section name header

Evidence summaries

Physical Interventions for the Interruption or Reduction of the Spread of Respiratory Viruses

Respiratory virus spread especially in younger children may be prevented by frequent handwashing with or without adjunct antiseptics. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Level of evidence: "C"

The quality of evidence is downgraded by inconsistency (heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes) and by study quality (various study designs with typical sources of bias).

A Cochrane review [Abstract] 1 included 66 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of trials investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission.

Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks. Nine trials were included (of which eight were clusteri-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported. Two studies during COVID-19 plan to recruit a total of 72,000 people. One evaluates medical/surgical masks (N = 6000) (published Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 Nov 2020), and one evaluates cloth masks (N = 66,000).

N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks. Trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks were pooled (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). There is uncertainty over the effects of N95/P2 respirators when compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcomes of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; very low-certainty evidence; 3 trials; 7779 participants) and ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). The use of a N95/P2 respirator compared to a medical/surgical mask probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; moderate-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). Restricting the pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies. One ongoing study recruiting 576 people compares N95/P2 respirators with medical surgical masks for healthcare workers during COVID-19.

Hand hygiene compared to control. Settings included schools, childcare centres, homes, and offices. In a comparison of hand hygiene interventions with control (no intervention), there was a 16% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.86; 7 trials; 44,129 participants), suggesting a probable benefit. When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; 10 trials; 32,641 participants) and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials; 8332 participants) suggest the intervention made little or no difference. All 16 trials were pooled (61,372 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. The pooled data showed that hand hygiene may offer a benefit with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95), but with high heterogeneity. Few trials measured and reported harms.There are two ongoing studies of handwashing interventions in 395 children outside of COVID-19.One RCT on quarantine/physical distancing was found. Company employees in Japan were asked to stay at home if household members had ILI symptoms. Overall fewer people in the intervention group contracted influenza compared with workers in the control group (2.75% versus 3.18%; hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97). However, those who stayed at home with their infected family members were 2.17 times more likely to be infected.

    References

    • Jefferson T, Del Mar CB, Dooley L et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;(11):CD006207. [PubMed]

Primary/Secondary Keywords