Boutzoukas Angelique E, Zimmerman Kanecia O, Inkelas Moira, Brookhart M Alan, Benjamin Daniel K, Butteris Sabrina, Koval Shawn, DeMuri Gregory P, Manuel Vladimir G, Smith Michael J, McGann Kathleen A, Kalu Ibukunoluwa C, Weber David J, Falk Amy, Shane Andi L, Schuster Jennifer E, Goldman Jennifer L, Hickerson Jesse, Benjamin Vroselyn, Edwards Laura, Erickson Tyler R, Benjamin Daniel K
Duke Clinical Research Institute.
Departments of Pediatrics.
Pediatrics. 2022 Jun 1;149(6). doi: 10.1542/peds.2022-056687.
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, masking has been a widely used mitigation practice in kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) school districts to limit within-school transmission. Prior studies attempting to quantify the impact of masking have assessed total cases within schools; however, the metric that more optimally defines effectiveness of mitigation practices is within-school transmission, or secondary cases. We estimated the impact of various masking practices on secondary transmission in a cohort of K-12 schools.
We performed a multistate, prospective, observational, open cohort study from July 26, 2021 to December 13, 2021. Districts reported mitigation practices and weekly infection data. Districts that were able to perform contact tracing and adjudicate primary and secondary infections were eligible for inclusion. To estimate the impact of masking on secondary transmission, we used a quasi-Poisson regression model.
A total of 1 112 899 students and 157 069 staff attended 61 K-12 districts across 9 states that met inclusion criteria. The districts reported 40 601 primary and 3085 secondary infections. Six districts had optional masking policies, 9 had partial masking policies, and 46 had universal masking. In unadjusted analysis, districts that optionally masked throughout the study period had 3.6 times the rate of secondary transmission as universally masked districts; and for every 100 community-acquired cases, universally masked districts had 7.3 predicted secondary infections, whereas optionally masked districts had 26.4.
Secondary transmission across the cohort was modest (<10% of total infections) and universal masking was associated with reduced secondary transmission compared with optional masking.
在整个新冠疫情期间,戴口罩一直是幼儿园至12年级(K-12)学区广泛采用的缓解措施,以限制校内传播。此前试图量化戴口罩影响的研究评估的是学校内的总病例数;然而,能更优化地定义缓解措施有效性的指标是校内传播,即二代病例。我们估计了K-12学校群体中各种戴口罩措施对二代传播的影响。
我们于2021年7月26日至2021年12月13日开展了一项多州、前瞻性、观察性、开放队列研究。各学区报告了缓解措施和每周感染数据。能够进行接触者追踪并判定原发性和继发性感染的学区符合纳入条件。为估计戴口罩对二代传播的影响,我们使用了准泊松回归模型。
共有来自9个州的61个K-12学区的1112899名学生和157069名教职员工符合纳入标准。这些学区报告了40601例原发性感染和3085例继发性感染。6个学区有可选择的口罩政策,9个学区有部分口罩政策,46个学区有普遍口罩政策。在未调整分析中,在整个研究期间可选择戴口罩的学区的二代传播率是普遍戴口罩学区的3.6倍;每100例社区获得性病例中,普遍戴口罩的学区有7.3例预测的二代感染,而可选择戴口罩的学区有26.4例。
整个队列中的二代传播较少(占总感染数的不到10%),与可选择戴口罩相比,普遍戴口罩与二代传播减少有关。