Brainard Julii, Jones Natalia R, Swindells Isabel Catalina, Archer Elizabeth J, Kolyva Anastasia, Letley Charlotte, Pond Katharine, Lake Iain R, Hunter Paul R
Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
Prev Med. 2023 Dec;177:107774. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2023.107774. Epub 2023 Nov 20.
Installation of technologies to remove or deactivate respiratory pathogens from indoor air is a plausible non-pharmaceutical infectious disease control strategy.
We undertook a systematic review of worldwide observational and experimental studies, published 1970-2022, to synthesise evidence about the effectiveness of suitable indoor air treatment technologies to prevent respiratory or gastrointestinal infections.
We searched for data about infection and symptom outcomes for persons who spent minimum 20 h/week in shared indoor spaces subjected to air treatment strategies hypothesised to change risk of respiratory or gastrointestinal infections or symptoms.
Pooled data from 32 included studies suggested no net benefits of air treatment technologies for symptom severity or symptom presence, in absence of confirmed infection. Infection incidence was lower in three cohort studies for persons exposed to high efficiency particulate air filtration (RR 0.4, 95%CI 0.28-0.58, p < 0.001) and in one cohort study that combined ionisers with electrostatic nano filtration (RR 0.08, 95%CI 0.01-0.60, p = 0.01); other types of air treatment technologies and air treatment in other study designs were not strongly linked to fewer infections. The infection outcome data exhibited strong publication bias.
Although environmental and surface samples are reduced after air treatment by several air treatment strategies, especially germicidal lights and high efficiency particulate air filtration, robust evidence has yet to emerge that these technologies are effective at reducing respiratory or gastrointestinal infections in real world settings. Data from several randomised trials have yet to report and will be welcome to the evidence base.
安装从室内空气中去除或灭活呼吸道病原体的技术是一种可行的非药物传染病控制策略。
我们对1970年至2022年发表的全球观察性和实验性研究进行了系统综述,以综合关于合适的室内空气处理技术预防呼吸道或胃肠道感染有效性的证据。
我们搜索了有关在假设会改变呼吸道或胃肠道感染或症状风险的空气处理策略的共享室内空间中每周至少花费20小时的人员的感染和症状结果的数据。
来自32项纳入研究的汇总数据表明,在没有确诊感染的情况下,空气处理技术对症状严重程度或症状出现没有净益处。在三项队列研究中,暴露于高效空气过滤的人员感染发生率较低(风险比0.4,95%置信区间0.28 - 0.58,p < 0.001),在一项将离子发生器与静电纳米过滤相结合的队列研究中也是如此(风险比0.08,95%置信区间0.01 - 0.60,p = 0.01);其他类型的空气处理技术以及其他研究设计中的空气处理与较少感染没有密切关联。感染结果数据存在强烈的发表偏倚。
尽管通过几种空气处理策略,特别是杀菌灯和高效空气过滤,空气处理后环境和表面样本有所减少,但尚未有确凿证据表明这些技术在实际环境中能有效减少呼吸道或胃肠道感染。几项随机试验的数据尚未报告,若有将为证据库提供助力。