659
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    1
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers : A Randomized Controlled Trial

      other

      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.

          Abstract

          Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates SARS-CoV-2 transmission. It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from infected mask wearers (source control), or both. This randomized controlled trial investigates whether recommending surgical mask use when outside the home reduces wearers' risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures.

          Abstract

          Visual Abstract. Effectiveness of Mask Recommendation for Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection  Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates SARS-CoV-2 transmission. It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from infected mask wearers (source control), or both. This randomized controlled trial investigates whether recommending surgical mask use when outside the home reduces wearers' risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures.
          Visual Abstract.
          Effectiveness of Mask Recommendation for Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection

          Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates SARS-CoV-2 transmission. It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from infected mask wearers (source control), or both. This randomized controlled trial investigates whether recommending surgical mask use when outside the home reduces wearers' risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from infected mask wearers (source control), or both.

          Objective:

          To assess whether recommending surgical mask use outside the home reduces wearers' risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures.

          Design:

          Randomized controlled trial (DANMASK-19 [Danish Study to Assess Face Masks for the Protection Against COVID-19 Infection]). (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04337541)

          Setting:

          Denmark, April and May 2020.

          Participants:

          Adults spending more than 3 hours per day outside the home without occupational mask use.

          Intervention:

          Encouragement to follow social distancing measures for coronavirus disease 2019, plus either no mask recommendation or a recommendation to wear a mask when outside the home among other persons together with a supply of 50 surgical masks and instructions for proper use.

          Measurements:

          The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 infection in the mask wearer at 1 month by antibody testing, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), or hospital diagnosis. The secondary outcome was PCR positivity for other respiratory viruses.

          Results:

          A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.

          Limitation:

          Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.

          Conclusion:

          The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.

          Primary Funding Source:

          The Salling Foundations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

          Research electronic data capture (REDCap) is a novel workflow methodology and software solution designed for rapid development and deployment of electronic data capture tools to support clinical and translational research. We present: (1) a brief description of the REDCap metadata-driven software toolset; (2) detail concerning the capture and use of study-related metadata from scientific research teams; (3) measures of impact for REDCap; (4) details concerning a consortium network of domestic and international institutions collaborating on the project; and (5) strengths and limitations of the REDCap system. REDCap is currently supporting 286 translational research projects in a growing collaborative network including 27 active partner institutions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1

            To the Editor: A novel human coronavirus that is now named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (formerly called HCoV-19) emerged in Wuhan, China, in late 2019 and is now causing a pandemic. 1 We analyzed the aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 and compared it with SARS-CoV-1, the most closely related human coronavirus. 2 We evaluated the stability of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 in aerosols and on various surfaces and estimated their decay rates using a Bayesian regression model (see the Methods section in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this letter at NEJM.org). SARS-CoV-2 nCoV-WA1-2020 (MN985325.1) and SARS-CoV-1 Tor2 (AY274119.3) were the strains used. Aerosols (<5 μm) containing SARS-CoV-2 (105.25 50% tissue-culture infectious dose [TCID50] per milliliter) or SARS-CoV-1 (106.75-7.00 TCID50 per milliliter) were generated with the use of a three-jet Collison nebulizer and fed into a Goldberg drum to create an aerosolized environment. The inoculum resulted in cycle-threshold values between 20 and 22, similar to those observed in samples obtained from the upper and lower respiratory tract in humans. Our data consisted of 10 experimental conditions involving two viruses (SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1) in five environmental conditions (aerosols, plastic, stainless steel, copper, and cardboard). All experimental measurements are reported as means across three replicates. SARS-CoV-2 remained viable in aerosols throughout the duration of our experiment (3 hours), with a reduction in infectious titer from 103.5 to 102.7 TCID50 per liter of air. This reduction was similar to that observed with SARS-CoV-1, from 104.3 to 103.5 TCID50 per milliliter (Figure 1A). SARS-CoV-2 was more stable on plastic and stainless steel than on copper and cardboard, and viable virus was detected up to 72 hours after application to these surfaces (Figure 1A), although the virus titer was greatly reduced (from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter of medium after 72 hours on plastic and from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). The stability kinetics of SARS-CoV-1 were similar (from 103.4 to 100.7 TCID50 per milliliter after 72 hours on plastic and from 103.6 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). On copper, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 4 hours and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after 8 hours. On cardboard, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 24 hours and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after 8 hours (Figure 1A). Both viruses had an exponential decay in virus titer across all experimental conditions, as indicated by a linear decrease in the log10TCID50 per liter of air or milliliter of medium over time (Figure 1B). The half-lives of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 were similar in aerosols, with median estimates of approximately 1.1 to 1.2 hours and 95% credible intervals of 0.64 to 2.64 for SARS-CoV-2 and 0.78 to 2.43 for SARS-CoV-1 (Figure 1C, and Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix). The half-lives of the two viruses were also similar on copper. On cardboard, the half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was longer than that of SARS-CoV-1. The longest viability of both viruses was on stainless steel and plastic; the estimated median half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was approximately 5.6 hours on stainless steel and 6.8 hours on plastic (Figure 1C). Estimated differences in the half-lives of the two viruses were small except for those on cardboard (Figure 1C). Individual replicate data were noticeably “noisier” (i.e., there was more variation in the experiment, resulting in a larger standard error) for cardboard than for other surfaces (Fig. S1 through S5), so we advise caution in interpreting this result. We found that the stability of SARS-CoV-2 was similar to that of SARS-CoV-1 under the experimental circumstances tested. This indicates that differences in the epidemiologic characteristics of these viruses probably arise from other factors, including high viral loads in the upper respiratory tract and the potential for persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 to shed and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. 3,4 Our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is plausible, since the virus can remain viable and infectious in aerosols for hours and on surfaces up to days (depending on the inoculum shed). These findings echo those with SARS-CoV-1, in which these forms of transmission were associated with nosocomial spread and super-spreading events, 5 and they provide information for pandemic mitigation efforts.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019

              Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an acute infection of the respiratory tract that emerged in late 20191,2. Initial outbreaks in China involved 13.8% of cases with severe courses, and 6.1% of cases with critical courses3. This severe presentation may result from the virus using a virus receptor that is expressed predominantly in the lung2,4; the same receptor tropism is thought to have determined the pathogenicity-but also aided in the control-of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 20035. However, there are reports of cases of COVID-19 in which the patient shows mild upper respiratory tract symptoms, which suggests the potential for pre- or oligosymptomatic transmission6-8. There is an urgent need for information on virus replication, immunity and infectivity in specific sites of the body. Here we report a detailed virological analysis of nine cases of COVID-19 that provides proof of active virus replication in tissues of the upper respiratory tract. Pharyngeal virus shedding was very high during the first week of symptoms, with a peak at 7.11 × 108 RNA copies per throat swab on day 4. Infectious virus was readily isolated from samples derived from the throat or lung, but not from stool samples-in spite of high concentrations of virus RNA. Blood and urine samples never yielded virus. Active replication in the throat was confirmed by the presence of viral replicative RNA intermediates in the throat samples. We consistently detected sequence-distinct virus populations in throat and lung samples from one patient, proving independent replication. The shedding of viral RNA from sputum outlasted the end of symptoms. Seroconversion occurred after 7 days in 50% of patients (and by day 14 in all patients), but was not followed by a rapid decline in viral load. COVID-19 can present as a mild illness of the upper respiratory tract. The confirmation of active virus replication in the upper respiratory tract has implications for the containment of COVID-19.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ann Intern Med
                Ann Intern Med
                aim
                Annals of Internal Medicine
                American College of Physicians
                0003-4819
                1539-3704
                18 November 2020
                : M20-6817
                Affiliations
                [1 ]The Heart Center, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark (H.B., J.S.B., D.E.T., M.M.P., C.R.V., U.C.W., A.R.)
                [2 ]Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark (C.V., T.T., H.U.)
                [3 ]Herlev & Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark (J.B.N., P.B.N., K.F., R.H., J.H.K., K.I.)
                [4 ]Nordsjaellands Hospital, Hillerød, and Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark (M.P.A., C.T.)
                [5 ]Centre for Diagnostics, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark (N.B.G.)
                [6 ]National Influenza Center, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark (R.T.)
                [7 ]Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark (K.S.)
                [8 ]Center of Research & Disruption of Infectious Diseases, Amager and Hvidovre Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark (T.B.)
                Author notes
                Acknowledgment: The authors thank Mrs. Kristine Sarah Hedegaard Andersen for valuable technical and logistic assistance and Mrs. Helena Aagaard Glud, Mr. Oscar Mejias Gomez, Mr. Andreas Visbech Madsen, Mr. Shoeib Moradi, Mrs. Louise Brogaard, Mrs. Maria Heinesen, Mrs. Karin Tarp, Mr. Weihua Tian, Mrs. Henriette Vorsholt, and Mrs. Shila Mortensen for valuable assistance in the laboratory work and analyses.
                Grant Support: By the Salling Foundations.
                Data Sharing Statement: The authors have indicated that they will not be sharing data.
                Corresponding Author: Henning Bundgaard, DMSc, Department of Cardiology, The Heart Center, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark; e-mail, henbundgaard@ 123456gmail.com .
                Current Author Addresses: Drs. Bundgaard, Pries-Heje, Vissing, Winsløw, and Ringgaard; Mr. Bundgaard; and Mr. Raaschou-Pedersen: Department of Cardiology, The Heart Center, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
                Drs. von Buchwald and Todsen: Department of ORL, Head & Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet, 6033, Copenhagen University Hospital, Inge Lehmanns Vej 7, DK 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
                Drs. Norsk, Nielsen, Fogh, Hasselbalch, Kristensen, and Iversen: Department of Cardiology, Herlev & Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, 2730 Herlev, Denmark.
                Drs. Porsborg Andersen and Torp-Pedersen: Department of Cardiology and Clinical Research, Nordsjaellands Hospital, Dyrehavevej 29, 3400 Hillerød, Denmark.
                Drs. Goecke and Skovgaard: Centre for Diagnostics, Technical University of Denmark, Anker Engelunds Vej 1 Bygning 101A, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
                Dr. Trebbien: Department of Virus and Microbiological Special Diagnostics, National Influenza Center, Statens Serum Institut, Artillerivej 5, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark.
                Dr. Benfield: Center of Research & Disruption of Infectious Diseases (CREDID), Department of Infectious Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital, Amager and Hvidovre, Hvidovre Hospital, Kettegård Allé 30, 2650 Hvidovre, Denmark.
                Dr. Ullum: Department of Clinical Immunology, The Heart Center, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
                Author Contributions: Conception and design: H. Bundgaard, J.S. Bundgaard, D.E.T. Raaschou-Pedersen, T. Todsen, K. Skovgaard, T. Benfield, C. Torp-Pedersen, K. Iversen.
                Analysis and interpretation of the data: H. Bundgaard, J.S. Bundgaard, D.E.T. Raaschou-Pedersen, C.R. Vissing, U.C. Winsløw, J.H. Kristensen, N.B. Goecke, K. Skovgaard, T. Benfield, C. Torp-Pedersen, K. Iversen.
                Drafting of the article: H. Bundgaard, J.S. Bundgaard, D.E.T. Raaschou-Pedersen, T. Benfield, K. Iversen.
                Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: H. Bundgaard, J.S. Bundgaard, D.E.T. Raaschou-Pedersen, T. Todsen, M.M. Pries-Heje, C.R. Vissing, P.B. Nielsen, U.C. Winsløw, R. Hasselbalch, J.H. Kristensen, A. Ringgaard, K. Skovgaard, T. Benfield, H. Ullum, C. Torp-Pedersen, K. Iversen.
                Final approval of the article: H. Bundgaard, J.S. Bundgaard, D.E.T. Raaschou-Pedersen, C. von Buchwald, T. Todsen, J.B. Norsk, M.M. Pries-Heje, C.R. Vissing, P.B. Nielsen, U.C. Winsløw, K. Fogh, R. Hasselbalch, J.H. Kristensen, A. Ringgaard, M. Porsborg Andersen, N.B. Goecke, R. Trebbien, K. Skovgaard, T. Benfield, H. Ullum, C. Torp-Pedersen, K. Iversen.
                Provision of study materials or patients: H. Bundgaard, D.E.T. Raaschou-Pedersen, T. Todsen, R. Trebbien, C. Torp-Pedersen.
                Statistical expertise: H. Bundgaard, J.S. Bundgaard, C. Torp-Pedersen.
                Obtaining of funding: H. Bundgaard, H. Ullum.
                Administrative, technical, or logistic support: H. Bundgaard, J.S. Bundgaard, D.E.T. Raaschou-Pedersen, C. von Buchwald, T. Todsen, M.M. Pries-Heje, P.B. Nielsen, K. Fogh, R. Hasselbalch, A. Ringgaard, M. Porsborg Andersen, R. Trebbien, C. Torp-Pedersen, K. Iversen.
                Collection and assembly of data: H. Bundgaard, J.S. Bundgaard, D.E.T. Raaschou-Pedersen, J.B. Norsk, M. Porsborg Andersen, H. Ullum, C. Torp-Pedersen, K. Iversen.
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0563-7049
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2069-9034
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0591-3656
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6753-8129
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3267-3560
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4187-6901
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0834-206X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4274-6268
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2566-0502
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6162-5205
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4948-9946
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2352-5726
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5663-4879
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0698-9385
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7306-9058
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2892-6131
                Article
                aim-olf-M206817
                10.7326/M20-6817
                7707213
                33205991
                c567b537-7807-44ce-bd44-b0a1effd0352
                Copyright @ 2020

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted re-use for research, analyses, and text and data mining through PubMed Central. Acknowledgement of the original source shall include a notice similar to the following: "© 2020 American College of Physicians. Some rights reserved. This work permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited." These permissions are granted for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic or until permissions are revoked in writing. Upon expiration of these permissions, PMC is granted a perpetual license to make this article available via PMC and Europe PMC, consistent with existing copyright protections.

                History
                Categories
                Original Research
                early, Currently Online First
                coronavirus, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
                rct, Randomized-Controlled Trial
                poc-eligible, POC Eligible
                3122457, COVID-19
                2357, Health care providers
                11279, SARS coronavirus
                9715, Patients
                6354, Upper respiratory tract infections
                1541398, Pulmonary diseases
                3282, Infectious diseases
                8910, Epidemiology
                7245, Lungs

                Comments

                Comment on this article