Child Care Center Hand Hygiene Programs' Cost-Effectiveness in Preventing Respiratory Infections.

BACKGROUND: We previously demonstrated that a hand hygiene program, including hand sanitizer and educational measures, for day care center (DCC) staff, children, and parents was more effective than a soap-and-water program, with initial observation, in preventing respiratory infections (RIs) in children attending DCCs. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of these programs in preventing RIs. METHODS: A cluster, randomized, controlled and open study of 911 children aged 0 to 3 years, attending 24 DCCs in Almeria. Two intervention groups of DCC-families performed educational measures and hand hygiene, one with soap-and-water (SWG) and another with hand sanitizer (HSG). The control group (CG) followed usual hand-washing procedures. RI episodes, including symptoms, treatments, medical contacts, complementary analyses, and DCC absenteeism days, were reported by parents. A Bayesian cost-effectiveness model was developed. RESULTS: There were 5201 RI episodes registered. The adjusted mean societal costs of RIs per child per study period were CG: €522.25 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 437.10 to 622.46); HSG: €374.53 (95% CI: 314.90 to 443.07); SWG: €494.51 (95% CI: 419.21 to 585.27). The indirect costs constituted between 35.7% to 43.6% of the total costs. Children belonging to the HSG had an average of 1.39 fewer RI episodes than the CG and 0.93 less than the SWG. It represents a saving of societal cost mean per child per study period of €147.72 and €119.15, respectively. The HSG intervention was dominant versus SWG and CG. CONCLUSIONS: Hand hygiene programs that include hand sanitizer and educational measures for DCC staff, children, and parents are more effective and cost less than a program with soap and water and initial observation in children attending DCCs.

Assessment of Irritation and Sensitization Potential of Eight Baby Skin Care Products.

BACKGROUND: Ethnic differences in skin sensitivity suggest that greater emphasis be focused on understanding a product's effect in diverse populations. OBJECTIVE: The irritation and/or sensitization potential of 8 baby skin care products in Indian adults were evaluated using cumulative irritation tests (CIT) and human repeat insult patch testing (HRIPT) protocols. PATIENTS/MATERIALS/METHODS: Healthy males or females aged 18 to 65 years of Indian ethnicity were treated with each of 6 products (cream, hair oil, lotion, body wash, shampoo, and baby soap) using CIT (n = 25) and HRIPT (n = 200). Baby powder and baby oil were evaluated by CIT (n = 25) and HRIPT (n = 107) in separate studies. CITs were conducted over 14 days; HRIPTs were conducted over 10 weeks. RESULTS: In both CIT and HRIPT, most products were considered mild, with no irritation. Baby soap and powder elicited reactions in the HRIPT induction phase, with positive challenge phase reactions (3 subjects), but were affirmed to be nonallergenic in the rechallenge phase. CONCLUSIONS: In these studies, 8 baby skin care products were evaluated by both CIT and HRIPT in Indian adults. The results of the studies indicated that all of the tested products were nonallergenic and nonirritating.

J Drugs Dermatol. 2016;15(10):1244-1248.

Comparing hand washing to hand sanitizers in reducing elementary school students' absenteeism.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of an alcohol-based hand sanitizer to standard hand washing in reducing illness and subsequent absenteeism in school-age children. METHOD: A randomized cross-over design was used with 18 classrooms of 2nd and 3rd grade students (n = 383) from 4 elementary schools. Half of the classes from each school used an anti-microbial gel hand sanitizer while the other half used soap and water for regular hand hygiene for 2 months, then, the students switched cleaning methods for the following 2 months. RESULTS: No significant differences in absenteeism rates were demonstrated. A follow-up focus group comprised of teachers and school nurses indicated that hand sanitizers were preferred over soap and water. CONCLUSION: Hand sanitizers are an appropriate alternative to hand washing for hand cleansing and may offer additional benefits in the school setting.

Functional assessment of a washing emulsion for sensitive skin: mild impairment of stratum corneum hydration, pH, barrier function, lipid content, integrity and cohesion in a controlled washing test.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Sensitive skin has been described as a skin type with higher reactivity than normal skin and exaggerated reactions to external irritants. Washing with soaps is harmful for barrier-related parameters. Cutaneous irritation induced by cleansing products under exaggerated test conditions, e.g. patch testing, is not necessarily predictive of the irritation occurring under standardized daily use conditions. The purpose of the study was to assess the effect of an improved washing solution for sensitive skin in a half-site comparison on barrier-related parameters. METHODS: Thirty healthy volunteers with self-reported sensitive and so-called problematic skin performed standardized washings with a soap-free washing emulsion with mild acidity (pH 5.5) for 3 weeks. Test areas were both forearms and the cheek. Non-invasive biophysical measurements of the following skin parameters, epidermal permeability barrier function measured as transepidermal water loss (TEWL), stratum corneum (SC) hydration, pH value, skin surface lipids, skin temperature and SC integrity/cohesion, were assessed prior to the first washing, on days 7, 14 and 21 after beginning the washing procedure. SC cohesion was quantified using two independent methods on D-Squame tapes: optical spectroscopy measuring the absorbance and a protein assay assessing the total protein (Bradford). Both methods showed a good correlation. SC integrity was quantified by measuring TEWL after sequential stripping with D-Squame tapes. RESULTS: The use of the washing emulsion led to a mild damage of the epidermal permeability barrier function with no marked difference to water application. Furthermore, a mild but significant dehydration was assessed after 21 days vs. baseline without any differences between the water-treated and the washing emulsion-treated forearm. On the cheek no dehydration was detectable but the lipid content was reduced under the washing emulsion. The pH value increased in all three test areas after 21 days, again without significant differences between water and the washing solution. SC cohesion was quantified using two independent methods on D-Squame tapes: optical spectroscopy measuring the absorbance and a protein assay assessing the total protein (Bradford). Both methods showed a good correlation. The SC cohesion decreased after 21 days on the water-treated as well as on the washing emulsion-treated arm. The decrease over time was significant when used the optical spectroscopy measuring. A standardized questionnaire revealed positive characteristics of the washing emulsion and good acceptance. CONCLUSION: The investigated standardized washing model with the endpoints epidermal barrier function, SC hydration, surface pH, skin surface lipids, skin temperature and SC integrity/cohesion showed only mild damage comparable to washing with water.

Assessment of handwashing practices with chemical and microbiologic methods: preliminary results from a prospective crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Handwashing (HW) by clinical staff is the single most important measure for preventing transmission of nosocomial infection (NI). The primary objectives of this study were to improve the motivation and awareness of the importance of HW practices among health care workers (HCWs) and to assess the effectiveness of a new chemical system in checking HW compliance. In addition, we evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of 2 soap solutions used during regular working hours by HCWs at our institution. METHOD: A preliminary short training course was performed to promote HW compliance and awareness. We chose 2 surgical wards at our 1200-bed teaching hospital. Sampling of hands was conducted weekly during routine activities of HCWs without advance warning. We used the staff list as a sampling frame to select subjects. Data were collected anonymously. On the basis of a crossover study design, a plain soap and one containing 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) were used alternatively in each ward for 4 consecutive months. Hand samples were evaluated with microbiologic cultures and with a commercially available kit that measures adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence. As additional process indicators, we examined the amount of hand soap and CHG solution distributed and rate of NIs. RESULTS: A total of 74 HCWs were evaluated for hand contamination. During the 4-month study, we found a significant reduction in colony-forming unit counts (P <.008) and ATP levels (P <.002) compared with baseline values. The results showed a positive correlation (r = 0.68, P <.0001) between the microbial counts detected by standard culture and ATP levels measured with the commercial kit. Plain soap (P <.003) was more effective than CHG in reducing colony-forming unit counts among HCWs in the vascular surgery ward. We documented a reduction in the NI rate and an increase in the consumption of soap and paper towels. CONCLUSION: HW compliance improved during the study period among HCWs. The method to measure ATP bioluminescence is simple and easy to perform and provides reliable results within a few minutes of sampling hands. It can be used extensively to test HW compliance among HCWs.

Assessment of the teratogenic potential of surfactants. Part III--dermal application of LAS and soap.

The surfactant linear alkylbenzene sulphonate (LAS) was examined for embryotoxic and teratogenic potential following percutaneous administration. Solutions containing, 0.03, 0.3 and 3% LAS were applied to shaved skin during pregnancy days 2-13 in mice, 2-15 in rats and 1-16 in rabbits. Dosages employed were 0.5 ml/rat or mouse/day and 10 ml/rabbit/day. For comparison further groups of rats and mice were similarly treated with concentrations of 0.3, 3 and 30% of a standard soap solution. Marked maternal toxicity in the form of local skin reaction, irritability, weight loss and failure to maintain or establish pregnancy was evident in mice treated with LAS 3% or soap, 3 or 30%; marked local reaction and weight loss also occurred in rabbits receiving LAS 3% but the reduction in the number of pregnancies maintained was not significant. Moderate maternal toxicity was observed among mice treated with LAS, 0.3% and mild maternal toxicity in rats receiving LAS 3% or soap 30% and rabbits receiving LAS 0.3%. Effects on litter parameters were generally restricted to dosages causing marked maternal toxicity in mice, the principal effects being higher foetal loss (with consequent reduction in viable litter size) arising from an increased incidence of total litter losses. When dams showing total litter loss were excluded from the calculations, litter parameters were not unduly different from those of controls. Although LAS at 3% was considered to show marked maternal toxicity in the rabbit, the slightly higher foetal loss and lower litter size did not differ significantly from control values.