7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      P2/N95 filtering facepiece respirators: Results of a large-scale quantitative mask fit testing program in Australian health care workers

      research-article
      , BDS a , b , * , , BSc, MSc c , d , , BScPhys, MHlthLaw e , , MBBS (Hons 1), PhD, FRACP f , g , , BDS, PhD, Dip. Orth., Certif. Orth., Priv. Doc., MRACDS (Orth), FICD h , , BDS, DClinDent (Orth), MOrth RCSEd, MRACDS (Orth) i , , BN, MPH, PhD j
      American Journal of Infection Control
      Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc.
      COVID-19, infection control, respiratory protection, airborne, SARS-CoV-2

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Graphical abstract

          Abstract

          Background

          In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, 6,287 Australian health care workers (HCWs) were fit tested to N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs). This study determined how readily HCWs were fitted to 8 FFRs and how age and sex influenced testing.

          Methods

          HCWs were fit tested following the quantitative OSHA protocol. After bivariate analysis, a logistic regression model assessed the effect of FFR model, HCW age and sex on fit test results.

          Results

          Of 4,198 female and 2,089 male HCWs tested, 93.3% were successfully fitted. Fifty-five percent passed the first FFR, 21% required 2 and 23% required testing on 3 or more models. Males were 15% less likely to pass compared to females ( P < .001). Individuals aged 18-29 were significantly more likely to pass compared to colleagues aged 30-59. Cup-style 3M 1860S was the most suitable model (95% CI: 1.94, 2.54) while the duckbill BSN TN01-11 was most likely to fail (95% CI: 0.11, 0.15).

          Conclusions

          Current N95 FFRs exhibit suboptimal fit such that a large proportion (45%) of HCWs require testing on multiple models. Older age and male sex were associated with significantly higher fit failure rates. QNFT programs should consider HCW characteristics like sex, age, racial and facial anthropometric measurements to improve the protection of the health workforce.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study

          Summary Background Data for front-line health-care workers and risk of COVID-19 are limited. We sought to assess risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers compared with the general community and the effect of personal protective equipment (PPE) on risk. Methods We did a prospective, observational cohort study in the UK and the USA of the general community, including front-line health-care workers, using self-reported data from the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application (app) from March 24 (UK) and March 29 (USA) to April 23, 2020. Participants were voluntary users of the app and at first use provided information on demographic factors (including age, sex, race or ethnic background, height and weight, and occupation) and medical history, and subsequently reported any COVID-19 symptoms. We used Cox proportional hazards modelling to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of our primary outcome, which was a positive COVID-19 test. The COVID Symptom Study app is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04331509. Findings Among 2 035 395 community individuals and 99 795 front-line health-care workers, we recorded 5545 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 34 435 272 person-days. Compared with the general community, front-line health-care workers were at increased risk for reporting a positive COVID-19 test (adjusted HR 11·61, 95% CI 10·93–12·33). To account for differences in testing frequency between front-line health-care workers and the general community and possible selection bias, an inverse probability-weighted model was used to adjust for the likelihood of receiving a COVID-19 test (adjusted HR 3·40, 95% CI 3·37–3·43). Secondary and post-hoc analyses suggested adequacy of PPE, clinical setting, and ethnic background were also important factors. Interpretation In the UK and the USA, risk of reporting a positive test for COVID-19 was increased among front-line health-care workers. Health-care systems should ensure adequate availability of PPE and develop additional strategies to protect health-care workers from COVID-19, particularly those from Black, Asian, and minority ethnic backgrounds. Additional follow-up of these observational findings is needed. Funding Zoe Global, Wellcome Trust, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institutes of Health Research, UK Research and Innovation, Alzheimer's Society, National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Emergence and rapid transmission of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 in the United States

            The highly transmissible B.1.1.7 variant of SARS-CoV-2, first identified in the United Kingdom, has gained a foothold across the world. Using S gene target failure (SGTF) and SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequencing, we investigated the prevalence and dynamics of this variant in the United States (U.S.), tracking it back to its early emergence. We found that while the fraction of B.1.1.7 varied by state, the variant increased at a logistic rate with a roughly weekly doubling rate and an increased transmission of 40-50%. We revealed several independent introductions of B.1.1.7 into the U.S. as early as late November 2020, with community transmission spreading it to most states within months. We show that the U.S. is on a similar trajectory as other countries where B.1.1.7 became dominant, requiring immediate and decisive action to minimize COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

              Abstract Objective Previous meta‐analyses concluded that there was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of N95 respirators. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks for prevention of influenza by collecting randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods We searched PubMed, EMbase and The Cochrane Library from the inception to January 27, 2020 to identify relevant systematic reviews. The RCTs included in systematic reviews were identified. Then we searched the latest published RCTs from the above three databases and searched ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished RCTs. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed risk of bias. Meta‐analyses were conducted to calculate pooled estimates by using RevMan 5.3 software. Results A total of six RCTs involving 9 171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory‐confirmed influenza (RR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.92‐1.28, P > .05), laboratory‐confirmed respiratory viral infections (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.70‐1.11), laboratory‐confirmed respiratory infection (RR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.42‐1.29) and influenzalike illness (RR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.33‐1.14) using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta‐analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory‐confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43‐0.78). Conclusion The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory‐confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be recommended for general public and nonhigh‐risk medical staff those are not in close contact with influenza patients or suspected patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Am J Infect Control
                Am J Infect Control
                American Journal of Infection Control
                Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc.
                0196-6553
                1527-3296
                29 December 2021
                29 December 2021
                Affiliations
                [a ]Community Oral Health Clinic, Sydney Dental Hospital, Sydney Local Health District, Surry Hills, New South Wales, Australia
                [b ]Discipline of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Surry Hills, New South Wales, Australia
                [c ]Sydney Local Health District Clinical Research Centre, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
                [d ]Transport and Road Safety (TARS) Research Centre, School of Aviation, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                [e ]Centre for Education and Workforce Development, Sydney Local Health District, Rozelle, New South Wales, Australia
                [f ]Cardiovascular Medicine and Bioengineering, National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
                [g ]Department of Cardiology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
                [h ]Discipline of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Surry Hills, New South Wales, Australia
                [i ]Discipline of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Surry Hills, New South Wales, Australia
                [j ]Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                Author notes
                [* ]Address correspondence to Maxim P. Milosevic, BDS, Community Oral Health Clinic, Sydney Dental Hospital, 2 Chalmers St, Surry Hills, New South Wales 2010, Australia.
                Article
                S0196-6553(21)00857-9
                10.1016/j.ajic.2021.12.016
                8767955
                34971710
                ce43ae33-dc26-429c-b701-5584dedba2ab
                Crown Copyright © 2022 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. All rights reserved.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Categories
                Major Article

                covid-19,infection control,respiratory protection,airborne,sars-cov-2

                Comments

                Comment on this article