Use of respirator vs. surgical masks in healthcare personnel and its impact on SARS-CoV-2 acquisition – a prospective multicentre cohort study - Haller, Sabine; Güsewell, Sabine; Egger, Thomas; Scanferla, Giulia; Thoma, Reto; Leal-Neto, Onicio B.; Flury, Domenica; Brucher, Angela; Lemmenmeier, Eva; Möller, J. Carsten; Rieder, Philip; Ruetti, Markus; et al. (medRxiv, 2021)
Background There is insufficient evidence regarding the role of respirators in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We analysed the impact of filtering facepiece class 2 (FFP2) vs. surgical masks on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 acquisition among Swiss healthcare workers (HCW).Methods Our prospective multicentre cohort enrolled patient-facing HCWs from June to August 2020. Participants were asked about COVID-19 risk exposures/behaviours, including preferred mask type when caring for COVID-19 patients outside of aerosol-generating procedures (AGP). For those performing AGPs, we asked whether they used FFP2 irrespective of the patient’s COVID-19 status (i.e. universal use). The impact of FFP2 on i) self-reported SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal PCR/rapid antigen tests captured during weekly surveys, and ii) SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion between baseline and January/February 2021 was assessed.Results We enrolled 3’259 participants from nine healthcare institutions, whereof 716 (22%) preferentially used FFP2 respirators. Among these, 81/716 (11%) reported a SARS-CoV-2-positive swab, compared to 352/2543 (14%) surgical mask users (median follow-up 242 days); seroconversion was documented in 85/656 (13%) FFP2 and 426/2255 (19%) surgical mask users. Adjusted for baseline characteristics, COVID-19 exposure, and risk behaviour, FFP2 use was non-significantly associated with a decreased risk for SARS-CoV-2-positive swab (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 08, 95% CI 06-10, p=0052) and seroconversion (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 07, 95% CI 05-10, p=0053); household exposure was the strongest risk factor (aHR for positive swab 101, p<0001; aOR for seroconversion 50, p<0001). In subgroup analysis, FFP2 use was clearly protective among those with frequent (>20 patients) COVID-19 exposure (aHR 07, p<0001; aOR 06, p=0035). Universal FFP2 use during AGPs showed no protective effect (aHR 11, p=07; aOR 09, p=053).Conclusion Respirators compared to surgical masks may convey additional protection from SARS-CoV-2 for HCW with frequent exposure to COVID-19 patients.Funding Swiss National Sciences Foundation, Federal Office of Public Health, Cantonal Health Department St.GallenCompeting Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementSwiss National Sciences Foundation, Federal Office of Public Health, Cantonal Health Department St.GallenAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was approved by the ethics committee of Eastern Switzerland (#2020-00502).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.