Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: systematic review

Results

Overall, 2300 titles of reports of potentially relevant studies were identified and screened. In total, 2162 were excluded and 138 full papers retrieved, totalling 49 reports of 51 studies (fig 1⇓).

Fig 1 Flow of papers through study

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

The quality of the methods of included studies^w1-w51 varied (tables 1-5⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓). Considerable loss of information resulted from incomplete or no reporting of randomisation,^w3 blinding,^w5 numerators and denominators,^{w4 w6} interventions, outcomes,^w39 attrition of participants,^w34 confidence intervals,^w33 and cluster coefficients in the relevant trials.^w4 The impact of potential biases (such as cash incentives given to participants^w39) were not discussed. Some authors confused the cohort design with a before and after design, which provided conclusions unsupported by the data.^w34 The quality of methods was sometimes eroded by the need to deliver behavioural interventions in the midst of service delivery.^w37 Even when suboptimal designs were selected, authors rarely articulated potential confounders. A common confounder specific to this area is the huge variability in viral incidence over time, commonly ignored.^{w19 w41} Sometimes this was tackled in the study design,^w30 even in controlled before and after studies (one attempted correlation between admissions for respiratory syncytial virus and respiratory syncytial virus circulating in the community^w21; another attempted linking exposure—measured as nasal excretion—and infection rate in the periods before and after intervention^w14). Inadequate blinding or adjustment for confounders is a well known factor in exaggerating the effects of an intervention.23

Inappropriate interventions for comparison caused problems with study designs: in some studies these probably carried sufficient effect to dilute the intervention outcome^w9; in two studies blinding may have failed because placebo handkerchiefs were impregnated with a dummy compound that stung the users’ nostrils.^w5

Some interventions were tested under impractical and unrealistic situations: participants allocated to the intervention hand cleaner (organic acids) were not allowed to use their hands between cleaning and challenge with virus, so the effect of normal use of the hands on the intervention remains unknown,^w3 and 2% aqueous iodine is a successful antiviral intervention when painted on the hands but it stains and is impractical for all but the highest risk of epidemic contagion.^w51

Compliance with interventions—especially educational programmes—was problematic for several studies, despite the importance of many such low cost interventions.

The most impressive effects came from high quality cluster randomised trials in preventing the spread of respiratory virus into the community using hygienic measures aimed at younger children. One study reported a significant decrease in respiratory illness in children up to age 24 months (relative risk 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.97), although the decrease was not significant in older children (0.95, 0.89 to 1.01).^w11 Another study reported a 50% (95% confidence interval 65% to 34%) lower incidence of pneumonia in children aged less than 5 years in a developing country.^w1 Additional benefit from reduced transmission to other household members is broadly supported by the results of other study designs although the potential for confounding is greater.

Six case-control studies assessed the impact of public health measures to curb the spread of the SARS epidemic in China, Singapore, and Vietnam in 2003. Homogeneity of case definition, agent, settings, and outcomes made meta-analysis possible, using a fixed effects model because no comparisons showed significant heterogeneity (fig 2⇓ and table 6⇓). Only binary data were pooled despite the availability of continuous data because the variables differed or were measured in different units, and standard deviations were usually missing. The data suggest that implementing barriers to transmission, isolation, and hygienic measures are effective and relatively cheap interventions to contain epidemics of respiratory viruses, such as SARS, with estimates of effect ranging from 55% to 91%: washing hands more than 10 times daily (odds ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.57, NNT=4, 95% confidence interval 3.65 to 5.52); wearing masks (0.32, 0.25 to 0.40, NNT=6, 4.54 to 8.03); wearing N95 masks (0.09, 0.03 to 0.30, NNT=3, 2.37 to 4.06); wearing gloves (0.43, 0.29 to 0.65, NNT=5, 4.15 to 15.41); wearing gowns (0.23, 0.14 to 0.37, NNT=5, 3.37 to 7.12); and handwashing, masks, gloves, and gowns combined (0.09, 0.02 to 0.35, NNT=3, 2.66 to 4.97). All studies selected hospital cases, except one^w45 in which the cases were people with probable SARS reported to the Department of Health in the territory of Hong Kong up to 16 May 2003. Evidence was limited for the superior effectiveness of barrier devices to droplets such as the N95 masks (respirators with 95% filtration capability against non-oily particulate aerosols^w48) over simple surgical masks. An incremental effect was found for decreased burden of respiratory disease by adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing in atypical settings, but the extra benefit may have been, at least partly, from confounding additional routines.

Fig 2 Evidence from case-control studies on effect of frequent handwashing or wearing of masks, gloves, or gowns on prevention of severe respiratory syndrome (SARS)

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Studies on interventions to prevent the transmission of respiratory syncytical virus and similar viruses in more typical settings suggested good effectiveness, although doubt was cast on the findings because of method quality inherent in controlled before and after studies, especially different virus infection rates.

Few studies reported on resource consumption for the physical intervention evaluated. One case-control study^w45 concluded that handwashing needs to be carried out more than 10 times daily to be effective. One study,^w25 in a military training setting, reported a need to wash hands more than four times daily. During one month of the respiratory syncytical virus “season” on a ward containing 22 cribs, one study reported that 5350 gowns and 4850 masks were used.^w18

Proper evaluation of global and highly resource intensive measures such as screening at entry ports and social distancing was lacking. The handful of studies (mostly done during the SARS epidemic) did not allow firm conclusions to be drawn.