TY - JOUR
T1 - Effectiveness and adherence to closed face shields in the prevention of COVID-19 transmission
T2 - a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial in a middle-income setting (COVPROSHIELD)
AU - on behalf of the CoVIDA Working Group
AU - Varela, Andrea Ramirez
AU - Gurruchaga, Alejandro Pacheco
AU - Restrepo, Silvia Restrepo
AU - Martin, Juan David
AU - Landazabal, Yessica Daniela Campaz
AU - Tamayo-Cabeza, Guillermo
AU - Contreras-Arrieta, Sandra
AU - Caballero-Díaz, Yuldor
AU - Florez, Luis Jorge Hernandez
AU - González, John Mario
AU - Santos-Barbosa, Juan Carlos
AU - Pinzón, José David
AU - Yepes-Nuñez, Juan José
AU - Laajaj, Rachid
AU - Buitrago Gutierrez, Giancarlo
AU - Florez, Martha Vives
AU - Fuentes Castillo, Janner
AU - Quinche Vargas, Gianni
AU - Casas, Andres
AU - Medina, Antonio
AU - Behrentz, Eduardo
AU - Guevara, Yenny Paola Rueda
AU - Sanchez, Daniela Rodriguez
AU - Guevara-Suarez, Marcela
AU - Hidalgo, Marylin
AU - Betancourt, Paola
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).
PY - 2022/12
Y1 - 2022/12
N2 - Background: The use of respiratory devices can mitigate the spread of diseases such as COVID-19 in community settings. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of closed face shields with surgical face masks to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission in working adults during the COVID-19 pandemic in Bogotá, Colombia. Methods: An open-label non-inferiority randomized controlled trial that randomly assigned participants to one of two groups: the intervention group was instructed to wear closed face shields with surgical face masks, and the active control group was instructed to wear only surgical face masks. The primary outcome was a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test, IgG/IgM antibody test for SARS-CoV-2 detection, or both during and at the end of the follow-up period of 21 days. The non-inferiority limit was established at − 5%. Results: A total of 316 participants were randomized, 160 participants were assigned to the intervention group and 156 to the active control group. In total, 141 (88.1%) participants in the intervention group and 142 (91.0%) in the active control group completed the follow-up. Primary outcome: a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result was identified in one (0.71%) participant in the intervention group and three (2.1%) in the active control group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the absolute risk difference was − 1.40% (95% CI [− 4.14%, 1.33%]), and in the per-protocol analysis, the risk difference was − 1.40% (95% CI [− 4.20, 1.40]), indicating non-inferiority of the closed face shield plus face mask (did not cross the non-inferiority limit). Conclusions: The use of closed face shields and surgical face masks was non-inferior to the surgical face mask alone in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection in highly exposed groups. Settings with highly active viral transmission and conditions such as poor ventilation, crowding, and high mobility due to occupation may benefit from the combined use of masks and closed face shields to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04647305. Registered on November 30, 2020.
AB - Background: The use of respiratory devices can mitigate the spread of diseases such as COVID-19 in community settings. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of closed face shields with surgical face masks to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission in working adults during the COVID-19 pandemic in Bogotá, Colombia. Methods: An open-label non-inferiority randomized controlled trial that randomly assigned participants to one of two groups: the intervention group was instructed to wear closed face shields with surgical face masks, and the active control group was instructed to wear only surgical face masks. The primary outcome was a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test, IgG/IgM antibody test for SARS-CoV-2 detection, or both during and at the end of the follow-up period of 21 days. The non-inferiority limit was established at − 5%. Results: A total of 316 participants were randomized, 160 participants were assigned to the intervention group and 156 to the active control group. In total, 141 (88.1%) participants in the intervention group and 142 (91.0%) in the active control group completed the follow-up. Primary outcome: a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result was identified in one (0.71%) participant in the intervention group and three (2.1%) in the active control group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the absolute risk difference was − 1.40% (95% CI [− 4.14%, 1.33%]), and in the per-protocol analysis, the risk difference was − 1.40% (95% CI [− 4.20, 1.40]), indicating non-inferiority of the closed face shield plus face mask (did not cross the non-inferiority limit). Conclusions: The use of closed face shields and surgical face masks was non-inferior to the surgical face mask alone in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection in highly exposed groups. Settings with highly active viral transmission and conditions such as poor ventilation, crowding, and high mobility due to occupation may benefit from the combined use of masks and closed face shields to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04647305. Registered on November 30, 2020.
KW - Clinical trial
KW - Closed face shield
KW - COVID-19
KW - Face mask
KW - SARS-CoV-2
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85136916321&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s13063-022-06606-0
DO - 10.1186/s13063-022-06606-0
M3 - Article
C2 - 35987694
AN - SCOPUS:85136916321
SN - 1745-6215
VL - 23
JO - Trials
JF - Trials
IS - 1
M1 - 698
ER -