Cargando…

1716. Results of the Respiratory Protection Effectiveness Clinical Trial (ResPECT)

Results of the Respiratory Protection Effectiveness Clinical Trial (ResPECT) BACKGROUND: Respiratory protection (RP) for healthcare personnel (HCP) is controversial and clinical studies are inconclusive about the effectiveness of N95 respirators (N95) and medical masks (MM) for protecting HCP from w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Radonovich, Lewis, Simberkoff, Michael S, Bessesen, Mary, Brown, Alexandria C, Cummings, Derek, Gaydos, Charlotte, Los, Jenna, Krosche, Amanda, Gibert, Cynthia, Gorse, Geoffrey, Nyquist, Ann-Christine, Reich, Nicholas, Rodriguez-Barradas, Maria, Price, Connie, Perl, Trish
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6252805/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy209.122
_version_ 1783373348916428800
author Radonovich, Lewis
Simberkoff, Michael S
Bessesen, Mary
Brown, Alexandria C
Cummings, Derek
Gaydos, Charlotte
Los, Jenna
Krosche, Amanda
Gibert, Cynthia
Gorse, Geoffrey
Nyquist, Ann-Christine
Reich, Nicholas
Rodriguez-Barradas, Maria
Price, Connie
Perl, Trish
author_facet Radonovich, Lewis
Simberkoff, Michael S
Bessesen, Mary
Brown, Alexandria C
Cummings, Derek
Gaydos, Charlotte
Los, Jenna
Krosche, Amanda
Gibert, Cynthia
Gorse, Geoffrey
Nyquist, Ann-Christine
Reich, Nicholas
Rodriguez-Barradas, Maria
Price, Connie
Perl, Trish
author_sort Radonovich, Lewis
collection PubMed
description Results of the Respiratory Protection Effectiveness Clinical Trial (ResPECT) BACKGROUND: Respiratory protection (RP) for healthcare personnel (HCP) is controversial and clinical studies are inconclusive about the effectiveness of N95 respirators (N95) and medical masks (MM) for protecting HCP from workplace viral respiratory infections and illnesses (VRII). METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized, investigator-blinded, multisite effectiveness study comparing N95 to MM in geographically diverse, high exposure outpatient settings between 2011 and 2016. Each year during VRII season, participants wore assigned devices when within 6 feet of patients with known or suspected respiratory illness. Respiratory swabs were collected from symptomatic and asymptomatic participants. Diaries detailed VRII exposures, influenza vaccination, adherence to RP and hand hygiene, and manifestations of illness. The primary and secondary outcomes were the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza (LCI) using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and hemagglutinin inhibition assays (HAI), and acute respiratory illness (ARI), influenza-like illness (ILI), laboratory-confirmed respiratory illness (LCRI), and laboratory-detected respiratory infection (LDRI) (figure). Intervention protective effects were estimated using unadjusted odds and incidence rate ratios. RESULTS: 5,180 HCP seasons enrolled and randomized (2,243 to N95 and 2,446 to MM), with 4,689 (91%) completing the study. In the intention-to-treat cohort (ITT), among participants in the N95 and MM groups, respectively, 207 (8.2%) and 193 (7.2%) were diagnosed with LCI (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93–1.40); 1,556 (61.9%) and 1711 (64.1%) were diagnosed with ARI (relative risk (RR) 0.99, CI 0.92–1.06); 128 (5.1%) and 166 (6.2%) were diagnosed with ILI (RR 0.87, CI 0.68–1.10), 371 (14.8%) and 417 (15.6%) were diagnosed with LCRI (RR 0.97, CI 0.84–1.12); and 679 (27.0%) and 745 (27.9%) were diagnosed with LDRI (RR 0.99, CI 0.89–1.09). The adjusted ITT and per-protocol analyses yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: In this outpatient-based, cluster-randomized, controlled trial, neither N95 nor MM resulted in superior protection from LCI or VRII. DISCLOSURES: C. Gaydos, BioFire: Consultant, Consulting fee. Cepheid: Speaker’s Bureau, Speaker honorarium. Becton Dickinson: Speaker’s Bureau, Speaker honorarium.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6252805
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62528052018-11-28 1716. Results of the Respiratory Protection Effectiveness Clinical Trial (ResPECT) Radonovich, Lewis Simberkoff, Michael S Bessesen, Mary Brown, Alexandria C Cummings, Derek Gaydos, Charlotte Los, Jenna Krosche, Amanda Gibert, Cynthia Gorse, Geoffrey Nyquist, Ann-Christine Reich, Nicholas Rodriguez-Barradas, Maria Price, Connie Perl, Trish Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts Results of the Respiratory Protection Effectiveness Clinical Trial (ResPECT) BACKGROUND: Respiratory protection (RP) for healthcare personnel (HCP) is controversial and clinical studies are inconclusive about the effectiveness of N95 respirators (N95) and medical masks (MM) for protecting HCP from workplace viral respiratory infections and illnesses (VRII). METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized, investigator-blinded, multisite effectiveness study comparing N95 to MM in geographically diverse, high exposure outpatient settings between 2011 and 2016. Each year during VRII season, participants wore assigned devices when within 6 feet of patients with known or suspected respiratory illness. Respiratory swabs were collected from symptomatic and asymptomatic participants. Diaries detailed VRII exposures, influenza vaccination, adherence to RP and hand hygiene, and manifestations of illness. The primary and secondary outcomes were the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza (LCI) using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and hemagglutinin inhibition assays (HAI), and acute respiratory illness (ARI), influenza-like illness (ILI), laboratory-confirmed respiratory illness (LCRI), and laboratory-detected respiratory infection (LDRI) (figure). Intervention protective effects were estimated using unadjusted odds and incidence rate ratios. RESULTS: 5,180 HCP seasons enrolled and randomized (2,243 to N95 and 2,446 to MM), with 4,689 (91%) completing the study. In the intention-to-treat cohort (ITT), among participants in the N95 and MM groups, respectively, 207 (8.2%) and 193 (7.2%) were diagnosed with LCI (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93–1.40); 1,556 (61.9%) and 1711 (64.1%) were diagnosed with ARI (relative risk (RR) 0.99, CI 0.92–1.06); 128 (5.1%) and 166 (6.2%) were diagnosed with ILI (RR 0.87, CI 0.68–1.10), 371 (14.8%) and 417 (15.6%) were diagnosed with LCRI (RR 0.97, CI 0.84–1.12); and 679 (27.0%) and 745 (27.9%) were diagnosed with LDRI (RR 0.99, CI 0.89–1.09). The adjusted ITT and per-protocol analyses yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: In this outpatient-based, cluster-randomized, controlled trial, neither N95 nor MM resulted in superior protection from LCI or VRII. DISCLOSURES: C. Gaydos, BioFire: Consultant, Consulting fee. Cepheid: Speaker’s Bureau, Speaker honorarium. Becton Dickinson: Speaker’s Bureau, Speaker honorarium. Oxford University Press 2018-11-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6252805/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy209.122 Text en © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Abstracts
Radonovich, Lewis
Simberkoff, Michael S
Bessesen, Mary
Brown, Alexandria C
Cummings, Derek
Gaydos, Charlotte
Los, Jenna
Krosche, Amanda
Gibert, Cynthia
Gorse, Geoffrey
Nyquist, Ann-Christine
Reich, Nicholas
Rodriguez-Barradas, Maria
Price, Connie
Perl, Trish
1716. Results of the Respiratory Protection Effectiveness Clinical Trial (ResPECT)
title 1716. Results of the Respiratory Protection Effectiveness Clinical Trial (ResPECT)
title_full 1716. Results of the Respiratory Protection Effectiveness Clinical Trial (ResPECT)
title_fullStr 1716. Results of the Respiratory Protection Effectiveness Clinical Trial (ResPECT)
title_full_unstemmed 1716. Results of the Respiratory Protection Effectiveness Clinical Trial (ResPECT)
title_short 1716. Results of the Respiratory Protection Effectiveness Clinical Trial (ResPECT)
title_sort 1716. results of the respiratory protection effectiveness clinical trial (respect)
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6252805/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy209.122
work_keys_str_mv AT radonovichlewis 1716resultsoftherespiratoryprotectioneffectivenessclinicaltrialrespect
AT simberkoffmichaels 1716resultsoftherespiratoryprotectioneffectivenessclinicaltrialrespect
AT bessesenmary 1716resultsoftherespiratoryprotectioneffectivenessclinicaltrialrespect
AT brownalexandriac 1716resultsoftherespiratoryprotectioneffectivenessclinicaltrialrespect
AT cummingsderek 1716resultsoftherespiratoryprotectioneffectivenessclinicaltrialrespect
AT gaydoscharlotte 1716resultsoftherespiratoryprotectioneffectivenessclinicaltrialrespect
AT losjenna 1716resultsoftherespiratoryprotectioneffectivenessclinicaltrialrespect
AT kroscheamanda 1716resultsoftherespiratoryprotectioneffectivenessclinicaltrialrespect
AT gibertcynthia 1716resultsoftherespiratoryprotectioneffectivenessclinicaltrialrespect
AT gorsegeoffrey 1716resultsoftherespiratoryprotectioneffectivenessclinicaltrialrespect
AT nyquistannchristine 1716resultsoftherespiratoryprotectioneffectivenessclinicaltrialrespect
AT reichnicholas 1716resultsoftherespiratoryprotectioneffectivenessclinicaltrialrespect
AT rodriguezbarradasmaria 1716resultsoftherespiratoryprotectioneffectivenessclinicaltrialrespect
AT priceconnie 1716resultsoftherespiratoryprotectioneffectivenessclinicaltrialrespect
AT perltrish 1716resultsoftherespiratoryprotectioneffectivenessclinicaltrialrespect