Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: systematic review

Objective To review systematically the evidence of effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

Implementing evidence-based medicine in general practice: a focus group based study

BACKGROUND: Over the past years concerns are rising about the use of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) in health care. The calls for an increase in the practice of EBM, seem to be obstructed by many barriers preventing the implementation of evidence-based thinking and acting in general practice. This study aims to explore the barriers of Flemish GPs (General Practitioners) to the implementation of EBM in routine clinical work and to identify possible strategies for integrating EBM in daily work. METHODS: We used a qualitative research strategy to gather and analyse data. We organised focus groups between September 2002 and April 2003. The focus group data were analysed using a combined strategy of 'between-case' analysis and 'grounded theory approach'. Thirty-one general practitioners participated in four focus groups. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit participants. RESULTS: A basic classification model documents the influencing factors and actors on a micro-, meso- as well as macro-level. Patients, colleagues, competences, logistics and time were identified on the micro-level (the GPs' individual practice), commercial and consumer organisations on the meso-level (institutions, organisations) and health care policy, media and specific characteristics of evidence on the macro-level (policy level and international scientific community). Existing barriers and possible strategies to overcome these barriers were described. CONCLUSION: In order to implement EBM in routine general practice, an integrated approach on different levels needs to be developed

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: a cochrane review

BackgroundViral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections like influenza or severe acute respiratory syndrome pose a world-wide threat. Antiviral drugs and vaccinations may be insufficient to prevent catastrophe.ObjectivesTo systematically review the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.Search strategyWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2); MEDLINE (1966 to May 2009); OLDMEDLINE (1950 to 1965); EMBASE (1990 to May 2009); and CINAHL (1982 to May 2009).Selection criteriaWe scanned 2958 titles, excluded 2790 and retrieved the full papers of 168 trials, to include 59 papers of 60 studies. We included any physical interventions (isolation, quarantine, social distancing, barriers, personal protection and hygiene) to prevent transmission of respiratory viruses. We included the following study designs: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohorts, case controls, cross-over, before-after, and time series studies.Data collection and analysisWe used a standardised form to assess trial eligibility. RCTs were assessed by: randomisation method; allocation generation; concealment; blinding; and follow up. Non-RCTs were assessed for the presence of potential confounders, and classified into low, medium, and high risks of bias.Main resultsThe risk of bias for the four RCTs, and most cluster RCTs, was high. The observational studies were of mixed quality. Only case-control data were sufficiently homogeneous to allow meta-analysis. The highest quality cluster RCTs suggest respiratory virus spread can be prevented by hygienic measures, such as handwashing, especially around younger children. Additional benefit from reduced transmission from children to other household members is broadly supported in results of other study designs, where the potential for confounding is greater. Six case-control studies suggested that implementing barriers to transmission, isolation, and hygienic measures are effective at containing respiratory virus epidemics. We found limited evidence that N95 respirators were superior to simple surgical masks, but were more expensive, uncomfortable, and caused skin irritation. The incremental effect of adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing to decrease respiratory disease remains uncertain. Global measures, such as screening at entry ports, were not properly evaluated. There was limited evidence that social distancing was effective especially if related to the risk of exposure.Authors' conclusionsMany simple and probably low-cost interventions would be useful for reducing the transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. Routine long-term implementation of some of the measures assessed might be difficult without the threat of a looming epidemic

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) caused by SARS‐CoV‐2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The evidence summarised in this review does not include results from studies from the current COVID‐19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL on 1 April 2020. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP on 16 March 2020. We conducted a backwards and forwards citation analysis on the newly included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included 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. In previous versions of this review we also included observational studies. However, for this update, there were sufficient RCTs to address our study aims.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Three pairs of review authors independently extracted data using a standard template applied in previous versions of this review, but which was revised to reflect our focus on RCTs and cluster‐RCTs for this update. We did not contact trialists for missing data due to the urgency in completing the review. We extracted data on adverse events (harms) associated with the interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 new RCTs and cluster‐RCTs in this update, bringing the total number of randomised trials to 67. There were no included studies conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Six ongoing studies were identified, of which three evaluating masks are being conducted concurrent with the COVID pandemic, and one is completed. Many studies were conducted during non‐epidemic influenza periods, but several studies were conducted during the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Thus, studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID‐19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high‐income countries; crowded inner city settings in low‐income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high‐income country. Compliance with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster‐RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster‐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 (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (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 We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (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 evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. 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; moderate‐certainty evidence), 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; low‐certainty evidence) and laboratory‐confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials; 8332 participants; low‐certainty evidence) suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled all 16 trials (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; low‐certainty evidence), 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. We identified one RCT on quarantine/physical distancing. 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. We found no RCTs on eye protection, gowns and gloves, or screening at entry ports. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID‐19 pandemic. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low‐moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. 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. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated. There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.