Alfelali, M and Haworth, EA and Barasheed, O and Badahdah, A-M and Bokhary, H and Tashani, M and Azeem, MI and Kok, J and Taylor, J and Barnes, EH and Bashir, HE and Khandaker, G and Holmes, EC and Dwyer, DE and Heron, LG and Wilson, GJ and Booy, R and Rashid, H, on behalf of the Hajj Research Team, Facemask against viral respiratory infections among Hajj pilgrims: a challenging cluster-randomized trial, PL o S One, 15, (10) Article e0240287. ISSN 1932-6203 (2020) [Refereed Article]
Copyright 2020 Alfelali et al. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Methods and results: Over three consecutive Hajj seasons (2013, 2014, 2015) pilgrims' tents in Makkah were allocated to 'facemask' or 'no facemask' group. Fifty facemasks were offered to participants in intervention tents, to be worn over four days, and none were offered to participants in control tents. All participants recorded facemask use and respiratory symptoms in health diaries. Nasal swabs were collected from the symptomatic for virus detection by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Clinical symptoms and laboratory results were analyzed by 'intention- to-treat' and 'per-protocol'. A total of 7687 adult participants from 318 tents were randomized: 3864 from 149 tents to the intervention group, and 3823 from 169 tents to the control group. Participants were aged 18 to 95 (median 34, mean 37) years, with a male to female ratio of 1:1.2. Overall, respiratory viruses were detected in 277 of 650 (43%) nasal/pharyngeal swabs collected from symptomatic pilgrims. Common viruses were rhinovirus (35.1%), influenza (4.5%) and parainfluenza (1.7%). In the intervention arm, respectively 954 (24.7%) and 1842 (47.7%) participants used facemasks daily and intermittently, while in the control arm, respectively 546 (14.3%) and 1334 (34.9%) used facemasks daily and intermittently. By intention-to-treat analysis, facemask use did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections (odds ratio [OR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 2.1, p = 0.18) nor against clinical respiratory infection (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4, p = 0.40). Similarly, in a per-protocol analysis, facemask use did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.9-1.7, p = 0.26) nor against clinical respiratory infection (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0-1.8, p = 0.06).
Conclusion: This trial was unable to provide conclusive evidence on facemask efficacy against viral respiratory infections most likely due to poor adherence to protocol.
|Item Type:||Refereed Article|
|Research Division:||Biomedical and Clinical Sciences|
|Research Group:||Cardiovascular medicine and haematology|
|Research Field:||Respiratory diseases|
|Objective Group:||Public health (excl. specific population health)|
|Objective Field:||Behaviour and health|
|UTAS Author:||Haworth, EA (Dr Elizabeth Haworth)|
|Web of Science® Times Cited:||2|
|Deposited By:||Menzies Institute for Medical Research|
Repository Staff Only: item control page