Studies to determine the effectiveness of facemasks in preventing influenza have been inconclusive, largely due to small sample size. The Hajj pilgrimage, where the incidence of influenza and other respiratory infections is high, provides an excellent opportunity to test the effectiveness of facemasks against syndromic and laboratory-confirmed infections. Hence, a pilot study was conducted among Australian pilgrims to assess the feasibility of such a large-scale trial in the coming years. At the 2011 Hajj, tents were randomised to ‘supervised mask use’ versus ‘no supervised mask use’. Pilgrims with ILI symptoms for ≤3 days were recruited as ‘cases’ and those who slept within 2 meters of them as ‘contacts’. Surgical facemasks were provided to cases and contacts in the ‘mask’ tents, but not in the ‘control’ tents. Pilgrims in both groups were given diaries to record their respiratory symptoms. Nasal or pharyngeal swabs were collected from the cases and contacts with ILI for point-of-care and nucleic acid tests. A total of 22 tents were randomised to ‘mask’ (n=12) or ‘control’ (n=10). There were 164 pilgrims recruited; 75 in ‘mask’ and 89 in ‘control’ group. Mask use compliance was 76% in the ‘mask’ group and 12% in the ‘control’ group. Based on developing syndromic ILI, less contacts became symptomatic in the ‘mask’ tents compared to the ‘control’ tents (31% versus 53%, p= 0.04). However, laboratory results did not show any difference between the two groups. This pilot study shows that a large trial to assess the effectiveness of facemasks use at Hajj is feasible.

The risk of acquisition and transmission of respiratory infections is high among attendees of mass gatherings (MGs). Currently used interventions have limitations yet the role of facemask in preventing those infections at MG has not been systematically reviewed. We have conducted a systematic review to synthesise evidence about the uptake and effectiveness of facemask against respiratory infections in MGs. A comprehensive literature search was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using major electronic databases such as, Medline, EMBASE, SCOPUS and CINAHL. Of 25 studies included, the pooled sample size was 12710 participants from 55 countries aged 11 to 89 years, 37% were female. The overall uptake of facemask ranged from 0.02% to 92.8% with an average of about 50%. Only 13 studies examined the effectiveness of facemask, and their pooled estimate revealed significant protectiveness against respiratory infections (relative risk [RR]=0.89, 95% CI: 0.84-0.94, p<0.01), but the study end points varied widely. A modest proportion of attendees of MGs use facemask, the practice is more widespread among health care workers. Facemask use seems to be beneficial against certain respiratory infections at MGs but its effectiveness against specific infection remains unproven.

Summary Outbreaks of infectious diseases that spread via respiratory route, e.g. influenza, are common amongst Hajj congregation in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabian authority successfully organized the Hajj 2009 amidst fear of pandemic influenza. While severe influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was rare, the true burden of pandemic influenza at Hajj that year remains speculative. In this article we review the latest evidence on influenza control and discuss our experience of influenza and its prevention at Hajj and possible application to other mass gatherings. Depending on study design the attack rate of seasonal influenza at Hajj has ranged from 6% in polymerase chain reaction or culture confirmed studies to 38% in serological surveillance. No significant effect of influenza vaccine or the use of personal protective measures against influenza has been established from observational studies, although the uptake of the vaccine and adherence to face masks and hand hygiene has been low. In all, there is a relatively poor evidence base for control of influenza. Until better evidence is obtained, vaccination coupled with rapid antiviral treatment of symptomatic individuals remains the mainstay of prevention at Hajj and other mass gatherings. Hajj pilgrimage provides a unique opportunity to test the effectiveness of various preventive measures that require a large sample size, such as testing the efficacy of plain surgical masks against laboratory-confirmed influenza. After successful completion of a pilot trial conducted among Australian pilgrims at the 2011 Hajj, a large multinational cluster randomized controlled trial is being planned. This will require effective international collaboration.

In this large-scale cluster-randomized controlled trial (cRCT) we sought to assess the effectiveness of facemasks against viral respiratory infections. Over three consecutive Hajj seasons (2013, 2014, 2015) pilgrims’ tents in Makkah were allocated to ‘facemask’ or ‘no facemask’ group. Fifty facemasks were offered to participants in intervention tents, to be worn over four days, and none were offered to participants in control tents. All participants recorded facemask use and respiratory symptoms in health diaries. Nasal swabs were collected from the symptomatic for virus detection by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Clinical symptoms and laboratory results were analyzed by ‘intention- to-treat’ and ‘per-protocol’. A total of 7687 adult participants from 318 tents were randomized: 3864 from 149 tents to the intervention group, and 3823 from 169 tents to the control group. Participants were aged 18 to 95 (median 34, mean 37) years, with a male to female ratio of 1:1.2. Overall, respiratory viruses were detected in 277 of 650 (43%) nasal/pharyngeal swabs collected from symptomatic pilgrims. Common viruses were rhinovirus (35.1%), influenza (4.5%) and parainfluenza (1.7%). In the intervention arm, respectively 954 (24.7%) and 1842 (47.7%) participants used facemasks daily and intermittently, while in the control arm, respectively 546 (14.3%) and 1334 (34.9%) used facemasks daily and intermittently. By intention-to-treat analysis, facemask use did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections (odds ratio [OR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 2.1, p = 0.18) nor against clinical respiratory infection (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4, p = 0.40). Similarly, in a per-protocol analysis, facemask use did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.9–1.7, p = 0.26) nor against clinical respiratory infection (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0–1.8, p = 0.06). This trial was unable to provide conclusive evidence on facemask efficacy against viral respiratory infections most likely due to poor adherence to protocol.