Evaluation of Face Shields, Goggles, and Safety Glasses as a Virus Transmission Control Measure to Protect the Wearer Against Cough Droplets.

Face shields (also referred to as visors), goggles and safety glasses have been worn during the COVID-19 pandemic as one measure to control transmission of the virus. However, their effectiveness in controlling facial exposure to cough droplets is not well established and standard tests for evaluating eye protection for this application are limited. A method was developed to evaluate face shields, goggles, and safety glasses as a control measure to protect the wearer against cough droplets. The method uses a semi-quantitative assessment of facial droplet deposition. A cough simulator was developed to generate droplets comparable to those from a human cough. The droplets consisted of a UV fluorescent marker (fluorescein) in water. Fourteen face shields, four pairs of goggles and one pair of safety glasses were evaluated by mounting them on two different sizes of breathing manikin head and challenging them with the simulated cough. The manikin head was positioned in seven orientations relative to the cough simulator to represent various potential occupational exposure scenarios, for example, a nurse standing over a patient. Droplet deposition in the eyes, nose and mouth regions were visualised following three 'coughs'. Face shields, goggles, and safety glasses reduced, but did not eliminate exposure to the wearer from droplets such as those produced by a human cough. The level of protection differed based on the design of the personal protective equipment and the relative orientation of the wearer to the cough. For example, face shields, and goggles offered the greatest protection when a cough challenge was face on or from above and the least protection when a cough challenge was from below. Face shields were also evaluated as source control to protect others from the wearer. Results suggested that if a coughing person wears a face shield, it can provide some protection from cough droplets to those standing directly in front of the wearer.

Simulating the Environmental Spread of SARS-CoV-2 via Cough and the Effect of Personal Mitigations.

BACKGROUND: A cough is known to transmit an aerosol cloud up to 2 m. During the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 the United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS), other UK government agencies and the World Health Organization (WHO) advised people to cough into their elbows. It was thought that this would reduce viral spread and protect the public. However, there is limited peer reviewed evidence to support this. OBJECTIVES: To determine if cough related interventions reduce environmental contamination, protecting members of the public from infection. METHODS: Scientists and engineers at the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) laboratory used a human cough simulator that provided a standardised cough challenge using a solution of simulated saliva and a SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus; Phi6. Pseudomonas syringae settle plates were used to detect viable Phi6 virus following a simulated cough into a 4 × 4 m test chamber. The unimpeded pattern of contamination was compared to that when a hand or elbow was placed over the mouth during the cough. High speed back-lit video was also taken to visualise the aerosol dispersion. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Viable virus spread up to 2 m from the origin of the cough outwards in a cloud. Recommended interventions, such as putting a hand or elbow in front of the mouth changed the pattern of cough aerosol dispersion. A hand deflected the cough to the side, protecting those in front from exposure, however it did not prevent environmental contamination. It also allowed for viral transfer from the hand to surfaces such as door handles. A balled fist in front of the mouth did not deflect the cough. Putting an elbow in front of the mouth deflected the aerosol cloud to above and below the elbow, but would not have protected any individuals standing in front. However, if the person coughed into a sleeved elbow more of the aerosol seemed to be absorbed. Coughing into a bare elbow still allowed for transfer to the environment if people touched the inside of their elbow soon after coughing. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions can change the environmental contamination pattern resulting from a human cough but may not reduce it greatly.

A mixed methods study on effectiveness and appropriateness of face shield use as COVID-19 PPE in middle income countries.

BACKGROUND: Face shields were widely used in 2020-2021 as facial personal protective equipment (PPE). Laboratory evidence about how protective face shields might be and whether real world user priorities and usage habits conflicted with best practice for maximum possible protection was lacking - especially in limited resource settings. METHODS: Relative protective potential of 13 face shield designs were tested in a controlled laboratory setting. Community and health care workers were surveyed in middle income country cities (Brazil and Nigeria) about their preferences and perspectives on face shields as facial PPE. Priorities about facial PPE held by survey participants were compared with the implications of the laboratory-generated test results. RESULTS: No face shield tested totally eliminated exposure. Head orientation and design features influenced the level of protection. Over 600 individuals were interviewed in Brazil and Nigeria (including 240 health care workers) in March-April 2021. Respondents commented on what influenced their preferred forms of facial PPE, how they tended to clean face shields, and their priorities in choosing a face cover product. Surveyed health care workers commonly bought personal protection equipment for use at work. CONCLUSIONS: All face shields provided some protection but none gave high levels of protection against external droplet contamination. Respondents wanted facial PPE that considered good communication, secure fixture, good visibility, comfort, fashion, and has validated protectiveness.

Comparison of anterior nares CT values in asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 in a university screening program.

At our university based high throughput screening program, we test all members of our community weekly using RT-qPCR. RT-qPCR cycle threshold (CT) values are inversely proportional to the amount of viral RNA in a sample and are a proxy for viral load. We hypothesized that CT values would be higher, and thus the viral loads at the time of diagnosis would be lower, in individuals who were infected with the virus but remained asymptomatic throughout the course of the infection. We collected the N1 and N2 target gene CT values from 1633 SARS-CoV-2 positive RT-qPCR tests of individuals sampled between August 7, 2020, and March 18, 2021, at the BU Clinical Testing Laboratory. We matched this data with symptom reporting data from our clinical team. We found that asymptomatic patients had CT values significantly higher than symptomatic individuals on the day of diagnosis. Symptoms were followed by the clinical team for 10 days post the first positive test. Within the entire population, 78.1% experienced at least one symptom during surveillance by the clinical team (n = 1276/1633). Of those experiencing symptoms, the most common symptoms were nasal congestion (73%, n = 932/1276), cough (60.0%, n = 761/1276), fatigue (59.0%, n = 753/1276), and sore throat (53.1%, n = 678/1276). The least common symptoms were diarrhea (12.5%, n = 160/1276), dyspnea on exertion (DOE) (6.9%, n = 88/1276), foot or skin changes (including rash) (4.2%, n = 53/1276), and vomiting (2.1%, n = 27/1276). Presymptomatic individuals, those who were not symptomatic on the day of diagnosis but became symptomatic over the following 10 days, had CT values higher for both N1 (median = 27.1, IQR 20.2-32.9) and N2 (median = 26.6, IQR 20.1-32.8) than the symptomatic group N1 (median = 21.8, IQR 17.2-29.4) and N2 (median = 21.4, IQR 17.3-28.9) but lower than the asymptomatic group N1 (median = 29.9, IQR 23.6-35.5) and N2 (median = 30.0, IQR 23.1-35.7). This study supports the hypothesis that viral load in the anterior nares on the day of diagnosis is a measure of disease intensity at that time.

Using nasal sprays to prevent respiratory tract infections: a qualitative study of online consumer reviews and primary care patient interviews.

OBJECTIVES: Nasal sprays could be a promising approach to preventing respiratory tract infections (RTIs). This study explored lay people's perceptions and experiences of using nasal sprays to prevent RTIs to identify barriers and facilitators to their adoption and continued use. DESIGN: Qualitative research. Study 1 thematically analysed online consumer reviews of an RTI prevention nasal spray. Study 2 interviewed patients about their reactions to and experiences of a digital intervention that promotes and supports nasal spray use for RTI prevention (reactively: at 'first signs' of infection and preventatively: following possible/probable exposure to infection). Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. SETTING: Primary care, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 407 online customer reviews. 13 purposively recruited primary care patients who had experienced recurrent infections and/or had risk factors for severe infections. RESULTS: Both studies identified various factors that might influence nasal spray use including: high motivation to avoid RTIs, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic; fatalistic views about RTIs; beliefs about alternative prevention methods; the importance of personal recommendation; perceived complexity and familiarity of nasal sprays; personal experiences of spray success or failure; tolerable and off-putting side effects; concerns about medicines; and the nose as unpleasant and unhygienic. CONCLUSIONS: People who suffer disruptive, frequent or severe RTIs or who are vulnerable to RTIs are interested in using a nasal spray for prevention. They also have doubts and concerns and may encounter problems. Some of these may be reduced or eliminated by providing nasal spray users with information and advice that addresses these concerns or helps people overcome difficulties.

Antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infection in children presenting in primary care in England (ARTIC PC): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance is a global public health threat. Antibiotics are very commonly prescribed for children presenting with uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs), but there is little evidence from randomised controlled trials of the effectiveness of antibiotics, both overall or among key clinical subgroups. In ARTIC PC, we assessed whether amoxicillin reduces the duration of moderately bad symptoms in children presenting with uncomplicated (non-pneumonic) LRTI in primary care, overall and in key clinical subgroups. METHODS: ARTIC PC was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done at 56 general practices in England. Eligible children were those aged 6 months to 12 years presenting in primary care with acute uncomplicated LRTI judged to be infective in origin, where pneumonia was not suspected clinically, with symptoms for less than 21 days. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive amoxicillin 50 mg/kg per day or placebo oral suspension, in three divided doses orally for 7 days. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse (measured using a validated diary) for up to 28 days or until symptoms resolved. The primary outcome and safety were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN79914298). FINDINGS: Between Nov 9, 2016, and March 17, 2020, 432 children (not including six who withdrew permission for use of their data after randomisation) were randomly assigned to the antibiotics group (n=221) or the placebo group (n=211). Complete data for symptom duration were available for 317 (73%) patients; missing data were imputed for the primary analysis. Median durations of moderately bad or worse symptoms were similar between the groups (5 days [IQR 4-11] in the antibiotics group vs 6 days [4-15] in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR] 1·13 [95% CI 0·90-1·42]). No differences were seen for the primary outcome between the treatment groups in the five prespecified clinical subgroups (patients with chest signs, fever, physician rating of unwell, sputum or chest rattle, and short of breath). Estimates from complete-case analysis and a per-protocol analysis were similar to the imputed data analysis. INTERPRETATION: Amoxicillin for uncomplicated chest infections in children is unlikely to be clinically effective either overall or for key subgroups in whom antibiotics are commonly prescribed. Unless pneumonia is suspected, clinicians should provide safety-netting advice but not prescribe antibiotics for most children presenting with chest infections. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

SARS-CoV-2 testing and outcomes in the first 30 days after the first case of COVID-19 at an Australian children's hospital.

OBJECTIVE: International studies describing COVID-19 in children have shown low proportions of paediatric cases and generally a mild clinical course. We aimed to present early data on children tested for SARS-CoV-2 at a large Australian tertiary children's hospital according to the state health department guidelines, which varied over time. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at The Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. It included all paediatric patients (aged 0-18 years) who presented to the ED or the Respiratory Infection Clinic (RIC) and were tested for SARS-CoV-2. The 30-day study period commenced after the first confirmed positive case was detected at the hospital on 21 March 2020, until 19 April 2020. We recorded epidemiological and clinical data. RESULTS: There were 433 patients in whom SARS-CoV-2 testing was performed in ED (331 [76%]) or RIC (102 [24%]). There were four (0.9%) who had positive SARS-CoV-2 detected, none of whom were admitted to hospital or developed severe disease. Of these SARS-CoV-2 positive patients, 1/4 (25%) had a comorbidity, which was asthma. Of the SARS-CoV-2 negative patients, 196/429 (46%) had comorbidities. Risk factors for COVID-19 were identified in 4/4 SARS-CoV-2 positive patients and 47/429 (11%) SARS-CoV-2 negative patients. CONCLUSION: Our study identified a very low rate of SARS-CoV-2 positive cases in children presenting to a tertiary ED or RIC, none of whom were admitted to hospital. A high proportion of patients who were SARS-CoV-2 negative had comorbidities.