Short-term effects of alcohol-based disinfectant and detergent on skin irritation

Investigation of biocidal efficacy of commercial disinfectants used in public, private and workplaces during the pandemic event of SARS-CoV-2

This study investigated the performance of 24 commercial disinfectants present on the market during last year according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Recently, national and international organizations of public health performed studies on disinfection products due to the increasing awareness of the potential and growing risks on human health, such as skin damage and reactions in the mucosal lining, especially for the healthcare workers in their frequent daily use. However, there are many limitations in the common cleaning/disinfection products on market as in the selection of effective disinfectants to decontaminate inanimate surfaces. We analyzed the disinfection power of hydrogen peroxide, quaternary ammonium compounds, alcohols, phenols and aldehydes used as active principles according to international guidelines. The antimicrobial properties were assessed by broth microdilution, and antibiofilm properties against Escherichia coli (E. coli) and Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus); their virucidal efficacy was tested against Herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) and Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The quaternary ammonium compounds demonstrated better efficacy than others and in some cases ready to use products had also virucidal and antimicrobial activities after dilution at 0.125%. The scientific evidence indicates that many commercial products are used at high concentrations and high doses and this could have deleterious effects both on human health and the environment. A lower concentration of active ingredients would avoid the excessive release of chemicals into the environment and improve skin tolerance, ensuring the health and safety protection of workers, including the healthcare operators at their workplace.

Causes of irritant contact dermatitis after occupational skin exposure: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) is a major cause of occupational disease. The aim was to review the relation between exposure to occupational irritants and ICD and the prognosis of ICD.

METHODS

Through a systematic search, 1516 titles were identified, and 48 studies were included in the systematic review.

RESULTS

We found that the evidence for an association between ICD and occupational irritants was strong for wet work, moderate for detergents and non-alcoholic disinfectants, and strong for a combination. The highest quality studies provided limited evidence for an association with use of occlusive gloves without other exposures and moderate evidence with simultaneous exposure to other wet work irritants. The evidence for an association between minor ICD and exposure to metalworking fluids was moderate. Regarding mechanical exposures, the literature was scarce and the evidence limited. We found that the prognosis for complete healing of ICD is poor, but improves after decrease of exposure through change of occupation or work tasks. There was no substantial evidence for an influence of gender, age, or household exposures. Inclusion of atopic dermatitis in the analysis did not alter the risk of ICD. Studies were at risk of bias, mainly due to selection and misclassification of exposure and outcome. This may have attenuated the results.

CONCLUSION

This review reports strong evidence for an association between ICD and a combination of exposure to wet work and non-alcoholic disinfectants, moderate for metalworking fluids, limited for mechanical and glove exposure, and a strong evidence for a poor prognosis of ICD.

Assessment of hand hygiene strategies on skin barrier function during COVID-19 pandemic: a randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 has increased the frequency of hand washing. There is scarce evidence regarding the impact of different hand hygiene procedures on skin barrier function in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the impact on skin barrier function of different hand hygiene measures in health care workers in daily practice.

METHODS

A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted. Participants were randomized to sanitize their hands with water and soap, alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHS) or disinfectant wipes during their 8-hour work-shift. Epidermal barrier functional parameters, like transepidermal water loss (TEWL), and the microbial load were assessed before and immediately after the workday. Tolerance and acceptability of each product were recorded after work.

RESULTS

Sixty-two participants were included and 20, 21 and 21 were randomized respectively to use water and soap, ABHS and disinfectant wipes. After the 8-hour shift, TEWL increase was higher with disinfectant wipes than with soaps or ABHS (+5.45vs + 3.87vs-1.46 g·h^-1 ·m^-2 respectively, P = .023). Bacteria and fungi colony-forming unit (CFU) count reduction was lower for water and soap group than for ABHS and disinfectant wipes. Disinfectant wipes were considered more difficult to use (P = .013) compared to water and soap and ABHS.

CONCLUSION

Daily hand hygiene with ABHS showed the lowest rates of skin barrier disruption and the highest reduction of CFU. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

An update on the prevalence and risk exposures associated with hand eczema in Danish hospital employees: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study

BACKGROUND

Hand eczema (HE) is common in health care workers (HCWs). During the last decade, new recommendations have supported increased use of alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) to partially replace hand washings to lower the prevalence of HE. However, newer data on this recommendation is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To assess current 1-year prevalence of HE in HCWs, to investigate exposure, and the extent of subjective discomfort to hand washings and ABHR.

METHODS

A digital questionnaire was sent to 4876 HCWs from April to May 2020.

RESULTS

Of 2125 respondents (1779 women, 346 men), 14.7% reported HE within the last year. In total, 9.1% reported >20 hand washings per shift and 76.0% reported ABHR use >20 times per shift. HE was significantly associated with hand washings (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.73 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-2.36]) and glove use on wet skin (adjusted OR 1.99 [95% CI 1.27-3.12]). Subjective discomfort to ABHR was reported significantly more often than to hand washings (P < .001) and significantly more often in HCWs with HE than in those without HE (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The current 1-year HE prevalence in HCWs of 14.7% was lower than in previously reported Scandinavian data. HE was related to frequent hand washings, as previously reported, and to glove use on wet skin, which is a possible risk factor for HE that should be further explored.

Skin barrier response to active chlorine hand disinfectant-An experimental study comparing skin barrier response to active chlorine hand disinfectant and alcohol-based hand rub on healthy skin and eczematous skin

BACKGROUND

Alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) is widely used for hand disinfection in the health care sector. ABHR is, however, known to cause discomfort when applied on damaged skin emphasizing the unmet need for alternative and better tolerated types of disinfectants. Active chlorine hand disinfectants (ACHDs) are potential new candidates; however, the effect on the skin barrier function compared to ABHR remains to be assessed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In Study A, the forearm skin of healthy adults was repeatedly exposed to ACHD and ABHR. Skin barrier function was assessed by measurement of transepidermal water loss, electrical conductance, pH, and erythema at baseline and at follow-up after 2 days, and subjective discomfort was likewise assessed. Study B was performed in the same way; however, in order to induce an experimental irritant contact dermatitis, sodium lauryl sulfate patch tests were applied to forearms before exposure to ACHD and ABHR.

RESULTS

In both studies, the skin barrier function was unaffected after repetitive exposure to ACHD and ABHR, and with no significant differences between the products. Subjective discomfort was reported as sporadic or very mild in relation to both products.

CONCLUSION

Our results illustrate that use of ACHD does not affect the skin barrier function negatively, neither in intact skin nor in skin with experimentally induced contact dermatitis. Future studies should include real-life evaluation of skin barrier function and subjective discomfort following ACHD use in individuals with and without hand eczema.

How irritant are n-propanol and isopropanol? - A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The use of alcoholic-based hand rubs (ABHRs) is an important tool for hand hygiene, especially in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Possible irritant effects of ABHR may prevent their use by persons at risk of infection.

METHODS

This systematic review is based on a PubMed search of articles published between January 2000 and September 2019 in English and German, and a manual search, related to the irritation potential of alcohol-based disinfectants restricted to n-propanol (1-propanol) and its structural isomer isopropanol (isopropyl alcohol, 2-propanol).

RESULTS

The majority of the included studies show a low irritation potential of n-propanol alone. However, recent studies provide evidence for significant barrier damage effects of repeated exposure to 60% n-propanol in healthy, as well as atopic skin in vivo. The synergistic response of combined irritants, (ie, a combination of n-propanol or isopropanol with detergents such as sodium lauryl sulfate) is greater, compared with a quantitatively identical application of the same irritant alone.

CONCLUSION

While recent studies indicate a higher risk of skin irritation for n-propanol and isopropanol than reported in the past, this risk still seems to be lower than that for frequent handwashing with detergents, as recommended by some to prevent COVID-19 infections.

Assessment of tolerability and acceptability of an alcohol-based hand rub according to a WHO protocol and using apparatus tests

Background

The effectiveness of alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHRs) depends substantially on their acceptability and tolerability. In this study, we assessed the acceptability and tolerability of a new ABHR (product EU 100.2018.02).

Methods

Among physicians, nurses, and cosmetologists who used the ABHR for 30 days, we assessed the product's acceptability and tolerability according to a WHO protocol. Additionally, we used instrumental skin tests. Participants assessed the product's color, smell, texture, irritation, drying effect, ease of use, speed of drying, and application, and they gave an overall evaluation. Moreover, they rated the tolerability, i.e. their skin condition, on the following dimensions: intactness, moisture content, sensation, and integrity of the skin. The tolerability was also assessed by an observer as follows: redness, scaliness, fissures, and overall score for the skin condition. Instrumental skin tests included transepidermal water loss, skin hydration, sebum secretion, and percentage of skin affected by discolorations. All assessments were made at baseline (visit 1), and 3-5 days (visit 2) and 30 days (visit 3) later.

Results

We enrolled 126 participants (110 [87%] women) with a mean age of 34.3 ± 11.65 years. Sixty-five participants (52%) were healthcare professionals (physicians, nurses), and 61 (48%) were cosmetologists. During visit 2 and visit 3, about 90% of participants gave responses complying with the WHO's benchmark for acceptability and tolerability. Similarly, the ABHR met the WHO criteria for observer-assessed tolerability: on all visits, in more than 95% of participants, the observer gave scores complying with the WHO benchmark. Transepidermal water loss decreased from baseline to visit 3 (p < 0.001), whereas skin hydration, sebum secretion, and the percentage of skin affected by discolorations did not change significantly during the study (p ≥ 130).

Conclusions

The EU 100.2018.02 had both high acceptability and tolerability, meeting the WHO criteria. The WHO protocol proved useful in the analysis of acceptability and tolerability of ABHRs.

Effect of different alcohols on stratum corneum kallikrein 5 and phospholipase A2 together with epidermal keratinocytes and skin irritation

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this exploratory study was to investigate the effect of ethanol, isopropanol and n-propanol on stratum corneum (SC) enzymes and keratinocytes in vitro together with their effects on skin condition and function.

METHODS

Activities of kallikrein 5 (KLK5) and phospholipase A2 (PLA2) as well as keratinocyte metabolic activity, interleukin-1α (IL-1α) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) were measured in vitro in the presence and absence of the different alcohols. We also measured transepidermal water loss (TEWL), skin capacitance, visual dryness and visual redness on the volar forearms of 25 Caucasian women following application of the alcohols 20 and 100 times per day over a period of 14 days in a clinical study.

RESULTS

Reduced activities of KLK5 and PLA2 were observed in the presence of the alcohols. The greatest denaturing effect was always observed for n-propanol (P < 0.001), and in the case of PLA2, the effect of isopropanol was greater than ethanol (P < 0.001). Equally, ethanol had the mildest effects on keratinocyte metabolic activity and cytokine secretion (P < 0.001) and n-propanol always produced the most severe changes in normal and differentiated keratinocytes. These in vitro findings supported the clinical results where the major effects were on the induction of skin irritation (increased dropout rates) and ranked the intolerance of the different alcohols as follows: n-propanol > isopropanol > ethanol. At the high application frequencies, the effect of the different alcohols on transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and skin capacitance was similar, but at the low application frequencies, n-propanol had a significant effect on TEWL and capacitance values (P < 0.05). Equally, n-propanol and isopropanol produced significantly more skin redness at the low application frequencies.

CONCLUSIONS

Clearly, isopropanol and n-propanol caused significant SC and keratinocyte perturbation in vitro together with damage to skin condition and function in vivo whereas ethanol did not. As a result, we show that ethanol-based sanitizers are better tolerated by skin, particularly in high-use settings, than other alcohols and should be the active ingredient of choice.

Guidelines for diagnosis, prevention and treatment of hand eczema

The guidelines aim to provide advice on the management of hand eczema (HE), using an evidence- and consensus-based approach. The guidelines consider a systematic Cochrane review on interventions for HE, which is based on a systematic search of the published literature (including hand-searching). In addition to the evidence- and consensus-based recommendation on the treatment of HE, the guidelines cover mainly consensus-based diagnostic aspects and preventive measures (primary and secondary prevention). Treatment recommendations include non-pharmacological interventions, topical, physical and systemic treatments. Topical corticosteroids are recommended as first line treatment in the management of HE, however continuous long-term treatment beyond six weeks only when necessary and under careful me-dical supervision. Alitretinoin is recommended as a second line treatment (relative to topical corticosteroids) for patients with severe chronic HE. Randomized control trials (RCT) are missing for other used systemic treatments and comparison of systemic drugs in “head-to-head” RCTs are needed.The guidelines development group is a working group of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD) and has carefully tried to reconcile opposite views, define current optimal practice and provide specific recommendations, and meetings have been chaired by a professional moderator of the AWMF (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wis-senschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften; Association of the Scientific Medi-cal Societies in Germany).No financial support was given by any medical company. The guidelines are expected to be valid until December 2017 at the latest.

Management of Chronic Hand Eczema

Management of hand eczema is complex because of the broad range of different pathogeneses, courses, and prognoses. Furthermore, the efficacy of most available treatments is not well established and the more severe forms can have a major impact on the patient's quality of life. Patient education, preventive measures, and the use of emollients are the mainstays in the management of hand eczema. High-potency topical corticosteroids are the treatment of choice, with calcineurin inhibitors used for maintenance. Phototherapy or systemic treatments are indicated in patients who do not respond to topical treatments. Switching from topical treatments should not be delayed to avoid sensitizations, time off work, and a negative impact on quality of life. Alitretinoin is the only oral treatment approved for use in chronic hand eczema.

Practices of skin care among nurses in medical and surgical intensive care units: results of a self-administered questionnaire

Dermatitis of hands is a problem among nurses. The aim of this prospective questionnaire based survey was to analyze practice and knowledge of skin care of medical and surgical nurses. 250 questionnaires were distributed. 49% of respondent stated that they perform skin care at least 1-2 times/day. After hand-wash 15% of participants perform skin protection, after hand-disinfection only 2%. 40% give skin care products less than 3 minutes to be applied. It was shown that this knowledge is lacking in many individuals, leading to wrong behavior at work and insufficient use of skin protection and skin care products.

Hand eczema guidelines based on the Danish guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of hand eczema

BACKGROUND

Classification of hand eczema has traditionally been based both on aetiology and clinical appearance. For 20% of cases, the aetiology is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To suggest a classification based on well-defined aetiology as well as on predefined clinical patterns and on the dynamics of hand eczema.

METHODS

Literature studies and discussions among members of the Danish Contact Dermatitis Group.

RESULTS

Criteria are given for the aetiological diagnoses of allergic contact dermatitis of the hands, irritant contact dermatitis of the hands, protein contact dermatitis of the hands, atopic hand eczema and aetiologically unclassifiable hand eczema. Six different clinical patterns are described and illustrated. Suggestions for general treatment principles are given.

CONCLUSION

Operational guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of hand eczema are described.

The Hand Eczema Trial (HET): Design of a randomised clinical trial of the effect of classification and individual counselling versus no intervention among health-care workers with hand eczema

Background

Hand eczema is the most frequently recognized occupational disease in Denmark with an incidence of approximately 0.32 per 1000 person-years. Consequences of hand eczema include chronic severe eczema, prolonged sick leave, unemployment, and impaired quality of life. New preventive strategies are needed to reduce occupational hand eczema.

Methods/Design

We describe the design of a randomised clinical trial to investigate the effects of classification of hand eczema plus individual counselling versus no intervention. The trial includes health-care workers with hand eczema identified from a self-administered questionnaire delivered to 3181 health-care workers in three Danish hospitals. The questionnaire identifies the prevalence of hand eczema, knowledge of skin-protection, and exposures that can lead to hand eczema. At entry, all participants are assessed regarding: disease severity (Hand Eczema Severity Index); self-evaluated disease severity; number of eruptions; quality of life; skin protective behaviour, and knowledge of skin protection. The patients are centrally randomised to intervention versus no intervention 1:1 stratified for hospital, profession, and severity score. The experimental group undergoes patch and prick testing; classification of the hand eczema; demonstration of hand washing and appliance of emollients; individual counselling, and a skin-care programme. The control group receives no intervention. All participants are reassessed after six months. The primary outcome is observer-blinded assessment of disease severity and the secondary outcomes are unblinded assessments of disease severity; number of eruptions; knowledge of skin protection; skin-protective behaviour, and quality of life.

Trial registration

The trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.Gov, NCT01012453.

Hand hygiene practices: nursing students' perceptions

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The present study examines nursing students' perceptions of hand hygiene practices in clinical settings. The objectives were to investigate any factors that affect students' perceptions of their own and healthcare workers' (HCWs) hand hygiene compliance, and to make recommendations for future practice and hand hygiene training in preregistration nursing courses.

BACKGROUND

Effective hand hygiene decontamination can lower the prevalence of healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs); unfortunately, the prevalence of HCAIs continues to rise and so poses challenges to healthcare providers to reduce such infections. Previous studies have shown that hand hygiene compliance in HCWs is generally low and that any increase in compliance is difficult to sustain. Several barriers to hand hygiene compliance have been identified in the literature.

DESIGN

A qualitative interpretive design was used to examine nursing students' perceptions of hand hygiene practices.

METHODS

Ten preregistration students participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews, which were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Hand hygiene compliance was perceived to be effected by specific barriers which included: time and busyness; clinical procedure; skin condition; lack of knowledge and glove use. Importantly, students perceived other HCWs as being the influencing factor for hand hygiene compliance resulting from the perception that they should 'fit in' with those working in the clinical area.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings support previous literature and found that respondents emphasised the importance of fitting into the clinical area and role models in shaping hand hygiene compliance.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

For nursing students, the influence of other HCWs as role models should not be underestimated.

Skin protection creams in medical settings: successful or evil?

Background

Chronic exposure to mild irritants including cleansing and antiseptic products used for hand hygiene generates insults to the skin. To avoid unpleasant reactions, skin protection creams are commonly employed, but some fail to afford protection against a variety of xenobiotics. In this study, two skin protection creams were assayed comparatively looking for a protective effect if any against a liquid soap and an alcohol-based gel designed for hand hygiene in medical settings.

Methods

Corneosurfametry and corneoxenometry are two in vitro bioessays which were selected for their good reproducibility, sensitivity and ease of use. A Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA test followed by the Dunn test was realized to compare series of data obtained.

Results

Significant differences in efficacy were obtained between the two assayed skin protection creams. One of the two tested creams showed a real protective effect against mild irritants, but the other tested cream presented an irritant potential in its application with mild irritants.

Conclusion

The differences observed for the two tested skin protection creams were probably due to their galenic composition and their possible interactions with the offending products. As a result, the present in vitro bioassays showed contrasted effects of the creams corresponding to either a protective or an irritant effect on human stratum corneum.

Effects of disinfectants and detergents on skin irritation

We investigated the biological response of regular human skin to alcohol-based disinfectants and detergents in a repetitive test design. Using non-invasive diagnostic tools such as transepidermal water loss, laser-Doppler flowmetry and corneometry, we quantified the irritative effects of a propanol-based hand disinfectant (Sterillium), its propanol mixture (2-propanol 45% w/w and 1-propanol 30% w/w), sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) 0.5% and distilled water. The substances were applied in a 2-D patch test in a repetitive occlusive test design to the back. Additionally, we performed a wash test on the forearms that was supposed to mimic the skin affection in the normal daily routine of health care workers. In this controlled half-side test design, we included the single application of the hand rub, SLS 0.5% and water as well as a tandem application of the same substances. Patch test and wash test showed similar results. The alcohol-based test preparations showed minimal irritation rather comparable to the application of water. However, the detergent SLS produced stronger barrier disruption, erythema and dryness than the alcohol-based preparations. There was no additional irritation at the combined use of SLS and disinfectants. By contrary, there was even a decrease in barrier disruption and erythema induced by the tandem application of SLS followed by alcohol-based disinfection compared with the use of SLS alone. These findings show a less irritant effect of alcohol-based disinfectants on the skin than detergents. Our study shows that there is no summation of irritating effects of a common detergent and propanol and that the combination of washing and disinfection has a rather protective aspect compared with washing alone.

Skin exposure in geriatric care ? a comparison between observation and self-assessment of exposure

The aim of this study was to compare observation and self-assessment of skin exposure to irritants during a working day in nursing in geriatric care. The study group consisted of 40 volunteers, 13 nurses, and 27 assistant nurses. Before the start of a working day, the participants completed a questionnaire regarding skin exposure to water, gloves, hand disinfection, and moisturizers. Observers subsequently used a hand-held computer to register the time and frequency of each exposure. The total mean skin exposure time was 96 min per working day, including glove use. The mean exposure time to water was 9 min per working day. A tendency to overestimate was found for all exposures. A strong correlation between self-reports and observations was found for hand disinfection and moisturizers, while a moderate correlation was found for gloves and number of water exposures and a weak correlation for total time of water exposure. Despite the differences between self-assessment and observation of the exposure, we consider the questionnaire to be useful for surveying skin exposure in nursing. Furthermore, the observations in this study suggest that nursing work in geriatric care may comprise limited exposure to water.

How irritant is alcohol?

BACKGROUND

Alcohol-based hand rubs are used worldwide to prevent transmission of nosocomial pathogens.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate skin irritation caused by alcohols alone and in combination with detergent washing.

METHODS

Single and repetitive patch testing with 60-100% alcohols [ethanol, 1-propanol, 2-propanol (synonyms: isopropyl alcohol, isopropanol)], a positive control [0.5% sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS)] and negative controls (empty chamber and water) were performed. Wash tests were performed with 80% ethanol and 0.5% SLS on the forearms with each agent alone and with both agents in a tandem design. Skin hydration, erythema and barrier disruption [measured as transepidermal water loss (TEWL)] were evaluated (always 15 volunteers).

RESULTS

We found no significant change in skin barrier or erythema induced by the alcohols in the patch tests, whereas skin hydration decreased significantly. Application of alcohols to previously irritated skin did not show a stronger skin barrier disruption than application of SLS alone. Wash tests demonstrated that alcohol application caused significantly less skin irritation than washing with a detergent (TEWL, P < 0.001; skin hydration, P < 0.05; erythema, P < 0.05). Even on previously irritated skin, ethanol did not enhance irritation. By contrast, a protective effect of ethanol used after skin washing was observed (TEWL, P < 0.05; skin hydration, P < 0.05; erythema, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Alcohol-based hand rubs cause less skin irritation than hand washing and are therefore preferred for hand hygiene from the dermatological point of view. An alcohol-based hand rub may even decrease rather than increase skin irritation after a hand wash due to a mechanical partial elimination of the detergent.

Regional variability in stratum corneum reactivity to antiseptic formulations

Skin does not react in an identical way to the action of chemicals over all anatomic sites. Accordingly, distinct regional differences have been described in relation to irritancy. The present study assesses the regional variations of stratum corneum (SC) reactivity to 3 proprietary antiseptic solutions (povidone iodine (PVP-I), 70 mg/ml and 100 mg/ml, and chlorhexidine digluconate 50 mg/ml) using the corneoxenometry (CXM) bioassay. SC was harvested from the volar forearm, the forehead and the back in 30 young adults. Each SC sample was covered by one of the neat test product or deionized water for 2 hr at 20 degrees C. The intrinsic staining property of each antiseptic on SC was assessed by reflectance colorimetry. For the CXM bioassay, samples were then stained by a toluidine blue-basic fuschin solution in order to show protein denaturation induced by the test products. The colorimetric index of mildness (CIM = L*- Chroma C*) was measured by colorimetry. Data show that PVP-I 100 mg/ml was the least reactive antiseptic to the SC. It was significantly milder than the 2 other antiseptics.

Skin condition associated with intensive use of alcoholic gels for hand disinfection: a combination of biophysical and sensorial data

Although hand hygiene is an important and inexpensive measure to prevent nosocomial infections in clinical settings, the compliance of healthcare workers remains low. In Europe, alcoholic hand disinfection is first choice, but there exists a limited user acceptability due to estimated adverse effects on skin condition. This study was designed to investigate skin tolerance to alcohol-based disinfecting gels and changes in skin condition depending on humectant concentration, alcohol grades, as well as type of alcohol used. A comparison of 6 alcohol-based gels was made based on a randomized double-blind study under in use conditions for 1 day. Skin condition was evaluated by measuring transepidermal water loss (TEWL), stratum corneum hydration, apparent skin pH, redness and degree of scaliness. With respect to user acceptability, all gels were sensorially evaluated using a questionnaire. We saw that none of the alcohol-based gels, applied under in use conditions, altered TEWL or caused irritation. All gels hydrated the skin, proportionally to their glycerine content, and decreased skin pH. Elevated ethanol concentrations resulted in increased scaliness. Sensorial assessment revealed less appreciation for isopropanol. From this study, it was concluded that gels containing an elevated glycerine concentration and 70% (v/v) ethanol are preferred.

Emollients in a propanol-based hand rub can significantly decrease irritant contact dermatitis

The objective of this study is to determine the effect of emollients in a propanol-based hand rub on skin dryness and erythema. In this prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, 35 subjects participated; of them approximately half were atopic (modified Erlanger atopy score > or =8). 2 propanol-based formulations were tested in a repeated open application test, 1 contained a mixture of emollients (0.81%, w/w). 2 aliquots of 0.7 ml of each formulation were applied twice per day over 2 weeks to the cubital fossa of each subject after random assignment of the preparations. Treatment areas were assessed before each application and 3 days postfinal application by visual inspection for erythema and dryness according to a standard scale. The sum score over all assessment time-points served as primary parameter. The mean sum score for erythema and dryness was significantly lower for the hand rub with emollients (0.8 +/- 2.4) in comparison with that for the hand rub without emollients (1.5 +/- 3.5; P = 0.022; Wilcoxon signed rank test). A comparison of the atopic and non-atopic subjects revealed no significant difference for any of the products (P > 0.05; Mann-Whitney U-test). It is concluded that the addition of emollients to a propanol-based hand rub can significantly decrease irritant contact dermatitis under frequent-use conditions.

Primary prevention in health care employees: a prospective intervention study with a 3-year training period

Irritant contact dermatitis is a mayor problem in health care employees. Because educational programs have shown convincing success in certain occupations (e.g. in hairdressers), this study investigates the effect of a special training program in health care trainees. 521 trainees from 14 nursing schools in Central Germany were randomly divided in 2 groups, (i) an intervention group with a regular teaching protocol regarding all aspects of primary prevention and (ii) a control group without any further teaching. Morphological changes of the hands, use of hand care creams and knowledge regarding skin care were evaluated regularly during their 3 years lasting training period (1999-2002). In the intervention group, we found at the end of the 3-year training period a significant better skin condition of the hands than in the control group: a 3-year prevalence of morphological skin changes of 66.7% versus 89.3%. The unteached trainees (control group) had an odds ratio (OR) of 4.8 [95% confidential interval (CI): 2.9-7.8] for developing any skin changes on the hands after 3 years. Besides the effect of the teaching, the history of hand dermatitis before the study start was an independent risk factor for development of further hand dermatitis [OR 1.9, 95% CI: 1.0-3.6). Age and sex showed no influence on the skin condition. Atopic constitution had an influence on the development of skin changes only at the evaluation after 18 month. The observed effect in the intervention group may best be explained by different behaviour of the trainees, e.g. the amount of hand washing was reduced, while procedure of hand disinfection remained unchanged compared with the control group. However, the amount of used skin care cream did not differ between the both groups. This study shows that primary prevention of skin disease by regularly teaching during the training period of medical employees can effectively reduce the risk of development of irritant skin changes of the hands. Therefore, teaching and continuous motivation regarding preventive individual and collective measures during the training of medical staff should be an obliged part of the curriculum.

Less skin irritation from alcohol-based disinfectant than from detergent used for hand disinfection

BACKGROUND

The benefit of alcohol-based disinfectant used on normal skin has been debated.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the present study was to compare the effects of repeated exposure to an alcohol-based disinfectant, a detergent and an alcohol-based disinfectant/detergent alternately for 10 days, including noninvasive measurements in the evaluation. Skin reactivity in irritated skin after a 4-week interval was also evaluated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Detergent, disinfectant and alternate disinfectant and detergent were applied twice daily every 10 min for 1 h to the ventral upper arms and forearms of 17 healthy volunteers. A control area was included. After 4 weeks an SLS patch was applied to each area. Irritant reactions were quantified with a visual score recording and measurements of transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and skin colour were performed on days 1, 5, 11, 38 and 40.

RESULTS

On day 5 the detergent caused a higher visual score than either disinfectant applied alone or alternate disinfectant and detergent, P < 0.05. On day 11 detergent and alternate disinfectant and detergent caused a higher score than disinfectant, P < 0.05. An increased irritant response for detergent compared with disinfectant alone and alternate disinfectant and detergent was confirmed by TEWL evaluations on days 5 and 11, P < 0.001, while no significant difference was found by colour measurement. After 4 weeks, when evaluated by colour measurement, significantly less response to the SLS patch was found on the disinfectant-treated area compared with the control area and detergent area, and a similar trend was found for TEWL, although it was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Alcohol-based disinfectant caused less visible skin irritation and less skin barrier disruption than the use of detergent. The alternate use of detergent and disinfectant caused less irritation than the use of detergent, and a possible interaction between the two irritants was not indicated. After 4 weeks there was a tendency for decreased skin reactivity in the skin areas which had 4 weeks previously been exposed to disinfectant.