National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Veterans Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York.
JAMA. 2019 Sep 3;322(9):824-833. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.11645.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01249625.
重要性:临床研究对于 N95 呼吸器和医用口罩在预防医护人员(HCP)获得工作场所病毒性呼吸道感染方面的有效性尚无定论。
目的:比较 N95 呼吸器与医用口罩在预防 HCP 感染流感和其他病毒性呼吸道感染方面的效果。
设计、地点和参与者:这是一项在 2011 年 9 月至 2015 年 5 月期间在美国 7 家医疗中心的 137 个门诊研究地点进行的集群随机实用有效性研究,最终随访时间为 2016 年 6 月。在每年为期 4 周的病毒性呼吸道疾病高发期,每个中心的门诊研究地点(集群)按对匹配,并随机分配至 N95 呼吸器或医用口罩组。
干预措施:共有 1993 名参与者(189 个集群)被随机分配佩戴 N95 呼吸器(2512 名 HCP-观察季节),2058 名参与者(191 个集群)被随机分配佩戴医用口罩(2668 名 HCP-观察季节),当接近患有呼吸道疾病的患者时佩戴。
主要结果和措施:主要结局是实验室确诊的流感发病率。次要结局包括急性呼吸道疾病、实验室检测到的呼吸道感染、实验室确诊的呼吸道疾病和流感样疾病的发病率。评估了干预措施的依从性。
结果:在 2862 名随机参与者中(平均[标准差]年龄,43[11.5]岁;女性 2369 名[82.8%]),2371 名完成了研究,共 5180 名 HCP-观察季节。N95 呼吸器组中有 207 例实验室确诊的流感感染事件(8.2%的 HCP-观察季节),医用口罩组中有 193 例(7.2%的 HCP-观察季节)(差异,1.0%,[95%置信区间,-0.5%至 2.5%];P=0.18)(校正优势比[OR],1.18[95%置信区间,0.95-1.45])。在呼吸器组中有 1556 例急性呼吸道疾病事件,在口罩组中有 1711 例(差异,-21.9 例/1000 HCP-观察季节[95%置信区间,-48.2 至 4.4];P=0.10);在呼吸器组中有 679 例实验室检测到的呼吸道感染,在口罩组中有 745 例(差异,-8.9 例/1000 HCP-观察季节[95%置信区间,-33.3 至 15.4];P=0.47);在呼吸器组中有 371 例实验室确诊的呼吸道疾病事件,在口罩组中有 417 例(差异,-8.6 例/1000 HCP-观察季节[95%置信区间,-28.2 至 10.9];P=0.39);在呼吸器组中有 128 例流感样疾病事件,在口罩组中有 166 例(差异,-11.3 例/1000 HCP-观察季节[95%置信区间,-23.8 至 1.3];P=0.08)。在呼吸器组中,89.4%的参与者报告“始终”或“有时”佩戴他们分配到的设备,而口罩组中这一比例为 90.2%。
结论和相关性:在门诊医护人员中,与参与者在本试验中佩戴的医用口罩相比,N95 呼吸器并未显著降低实验室确诊流感的发生率。
试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT01249625。