versus fit-tested N95 respirators for 10 weeks, plus universal masking, which was the policy implemented at each site.
MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was confirmed COVID-19 on reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test.
RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 52 of 497 (10.46%) participants in the medical mask group versus 47 of 507 (9.27%) in the N95 respirator group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.69]). An unplanned subgroup analysis by country found that in the medical mask group versus the N95 respirator group RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 8 of 131 (6.11%) versus 3 of 135 (2.22%) in Canada (HR, 2.83 [CI, 0.75 to 10.72]), 6 of 17 (35.29%) versus 4 of 17 (23.53%) in Israel (HR, 1.54 [CI, 0.43 to 5.49]), 3 of 92 (3.26%) versus 2 of 94 (2.13%) in Pakistan (HR, 1.50 [CI, 0.25 to 8.98]), and 35 of 257 (13.62%) versus 38 of 261 (14.56%) in Egypt (HR, 0.95 [CI, 0.60 to 1.50]). There were 47 (10.8%) adverse events related to the intervention reported in the medical mask group and 59 (13.6%) in the N95 respirator group.
LIMITATION: Potential acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 through household and community exposure, heterogeneity between countries, uncertainty in the estimates of effect, differences in self-reported adherence, differences in baseline antibodies, and between-country differences in circulating variants and vaccination.
CONCLUSION: Among health care workers who provided routine care to patients with COVID-19, the overall estimates rule out a doubling in hazard of RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 for medical masks when compared with HRs of RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 for N95 respirators. The subgroup results varied by country, and the overall estimates may not be applicable to individual countries because of treatment effect heterogeneity.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, World Health Organization, and Juravinski Research Institute.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether medical masks are noninferior to N95 respirators to prevent COVID-19 in health care workers providing routine care.
DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04296643).
SETTING: 29 health care facilities in Canada, Israel, Pakistan, and Egypt from 4 May 2020 to 29 March 2022.
PARTICIPANTS: 1009 health care workers who provided direct care to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
INTERVENTION: Use of medical masks versus fit-tested N95 respirators for 10 weeks, plus universal masking, which was the policy implemented at each site.
MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was confirmed COVID-19 on reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test.
RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 52 of 497 (10.46%) participants in the medical mask group versus 47 of 507 (9.27%) in the N95 respirator group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.69]). An unplanned subgroup analysis by country found that in the medical mask group versus the N95 respirator group RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 8 of 131 (6.11%) versus 3 of 135 (2.22%) in Canada (HR, 2.83 [CI, 0.75 to 10.72]), 6 of 17 (35.29%) versus 4 of 17 (23.53%) in Israel (HR, 1.54 [CI, 0.43 to 5.49]), 3 of 92 (3.26%) versus 2 of 94 (2.13%) in Pakistan (HR, 1.50 [CI, 0.25 to 8.98]), and 35 of 257 (13.62%) versus 38 of 261 (14.56%) in Egypt (HR, 0.95 [CI, 0.60 to 1.50]). There were 47 (10.8%) adverse events related to the intervention reported in the medical mask group and 59 (13.6%) in the N95 respirator group.
LIMITATION: Potential acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 through household and community exposure, heterogeneity between countries, uncertainty in the estimates of effect, differences in self-reported adherence, differences in baseline antibodies, and between-country differences in circulating variants and vaccination.
CONCLUSION: Among health care workers who provided routine care to patients with COVID-19, the overall estimates rule out a doubling in hazard of RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 for medical masks when compared with HRs of RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 for N95 respirators. The subgroup results varied by country, and the overall estimates may not be applicable to individual countries because of treatment effect heterogeneity.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, World Health Organization, and Juravinski Research Institute.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app