Assessment of dry eye disease in N95 versus surgical face mask wearers during COVID-19

Purpose: Investigating the effect of different face masks on dry eye disease (DED) among healthcare workers during the COVID?19 pandemic. Methods: This was a comparative, cross?sectional study. Participants were included into two groups: group 1 (n = 30) wore surgical masks, and group 2 (n = 30) wore N95 masks with face shields. Demographic and ocular surface disease index questionnaires (OSDI) were performed. In addition, Tear break?up time (TBUT), corneal and conjunctival fluorescein staining, and meibography to assess meibomian gland loss (MGL) were performed on all participants. Independent T?test was used to compare continuous parameters and Chi?square test for categorical variables. The relationship between continuous variables was tested using bivariate Pearson correlation. Results: Sixty healthcare workers participated in this study (36 females and 24 males). The mean (±SD) age of the surgical mask and N95 groups was 35.33 (±14.94) and 36.63 (±10.64) years, respectively. Both masks caused dryness according to TBUT, MGL, and OSDI scores. DED per DEWS II definition was observed in 14 (46.7%) and 16 (53.3%) patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Comparing the two groups, N95 mask caused significantly more dryness according to TBUT (P = 0.042) and fluorescein staining (P = 0.038 for the right eye and P = 0.015 for the left eye). Conclusion: Physicians should be aware of the potential dry eye signs secondary to face mask wear during the COVID?19 pandemic. Further attention should be taken in patients who suffer from preexisting dry eye syndrome and in patients who undergo intraocular operations

The effect of wearing N95 respirator masks on intraocular pressure of health care workers

Objective@#We determined if there was a significant change in the intraocular pressure (IOP) of healthcare workers with extended use of N95 masks.@*Methods@#This was a prospective time-series study involving 58 eyes of 29 healthcare workers who were assigned to 3 groups: surgical mask (control) and 2 intervention arms consisting of valved N95 (8511, 3M, USA) and non-valved N95 (8210, 3M, USA) masks. Each participant underwent IOP measurements of both eyes by Goldmann applanation tonometry at baseline, 5 minutes, 1 and 4 hours of mask use on three separate days. The primary outcome was the difference in IOP between the N95 and surgical mask groups.@*Results@#Mean baseline IOP of the cohort was 13.85 ± 1.11 mmHg with no significant difference among the groups. Compared to surgical mask use, mean IOP was increased at the 1 hour and 4 hour time points with valved N95 use (+0.88, p<0.001; +1.48, p<0.001 respectively) and increased at the 5 minute, 1 hour and 4 hour time points with nonvalved N95 use (+0.52, p=0.01; +1.07 p<0.001; +1.62, p<0.001, respectively).@*Conclusion@#There was a statistically significant increase in IOPs with prolonged N95 mask use. However, the levels of IOP increase were less than 2 mmHg and may be not clinically significant.

Is face mask with face shield more effective than face mask alone in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission? A systematic review

@#<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Background.</strong> The use of face shield in addition to face mask is thought to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by blocking respiratory droplets and by preventing one from touching facial orifices.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Objective.</strong> To determine the effectiveness of face mask with face shield, compared to face mask alone, in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Methods.</strong> We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, as well as trial registers, preprint sites and COVID-19 living evidence sites as of 30 September 2021. We included studies that used face shield with face mask versus face mask alone to prevent COVID-19. We screened studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Review Manager 5.4 was used to estimate pooled effects.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Results.</strong> There is no available direct evidence for face shield plus face mask versus face mask alone in the general public. Five (5) observational studies with very low certainty of evidence due to serious risk of bias and indirectness were included. Participants in all the studies were health care workers (HCWs) who used the face shield with their standard personal protective equipment (PPE). Four (4) of the studies were in the hospital setting (three case control studies, one pre- and post-surveillance study); one was done in the community (one pre- and post-surveillance study) in which HCWs visited the residence of the contacts of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. The case control studies done in the hospital setting showed a trend toward benefit with the use of face shield or goggle but this was inconclusive (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68-1.08) while the pre- and post-surveillance study showed significant benefit when face shield (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.22-0.37) use became a requirement for HCWs upon hospital entry. In the study done in the community setting, significant protection for HCWs was noted with the use of face shield (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00-0.69) but the results were limited by serious risk of bias and imprecision.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Conclusion.</strong> In the hospital setting, there was a lower likelihood of COVID-19 infection in HCWs who used a face shield or goggles on top of their PPE. For the general public in the community, there is presently no study on the use of face shield in addition to the face mask to prevent COVID-19 infection.</p>