Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

• Published in: Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2019-07, Vol.7 (7), p.CD011621-CD011621
• Main Authors: Verbeek, Jos H, Rajamaki, Blair, Ijaz, Sharea, Tikka, Christina, Ruotsalainen, Jani H, Edmond, Michael B, Sauni, Riitta, Kilinc Balci, F Selcen
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Body Fluids; Gloves, Protective; Health & safety at work; Health Personnel; Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola - prevention & control; Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola - transmission; Humans; Infectious disease; Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional - prevention & control; Occupational health outcome; Personal Protective Equipment; Protective Clothing; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome - prevention & control; Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome - transmission
• ISSN: 1469-493X
• DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011621.pub3

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCW use PPE as instructed. To evaluate which type of full body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 15 July 2018), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 18 June 2019), Scopus (Scopus 18 June 2019), CINAHL (EBSCOhost 31 July 2018), and OSH-Update (up to 31 December 2018). We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE. We included all controlled studies that compared the effects of PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as Ebola or SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that used simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training in PPE use on the same outcomes. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We planned to perform meta-analyses but did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results. We included 17 studies with 1950 participants evaluating 21 interventions. Ten studies are Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), one is a quasi RCT and six have a non-randomised controlled design. Two studies are awaiting assessment.Ten studies compared types of PPE but only six of these reported sufficient data. Six studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated different types of training. Fifteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless viruses. In simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 10% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study HCW were exposed to Ebola and in another to SARS.Evidence for all outcomes is based on single studie