Effect of Face Masking on Transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

The efficacy of face masking for the public is not convincing to prevent the transmission of respiratory tract viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 when the criteria of evidence-based medicine are applied. This finding is mainly explained by the results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) when a high prevalence of the infection and a high compliance in mask wearing was assured. Throughout these studies no significant protective effect was observed. Observational studies with surgical masks describe a significant protective effect, but are prone to confounders such as physical distance. Respirators do not provide an additional health benefit compared to surgical or medical masks (RCTs). Community masks can even increase the risk of infection (RCTs). Based on the categories of evidence-based medicine, the efficacy results can best be categorized as conflicting evidence. Many relevant adverse events are described when masks are worn for hours such as dyspnea (12.2-52.8%), headache (3.9-73.4%), pruritus (0.0-60.0%), and skin reactions (0.0-85.0%). Their frequency is often higher with respirators. In future pandemics, masks should only be recommended or mandated for settings in which a clinically relevant health benefit can be expected, defined as the prevention of severe, critical or fatal disease, that clearly outweighs the expectable associated adverse reactions.

Low Risk of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Transmission by Fomites: A Clinical Observational Study in Highly Infectious Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.

BACKGROUND: The contribution of droplet-contaminated surfaces for virus transmission has been discussed controversially in the context of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. More importantly, the risk of fomite-based transmission has not been systematically addressed. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate whether confirmed hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients can contaminate stainless steel carriers by coughing or intensive moistening with saliva and to assess the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission upon detection of viral loads and infectious virus in cell culture. METHODS: We initiated a single-center observational study including 15 COVID-19 patients with a high baseline viral load (cycle threshold value ≤25). We documented clinical and laboratory parameters and used patient samples to perform virus culture, quantitative polymerase chain reaction, and virus sequencing. RESULTS: Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs of all patients were positive for viral ribonucleic acid on the day of the study. Infectious SARS-CoV-2 could be isolated from 6 patient swabs (46.2%). After coughing, no infectious virus could be recovered, however, intensive moistening with saliva resulted in successful viral recovery from steel carriers of 5 patients (38.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Transmission of infectious SARS-CoV-2 via fomites is possible upon extensive moistening, but it is unlikely to occur in real-life scenarios and from droplet-contaminated fomites.

[Is Disinfection of Public Surfaces useful for the Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 Infections?] / Ist die Desinfektion öffentlicher Flächen zur Prävention von SARS-CoV-2 ­ infektionen sinnvoll?

Measures to control SARS-CoV-2 often include the regular disinfection of public surfaces. The frequency of SARS-CoV-2 detection on surfaces in the surrounding of confirmed cases was evaluated in this systematic review. Overall, 26 studies showed 0 and 100% rates of contamination with SARS-CoV-2 RNA on surfaces in the surrounding of patients. Seven studies with at least 100 samples mostly showed detection rates between 1.4 and 19%. Two other studies did not detect infectious SARS-CoV-2 on any surface. Similar results were obtained from surfaces in the surrounding of confirmed SARS- and influenza-patients. A contamination of public surfaces with infectious virus is considerably less likely because there are much less potential viral spreaders around a surface, the contact time between a person and the surface is much shorter, and the asymptomatic carriers typically have no symptoms. In addition, a hand contact with a contaminated surface transfers only a small part of the viral load. A simple cleaning reduces the number of infectious viruses already by 2 log10-steps. That is why public surfaces should in general be cleaned because the wide use of biocidal agents for surface disinfection further increases the microbial selection pressure without an expectable health benefit.

Inactivation of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 by WHO-Recommended Hand Rub Formulations and Alcohols.

Infection control instructions call for use of alcohol-based hand rub solutions to inactivate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. We determined the virucidal activity of World Health Organization-recommended hand rub formulations, at full strength and multiple dilutions, and of the active ingredients. All disinfectants demonstrated efficient virus inactivation.

Efficacy of surface disinfectant cleaners against emerging highly resistant gram-negative bacteria.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, the emergence of multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria is a clinical problem. Surface disinfectant cleaners (SDCs) that are effective against these bacteria are needed for use in high risk areas around patients and on multi-touch surfaces. We determined the efficacy of several SDCs against clinically relevant bacterial species with and without common types of multidrug resistance. METHODS: Bacteria species used were ATCC strains; clinical isolates classified as antibiotic-susceptible; and multi-resistant clinical isolates from Klebsiella oxytoca, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Serratia marcescens (all OXA-48 and KPC-2); Acinetobacter baumannii (OXA-23); Pseudomonas aeruginosa (VIM-1); and Achromobacter xylosoxidans (ATCC strain). Experiments were carried out according to EN 13727:2012 in quadruplicate under dirty conditions. The five evaluated SDCs were based on alcohol and an amphoteric substance (AAS), an oxygen-releaser (OR), surface-active substances (SAS), or surface-active-substances plus aldehydes (SASA; two formulations). Bactericidal concentrations of SDCs were determined at two different contact times. Efficacy was defined as a log10 ≥ 5 reduction in bacterial cell count. RESULTS: SDCs based on AAS, OR, and SAS were effective against all six species irrespective of the degree of multi-resistance. The SASA formulations were effective against the bacteria irrespective of degree of multi-resistance except for one of the four P. aeruginosa isolates (VIM-1). We found no general correlation between SDC efficacy and degree of antibiotic resistance. CONCLUSIONS: SDCs were generally effective against gram-negative bacteria with and without multidrug resistance. SDCs are therefore suitable for surface disinfection in the immediate proximity of patients. Single bacterial isolates, however, might have reduced susceptibility to selected biocidal agents.

Poorly processed reusable surface disinfection tissue dispensers may be a source of infection.

BACKGROUND: Reusable surface disinfectant tissue dispensers are used in hospitals in many countries because they allow immediate access to pre-soaked tissues for targeted surface decontamination. On the other hand disinfectant solutions with some active ingredients may get contaminated and cause outbreaks. We determined the frequency of contaminated surface disinfectant solutions in reusable dispensers and the ability of isolates to multiply in different formulations. METHODS: Reusable tissue dispensers with different surface disinfectants were randomly collected from healthcare facilities. Solutions were investigated for bacterial contamination. The efficacy of two surface disinfectants was determined in suspension tests against two isolated species directly from a contaminated solution or after 5 passages without selection pressure in triplicate. Freshly prepared use solutions were contaminated to determine survival of isolates. RESULTS: 66 dispensers containing disinfectant solutions with surface-active ingredients were collected in 15 healthcare facilities. 28 dispensers from nine healthcare facilities were contaminated with approximately 107 cells per mL of Achromobacter species 3 (9 hospitals), Achromobacter xylosoxidans or Serratia marcescens (1 hospital each). In none of the hospitals dispenser processing had been adequately performed. Isolates regained susceptibility to the disinfectants after five passages without selection pressure but were still able to multiply in different formulations from different manufacturers at room temperature within 7 days. CONCLUSIONS: Neglecting adequate processing of surface disinfectant dispensers has contributed to frequent and heavy contamination of use-solutions based on surface active ingredients. Tissue dispenser processing should be taken seriously in clinical practice.

Evaluation of a microscale quantitative suspension test to determine the bactericidal and yeasticidal activity of glutaral - one step to improve sustainability in disinfectant testing.

Aims: To evaluate a newly developed microscale quantitative suspension test compared to the existing standard suspension test using determination of the bactericidal and yeasticidal activity of glutaral as one step to improve the sustainability of disinfectant testing. Methods: The testing principles of the quantitative suspension test according to VAH method 9 (comparable to EN 13727) was used as a standard suspension test using 8.0 mL product test solution, 1.0 mL organic load and 1.0 mL test suspension. In addition, a micro-scale suspension test was performed in 96-well plates with 160 µL product test solution, 20 µL organic load and 20 µL test suspension. S. aureus ATCC 6538, P. aeruginosa ATCC 15442 and C. albicans ATCC 10231 were test organisms. Glutaral was tested at concentrations of 0.05%, 0.1%, 0.2% and 0.3% with exposure times of 1, 5 and 15 min. Polysorbate 80 (30 g/L), lecithin (9 g/L), L-histidine (1 g/L) and glycine (10 g/L) were used as validated neutralizers. After serial dilution of the disinfectant-neutralizer-mixture, plates were incubated for 48 h at 36°C (bacteria) or 72 hours at 30°C (C. albicans) and colony forming units (cfu) counted. The lg reduction was calculated as the difference between the results of the water control and the disinfectant at the end of the exposure time. All experiments were done in triplicate under clean conditions. Means of lg reduction were compared with the unpaired t-test, p<0.05 was considered to be significant. Results: Sufficient bactericidal activity according the VAH test requirements of at least 5 lg was found with both methods in 16 data sets of 24 data sets in total, and insufficient bactericidal activity of less than 5 lg was found with both methods in 7 data sets. In one data set, the mean lg reduction was above 5 lg with the microscale method and <5 lg with the VAH method, with no significant difference between the data sets (p=0.3096; 0.2% glutaral, 1 min, P. aeruginosa). A sufficient yeasticidal activity of at least 4 lg was found with both methods in one data set, an insufficient yeasticidal activity of less than 4 lg was found with both methods in 8 data sets. With one exception, no significant differences were detected between the two methods below the efficacy threshold. Conclusions: The microscale quantitative suspension test proved to provide results similar to those of VAH method 9 when the bactericidal and yeasticidal activity of glutaralwas evaluated, with 32 out of 33 evaluations yielding consistent results in terms of efficacy. Its suitability should be confirmed with additional bacterial species, additional biocidal active substances and in other laboratories.

Less and less-influence of volume on hand coverage and bactericidal efficacy in hand disinfection.

BACKGROUND: Some manufacturers recommend using 1.1 mL per application of alcohol-based handrubs for effective hand disinfection. However, whether this volume is sufficient to cover both hands, as recommended by the World Health Organization, and fulfills current efficacy standards is unknown. This study aimed to determine hand coverage for three handrubs (two gels based on 70% v/v and 85% w/w ethanol and a foam based on 70% v/v ethanol) applied at various volumes. METHODS: Products were tested at product volumes of 1.1 mL, 2 mL, 2.4 mL as well as 1 and 2 pump dispenser pushes; the foam product was tested in addition at foam volumes of 1.1 mL, 2 mL, and 2.4 mL. Products were supplemented with a fluorescent dye and 15 participants applied products using responsible application techniques without any specific steps but the aim of completely covering both hands. Coverage quality was determined under ultraviolet light by two blinded investigators. Efficacy of the three handrubs was determined according to ASTM E 1174-06 and ASTM E 2755-10. For each experiment, the hands of 12 participants were contaminated with Serratia marcescens and the products applied as recommended (1.1 mL for 70% v/v ethanol products; 2 mL for the 85% w/w ethanol product). Log10-reduction was calculated. RESULTS: Volumes < 2 mL yielded high rates of incomplete coverage (67%-87%) whereas volumes ≥ 2 mL gave lower rates (13%-53%). Differences in coverage were significant between the five volumes tested for all handrubs (p < 0.001; two-way ANOVA) but not between the three handrubs themselves (p = 0.796). Application of 1.1 mL of 70% v/v ethanol rubs reduced contamination by 1.85 log10 or 1.60 log10 (ASTM E 1174-06); this failed the US FDA efficacy requirement of at least 2 log10. Application of 2 mL of the 85% w/w ethanol rub reduced contamination by 2.06 log10 (ASTM E 1174-06), fulfilling the US FDA efficacy requirement. Similar results were obtained according to ASTM E 2755-10. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicated that handrubs based on 70% ethanol (v/v) with a recommended volume of 1.1 mL per application do not ensure complete coverage of both hands and do not achieve current ASTM efficacy standards.

Withdrawal notice to: <[The Lancet Regional Health Europe 12 (2022) 100290]>.

[This retracts the article DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100290.].

Hospitalised Myocarditis and Pericarditis Cases in Germany Indicate a Higher Post-Vaccination Risk for Young People Mainly after COVID-19 Vaccination.

It was recently described that the overall risk of myopericarditis after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine is low, except for younger males receiving mRNA vaccines [...].

Presurgical hand antisepsis: concepts and current habits of veterinary surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: To assess current habits for surgical hand preparation among veterinary surgical specialists and to compare data with current guidelines for hand asepsis techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Survey of veterinary surgical specialists. SAMPLE POPULATION: Diplomates of the American (ACVS) and European Colleges of Veterinary Surgeons (ECVS). METHODS: An internet-based survey of hand preparation methods before surgical procedures was conducted of 1300 listed ACVS and ECVS Diplomates. RESULTS: A 42.6% response rate was obtained. Approximately, 80% of respondents use disinfecting soaps as a primary method for hand antisepsis. Of those, 81% use chlorhexidine-based scrubs and 7% use a neutral soap followed by a hydroalcoholic solution. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to current recommendations of the World Health Organization and scientific evidence supporting use of hydro-alcoholic rubs for presurgical hand preparation, veterinary surgical specialists still use surgical scrub solutions containing disinfecting soaps.

Antimicrobial stewardship of antiseptics that are pertinent to wounds: the need for a united approach.

Long before the nature of infection was recognized, or the significance of biofilms in delayed healing was understood, antimicrobial agents were being used in wound care. In the last 70 years, antibiotics have provided an effective means to control wound infection, but the continued emergence of antibiotic-resistant strains and the documented antibiotic tolerance of biofilms has reduced their effectiveness. A range of wound dressings containing an antimicrobial (antibiotic or non-antibiotic compound) has been developed. Whereas standardized methods for determining the efficacy of non-antibiotic antimicrobials in bacterial suspension tests were developed in the early twentieth century, standardized ways of evaluating the efficacy of antimicrobial dressings against microbial suspensions and biofilms are not available. Resistance to non-antibiotic antimicrobials and cross-resistance with antibiotics has been reported, but consensus on breakpoints is absent and surveillance is impossible. Antimicrobial stewardship is therefore in jeopardy. This review highlights these difficulties and in particular the efficacy of current non-antibiotic antimicrobials used in dressings, their efficacy, and the challenges of translating in vitro efficacy data to the efficacy of dressings in patients. This review calls for a unified approach to developing standardized methods of evaluating antimicrobial dressings that will provide an improved basis for practitioners to make informed choices in wound care.

Comparison of the antimicrobial efficacy of povidone-iodine-alcohol versus chlorhexidine-alcohol for surgical skin preparation on the aerobic and anaerobic skin flora of the shoulder region.

BACKGROUND: Cutibacterium acnes is part of the anaerobic skin microbiome and resides in deeper skin layers. The organism is an agent of surgical site infections (SSI) in shoulder surgery. We hypothesized that prolonged skin preparation with an agent that penetrates deeply into the skin would be beneficial. Thus, we compared two classes of antiseptics, each combined with alcohol, each applied with two different contact times. METHODS: Using a cross-over arrangement, shoulders of 16 healthy volunteers were treated for 2.5 min (standard) or 30 min (prolonged) with alcohol-based chlorhexidine (CHG-ALC) or alcohol-based povidone-iodine (PVP-I-ALC). Skin sites were sampled before, immediately after, and 3 h after treatment, using a standardized cup-scrub technique. RESULTS: Aerobic skin flora was reduced more effectively by PVP-I-ALC than by CHG-ALC after 2.5 min application and immediate sampling (reduction factor [RF] 2.55 ± 0.75 vs. 1.94 ± 0.91, p = 0.04), but not after prolonged contact times and 3-h sampling. Coagulase-negative staphylococci were completely eliminated after PVP-I-ALC application, but still recovered from 4 of 32 samples after CHG-ALC application. Anaerobic flora was reduced more effectively by PVP-I-ALC than CHG-ALC after standard (RF 3.96 ± 1.46 vs. 1.74 ± 1.24, p < 0.01) and prolonged (RF 3.14 ± 1.20 vs. 1.38 ± 1.16, p < 0.01) contact times and immediate sampling, but not after 3-h sampling. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: PVP-I-ALC showed marginal benefits concerning the aerobic flora, but more substantial benefits over CHG-ALC concerning the anaerobic flora of the shoulder. Standard and prolonged contact times showed superiority for PVP-I-ALC for anaerobic flora at all immediate sampling points, but missed significance at 3-h sampling. The results underscore the need for protection against C. acnes and coagulase-negative staphylococci in orthopaedic surgery. The clinical relevance of these findings, however, should be studied with SSI as an endpoint.

Efficacy of ethanol-based hand foams using clinically relevant amounts: a cross-over controlled study among healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Foams containing 62% ethanol are used for hand decontamination in many countries. A long drying time may reduce the compliance of healthcare workers in applying the recommended amount of foam. Therefore, we have investigated the correlation between the applied amount and drying time, and the bactericidal efficacy of ethanol foams. METHODS: In a first part of tests, four foams (Alcare plus, Avagard Foam, Bode test foam, Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer) containing 62% ethanol, which is commonly used in U.S. hospitals, were applied to 14 volunteers in a total of seven variations, to measure drying times. In a second part of tests, the efficacy of the established amount of foam for a 30 s application time of two foams (Alcare plus, Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer) and water was compared to the EN 1500 standard of 2 x 3 mL applications of 2-propanol 60% (v/v), on hands artificially contaminated with Escherichia coli. Each application used a cross-over design against the reference alcohol with 15 volunteers. RESULTS: The mean weight of the applied foam varied between 1.78 and 3.09 g, and the mean duration to dryness was between 37 s and 103 s. The correlation between the amount of foam applied and time until hands felt dry was highly significant (p < 0.001; Pearson's correlation coefficient: 0.724; 95% confidence interval: 0.52-0.93). By linear correlation, 1.6 g gave an intercept of a 30 s application time. Application of 1.6 g of Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer (mean log10-reduction: 3.05 +/- 0.45) and Alcare plus (3.58 +/- 0.71) was significantly less effective than the reference disinfection (4.83 +/- 0.89 and 4.60 +/- 0.59, respectively; p < 0.001). Application of 1.6 g of water gave a mean log10-reduction of 2.39 +/- 0.57. CONCLUSIONS: When using 62% ethanol foams, the time required for dryness often exceeds the recommended 30 s. Therefore, only a small volume is likely to be applied in clinical practice. Small amounts, however, failed to meet the efficacy requirements of EN 1500 and were only somewhat more effective than water.

Effectiveness of alcohol-based hand disinfectants in a public administration: impact on health and work performance related to acute respiratory symptoms and diarrhoea.

BACKGROUND: The economical impact of absenteeism and reduced productivity due to acute infectious respiratory and gastrointestinal disease is normally not in the focus of surveillance systems and may therefore be underestimated. However, large community studies in Europe and USA have shown that communicable diseases have a great impact on morbidity and lead to millions of lost days at work, school and university each year. Hand disinfection is acknowledged as key element for infection control, but its effect in open, work place settings is unclear. METHODS: Our study involved a prospective, controlled, intervention-control group design to assess the epidemiological and economical impact of alcohol-based hand disinfectants use at work place. Volunteers in public administrations in the municipality of the city of Greifswald were randomized in two groups. Participants in the intervention group were provided with alcoholic hand disinfection, the control group was unchanged. Respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms and days of work were recorded based on a monthly questionnaire over one year. On the whole, 1230 person months were evaluated. RESULTS: Hand disinfection reduced the number of episodes of illness for the majority of the registered symptoms. This effect became statistically significant for common cold (OR = 0.35 [0.17 - 0.71], p = 0.003), fever (OR = 0.38 [0.14-0.99], p = 0.035) and coughing (OR = 0.45 [0.22 - 0.91], p = 0.02). Participants in the intervention group reported less days ill for most symptoms assessed, e.g. colds (2.07 vs. 2.78%, p = 0.008), fever (0.25 vs. 0.31%, p = 0.037) and cough (1.85 vs. 2.00%, p = 0.024). For diarrhoea, the odds ratio for being absent became statistically significant too (0.11 (CI 0.01 - 0.93). CONCLUSION: Hand disinfection can easily be introduced and maintained outside clinical settings as part of the daily hand hygiene. Therefore it appears as an interesting, cost-efficient method within the scope of company health support programmes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN96340690.