Importance of neutralizers in the stripping fluid in a simulated healthcare personnel handwash

Efficacy of surgical hand scrub products based on chlorhexidine is largely overestimated without neutralizing agents in the sampling fluid

BACKGROUND

Surgical hand antiseptics often contain chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG). There are doubts that the full effect measured for these products might only be achieved after sampling because of a lack of valid neutralizing agents (NAs) in the sampling fluid.

METHODS

We measured the efficacy of Avagard CHG and Hibiclens for 11 applications over 5 days according to the manufacturers' instructions. NAs were added to the sampling fluid and the dilution fluid (group 1) or to only the dilution fluid (group 2). In a third group, NAs were added to the dilution fluid only, and cream was applied after the final scrub on days 1 to 4. Neutralization was validated according to American Society for Testing and Materials International standard 1054 using Staphylococcus epidermidis.

RESULTS

When NAs were not added to the sampling fluid, both products were very effective, with a mean log(10) reduction in flora of 3.32 ± 0.53 for Avagard and 3.68 ± 0.52 for Hibiclens on day 5. When NAs were included in the sampling fluid, however, the immediate efficacy was significantly lower, at 2.75 ± 0.55 and 3.14 ± 0.50, respectively. A lack of NAs in the sampling fluid resulted in overestimation of efficacy by a factor of between 0.3 and 1.1 log(10).

CONCLUSION

Efficacy studies carried out without NAs in the sampling fluid for products with CHG should be critically assessed.

Evaluation of two methods of determining the efficacies of two alcohol-based hand rubs for surgical hand antisepsis

The antimicrobial efficacies of preparations for surgical hand antisepsis can be determined according to a European standard (prEN 12791 [EN]) and a U.S. standard (tentative final monograph for health care antiseptic drug products [TFM]). The U.S. method differs in the product application mode (hands and lower forearms, versus hands only in EN), the number of applications (11 over 5 days, versus a single application in EN), the sampling times (0, 3, and 6 h after application, versus 0 and 3 h in EN), the sampling methods (glove juice versus fingertip sampling in EN), and the outcome requirements (absolute bacterial reduction factor [RF], versus noninferiority to reference treatment in EN). We have studied the efficacies of two hand rubs according to both methods. One hand rub was based on 80% ethanol and applied for 2 min, and the other one was based on 45% propan-2-ol, 30% propan-1-ol, and 0.2% mecetronium etilsulfate and applied for 1.5 min. The ethanol-based hand rub was equally effective as the 3-min reference disinfection of prEN 12791 in both the immediate (RFs, 2.97 +/- 0.89 versus 2.92 +/- 1.03, respectively) and sustained (RFs, 2.20 +/- 1.07 versus 2.47 +/- 1.25, respectively) effects. According to TFM, the immediate effects were 2.99 log10 (day 1), 3.00 log10 (day 2), and 3.43 log10 (day 5), and bacterial counts were still below baseline after 6 h. The propanol-based hand rub was even more effective than the reference disinfection of prEN 12791 in both the immediate (RFs, 2.35 +/- 0.99 versus 1.86 +/- 0.87, respectively) and sustained (RFs, 2.17 +/- 1.00 versus 1.50 +/- 1.26, respectively) effects. According to TFM, the immediate effects were 2.82 log10 (day 1), 3.29 log10 (day 2), and 3.25 log10 (day 5), and bacterial counts were still below baseline after 6 h. Some formulations have been reported to meet the efficacy requirements of one of the methods but not those of the other. That is why we conclude that, despite our results, meeting the efficacy requirements of one test method does not allow the claim that the requirements of the other test method are also met.

Regular use of a hand cream can attenuate skin dryness and roughness caused by frequent hand washing

BACKGROUND

Aim of the study was to determine the effect of the regular use of a hand cream after washing hands on skin hydration and skin roughness.

METHODS

Twenty-five subjects washed hands and forearms with a neutral soap four times per day, for 2 minutes each time, for a total of two weeks. One part of them used a hand cream after each hand wash, the others did not (cross over design after a wash out period of two weeks). Skin roughness and skin hydration were determined on the forearms on days 2, 7, 9 and 14. For skin roughness, twelve silicon imprint per subject and time point were taken from the stratum corneum and assessed with a 3D skin analyzer for depth of the skin relief. For skin hydration, five measurements per subject and time point were taken with a corneometer.

RESULTS

Washing hands lead to a gradual increase of skin roughness from 100 (baseline) to a maximum of 108.5 after 9 days. Use of a hand cream after each hand wash entailed a decrease of skin roughness which the lowest means after 2 (94.5) and 14 days (94.8). Skin hydration was gradually decreased after washing hands from 79 (baseline) to 65.5 after 14 days. The hand wash, followed by use of a hand cream, still decreased skin hydration after 2 days (76.1). Over the next 12 days, however, skin hydration did not change significantly (75.6 after 14 days).

CONCLUSION

Repetitive and frequent hand washing increases skin dryness and roughness. Use of a hand cream immediately after each hand wash can confine both skin dryness and skin roughness. Regular use of skin care preparations should therefore help to prevent both dry and rough skin among healthcare workers in clinical practice.

Insufficient neutralization in testing a chlorhexidine-containing ethanol-based hand rub can result in a false positive efficacy assessment

BACKGROUND

Effective neutralization in testing hand hygiene preparations is considered to be a crucial element to ensure validity of the test results, especially with the difficulty to neutralize chlorhexidine gluconate. Aim of the study was to measure the effect of chemical neutralization under practical test conditions according to EN 1500.

METHODS

We have investigated two ethanol-based hand rubs (product A, based on 61% ethanol and 1% chlorhexidine gluconate; product B, based on 85% ethanol). The efficacy of products (application of 3 ml for 30 s) was compared to 2-propanol 60% (v/v) (two 3 ml rubs of 30 s each) on hands artificially contaminated with Escherichia coli using a cross-over design with 15 volunteers. Pre-values were obtained by rubbing fingertips for 1 minute in liquid broth. Post-values were determined by sampling immediately after disinfection in liquid broth with and without neutralizers (0.5% lecithin, 4% polysorbate 20).

RESULTS

The neutralizers were found to be effective and non-toxic. Without neutralization in the sampling fluid, the reference disinfection reduced the test bacteria by 3.7 log10, product B by 3.3 log10 and product A by 4.8 log10 (P = 0.001; ANOVA). With neutralization the reference disinfection reduced the test bacteria by 3.5 log10, product B by 3.3 log10 and product A by 2.7 log10 (P = 0.011; ANOVA). In comparison to the reference treatment Product B lead to a lower mean reduction than the reference disinfection but the difference was not significant (P > 0.1; Wilcoxon-Wilcox test). Without neutralizing agents in the sampling fluid, product A yielded a significantly higher reduction of test bacteria (4.8; P = 0.02) as compared to the situation with neutralizing agents (2.7; P = 0.033).

CONCLUSION

The crucial step of neutralization lies in the sampling fluid itself in order to stop any residual bacteriostatic or bactericidal activity immediately after the application of the preparation, especially with chlorhexidine gluconate-containing preparations. This is particularly important at short application times such as the 30 s.

Comparative efficacy of hand hygiene agents in the reduction of bacteria and viruses

Background

Health care-associated infections most commonly result from person-to-person transmission via the hands of health care workers.

Methods

We studied the efficacy of hand hygiene agents (n = 14) following 10-second applications to reduce the level of challenge organisms (Serratia marcescens and MS2 bacteriophage) from the hands of healthy volunteers using the ASTM-E-1174-94 test method.

Results

The highest log₁₀ reductions of S marcescens were achieved with agents containing chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), triclosan, benzethonium chloride, and the controls, tap water alone and nonantimicrobial soap and water (episode 1 of hand hygiene, 1.60-2.01; episode 10, 1.60-3.63). Handwipes but not alcohol-based handrubs were significantly inferior from these agents after a single episode of hand hygiene, but both groups were significantly inferior after 10 episodes. After a single episode of hand hygiene, alcohol/silver iodide, CHG, triclosan, and benzethonium chloride were similar to the controls in reduction of MS2, but, in general, handwipes and alcohol-based handrubs showed significantly lower efficacy. After 10 episodes, only benzethonium chloride (1.33) performed as well as the controls (1.59-1.89) in the reduction of MS2.

Conclusions

Antimicrobial handwashing agents were the most efficacious in bacterial removal, whereas waterless agents showed variable efficacy. Alcohol-based handrubs compared with other products demonstrated better efficacy after a single episode of hand hygiene than after 10 episodes. Effective hand hygiene for high levels of viral contamination with a nonenveloped virus was best achieved by physical removal with a nonantimicrobial soap or tap water alone.

The effects of test variables on the efficacy of hand hygiene agents

BACKGROUND

Hand hygiene is essential to interrupting disease transmission in health care facilities. Multiple hand hygiene agents are currently available for use in the health care setting. To evaluate the utility of these agents, both the user acceptability and the efficacy need to be evaluated. Different hand hygiene test methodologies have been used to measure the efficacy of these agents, but efficacy results vary depending on variations to key parameters in these methodologies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of test variables on the efficacy of hand hygiene agents.

METHODS

Both a comprehensive literature review and original hand hygiene efficacy studies were undertaken. The literature review was conducted using a Medline search, and hand hygiene efficacy studies were conducted under the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). E 1174 Standard Test Method for Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Health Care Personnel Handwash Formulation.

RESULTS

The literature review and our original data showed that the following variables affected the hand hygiene efficacy measurements: hand jewelry, experimental contamination versus normal flora, method of application of test organism, hand hygiene agent, concentration of active ingredient, volume of hand hygiene agent, duration of application of hand hygiene agent, method of application of hand hygiene agent, and study method (human challenge trial versus in vitro suspension test).

CONCLUSIONS

Although many methodological variables affect efficacy results, infection control professionals in their analysis of product information should always assess the results in light of the following key variables: concentration and type of active ingredient, duration of exposure to hand hygiene agent, volume of hand hygiene agent applied, test organism, and study method (ie, human challenge vs. in vitro suspension test).