The relative influences of product volume, delivery format and alcohol concentration on dry-time and efficacy of alcohol-based hand rubs.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHR) range in alcohol concentration from 60-95% and are available in a variety of delivery formats, such as rinses, gels, and foams. Recent studies suggest that some ABHR foams dry too slowly, thereby encouraging the use of inadequate volumes. This study investigates the influence of product volume, delivery format, and alcohol concentration on dry-time and antimicrobial efficacy of ABHR foams, gels and rinses. METHODS: ABHR dry-times were measured using volunteers to determine the influences of product volume, delivery format, and alcohol concentration. ABHR efficacies were evaluated according to the European Standard for Hygienic Hand Disinfection (EN 1500) using 3-mL application volumes rubbed for 30 s, and additionally, using volumes of the products determined to rub dry in 30 s. RESULTS: Volumes of six ABHR determined to rub dry in 30 s ranged from 1.7 mL to 2.1 mL, and the rate of drying varied significantly between products. ABHR dry-times increased linearly with application volume and decreased linearly with increasing alcohol concentration, but were not significantly influenced by product format. An ABHR foam (70% EtOH), rinse (80% EtOH), and gel (90% EtOH) each met EN 1500 efficacy requirements when tested at a volume of 3 mL, but failed when tested at volumes that dried in 30 s. CONCLUSIONS: Application volume is the primary driver of ABHR dry-time and efficacy, whereas delivery format does not significantly influence either. Although products with greater alcohol concentration dry more quickly, volumes required to meet EN 1500 can take longer than 30 s to dry, even when alcohol concentration is as high as 90%. Future studies are needed to better understand application volumes actually used by healthcare workers in practice, and to understand the clinical efficacy of ABHR at such volumes.

Factors associated with major infections in patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis and systemic lupus erythematosus treated for deep organ involvement.

This study is an audit and a comparison of major infective complications in patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and systemic lupus erythematosis (SLE). Data were collected on consecutive patients attending a single treatment approach, multidisciplinary vasculitis centre who met diagnostic criteria for GPA and SLE from 01/01/2006 to 30/06/2006. Immunosuppressive treatment is used in this clinic with guidelines targeting avoidance of neutropenia. For each patient, documentation was made of disease presentation, organ involvement and therapy used. A history of major infections requiring hospital admission and intravenous antimicrobials pre- and post-diagnosis was recorded. Patients with GPA received a higher cumulative dose of cyclophosphamide, had a higher median age, shorter period of follow-up and had lower mean and nadir absolute lymphocyte counts and nadir neutrophil counts. GPA patients had more major infections per patient years (P = 0.0027) and respiratory tract infections (P = 0.0031) per patient years. Relative risk (RR) of major infection was significantly increased with methylprednisolone, RR 11.1 (P = <0.0001), cyclophosphamide, RR 2.0 (P = 0.0246) and the intensive phase of treatment, RR 13.3 (P = <0.0001). Marked lymphopenia was common in both groups during follow-up and was associated with an increased risk of major infection (P = 0.0020). Major infections, in particular respiratory tract infections, are more common in those treated for GPA than SLE. This may be due to a combination of factors including greater doses and duration of methyprednisolone and cyclophosphamide. We recommend treatment strategies that aim not only to avoid neutropenia but that also identify lymphopenia as a risk factor for major infection.