You are leaving Medscape Education
Cancel Continue
Log in to save activities Your saved activities will show here so that you can easily access them whenever you're ready. Log in here CME & Education Log in to keep track of your credits.
 

CME / ABIM MOC / CE

Do N95 Respirator Masks Provide Superior COVID-19 Protection for Clinicians?

  • Authors: News Author: Lisa O’Mary; CME Author: Laurie Barclay, MD
  • CME / ABIM MOC / CE Released: 1/20/2023
  • Valid for credit through: 1/20/2024
Start Activity

  • Credits Available

    Physicians - maximum of 0.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™

    ABIM Diplomates - maximum of 0.25 ABIM MOC points

    Nurses - 0.25 ANCC Contact Hour(s) (0 contact hours are in the area of pharmacology)

    Pharmacists - 0.25 Knowledge-based ACPE (0.025 CEUs)

    Physician Assistant - 0.25 AAPA hour(s) of Category I credit

    IPCE: 0.25 Interprofessional Continuing Education (IPCE) credit

    You Are Eligible For

    • Letter of Completion
    • ABIM MOC points

Target Audience and Goal Statement

This activity is intended for infectious disease clinicians, internists, family medicine/primary care clinicians, nurses/nurse practitioners, pharmacists, physician assistants and other members of the health care team involved in protection from COVID-19.

The goal of this activity is for the healthcare team to be better able to describe whether medical masks are noninferior to N95 respirators to prevent COVID-19 in health care workers providing routine care, based on a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial at 29 health care facilities in Canada, Israel, Pakistan, and Egypt from May 4, 2020, to March 29, 2022.

Upon completion of this activity, participants will:

  • Assess whether medical masks are noninferior to N95 respirators to prevent COVID-19 in health care workers providing routine care, based on a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial
  • Evaluate the clinical and public health implications of whether medical masks are noninferior to N95 respirators to prevent COVID-19 in health care workers providing routine care, based on a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial
  • Outline implications for the healthcare team


Disclosures

Medscape, LLC requires every individual in a position to control educational content to disclose all financial relationships with ineligible companies that have occurred within the past 24 months. Ineligible companies are organizations whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, re-selling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

All relevant financial relationships for anyone with the ability to control the content of this educational activity are listed below and have been mitigated. Others involved in the planning of this activity have no relevant financial relationships.


News Author

  • Lisa O’Mary

    Freelance writer, Medscape

    Disclosures

    Lisa O’Mary has no relevant financial relationships.

CME Author

  • Laurie Barclay, MD

    Freelance writer and reviewer
    Medscape, LLC

    Disclosures

    Laurie Barclay, MD, has the following relevant financial relationships:
    Formerly owned stocks in: AbbVie Inc.

Editor/Compliance Reviewer

  • Amanda Jett, PharmD, BCACP

    Associate Director, Accreditation and Compliance, Medscape, LLC

    Disclosures

    Amanda Jett, PharmD, BCACP, has no relevant financial relationships.

Nurse Planner

  • Leigh Schmidt, MSN, RN, CNE, CHCP

    Associate Director, Accreditation and Compliance, Medscape, LLC

    Disclosures

    Leigh Schmidt, MSN, RN, CNE, CHCP, has no relevant financial relationships.


Accreditation Statements



In support of improving patient care, Medscape, LLC is jointly accredited with commendation by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.

This activity was planned by and for the healthcare team, and learners will receive 0.25 Interprofessional Continuing Education (IPCE) credit for learning and change.

    For Physicians

  • Medscape, LLC designates this enduring material for a maximum of 0.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™ . Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

    Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to 0.25 MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine’s (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program. Participants will earn MOC points equivalent to the amount of CME credits claimed for the activity. It is the CME activity provider’s responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting ABIM MOC credit.

    Contact This Provider

    For Nurses

  • Awarded 0.25 contact hour(s) of nursing continuing professional development for RNs and APNs; 0.00 contact hours are in the area of pharmacology.

    Contact This Provider

    For Pharmacists

  • Medscape designates this continuing education activity for 0.25 contact hour(s) (0.025 CEUs) (Universal Activity Number: JA0007105-0000-23-017-H01-P).

    Contact This Provider

  • For Physician Assistants

    Medscape, LLC has been authorized by the American Academy of PAs (AAPA) to award AAPA Category 1 CME credit for activities planned in accordance with AAPA CME Criteria. This activity is designated for 0.25 AAPA Category 1 CME credits. Approval is valid until 01/20/2024. PAs should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation.

For questions regarding the content of this activity, contact the accredited provider for this CME/CE activity noted above. For technical assistance, contact [email protected]


Instructions for Participation and Credit

There are no fees for participating in or receiving credit for this online educational activity. For information on applicability and acceptance of continuing education credit for this activity, please consult your professional licensing board.

This activity is designed to be completed within the time designated on the title page; physicians should claim only those credits that reflect the time actually spent in the activity. To successfully earn credit, participants must complete the activity online during the valid credit period that is noted on the title page. To receive AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™, you must receive a minimum score of 70% on the post-test.

Follow these steps to earn CME/CE credit*:

  1. Read about the target audience, learning objectives, and author disclosures.
  2. Study the educational content online or print it out.
  3. Online, choose the best answer to each test question. To receive a certificate, you must receive a passing score as designated at the top of the test. We encourage you to complete the Activity Evaluation to provide feedback for future programming.

You may now view or print the certificate from your CME/CE Tracker. You may print the certificate, but you cannot alter it. Credits will be tallied in your CME/CE Tracker and archived for 6 years; at any point within this time period, you can print out the tally as well as the certificates from the CME/CE Tracker.

*The credit that you receive is based on your user profile.

CME / ABIM MOC / CE

Do N95 Respirator Masks Provide Superior COVID-19 Protection for Clinicians?

Authors: News Author: Lisa O’Mary; CME Author: Laurie Barclay, MDFaculty and Disclosures

CME / ABIM MOC / CE Released: 1/20/2023

Valid for credit through: 1/20/2024

processing....

Note: The information on the coronavirus outbreak is continually evolving. The content within this activity serves as a historical reference to the information that was available at the time of this publication. We continue to add to the collection of activities on this subject as new information becomes available. It is the policy of Medscape Education to avoid the mention of brand names or specific manufacturers in accredited educational activities. However, manufacturer names related to the approved COVID-19 vaccines are provided in this activity in an effort to promote clarity. The use of manufacturer names should not be viewed as an endorsement by Medscape of any specific product or manufacturer.

Clinical Context

It is uncertain whether medical masks offer similar protection against COVID-19 compared with N95 respirators. Systematic reviews of randomized trials and observational studies of other respiratory viruses suggest similar protection.

However, medical masks may offer less protection because of their looser fit and less effective filtration compared with N95 respirators. During the pandemic, supplies of N95 respirators were insufficient globally, and currently the high costs reduce access in low- and middle-income countries.

Study Synopsis and Perspective

Regular medical masks might provide protection similar to that of N95 respirators in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers, according to the first randomized trial that tested the 2 types of masks head to head in the COVID-19 era.

Owing to limitations in the study, however, the authors were only formally able to conclude that healthcare workers who wore medical masks while treating patients with COVID-19 were not twice as likely to contract the virus as workers wearing N95 respirators.

“Nonetheless, this trial provides the best evidence to date on comparative effectiveness of mask types in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in health care workers providing routine patient care,” writes Roger Chou, MD, in an editorial published with the study.[1]

In summarizing, Dr Chou said that “the results indicate that medical masks may be similar to N95 respirators in Omicron-era settings with high COVID-19” rates, but the researchers set a low bar for establishing whether one is more effective than the other.

“Therefore, the results are not definitive,” Dr Chou writes.

In the study, published Tuesday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the authors evaluated 1009 healthcare workers in Canada, Israel, Pakistan, and Egypt who had not been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 and had not previously been infected by the virus.[2] Participants were randomly assigned to wear either a medical mask or an N95 respirator for 10 consecutive weeks. The study period was from May 2020 to March 2022.

Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests confirmed that COVID occurred in 52 (10.46%) of 497 participants in the medical mask group vs 47 (9.27%) of 507 in the N95 respirator group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.77-1.69).

The World Health Organization recommends medical masks (sometimes called surgical masks) for routine care, whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that N95s be used while caring for patients with COVID-19. Before the pandemic, research showed that N95s and medical masks carried similar risks while caring for patients with influenza-like illnesses.

Dr Chou said that decision-makers should keep in mind the uncertainty of whether one mask type is more effective than the other and should take worker preferences, N95 respirator availability, and resource constraints into consideration.

Ann Intern Med. Published online November 29, 2022.

Study Highlights

  • At 29 health care facilities in Canada, Israel, Pakistan, and Egypt from May 4, 2020, to March 29, 2022, this multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial enrolled 1009 health care workers who provided direct care to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
  • Participants used medical masks vs fit-tested N95 respirators for 10 weeks, plus universal masking, as per each site’s policy.
  • Baseline seropositivity varied by country, ranging from 2% in Canada to 81% in Egypt.
  • In the intention-to-treat analysis, RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 52 (10.46%) of 497 participants in the medical mask group versus 47 (9.27%) of 507 in the N95 respirator group (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.77-1.69).
  • In an unplanned subgroup analysis by country, the medical mask group vs the N95 respirator group had RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 in 8 (6.11%) of 131 vs 3 (2.22%) of 135 in Canada (HR, 2.83; 0.75-10.72), 6 (35.29%) of 17 vs 4 (23.53%) of 17 in Israel (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.43-5.49), 3 (3.26%) of 92 vs 2 (2.13%) of 94 in Pakistan (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.25-8.98), and 35 (13.62%) of 257 vs 38 (14.56%) of 261 in Egypt (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.60-1.50).
  • Sensitivity analysis for RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 in participants who were seronegative at baseline showed within-country between-group HRs similar to those including all participants.
  • A post hoc subgroup analysis comparing participants with no reported household or community illness exposures with those reporting at least 1 exposure showed no heterogeneity in treatment effect and very similar effect sizes for both subgroups.
  • There were 47 (10.8%) intervention-related adverse events in the medical mask group and 59 (13.6%) in the N95 respirator group.
  • Two participants had serious adverse events in the medical mask group (both hospitalizations for COVID-19, one with confirmed pneumonia), as did one in the N95 respirator group (hospitalization for COVID-19 pneumonia).
  • There were no intensive care admissions and no deaths.
  • One participant in the medical mask group and 3 in the N95 respirator group withdrew because of discomfort or adverse events related to the mask.
  • Adherence with the assigned medical mask or N95 respirator was self-reported as “always” in 91.2% in the medical mask group and 80.7% in the N95 group, and as “always” or “sometimes” in 97.7% and 94.4% of the respective groups.
  • In a subgroup of monitored participants, monitors showed adherence in 98.3% and 96.6%, respectively.
  • Study limitations include potential SARS-CoV-2 infection in household and community settings, heterogeneity among countries, uncertainty in the estimates of effect, differences in self-reported adherence, differences in baseline antibodies, and among-country differences in circulating variants and vaccination.
  • The investigators concluded that among health care workers who provided routine care to patients with COVID-19, the overall estimates rule out a doubling in hazard of RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 for medical masks vs N95 respirators.
  • The observed results were consistent with a range of protection, from 23% reduction in HR with medical masks to 69% risk increase.
  • Given the concern that medical masks offer less protection because of their looser fit and less effective filtration, insufficient supplies of N95 respirators globally during the pandemic, and current lack of access in low- and middle-income countries because of high costs, it is important to determine the relative protection of medical masks compared with N95 respirators.
  • Subgroup results varied by country, which does not seem to be explained by differences in baseline seropositivity,
  • Overall estimates may not be generalizable to individual countries because of treatment effect heterogeneity.
  • Heterogeneity in RT-PCR positivity rate and in baseline seropositivity by country may be explained by many factors, including varied timing of enrollment with respect to outbreaks and vaccination.
  • Omicron circulation may have contributed to high rates of RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 in Egypt.
  • An accompanying commentary notes that this trial offers the best evidence to date on the comparative effectiveness of mask types in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in health care workers providing routine patient care.
  • The findings suggest similar effectiveness of medical masks and N95 respirators in Omicron-era settings with high COVID-19 rates, but the low bar for establishing whether one is more effective than the other prevents definitive conclusions.
  • The commentary recommends that decision-makers should consider the uncertainty of whether one mask type is more effective than the other, worker preferences, N95 respirator availability, and resource constraints.

Clinical Implications

  • Among health care workers who provided routine care to patients with COVID-19, the overall estimates rule out a doubling in hazard of RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 for medical masks vs N95 respirators, but the observed results were consistent with a range of protection, from 23% reduction in HR with medical masks to 69% risk increase.
  • Given the concern that medical masks offer less protection because of their looser fit and less effective filtration; insufficient supplies of N95 respirators globally during the pandemic, and current lack of access in low- and middle-income countries because of high costs, it is important to determine the relative protection of medical masks compared with N95 respirators.
  • Implications for the Health Care Team: Members of the healthcare team should take into consideration their individual roles and anticipated patient care scenarios when choosing the most appropriate mask for each patient encounter. Additional considerations include personal preference, N95 respirator availability, and resource constraints.

 

Earn Credit

  • Print