SARS-CoV-2 pandemic non-pharmacologic interventions temporally associated with reduced pediatric infections due to Mycoplasma pneumoniae and co-infecting respiratory viruses in Arkansas.

Non-pharmacologic interventions (NPIs), such as universal masking, implemented during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic have reduced respiratory infections among children. This study evaluated the impact of NPIs on Mycoplasma pneumoniae infections in children, analyzing data from two hospitals in Arkansas and examining age-related differences and co-infections with other respiratory viruses. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board and included patients (≤18 years) with upper respiratory tract symptoms. Data generated from the FilmArray Respiratory Panel were divided into pre-NPI, NPI, and post-NPI periods for analysis. Overall test positivity rate and positivity rate interval changes were evaluated. Statistical differences were determined by Chi-square (χ2 independence) analysis. A total of 100,077 tests were performed, with a statistical increase in testing volume during the NPI and post-NPI periods. The number of positive M. pneumoniae tests decreased by 77% (77 to 18) during the NPI period, then increased by 50% (18 to 27) during the post-NPI period. Preschool and elementary school age groups had the highest number of positive tests during the study at 59 (48%) and 40 (33%), respectively. Reduced M. pneumoniae infections were consistent across age groups. Co-infections with other respiratory viruses, particularly human rhinovirus/enterovirus, were observed at much lower levels. Pediatric M. pneumoniae infections in Arkansas were temporally associated with implementation and discontinuation of NPIs. Specific viral co-infections still occurred, albeit at lower levels during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Because of the slower growth of this bacterium, we expect M. pneumoniae infections to return to pre-pandemic levels within approximately 2 years. IMPORTANCE: Non-pharmacologic interventions (NPIs) effectively curtailed the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and, fortuitously, many other aerosol-transmitted respiratory pathogens. This study included the largest data set of symptomatic, pediatric patients from within the United States spanning a period from November 2017 through December 2023, and encompassed individuals residing in both rural and urban settings. We observed a strong correlation between the implementation and cessation of NPIs with the rate of respiratory infections due to Mycoplasma pneumoniae and viral co-infections. These infections are returning to baseline levels approximately 2 years following NPI cessation. This observation was not unexpected since the replication time for viruses is exponentially faster than that of bacteria. The resurgence of M. pneumoniae and likely other atypical bacterial pathogens is currently in process. Healthcare providers should strongly consider these pathogens in individuals presenting with respiratory tract illnesses.

Universal masking during COVID-19 outbreaks in aged care settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aged care facilities (ACF) are a high-risk COVID-19 transmission setting, and older residents are at greater risk of severe outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed whether universal masking and COVID-19 vaccination reduce SARS-CoV-2 attack rates (ARs) in ACF. Articles published between 1 December 2019 and 28 February 2022 were screened across five databases (Medline, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)). Risk of bias was assessed using relevant Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Meta-analysis of single proportions, subgroup analysis, and meta-regression were performed to compare the effects of universal masking and vaccine doses on pooled SARS-CoV-2 ARs. Of 99 included articles, SARS-CoV-2 ARs for residents were available in 86 studies (representing 139 outbreaks), and for staff in 49 studies (78 outbreaks). Universal masking was associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 ARs in ACF outbreaks (AR = 34.9% [95% CI: 27.2-42.6%]) compared to facilities without universal masking (67.3% [54.2-80.4%], p < .0001). In ACF with universal masking prior to outbreak onset, facility-wide testing, and documentation of asymptomatic infection, the asymptomatic AR at time of testing was 11.4% (6.5-17.4%) in residents. Receipt of zero, one and two vaccination doses were associated with ARs of 64.9% (49.6-80.2%), 54.9% (33.7-76.1%) and 45.2% (29.2-61.3%), respectively. To protect residents from COVID-19, ACF should provide vaccination of residents and staff, universal masking for staff, and facility-wide testing during times of heightened community transmission.

Considerations for de-escalating universal masking in healthcare centers.

Three years after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, better knowledge on the transmission of respiratory viral infections (RVI) including the contribution of asymptomatic infections encouraged most healthcare centers to implement universal masking. The evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology and improved immunization of the population call for the infection and prevention control community to revisit the masking strategy in healthcare. In this narrative review, we consider factors for de-escalating universal masking in healthcare centers, addressing compliance with the mask policy, local epidemiology, the level of protection provided by medical face masks, the consequences of absenteeism and presenteeism, as well as logistics, costs, and ecological impact. Most current national and international guidelines for mask use are based on the level of community transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Actions are now required to refine future recommendations, such as establishing a list of the most relevant RVI to consider, implement reliable local RVI surveillance, and define thresholds for activating masking strategies. Considering the epidemiological context (measured via sentinel networks or wastewater analysis), and, if not available, considering a time period (winter season) may guide to three gradual levels of masking: (i) standard and transmission-based precautions and respiratory etiquette, (ii) systematic face mask wearing when in direct contact with patients, and (iii) universal masking. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the different strategies is warranted in the coming years. Masking is just one element to be considered along with other preventive measures such as staff and patient immunization, and efficient ventilation.

SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic Non-Pharmacologic Interventions Temporally Associated with Reduced Pediatric Infections Due to Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Co-Infecting Respiratory Viruses in Arkansas.

Introduction: Non-pharmacologic interventions (NPIs), such as universal masking, implemented during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic have reduced respiratory infections among children. This study focuses on evaluating the impact of NPIs on Mycoplasma pneumoniae infections in children, analyzing data from two hospitals in Arkansas, and examining age-related differences and coinfections with other viruses. Methods: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board and included patients aged ≤18 years with upper respiratory tract symptoms. Data from the FilmArray® Respiratory Panel (FARP) were collected and divided into pre-NPI and NPI periods for analysis. Total test positivity rate and interval change in the positivity rate were evaluated. Statistical differences were determined by Chi-square (χ2-independence) analysis. Results: A total of 68,949 tests were performed with a statistical increase in testing during the NPI period. The overall test positivity rate for M. pneumoniae decreased by 74% (0.86% to 0.03%) during the NPI period, and the preschool age group had the highest number of positive tests in the pre- and NPI periods (Pre-NPI: n=40, NPI: n=12 positive tests, p=<0.001). The reduction in M. pneumoniae infections was consistent across age groups. Coinfections with other respiratory viruses, particularly human rhinovirus/enterovirus, were observed at much lower levels. Conclusions: NPIs effectively reduced M. pneumoniae in pediatric patients in Arkansas, and coinfections with specific viruses still occurred, albeit at lower levels during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. As NPIs are relaxed and the pandemic ends, we expect M. pneumoniae infections to return to pre-pandemic levels within the next 1-2 years.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare-associated viral respiratory infections at a tertiary care pediatric hospital.

The incidence of healthcare-associated viral respiratory infections in a pediatric hospital decreased from 1.6 /1,000 patient-days in 2019 to 0.2 /1,000 patient-days in 2020 (P < .01), and this was maintained in 2021 despite an increase in community circulation of respiratory viruses. Universal masking, stricter infection control measures, and pandemic public health interventions likely accounted for this improvement.

Non-patient-related SARS-CoV-2 exposure from colleagues and household members poses the highest infection risk for hospital employees in a German university hospital: follow-up of the prospective Co-HCW seroprevalence study.

PURPOSE: The Co-HCW study is a prospective, longitudinal, single-center observational study that aims to assess the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and infection status in staff members of Jena University Hospital (JUH) in Jena, Germany. METHODS: This follow-up study covers the observation period from 19th May 2020 to 22nd June 2021. At each of the three voluntary study visits, participants filled out a questionnaire regarding their SARS-CoV-2 exposure and provided serum samples to detect specific SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Participants who were tested positive for antibodies against nucleocapsid and/or spike protein without previous vaccination and/or reported a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test were regarded to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was applied to identify potential risk factors for infected compared to non-infected participants. RESULTS: Out of 660 participants that were included during the first study visit, 406 participants (61.5%) were eligible for the final analysis as their COVID-19 risk area (high-risk n = 76; intermediate-risk n = 198; low-risk n = 132) did not change during the study. Forty-four participants [10.8%, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 8.0-14.3%] had evidence of a current or past SARS-CoV-2 infection detected by serology (n = 40) and/or PCR (n = 28). No association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and the COVID-19 risk group according to working place was detected. However, exposure to a SARS-CoV-2 positive household member [adjusted OR (AOR) 4.46, 95% CI 2.06-9.65] or colleague (AOR 2.30, 95%CI 1.10-4.79) was found to significantly increase the risk of a SARS-CoV-2 infection. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that non-patient-related SARS-CoV-2 exposure posed the highest infection risk for hospital staff members of JUH.

Respiratory infectious disease isolation During the COVID-19 pandemic.

Respiratory infectious disease transmission decreased within the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Within emergency departments, use of personal protective equipment along with masking requirements for COVID-19 helped in this reduction. This report focuses on how COVID-19 precautions reduced the risk of emerging infectious diseases transmission in emergency departments, specifically with patients suspected of measles and mumps.

Reduction of exposure to simulated respiratory aerosols using ventilation, physical distancing, and universal masking.

To limit community spread of SARS-CoV-2, CDC recommends universal masking indoors, maintaining 1.8 m of physical distancing, adequate ventilation, and avoiding crowded indoor spaces. Several studies have examined the independent influence of each control strategy in mitigating transmission in isolation, yet controls are often implemented concomitantly within an indoor environment. To address the influence of physical distancing, universal masking, and ventilation on very fine respiratory droplets and aerosol particle exposure, a simulator that coughed and exhaled aerosols (the source) and a second breathing simulator (the recipient) were placed in an exposure chamber. When controlling for the other two mitigation strategies, universal masking with 3-ply cotton masks reduced exposure to 0.3-3 µm coughed and exhaled aerosol particles by >77% compared to unmasked tests, whereas physical distancing (0.9 or 1.8 m) significantly changed exposure to cough but not exhaled aerosols. The effectiveness of ventilation depended upon the respiratory activity, that is, coughing or breathing, as well as the duration of exposure time. Our results demonstrate that a layered mitigation strategy approach of administrative and engineering controls can reduce personal inhalation exposure to potentially infectious very fine respiratory droplets and aerosol particles within an indoor environment.

Universal masking to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission from Taiwan's practices.

In the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, Taiwan, with its universal masking policy, slowed down the spread of cases and flattened its epidemic curve without enforcing lockdown or mass quarantine in 2020. This study identifies the distinguishing features of Taiwan's universal masking policy practice, such as priority, continuous improvement, multi-stakeholder partnership, transparency and accountability, and altruism and social solidarity. By confronting uncertainty through the COVID-19 crisis, this study suggests that face masking, rather than being just a physical barrier of non-pharmacological intervention, can be adopted as an interactive policy platform to empower the public for stimulating cross-sector collaboration towards social innovation and creating spillover effects, such as acts of public trust, altruism, and solidarity.

Prospective surveillance study in a 1,400-bed university hospital: COVID-19 exposure at home was the main risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 point seroprevalence among hospital staff.

The Co-HCW study is a prospective cohort study among hospital staff, including healthcare workers (HCWs) and administration staff, at the Jena University Hospital (JUH), Germany. The objectives of this study were to assess SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroprevalence, individual exposure risk factors and compliance of HCWs to wear personal protective equipment (PPE). After the first nosocomial COVID-19 outbreak at JUH, mandatory masking was implemented on 20th March 2020. We evaluated point seroprevalence using two IgG detecting immunoassays and issued a questionnaire to assess COVID-19 exposure, clinical symptoms and compliance to wear PPE. Antibody retesting was offered to participants with a divergent result of both immunoassays 5-10 weeks after the first test. Between 19th May and 19th June 2020, we analysed 660 participants [out of 3,228; 20.4%]. Among them, 212 participants (32.1%) had received a previous COVID-19 test. Four of them (1.9%) reported a positive test result. After recruitment, 18 participants (2.7%) had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in at least one immunoassay. Overall, 21 participants (3.2%) had any evidence of a past or current SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among them, 13 (61.9%) were not aware of direct COVID-19 exposure and 9 (42.9%) did not report any clinical symptoms. COVID-19 exposure at home (adjusted OR (aOR) with 95% CI: 47.82 (5.49, 416.62)) was associated with SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence. We observed no evidence for an association between seroprevalence and exposure at work (aOR 0.48 (0.13, 1.70)) or with COVID-19 risk area according to the working place (aOR for intermediate-risk vs. high-risk: 1.97 (0.42, 9.22), aOR for low-risk versus high-risk: 2.10 (0.40, 11.06); p = .655). Reported compliance of HCWs to wear PPE differed (p < .001) between working in high-risk (98.3%) and in intermediate-risk areas (69.8%). In conclusion, compared to administration staff, we observed no additional risk to acquire SARS-CoV-2 infections by patient care, probably due to high compliance to wear PPE.

Efficacy of Ventilation, HEPA Air Cleaners, Universal Masking, and Physical Distancing for Reducing Exposure to Simulated Exhaled Aerosols in a Meeting Room.

There is strong evidence associating the indoor environment with transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 can spread by exposure to droplets and very fine aerosol particles from respiratory fluids that are released by infected persons. Layered mitigation strategies, including but not limited to maintaining physical distancing, adequate ventilation, universal masking, avoiding overcrowding, and vaccination, have shown to be effective in reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within the indoor environment. Here, we examine the effect of mitigation strategies on reducing the risk of exposure to simulated respiratory aerosol particles within a classroom-style meeting room. To quantify exposure of uninfected individuals (Recipients), surrogate respiratory aerosol particles were generated by a breathing simulator with a headform (Source) that mimicked breath exhalations. Recipients, represented by three breathing simulators with manikin headforms, were placed in a meeting room and affixed with optical particle counters to measure 0.3-3 µm aerosol particles. Universal masking of all breathing simulators with a 3-ply cotton mask reduced aerosol exposure by 50% or more compared to scenarios with simulators unmasked. While evaluating the effect of Source placement, Recipients had the highest exposure at 0.9 m in a face-to-face orientation. Ventilation reduced exposure by approximately 5% per unit increase in air change per hour (ACH), irrespective of whether increases in ACH were by the HVAC system or portable HEPA air cleaners. The results demonstrate that mitigation strategies, such as universal masking and increasing ventilation, reduce personal exposure to respiratory aerosols within a meeting room. While universal masking remains a key component of a layered mitigation strategy of exposure reduction, increasing ventilation via system HVAC or portable HEPA air cleaners further reduces exposure.

PPE training and the effectiveness of universal masking in preventing exposures: The importance of the relationship between anesthesia and infection prevention.

Early in the pandemic, infection prevention (IP), in collaboration with our local anesthesia leadership, took the approach of ensuring all members of the Anesthesia Department understood the importance of universal masking, were individually trained on the use of the Controlled Air Purifier Respirator, as well the appropriate method for donning/doffing N95 respirators. Multiple providers in the department tested positive for COVID, resulting in the IP Department to conduct the routine contact tracing investigation. During the investigation, it was determined that all persons who met the CDC (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention) contact exposure guidelines would undergo COVID testing, which consequently was 109 team members due to the exposure risk identified in the break room space. IP worked with the Anesthesia Preoperative Clinic to test all team members identified over a 3-day period (approximately 5-7 days postexposure). Out of the 109 team members who were tested postexposure, there were 0 conversions. The department attributes this to the consistency in personal protective equipment training, support and collaboration between anesthesia and IP which led to successful care for COVID patients with a limited provider infection rate.

Comparison of infection control strategies to reduce COVID-19 outbreaks in homeless shelters in the United States: a simulation study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 outbreaks have occurred in homeless shelters across the US, highlighting an urgent need to identify the most effective infection control strategy to prevent future outbreaks. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a homeless shelter and calibrated it to data from cross-sectional polymerase chain reaction (PCR) surveys conducted during COVID-19 outbreaks in five homeless shelters in three US cities from March 28 to April 10, 2020. We estimated the probability of averting a COVID-19 outbreak when an exposed individual is introduced into a representative homeless shelter of 250 residents and 50 staff over 30 days under different infection control strategies, including daily symptom-based screening, twice-weekly PCR testing, and universal mask wearing. RESULTS: The proportion of PCR-positive residents and staff at the shelters with observed outbreaks ranged from 2.6 to 51.6%, which translated to the basic reproduction number (R0) estimates of 2.9-6.2. With moderate community incidence (~ 30 confirmed cases/1,000,000 people/day), the estimated probabilities of averting an outbreak in a low-risk (R0 = 1.5), moderate-risk (R0 = 2.9), and high-risk (R0 = 6.2) shelter were respectively 0.35, 0.13, and 0.04 for daily symptom-based screening; 0.53, 0.20, and 0.09 for twice-weekly PCR testing; 0.62, 0.27, and 0.08 for universal masking; and 0.74, 0.42, and 0.19 for these strategies in combination. The probability of averting an outbreak diminished with higher transmissibility (R0) within the simulated shelter and increasing incidence in the local community. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk homeless shelter environments and locations with high community incidence of COVID-19, even intensive infection control strategies (incorporating daily symptom screening, frequent PCR testing, and universal mask wearing) are unlikely to prevent outbreaks, suggesting a need for non-congregate housing arrangements for people experiencing homelessness. In lower-risk environments, combined interventions should be employed to reduce outbreak risk.

Practices and Perceptions of Face Mask Use in a Pediatric Health System During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Face coverings are recommended to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Guidelines regarding face mask use have evolved from the time when COVID-19 first emerged. Practices for face mask use in the United States vary widely. METHODS: Clinical and nonclinical staff from a pediatric health care system were invited to complete a survey regarding perceptions and practices of face mask use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall results were analyzed, and subgroup analyses were conducted to compare clinical and nonclinical staff, and clinical staff who do and do not provide direct patient care. RESULTS: The response rate was approximately 24% (1,128 of 4,698). Most respondents were clinical staff who provide patient care. A surgical/procedure mask was most often worn for patient care by 72% (P < .001). Most respondents (70%) reported wearing a cloth mask when not in the hospital (P < .001). Cloth masks were worn for a mean of 3.4 ± 3.9 d before washing. Frequent hand hygiene before putting on the mask, before removing, and after removing was reported as 56%, 44%, and 62%, respectively. The most common challenges reported were glasses fogging (69%), skin irritations (45%), and headaches (31%). Qualitative data revealed themes of feeling unsafe, beliefs and practices about COVID-19 and masks, mandates and enforcement of wearing masks, availability of personal protective equipment, and care delivery challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Practices and perceptions of face masks varied among staff in a pediatric health care system. Some staff did not feel that masks are effective in preventing virus spread, and others did not feel safe in performing job duties. Hand hygiene for mask handling was not practiced consistently. A large number of staff reported having experienced challenges or health issues when wearing a mask. Clinical staff who provide direct patient care reported more issues than both nonclinical and clinical staff who do not provide care.

Decreasing High-risk Exposures for Healthcare Workers Through Universal Masking and Universal Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Testing on Entry to a Tertiary Care Facility.

We describe the impact of universal masking and universal testing at admission on high-risk exposures to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 for healthcare workers. Universal masking decreased the rate of high-risk exposures per patient-day by 68%, and universal testing further decreased those exposures by 77%.

Prevalence of Voice Disorders in Healthcare Workers in the Universal Masking COVID-19 Era.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine the prevalence and associated risk factors of voice disorders in healthcare workers of high-risk hospital care units during the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Questionnaire survey to healthcare personnel of COVID-19 high-risk hospital units was conducted, regarding demographic data, clinical activity, the pattern of usage of personal protective equipment, medical and vocal history, vocal symptoms, and Spanish validated Voice Handicap Index (VHI)-10 questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 221 healthcare workers answered the survey. Nearly 33% of them reported having trouble with their voice during the last month, and 26.24% had an abnormal score in the Spanish validated VHI-10 questionnaire. The mean VHI-10 score was 7.92 (95% confidence interval 6.98-8.85). The number of working hours, the number of hours of mask daily use, simultaneous surgical and self-filtering mask use, and working in intermediate or intensive care units were independent variables significantly associated with a higher VHI-10 score. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare workers of high-risk hospital care units during the universal masking COVID-19 pandemic are at risk of voice disorders. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 131:E1227-E1233, 2021.

Does Facemask Impact Diagnostic During Pulmonary Auscultation?

Facemasks have been widely used in hospitals, especially since the emergence of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, often severely affecting respiratory functions. Masks protect patients from contagious airborne transmission, and are thus more specifically important for chronic respiratory disease (CRD) patients. However, masks also increase air resistance and thus work of breathing, which may impact pulmonary auscultation and diagnostic acuity, the primary respiratory examination. This study is the first to assess the impact of facemasks on clinical auscultation diagnostic. Lung sounds from 29 patients were digitally recorded using an electronic stethoscope. For each patient, one recording was taken wearing a surgical mask and one without. Recorded signals were segmented in breath cycles using an autocorrelation algorithm. In total, 87 breath cycles were identified from sounds with mask, and 82 without mask. Time-frequency analysis of the signals was used to extract comparison features such as peak frequency, median frequency, band power, or spectral integration. All the features extracted in frequency content, its evolution, or power did not significantly differ between respiratory cycles with or without mask. This early stage study thus suggests minor impact on clinical diagnostic outcomes in pulmonary auscultation. However, further analysis is necessary such as on adventitious sounds characteristics differences with or without mask, to determine if facemask could lead to no discernible diagnostic outcome in clinical practice.

UNIVERSAL MASKING DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC - CURRENT EVIDENCE AND CONTROVERSIES.

The emergence of coronavirus disease 19 pandemic and novel research on the high transmissibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has raised controversies over the use of face masks to prevent community transmission. Specific regulations need to be fulfilled to use a face mask as part of the personal protective equipment and high quality of evidence supporting its use to prevent respiratory viral infections, including SARS-CoV-2, is lacking. However, its widespread use is becoming a standard practice in some countries and discrepancies between health authorities on their policy have led to controversy. The aim of this review is to provide an outlook on recent research in this matter and areas of opportunity.

Universal masking during covid-19 pandemic - current evidence and controversies

ABSTRACT The emergence of coronavirus disease 19 pandemic and novel research on the high transmissibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has raised controversies over the use of face masks to prevent community transmission. Specific regulations need to be fulfilled to use a face mask as part of the personal protective equipment and high quality of evidence supporting its use to prevent respiratory viral infections, including SARS-CoV-2, is lacking. However, its widespread use is becoming a standard practice in some countries and discrepancies between health authorities on their policy have led to controversy. The aim of this review is to provide an outlook on recent research in this matter and areas of opportunity.