Efficacy of FFP3 respirators for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers
- University of Cambridge Occupational Health and Safety Service, United Kingdom
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, United Kingdom
- School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
- Cambridge Biomedical Campus, United Kingdom
- University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
- Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
Abstract
Background: Respiratory protective equipment recommended in the UK for healthcare workers (HCWs) caring for patients with COVID-19 comprises a fluid resistant surgical mask (FRSM), except in the context of aerosol generating procedures (AGPs). We previously demonstrated frequent pauci- and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection HCWs during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK, using a comprehensive PCR-based HCW screening programme (Rivett et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2020).
Methods: Here, we use observational data and mathematical modelling to analyse infection rates amongst HCWs working on 'red' (COVID-19) and 'green' (non-COVID-19) wards during the second wave of the pandemic, before and after the substitution of filtering face piece 3 (FFP3) respirators for FRSMs.
Results: Whilst using FRSMs, HCWs working on red wards faced an approximately 31-fold (and at least 5-fold) increased risk of direct, ward-based infection. Conversely, after changing to FFP3 respirators, this risk was significantly reduced (52-100% protection).
Conclusions: FFP3 respirators may therefore provide more effective protection than FRSMs for healthcare workers caring for patients with COVID-19, whether or not AGPs are undertaken.
Funding: Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, Addenbrooke's Charitable Trust, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, NHS Blood and Transfusion, UKRI.
Data availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for Figures 1 and 3, and their supplements. Figure 2 source data is included in a table in the main text.
Article and author information
Author details
Christopher J R Illingworth
Nicholas J Matheson
Funding
Wellcome Trust (108070/Z/15/Z)
- Michael P Weekes
Addenbrooke's Charitable Trust, Cambridge University Hospitals
- Michael P Weekes
NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre
- Michael P Weekes
Medical Research Council (MR/P008801/1)
- Nicholas J Matheson
NHS Blood and Transfusion (WPA15-02)
- Nicholas J Matheson
UK Research and Innovation (MR/V038613/1)
- Christopher J R Illingworth
Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00002/11)
- Christopher J R Illingworth
Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12014)
- Christopher J R Illingworth
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Ethics
Human subjects: This study was conducted as a service evaluation of the CUHNFT staff testing services and PPE policy (CUHNFT clinical project ID3738). As a study of healthcare-associated infections, this investigation is exempt from requiring ethical approval under Section 251 of the NHS Act 2006 (see also the NHS Health Research Authority algorithm, available at http://www.hra-decision-tools.org.uk/research/, which concludes that no formal ethical approval is required).
Copyright
© 2021, Ferris et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 7,471
- views
-
- 284
- downloads
-
- 20
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Efficacy of FFP3 respirators for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers
eLife 10:e71131.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71131
Further reading
-
- Epidemiology and Global Health
- Medicine
Previously, we showed that 3% (31/1032)of asymptomatic healthcare workers (HCWs) from a large teaching hospital in Cambridge, UK, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in April 2020. About 15% (26/169) HCWs with symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (Rivett et al., 2020). Here, we show that the proportion of both asymptomatic and symptomatic HCWs testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 rapidly declined to near-zero between 25th April and 24th May 2020, corresponding to a decline in patient admissions with COVID-19 during the ongoing UK ‘lockdown’. These data demonstrate how infection prevention and control measures including staff testing may help prevent hospitals from becoming independent ‘hubs’ of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and illustrate how, with appropriate precautions, organizations in other sectors may be able to resume on-site work safely.
-
- Epidemiology and Global Health
- Medicine
Significant differences exist in the availability of healthcare worker (HCW) SARS-CoV-2 testing between countries, and existing programmes focus on screening symptomatic rather than asymptomatic staff. Over a 3 week period (April 2020), 1032 asymptomatic HCWs were screened for SARS-CoV-2 in a large UK teaching hospital. Symptomatic staff and symptomatic household contacts were additionally tested. Real-time RT-PCR was used to detect viral RNA from a throat+nose self-swab. 3% of HCWs in the asymptomatic screening group tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. 17/30 (57%) were truly asymptomatic/pauci-symptomatic. 12/30 (40%) had experienced symptoms compatible with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)>7 days prior to testing, most self-isolating, returning well. Clusters of HCW infection were discovered on two independent wards. Viral genome sequencing showed that the majority of HCWs had the dominant lineage B∙1. Our data demonstrates the utility of comprehensive screening of HCWs with minimal or no symptoms. This approach will be critical for protecting patients and hospital staff.
