Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Use of medical face masks versus particulate respirators as a component of personal protective equipment for health care workers in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2020 08 06; 9(1):126.AR

Abstract

Currently available evidence supports that the predominant route of human-to-human transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 is through respiratory droplets and/or contact routes. The report by the World Health Organization (WHO) Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China supports person-to-person droplet and fomite transmission during close unprotected contact with the vast majority of the investigated infection clusters occurring within families, with a household secondary attack rate varying between 3 and 10%, a finding that is not consistent with airborne transmission. The reproduction number (R0) for the SARS-CoV-2 is estimated to be between 2.2-2.7, compatible with other respiratory viruses associated with a droplet/contact mode of transmission and very different than an airborne virus like measles with a R0 widely cited to be between 12 and 18. Based on the scientific evidence accumulated to date, our view is that SARS-CoV-2 is not spread by the airborne route to any significant extent and the use of particulate respirators offers no advantage over medical masks as a component of personal protective equipment for the routine care of patients with COVID-19 in the health care setting. Moreover, prolonged use of particulate respirators may result in unintended harms. In conjunction with appropriate hand hygiene, personal protective equipment (PPE) used by health care workers caring for patients with COVID-19 must be used with attention to detail and precision of execution to prevent lapses in adherence and active failures in the donning and doffing of the PPE.

Authors+Show Affiliations

University of Calgary and Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. jconly@ucalgary.ca.University of Hong Kong , Hong Kong, China.University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.Hopitaux Universitaires de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland.Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado, USA.No affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Letter

Language

eng

PubMed ID

32762735

Citation

Conly, John, et al. "Use of Medical Face Masks Versus Particulate Respirators as a Component of Personal Protective Equipment for Health Care Workers in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic." Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control, vol. 9, no. 1, 2020, p. 126.
Conly J, Seto WH, Pittet D, et al. Use of medical face masks versus particulate respirators as a component of personal protective equipment for health care workers in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2020;9(1):126.
Conly, J., Seto, W. H., Pittet, D., Holmes, A., Chu, M., & Hunter, P. R. (2020). Use of medical face masks versus particulate respirators as a component of personal protective equipment for health care workers in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control, 9(1), 126. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-020-00779-6
Conly J, et al. Use of Medical Face Masks Versus Particulate Respirators as a Component of Personal Protective Equipment for Health Care Workers in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2020 08 6;9(1):126. PubMed PMID: 32762735.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Use of medical face masks versus particulate respirators as a component of personal protective equipment for health care workers in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. AU - Conly,John, AU - Seto,W H, AU - Pittet,Didier, AU - Holmes,Alison, AU - Chu,May, AU - Hunter,Paul R, AU - ,, Y1 - 2020/08/06/ PY - 2020/06/04/received PY - 2020/07/09/accepted PY - 2020/8/9/entrez PY - 2020/8/9/pubmed PY - 2020/8/28/medline KW - Airborne KW - COVID-19 KW - Contact KW - Droplet KW - Infection prevention KW - Medical mask KW - N95 respirator KW - SARS-CoV-2 KW - Transmission SP - 126 EP - 126 JF - Antimicrobial resistance and infection control JO - Antimicrob Resist Infect Control VL - 9 IS - 1 N2 - Currently available evidence supports that the predominant route of human-to-human transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 is through respiratory droplets and/or contact routes. The report by the World Health Organization (WHO) Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China supports person-to-person droplet and fomite transmission during close unprotected contact with the vast majority of the investigated infection clusters occurring within families, with a household secondary attack rate varying between 3 and 10%, a finding that is not consistent with airborne transmission. The reproduction number (R0) for the SARS-CoV-2 is estimated to be between 2.2-2.7, compatible with other respiratory viruses associated with a droplet/contact mode of transmission and very different than an airborne virus like measles with a R0 widely cited to be between 12 and 18. Based on the scientific evidence accumulated to date, our view is that SARS-CoV-2 is not spread by the airborne route to any significant extent and the use of particulate respirators offers no advantage over medical masks as a component of personal protective equipment for the routine care of patients with COVID-19 in the health care setting. Moreover, prolonged use of particulate respirators may result in unintended harms. In conjunction with appropriate hand hygiene, personal protective equipment (PPE) used by health care workers caring for patients with COVID-19 must be used with attention to detail and precision of execution to prevent lapses in adherence and active failures in the donning and doffing of the PPE. SN - 2047-2994 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/32762735/Use_of_medical_face_masks_versus_particulate_respirators_as_a_component_of_personal_protective_equipment_for_health_care_workers_in_the_context_of_the_COVID_19_pandemic_ L2 - https://aricjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13756-020-00779-6 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -