PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Ramaraj, Prashanth
AU  - Super, Jonathan
AU  - Doyle, Ruben
AU  - Aylwin, Christopher
AU  - Hettiaratchy, Shehan
TI  - Triaging of Respiratory Protective Equipment on the assumed risk of SARS-CoV-2 aerosol exposure in patient-facing healthcare workers delivering secondary care: a rapid review
AID  - 10.1101/2020.05.13.20101139
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.05.13.20101139
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/16/2020.05.13.20101139.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/16/2020.05.13.20101139.full
AB  - Objectives “In patient-facing healthcare workers delivering secondary care, what is the evidence behind UK Government PPE Guidance on surgical masks versus respirators for SARS-CoV-2 protection?”METHODS Two independent reviewers searched MEDLINE, Google Scholar and grey literature 11th – 30th April 2020. Studies published on any date containing primary data comparing surgical facemasks and respirators specific to SARS-CoV-2, and studies underpinning government PPE guidance, were included. Appraisal was performed using CASP checklists. Results were synthesised by comparison of findings and appraisals.RESULTS In all three laboratory studies of 14 different respirators and 12 surgical facemasks, respirators were significantly more effective than facemasks in protection factors, reduction factors, filter penetrations, and total inspiratory leakages at differing particle sizes, mean inspiratory flows, and breathing rates. Tests included live viruses and inert particles on dummies and humans.In six clinical studies, 6,502 participants, there was no consistent definition of “exposure” to determine the efficacy of RPE. It is difficult to define “safe”. The only statistically significant result found continuous use of respirators more effective in clinical respiratory illness compared to targeted use or surgical facemask.CONCLUSIONS There is a paucity of evidence on the comparison of FRSMs and respirators specific to SARS-CoV-2, and poor-quality evidence in other contexts. Indirectness results in extrapolation of non-SARS-CoV-2 specific data to guide UK Government PPE guidance. The appropriateness of this is unknown given the uncertainty over the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The evidence base for UK Government PPE guidelines is not based on SARS-CoV-2 and requires generalisation from low-quality evidence of other pathogens/particles.There is a paucity of high-quality evidence regarding the efficacy of RPE specific to SARS-CoV-2.HMG’s PPE guidelines are underpinned by the assumption of droplet transmission of SARS-CoV-2.Triaging the use of FFP3 respirators might increase the risk of COVID-19 faced by some.FUNDING This review was unfunded and unsponsored.StrengthsThis article does not aim to prove an intervention as more effective than a comparator. It identifies a paucity of evidence on respiratory protective equipment specific to SARS-CoV-2.The results of this study will allow for future study with a real and tangible effect towards the wellbeing of healthcare workers nationwide, and perhaps internationally.This article has an exceptionally broad range- from infection control, to public health, to biomechanical engineering, to industry. Its extensive reach would allow for citations from several disciplines.LimitationsThis study reviews evidence specific to a novel virus. Naturally, there is a paucity of specific evidence.Competing Interest StatementAll authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no research grants and honorariums; RD has recently begun to design not-for-profit, small scale items of PPE for the amelioration of the widely documented PPE stock crisis, aside from RD’s core business; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.Funding StatementThis review was unfunded and unsponsored.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe authors will support data sharing on request by emailing the corresponding author, PR.