Single treatment with ethanol hand rub is ineffective against human rhinovirus--hand washing with soap and water removes the virus efficiently.

Ethanol-containing hand rubs are used frequently as a substitute for hand washing with water and soap. However, not all viruses are inactivated by a short term rubbing with alcohol. The capacity of a single round of instructed and controlled hand cleaning with water and soap or ethanol-containing hand rub, respectively, was tested for removal of human rhinovirus administered onto the skin of healthy volunteers on the back of the hands. Hand washing with soap and water appeared to be much more efficient for removing rhinoviruses from skin than rubbing hands with an ethanol-containing disinfectant. After washing with soap and water the virus was detected in 3/9 (33.3%) test persons from the left hand and 1/9 (11.1%) cases from the right hand, whereas the virus was detected invariably by real-time RT-PCR from both hands after cleaning with alcohol hand rub (P-value <0.01). Both substances evaluated clinically were also tested in vitro for virucidal efficacy against Human rhinovirus2 (HRV2) using a standardized assay. Both tested substances were poor within the contact time used in the hand-cleaning test. In conclusion, thorough and conventional hand washing with water and soap can clean efficiently hands contaminated with the virus responsible for an extensive share of common cold episodes.

Hand washing with soap and water together with behavioural recommendations prevents infections in common work environment: an open cluster-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene is considered as an important means of infection control. We explored whether guided hand hygiene together with transmission-limiting behaviour reduces infection episodes and lost days of work in a common work environment in an open cluster-randomized 3-arm intervention trial. METHODS: A total of 21 clusters (683 persons) were randomized to implement hand hygiene with soap and water (257 persons), with alcohol-based hand rub (202 persons), or to serve as a control (224 persons). Participants in both intervention arms also received standardized instructions on how to limit the transmission of infections. The intervention period (16 months) included the emergence of the 2009 influenza pandemic and the subsequent national hand hygiene campaign influencing also the control arm. RESULTS: In the total follow-up period there was a 6.7% reduction of infection episodes in the soap-and water arm (p = 0.04). Before the onset of the anti-pandemic campaign, a statistically significant (p = 0.002) difference in the mean occurrence of infection episodes was observed between the control (6.0 per year) and the soap-and-water arm (5.0 per year) but not between the control and the alcohol-rub arm (5.6 per year). Neither intervention had a decreasing effect on absence from work. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that intensified hand hygiene using water and soap together with behavioural recommendations can reduce the occurrence of self-reported acute illnesses in common work environment. Surprisingly, the occurrence of reported sick leaves also increased in the soap-and water-arm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00981877 SOURCE OF FUNDING: The Finnish Work Environment Fund and the National Institute for Health and Welfare.

STOPFLU: is it possible to reduce the number of days off in office work by improved hand-hygiene?

BACKGROUND: Acute infectious diseases are major causes of short periods of days off from work, day care and school. These diseases are mainly caused by viruses and hands have a key role in their transmission. Thus, hypothetically, they can be controlled with means of intensified hand hygiene. In this study we aim to elucidate the effect of acute infectious diseases on the work contribution in common office work and study the influence of improved hand hygiene on possible reduction of infectious disease episodes and days off from work due to acute infectious diseases. DESIGN: The voluntary participants have been recruited from six companies in the Helsinki region. The designated 21 study clusters were identified as operationally distinct working units each containing at least 50 people. The clusters were matched and randomized based on results of a pre-trial contagion risk survey. Improved hand hygiene is being executed with guided hand-washing with soap and water in one intervention arm and with alcohol based hand rubbing disinfectant in the other. Participants in both arms have received guidance on how to avoid infections and how to implement contagion stopping habits. A control arm is acting as before regarding hand hygiene. Data collection for evaluation of the efficacy of the interventions is based on self-reporting through weekly electronic reports. The questionnaire is enquiring about possible respiratory or gastrointestinal symptoms during the preceding week, and requests a daily report of presence of symptoms and working capacity. Etiology of the symptoms is not searched for individually, but contribution of different viruses is evaluated by sentinel surveillance, where occupational health clinics located in the premises of the participating companies collect specimens from employees visiting the clinic. Common causative agents of the diseases are being searched for using real-time PCR techniques. The duration of the intervention will be 16 months. Primary endpoints of the study are the number of reported infection episodes in a cluster within a time frame of 100 reporting weeks and the number of reported sick leave episodes in a cluster within a time frame of 100 reporting weeks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00821509.