A comparative study on the effect of alcohol-based hand sanitizers in spray and gel formulation on the skin: A prospective, randomised, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Many formulations of Alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHRs), such as liquid, gel, and spray have been developed and used for preventing infections. This study aimed to compare skin irritation from using ABHRs in gel and spray formulations. METHOD: This was a prospective, randomised, crossover trial conducted to investigate the effect of skin irritation caused by ABHRs in gel compared to spray formulation after 21 days of using each formulation. Clinical outcomes were assessed using subjective Larson's skin assessment score and Frosch and Kligman observer skin assessment score, as well as bioengineering measures: transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and skin capacitance on days 3, 7, 14, and 21. RESULTS: Among 38 participants, both formulations showed no significant change in clinical scores and skin capacitance during the study. However, TEWL increased significantly from baseline on day 3 (p = 0.029) for the spray formulation and on day 21 (p = 0.019) for the gel formulation, with no statistically significant difference between the formulations (p = 0.46). CONCLUSION: Our research supports the safety of gel and spray ABHRs for regular use, with the only potential issue being mild skin irritation. For those with sensitive skin, the gel formulation is preferable.

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.

Shifting trends in demographic features of chemical eye injuries during COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the etiological cause distribution in chemical eye injuries during COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this retrospective case series, the medical records of patients, who presented with chemical eye injuries between March 30, 2020, and March 1, 2021, were evaluated and compared with the data covering 10 years before the pandemic. RESULTS: Twenty-seven eyes of twenty-three patients (19 adults, 4 children) who presented in pandemic period were included. Alcohol-based hand sanitizer was one of the two most common agents (n = 6 eyes) in the pandemic era. In the last 10 years before the pandemic, 137 eyes of 102 patients were treated for chemical eye injuries. Injuries due to alcohol-based hand sanitizer increased from 3.1 to 21.1% among all patients, and from 0 to 75% among pediatric patients during the pandemic era compared to the pre-pandemic period. The increase was statistically significant both in all patients (p = .003) and in the pediatric patient group (p = .048). CONCLUSION: Due to COVID-19 pandemic, alcohol-based hand sanitizer use became more common. Consequently, the frequency of hand sanitizer related chemical injuries showed a 13-fold increase and the age group affected by such accidents is altered during the pandemic. Three out of four pediatric patients (75%) were injured with alcohol-based hand sanitizers, which draws attention to the fact that improperly placed hand sanitizer stations, being just at the eye level of children, can cause chemical eye injuries in the pediatric population even more.

Hand hygiene for the prevention of infections in neonates.

BACKGROUND: Annually, infections contribute to approximately 25% of the 2.8 million neonatal deaths worldwide. Over 95% of sepsis-related neonatal deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. Hand hygiene is an inexpensive and cost-effective method of preventing infection in neonates, making it an affordable and practicable intervention in low- and middle-income settings. Therefore, hand hygiene practices may hold strong prospects for reducing the occurrence of infection and infection-related neonatal death. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of different hand hygiene agents for preventing neonatal infection in community and health facility settings. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 5), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 10 May 2019); Embase (1980 to 10 May 2019); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 10 May 2019). We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials. Searches were updated 1 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs, cross-over trials, and quasi-RCTs that included pregnant women, mothers, other caregivers, and healthcare workers who received interventions within the community or in health facility settings DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were incidence of (study author-defined) suspected infection within the first 28 days of life, bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life, all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life (early neonatal death), and all-cause mortality from the 8th to the 28th day of life (late neonatal death). MAIN RESULTS: Our review included five studies: one RCT, one quasi-RCT, and three cross-over trials with a total of more than 5450 neonates (two studies included all neonates but did not report the actual number of neonates involved). Four studies involved 279 nurses working in neonatal intensive care units and all neonates on admission. The fifth study did not clearly state how many nurses were included in the study. Studies examined the effectiveness of different hand hygiene practices for the incidence of (study author-defined) suspected infection within the first 28 days of life. Two studies were rated as low risk for selection bias, another two were rated as high risk, and one study was rated as unclear risk. One study was rated as low risk for allocation bias, and four were rated as high risk. Only one of the five studies was rated as low risk for performance bias. 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) compared to plain liquid soap We are uncertain whether plain soap is better than 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) for nurses' skin based on very low-certainty evidence (mean difference (MD) -1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.31 to -0.19; 16 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We identified no studies that reported on other outcomes for this comparison. 4% chlorhexidine gluconate compared to triclosan 1% One study compared 1% w/v triclosan with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate and suggests that 1% w/v triclosan may reduce the incidence of suspected infection (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.60; 1916 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There may be fewer cases of infection in the 1% w/v triclosan group compared to the 4% chlorhexidine gluconate group (RR 6.01, 95% CI 3.56 to 10.14; 1916 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); however, we are uncertain of the available evidence. We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality, duration of hospital stay, and adverse events for this comparison. 2% CHG compared to alcohol hand sanitiser (61% alcohol and emollients) We are uncertain whether 2% chlorhexidine gluconate reduces the risk of all infection in neonates compared to 61% alcohol hand sanitiser with regards to the incidence of all bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.69; 2932 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) in the 2% chlorhexidine gluconate group, but the evidence is very uncertain.   The adverse outcome was reported as mean visual scoring on the skin. There may be little to no difference between the effects of 2% CHG on nurses' skin compared to alcohol hand sanitiser based on very low-certainty evidence (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.59; 118 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality and other outcomes for this comparison. None of the included studies assessed all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life nor duration of hospital stay.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain as to the superiority of one hand hygiene agent over another because this review included very few studies with very serious study limitations.

Disulfiram Ethanol Reaction with Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizer: An Exploratory Study.

AIMS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey to estimate the prevalence and clinical manifestation of disulfiram ethanol reaction (DER) and isopropanol toxicity (IT) in patients with alcohol use disorders, on disulfiram. Alcohol-based hand rub contains either ethanol or isopropanol or both. COVID-19 pandemic has led to wide scale usage of sanitizers. Patients with alcohol use disorders, on disulfiram, might experience disulfiram ethanol like reactions with alcohol-based sanitizers. METHODS: We telephonically contacted 339 patients, prescribed disulfiram between January 2014 and March 2020. The assessment pertained to the last 3 months (i.e. third week of March to third week of June 2020). RESULT: The sample consisted of middle-aged men with a mean 16 years of alcohol dependence. Among the 82 (24%) patients adherent to disulfiram, 42 (12.3%) were using alcohol-based hand rubs. Out of these, a total of eight patients (19%; 95% CI 9-33) had features suggestive of DER; four of whom also had features indicative of IT. Five patients (62.5%) had mild and self-limiting symptoms. Severe systemic reactions were experienced by three (37.5%). Severe reactions were observed with exposure to sanitizers in greater amounts, on moist skin or through inhalation. CONCLUSION: Patients on disulfiram should be advised to use alternate methods of hand hygiene.

Fluctuating Palmar Erythema in a Toddler during COVID-19 Pandemic: Do You Know the Offender?

Palmar erythema in children can be due to various reasons, such as chronic liver disease, rheumatological disorders, medications, irritant contact dermatitis and atopic dermatitis. Recently, there are few reports about contact dermatitis caused by frequent, daily use of hand sanitizers during this COVID-19 pandemic. A 3-year-old toddler brought with the concern of waxing-waning bilateral palmar erythema for the past 2 weeks. The parents revealed that the child liked the bright color of a recently bought hand sanitizer bottle so much he used to wash his hands every 20-30 min throughout the day. The atypical presentation of contact dermatitis might be because the child was using the sanitizer more frequently during the daytime. The dermatitis resolved with stopping excessive use of the hand sanitizer by the toddler. Clinicians should be aware of contact dermatitis during these pandemic times. Instead of investigating them extensively, careful history taking and merely advising them to judicially utilize the sanitizer can lead to complete reversal of symptoms.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children with psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Children with psoriasis may have been directly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and their illness may also have affected their ability to follow preventive measures. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children with psoriasis. METHODS: A survey of children (<18 years) with psoriasis, conducted from June 10 to June 29, 2020. RESULTS: In total, 92 children were included: 71.7% had psoriasis lesions at the time of home lockdown while 45.2% were receiving systemic treatments, and two contracted COVID-19. During lockdown, psoriasis worsened in 47.3% of the children and 18.8% stopped their systemic treatments, mainly for reasons linked to the pandemic. A total of 41.3% had a consultation for psoriasis during lockdown (71.1% by teleconsultation): 39.5% due to worsening of their psoriasis and 21.1% for pandemic-related issues. Among patients not having a consultation during lockdown, 27.5% had a cancellation by the doctor and 9.3% had concerns over going to see the doctor. Finally, 22.8% of patients reported finding it difficult to respect hygiene measures because of their psoriasis, e.g., application of alcohol-based hand sanitizers (47.6%), handwashing routines (42.9%), and wearing a mask (28.6%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the major clinical impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children with psoriasis. Teleconsultations played a key role in patient management as regards patient monitoring, provision of information, and renewal of treatments. It is vital that we learn from these data to improve and adapt the monitoring of chronic dermatoses in both children and adults in the event of a future health crisis.

High concentrations of urinary ethanol metabolites in neonatal intensive care unit infants.

BACKGROUND: Infants in the neonatal intensive care unit may be exposed to ethanol via medications that contain ethanol as an excipient and through inhalation of ethanol vapor from hand sanitizers. We hypothesized that both pathways of exposure would result in elevated urinary biomarkers of ethanol. METHODS: Urine samples were collected from infants in incubators and in open cribs. Two ethanol metabolites, ethyl sulfate (EtS) and ethyl glucuronide (EtG), were quantified in infants' urine. RESULTS: A subset of infants both in incubators and open cribs had ethanol biomarkers greater than the cutoff concentration that identifies adult alcohol consumption. These concentrations were associated with the infant having received an ethanol-containing medication on the day of urine collection. When infants who received an ethanol-containing medication were excluded from analysis, there was no difference in ethanol biomarker concentrations between the incubator and crib groups. CONCLUSIONS: Some infants who received ethanol-containing medications had concentrations of ethanol biomarkers that are indicative of adult alcohol consumption, suggesting potential exposure via ethanol excipients. IMPACT: Infants and newborns in the neonatal intensive care unit are exposed to concerning amounts of ethanol. No one has shown exposure to ethanol in these infants before this study. The impact is that better understanding of the excipients in medications given to patients in the NICU is needed. When physicians order medications in the NICU, the amount of excipient needs to be indicated.

Prospective study on hand dermatitis in nurses and doctors during COVID-19 pandemic and its improvement by use of adopted recommendations of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Force on Contact Dermatitis.

Frequency of hand disinfection and adverse skin reactions among health care workers dramatically increased since the COVID-19 outbreak and consensus recommendations on hand hygiene were presented. The aim of the present study was to check the efficacy of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Force (TF) on Contact Dermatitis (CD) recommendations in a real life and to search if providing products mentioned in that recommendations may increase its efficacy. Doctors and nurses who worked with patients during COVID-19 pandemic and use hand disinfectants received adopted recommendations of the EADV TF on CD only or together with mentioned in that recommendations gel with ethanol and glycerin and emollient. Prevalence of adverse skin reactions on hand disinfectants at baseline was 80.21%. In a month significant improvement of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and self-assessed improvement of hand skin (P < .01 for both) was reported in "products" group only. Number of participants that had no impact on their HRQoL became higher and the Dermatology Life Quality Index scores lower than in "recommendations only" group (P = .03 and P = .02, respectively). Our results showed that recommendations of the EADV TF on CD may significantly improve HRQoL and hand skin status in health care professionals but provision with products mentioned in that recommendations is crucial.

Is Alcohol in Hand Sanitizers Absorbed Through the Skin or Lungs? Implications for Disulfiram Treatment.

AIM: In view of the increase in the use of ethanol-containing hand sanitizers throughout the world due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, we wished to review the possible risks to patients treated with disulfiram, following a case report in which an apparent DER (disulfiram-ethanol reaction) was attributed to the cutaneous absorption of alcohol from hand sanitizers as well as by inhalation of vapour. METHOD: Simple experiments to assess the levels of absorption by each route separately. RESULTS: Our results strongly suggest that while amounts of alcohol sufficient to cause a DER may be inhaled when hand sanitizers are used in confined spaces, absorption can be avoided by dispersal of the fumes, and absorption from the skin alone does not occur in pharmacologically significant quantities. CONCLUSION: Warnings about absorption of alcohol through the skin from hand sanitizers and products such as perfumes, deodorants and after-shave (whose use is often warned against when disulfiram is prescribed) should be modified accordingly.

Barrier damaging effects of n-propanol in occlusion-modified tandem repeated irritation test: Modulation by exposure factors and atopic skin disease.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies provide evidence for significant and previously underestimated barrier damaging effects of repeated exposure to 60% n-propanol in healthy skin in vivo. OBJECTIVES: To investigate further the cumulative effects of a range of n-propanol concentrations relevant at the workplace in healthy and atopic dermatitis (AD) individuals, and study the modulation of the outcomes by co-exposure and host-related factors. METHODS: Healthy adult and AD volunteers were exposed to n-propanol concentrations from 30% to 75% in occlusion-modified tandem repeated irritation test with measurements of erythema, transepidermal water loss, capacitance, and the natural moisturizing factor (NMF) levels at baseline and after 96 hours. RESULTS: n-Propanol exerted significant barrier damaging effects even at the lowest concentration in both groups. Exposure to all n-propanol concentrations significantly reduced the NMF levels. Preceding low-grade trauma by occlusion/water exposure reduced the skin irritation threshold in both groups. The differences in the severity of the barrier function impairment after exposure to the same concentrations under the same conditions between the AD and control groups were significant. CONCLUSIONS: The negative effects of cumulative exposure to n-propanol in healthy and atopic skin shown in the study suggest the need for critical re-evaluation of its irritant properties in vivo.

Hand Sanitizer in a Pandemic: Wrong Formulations in the Wrong Hands.

BACKGROUND: Households are increasingly stockpiling and producing hand sanitizer amid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which can pose an increased risk for unintentional toxicity among children. Despite guidelines for hand sanitizer production published by the World Health Organization, many turn to streaming media for instruction. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate hand sanitizer formulations and safety precautions discussed in popular do-it-yourself (DIY) YouTube videos, and to assess the frequency of calls to poison control centers for pediatric hand sanitizer exposure before and after the arrival of COVID-19 in the United States. METHODS: The first 100 videos on YouTube with the most views using the search term "DIY hand sanitizer" were evaluated for accuracy compared with the World Health Organization local hand sanitizer production guidelines. The incidence of pediatric hand sanitizer exposure reported to participating U.S. poison control centers from January 2018 through May 2020 was reviewed from the American Association of Poison Control Centers National Poison Data System. The average number of calls between January 2020 and May 2020 was compared, and the average number of calls in March 2020 was compared with March 2019 and March 2018. RESULTS: Of the YouTube videos that met inclusion criteria, 27% discussed the use of at least 96% ethanol or 99.8% isopropyl alcohol, 4.1% incorporated 3% hydrogen peroxide, 82% used glycerol or an alternative humectant, and 4.1% specified the need for distilled or previously boiled water. Most of the videos failed to describe labeling storage containers, 69% of videos encouraged the use of oils or perfumes to enhance hand sanitizer scent, and 2% of videos promoted the use of coloring agents to be more attractive for use among children specifically. There was a significantly increased average number of daily calls to poison control centers regarding unsafe pediatric hand sanitizer exposure since the first confirmed COVID-19 patient in the United States. There was a significantly increased average number of daily calls in March 2020 compared with the previous 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: YouTube may not be an accurate source for effective hand sanitizer concoction. Health care providers and parents should be aware of the increased surge in hand sanitizer exposure among children and should take proper precautionary measures.

Evaluation of the Cytotoxicity of Various Hand Disinfectants and Ozonated Water to Human Keratinocytes in a Cultured Epidermal Model.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cytotoxicity of various hand disinfectants and ozonated water to human keratinocytes using a cultured epidermal model. DESIGN: Using a test protocol from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, investigators applied hand disinfectants containing either 83% ethanol, 0.2% benzalkonium chloride, 0.5% povidone-iodine, 1% chlorhexidine, 1% chlorhexidine ethanol, or ozonated water to a cultured human epidermal model. Surface morphology and histologic changes were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy and hematoxylin-eosin staining. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Production of inflammatory cytokine interleukin 1α by keratinocytes and cell death rate. MAIN RESULTS: Electron microscopic analysis revealed the creation of small holes on the stratum corneum, and hematoxylin-eosin staining revealed perinuclear vacuolation of keratinocytes and cells with a condensed nucleus. Interleukin 1α was detected in the culture supernatants. More than 80% of keratinocytes did not survive after a 15-minute application of disinfectants. However, no significant damage was detected with ozonated water. CONCLUSIONS: Ozonated water did far less damage to keratinocytes than the tested disinfectants. Although the ability of ozonated water to disinfect hands of medical staff members requires further study, it might serve as an alternative with minimum cytotoxicity.

Targeted Use of Alcohol-Based Hand Rub on Gloves During Task Dense Periods: One Step Closer to Pathogen Containment by Anesthesia Providers in the Operating Room.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesia providers' hand hygiene practices in the operating room may contribute to the transmission of bacteria. There is a debate, however, over the best approaches for pathogen containment during task dense periods (induction and extubation) of anesthesia care. A novel approach to reducing pathogen spread during these task dense periods is the use of alcohol-based hand rub on gloves when it may be difficult to either change gloves or clean hands. METHODS: To evaluate the impact of alcohol-based hand rub on gloves, we estimated perforation rates of 50 gloves that were worn as pairs by volunteers for 2 hours at a time applying alcohol-based hand rub every 15 minutes (total of 8 alcohol-based hand rub applications per pair of gloves). We also identified perforation rates of 50 new, unused gloves. To evaluate the ability to perform routine anesthesia functions, volunteers were asked to pick up a coin from a table top and document whether the gloves felt normal or sticky at each 15-minute period. RESULTS: Fifty new gloves (not exposed to alcohol-based hand rub) were tested for integrity using the Food and Drug Administration-approved process, and one was found to have a microperforation. Of the 50 gloves that had been applied with alcohol-based hand rub 8 times, no microperforations were identified. All volunteers demonstrated tactile competence by picking up a coin from a table top after 8 alcohol-based hand rub applications; in addition, as the number of alcohol-based hand rub applications progressed, the volunteers reported increased stickiness. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the use of alcohol-based hand rub on commonly used nitrile examination gloves does not compromise glove integrity or hamper the ability to safely perform routine anesthesia functions.

Does Adherence to World Health Organization Hand Hygiene Protocols in the Operating Room Have the Potential to Produce Irritant Contact Dermatitis in Anesthesia Providers?

Anesthesia providers have the burden of constant hand hygiene during task dense periods. The requirement for hand hygiene often demands frequent application of alcohol-based hand rub. To assess whether frequent alcohol-based hand rub use leads to skin changes or irritant contact dermatitis, volunteers cleaned their hands with alcohol-based hand rub every 15 minutes for 8 hours for 5 sequential days. They were examined by a dermatologist before and after and asked about subjective skin changes. Results suggest an increase in irritant contact dermatitis scores and subjective complaints.