Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 by commercially available alcohol-based hand sanitizers.

Alcohol-based hand sanitizers are being recommended as an infection prevention measure for COVID-19. Recently published data indicates that ethanol effectively inactivates the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but there is a lack of data for formulated hand sanitizer products currently used in U.S. healthcare and general settings. This study demonstrates a commercially available foam and gel alcohol-based hand sanitizer are effective in inactivating SARS-CoV-2 in suspension.

Randomized controlled trial evaluating the antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine gluconate and para-chloro-meta-xylenol handwash formulations in real-world doses.

Chlorhexidine gluconate-based soaps have become the gold standard for handwashing in critical care settings and para-chloro-meta-xylenol is an effective alternative antibacterial active ingredient. This study benchmarked 2 novel foaming handwashes, compared to a bland soap for antimicrobial effectiveness using the health care personnel handwash method at realistic soap doses (0.9 mL and 2.0 mL). To our knowledge, this is the first published efficacy study on realistic soap doses. Both soaps met Food and Drug Administration success criteria.

How long is enough? Identification of product dry-time as a primary driver of alcohol-based hand rub efficacy.

Background: The World Health Organization has called for the development of improved methodologies to evaluate alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) efficacy, including evaluation at "short application times and volumes that reflect actual use in healthcare facilities". The objective of this study was to investigate variables influencing ABHR efficacy, under test conditions reflective of clinical use. Methods: The test product (60% V/V 2-propanol) was evaluated according to a modified EN 1500 methodology, where application volumes of 1 mL, 2 mL, and 3 mL were rubbed until dry. Statistical analyses were performed to investigate the relative influences of product volume, hand size, and product dry-time on efficacy, and hand size and hand contamination on product dry-time. Results: Mean log10 reduction factors (SD) were 1.99 (0.66), 2.96 (0.84) and 3.28 (0.96); and mean dry-times (SD) were 24 s (7 s), 50 s (14 s), and 67 s (20 s) at application volumes of 1 mL, 2 mL, and 3 mL, respectively (p ≤ 0.030). When data were examined at the individual volunteer level, there was a statistically significant correlation between dry-time and log reduction factor (p < 0.0001), independent of application volume. There was also a statistically significant correlation between hand surface area and dry-times (p = 0.047), but no correlation between hand surface area and efficacy (p = 0.698). Conclusions: When keeping other variables such as alcohol type and concentration constant, product dry-time appears to be the primary driver of ABHR efficacy suggesting that dosing should be customized to each individual and focus on achieving a product dry-time delivering adequate efficacy.

Quantifying the Effects of Water Temperature, Soap Volume, Lather Time, and Antimicrobial Soap as Variables in the Removal of Escherichia coli ATCC 11229 from Hands.

The literature on hand washing, while extensive, often contains conflicting data, and key variables are only superficially studied or not studied at all. Some hand washing recommendations are made without scientific support, and agreement between recommendations is limited. The influence of key variables such as soap volume, lather time, water temperature, and product formulation on hand washing efficacy was investigated in the present study. Baseline conditions were 1 mL of a bland (nonantimicrobial) soap, a 5-s lather time, and 38°C (100°F) water temperature. A nonpathogenic strain of Escherichia coli (ATCC 11229) was the challenge microorganism. Twenty volunteers (10 men and 10 women) participated in the study, and each test condition had 20 replicates. An antimicrobial soap formulation (1% chloroxylenol) was not significantly more effective than the bland soap for removing E. coli under a variety of test conditions. Overall, the mean reduction was 1.94 log CFU (range, 1.83 to 2.10 log CFU) with the antimicrobial soap and 2.22 log CFU (range, 1.91 to 2.54 log CFU) with the bland soap. Overall, lather time significantly influenced efficacy in one scenario, in which a 0.5-log greater reduction was observed after 20 s with bland soap compared with the baseline wash (P = 0.020). Water temperature as high as 38°C (100°F) and as low as 15°C (60°F) did not have a significant effect on the reduction of bacteria during hand washing; however, the energy usage differed between these temperatures. No significant differences were observed in mean log reductions experienced by men and women (both 2.08 log CFU; P = 0.988). A large part of the variability in the data was associated with the behaviors of the volunteers. Understanding what behaviors and human factors most influence hand washing may help researchers find techniques to optimize the effectiveness of hand washing.

Frequency of Use of Alcohol-Based Hand Rubs by Nurses: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration requested that a "maximal use" trial be conducted to ensure the safety of frequent use of alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHRs) by healthcare workers. OBJECTIVE To establish how frequently volunteers should be exposed to ABHR during a maximal use trial. DESIGN Retrospective review of literature and analysis of 2 recent studies that utilized hand hygiene electronic compliance monitoring (ECM) systems. METHODS We reviewed PubMed for articles published between 1970 and December 31, 2015, containing the terms hand washing, hand hygiene, hand hygiene compliance, and alcohol-based hand rubs. Article titles, abstracts, or text were reviewed to determine whether the frequency of ABHR use by healthcare workers was reported. Two studies using hand hygiene ECM systems were reviewed to determine how frequently nurses used ABHR per shift and per hour. RESULTS Of 3,487 citations reviewed, only 10 reported how frequently individual healthcare workers used ABHR per shift or per hour. Very conservative estimates of the frequency of ABHR use were reported owing to shortcomings of the methods utilized. The greatest frequency of ABHR use was recorded by an ECM system in a medical intensive care unit. In 95% of nursing shifts, individual nurses used ABHR 141 times or less per shift, and 15 times or less per hour. CONCLUSIONS Hand hygiene ECM systems established that the frequency of exposure to ABHRs varies substantially among nurses. Our findings should be useful in designing how frequently individuals should be exposed to ABHR during a maximal use trial. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:189-195.

Comparison of hand hygiene monitoring using the 5 Moments for Hand Hygiene method versus a wash in-wash out method.

BACKGROUND: One strategy to promote improved hand hygiene is to monitor health care workers' adherence to recommended practices and give feedback. For feasibility of monitoring, many health care facilities assess hand hygiene practices on room entry and exit (wash in-wash out). It is not known if the wash in-wash out method is comparable with a more comprehensive approach, such as the World Health Organization's My 5 Moments for Hand Hygiene method. METHODS: During a 1-month period, a surreptitious observer monitored hand hygiene compliance simultaneously using the wash in-wash out and My 5 Moments for Hand Hygiene methods. RESULTS: For 283 health care worker room entries, the methods resulted in similar rates of hand hygiene compliance (70% vs 72%, respectively). The wash in-wash out method required 148 hand hygiene events not required by the My 5 Moments for Hand Hygiene method (ie, before and after room entry with no patient or environmental contact) while not providing monitoring for 89 hand hygiene opportunities in patient rooms. CONCLUSION: The monitoring methods resulted in similar overall rates of hand hygiene compliance. Use of the wash in-wash out method should include ongoing education and intermittent assessment of hand hygiene before clean procedures and after body fluid exposure in patient rooms.

Efficacy of alcohol gel for removal of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from hands of colonized patients.

Of 82 patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization, 67 (82%) had positive hand cultures for MRSA. A single application of alcohol gel (2 mL) consistently reduced the burden of MRSA on hands. However, incomplete removal of MRSA was common, particularly in those with a high baseline level of recovery.

Comparative efficacy of alcohol-based surgical scrubs: the importance of formulation.

Alcohol-based surgical scrubs (ABSSs) are used to prevent surgical site infections. Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) often is added to enhance persistent germicidal activity. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of ABSS product formulation on efficacy. We evaluated three commercially available ABSS formulations and one control alcohol formulation according to the surgical scrub methodology specified by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Only one ABSS formulation met FDA efficacy requirements when tested at the manufacturer's recommended dosage. In contrast, two ABSS formulations, one of which contained CHG, failed to meet the FDA acceptance criteria for a 3-log10 reduction on day 5, meaning the formulations did not sufficiently reduce bacteria levels on hands on the fifth day of product application. The data suggest that recommendations to include CHG in ABSS formulations should be reconsidered, and product efficacy, skin tolerability, and user acceptability should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

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.

Efficacy of novel alcohol-based hand rub products at typical in-use volumes.

In vivo efficacies of 2 alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) products (gel and foam) were evaluated at a volume of 1.1 mL. Both met US Food and Drug Administration log(10) reduction requirements after a single application and 10 consecutive applications. This is the first study to identify ABHR formulations capable of meeting efficacy requirements with a single-dispenser actuation.

Hand hygiene regimens for the reduction of risk in food service environments.

Pathogenic strains of Escherichia coli and human norovirus are the main etiologic agents of foodborne illness resulting from inadequate hand hygiene practices by food service workers. This study was conducted to evaluate the antibacterial and antiviral efficacy of various hand hygiene product regimens under different soil conditions representative of those in food service settings and assess the impact of product formulation on this efficacy. On hands contaminated with chicken broth containing E. coli, representing a moderate soil load, a regimen combining an antimicrobial hand washing product with a 70% ethanol advanced formula (EtOH AF) gel achieved a 5.22-log reduction, whereas a nonantimicrobial hand washing product alone achieved a 3.10log reduction. When hands were heavily soiled from handling ground beef containing E. coli, a wash-sanitize regimen with a 0.5% chloroxylenol antimicrobial hand washing product and the 70% EtOH AF gel achieved a 4.60-log reduction, whereas a wash-sanitize regimen with a 62% EtOH foam achieved a 4.11-log reduction. Sanitizing with the 70% EtOH AF gel alone was more effective than hand washing with a nonantimicrobial product for reducing murine norovirus (MNV), a surrogate for human norovirus, with 2.60- and 1.79-log reductions, respectively. When combined with hand washing, the 70% EtOH AF gel produced a 3.19-log reduction against MNV. A regimen using the SaniTwice protocol with the 70% EtOH AF gel produced a 4.04-log reduction against MNV. These data suggest that although the process of hand washing helped to remove pathogens from the hands, use of a wash-sanitize regimen was even more effective for reducing organisms. Use of a high-efficacy sanitizer as part of a wash-sanitize regimen further increased the efficacy of the regimen. The use of a well-formulated alcohol-based hand rub as part of a wash-sanitize regimen should be considered as a means to reduce risk of infection transmission in food service facilities.

Evaluation and remediation of bulk soap dispensers for biofilm.

Recent studies evaluating bulk soap in public restroom soap dispensers have demonstrated up to 25% of open refillable bulk-soap dispensers were contaminated with ~ 6 log(10)(CFU ml(-1)) heterotrophic bacteria. In this study, plastic counter-mounted, plastic wall-mounted and stainless steel wall-mounted dispensers were analyzed for suspended and biofilm bacteria using total cell and viable plate counts. Independent of dispenser type or construction material, the bulk soap was contaminated with 4-7 log(10)(CFU ml(-1)) bacteria, while 4-6 log(10)(CFU cm(-2)) biofilm bacteria were isolated from the inside surfaces of the dispensers (n = 6). Dispenser remediation studies, including a 10 min soak with 5000 mg l(-1) sodium hypochlorite, were then conducted to determine the efficacy of cleaning and disinfectant procedures against established biofilms. The testing showed that contamination of the bulk soap returned to pre-test levels within 7-14 days. These results demonstrate biofilm is present in contaminated bulk-soap dispensers and remediation studies to clean and sanitize the dispensers are temporary.

Comparative efficacy of commercially available alcohol-based hand rubs and World Health Organization-recommended hand rubs: formulation matters.

BACKGROUND: Use of alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHRs) effectively reduces transmission of pathogenic microorganisms. However, the impact of alcohol concentration and format on product efficacy is currently being debated. METHODS: Two novel ABHR formulations containing 70% ethanol were evaluated according to American Society for Testing and Materials E1174 (Health Care Personnel Handwash [HCPHW]) and European Norm (EN) 1500 global standards. Additionally, using E1174, the efficacy of these formulations was compared head-to-head against 7 representative commercially available ABHRs and 2 World Health Organization recommended formulations containing alcohol concentrations of 60% to 90%. RESULTS: The novel ABHR formulations met efficacy requirements for both HCPHW and EN 1500 when tested at application volumes typically used in these methods. Moreover, these formulations met HCPHW requirements when tested at a more realistic 2-mL product application. In contrast, the commercial ABHRs and World Health Organization formulations failed to meet HCPHW requirements using a 2-mL application. Importantly, product performance did not correlate with alcohol concentration. CONCLUSION: Product formulation can greatly influence the overall antimicrobial efficacy of ABHRs and is a more important factor than alcohol concentration alone. Two novel ABHRs based on 70% ethanol have been formulated to meet global efficacy standards when tested at volumes more representative of normal product use in health care environments.

Quest for a realistic in vivo test method for antimicrobial hand-rub agents: introduction of a low-volume hand contamination procedure.

A novel method has been developed for the evaluation of alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHR) that employs a hand contamination procedure that more closely simulates the in-use conditions of ABHR. Hands of human subjects were contaminated with 0.2 ml of a concentrated suspension of Serratia marcescens (ATCC 14756) to achieve baseline contamination between 8 and 9 log10 CFU/hand while allowing product to be applied to dry hands with minimal soil load. Evaluation of 1.5 ml of an ABHR gel containing 62% ethanol produced log10 reductions of 2.66 ± 0.96, 2.40 ± 0.50, 2.41 ± 0.61, and 2.33 ± 0.49 (means ± standard deviations) after 1, 3, 7, and 10 successive contamination/product application cycles. In a study comparing this low-volume contamination (LVC) method to ASTM E1174, product dry times were more realistic and log10 reductions achieved by the ABHR were significantly greater when LVC was employed (P < 0.05). These results indicate that a novel low-volume hand contamination procedure, which more closely represents ABHR use conditions, provides more realistic estimates of in-use ABHR efficacies. Based on the LVC method, log10 reductions produced by ABHR were strongly dependent on the test product application volume (P < 0.0001) but were not influenced by the alcohol concentration when it was within the range of 62 to 85% (P = 0.378).

Bacterial hand contamination and transfer after use of contaminated bulk-soap-refillable dispensers.

Bulk-soap-refillable dispensers are prone to extrinsic bacterial contamination, and recent studies demonstrated that approximately one in four dispensers in public restrooms are contaminated. The purpose of this study was to quantify bacterial hand contamination and transfer after use of contaminated soap under controlled laboratory and in-use conditions in a community setting. Under laboratory conditions using liquid soap experimentally contaminated with 7.51 log(10) CFU/ml of Serratia marcescens, an average of 5.28 log(10) CFU remained on each hand after washing, and 2.23 log(10) CFU was transferred to an agar surface. In an elementary-school-based field study, Gram-negative bacteria on the hands of students and staff increased by 1.42 log(10) CFU per hand (26-fold) after washing with soap from contaminated bulk-soap-refillable dispensers. In contrast, washing with soap from dispensers with sealed refills significantly reduced bacteria on hands by 0.30 log(10) CFU per hand (2-fold). Additionally, the mean number of Gram-negative bacteria transferred to surfaces after washing with soap from dispensers with sealed-soap refills (0.06 log(10) CFU) was significantly lower than the mean number after washing with contaminated bulk-soap-refillable dispensers (0.74 log(10) CFU; P < 0.01). Finally, significantly higher levels of Gram-negative bacteria were recovered from students (2.82 log(10) CFU per hand) than were recovered from staff (2.22 log(10) CFU per hand) after washing with contaminated bulk soap (P < 0.01). These results demonstrate that washing with contaminated soap from bulk-soap-refillable dispensers can increase the number of opportunistic pathogens on the hands and may play a role in the transmission of bacteria in public settings.

Comparison of the Activity of Alcohol-Based Handrubs Against Human Noroviruses Using the Fingerpad Method and Quantitative Real-Time PCR.

Noroviruses (NoV) are the most common cause of acute nonbacterial gastroenteritis in the United States, and human hands play an important role in their transmission. Little is known about the efficacy of hand hygiene agents against these highly infectious pathogens. We investigated the activity of seven commercially available hand hygiene products against human noroviruses by in vivo fingerpad tests. The in vivo activity of alcohol-based handrubs ranged from 0.10 to 3.74 log reduction and was not solely dependent on alcohol concentration. A handrub (VF481) based on 70% ethanol and a blend of other skin care ingredients reduced Norwalk virus (NV) by 3.74 log in 15 s and provided significantly greater NV reduction than all the other products tested (P < 0.001). Furthermore, VF481 was the most effective product tested against the NoV genogroup II strains Snow Mountain virus (GII.2) and a GII.4 strain. These results demonstrate that alcohol by itself is not effective against NoV, but effective formulation of alcohol-based handrubs can achieve significant reduction of norovirus RNA on fingers.

SaniTwice: a novel approach to hand hygiene for reducing bacterial contamination on hands when soap and water are unavailable.

The risk of inadequate hand hygiene in food handling settings is exacerbated when water is limited or unavailable, thereby making washing with soap and water difficult. The SaniTwice method involves application of excess alcohol-based hand sanitizer (ABHS), hand "washing" for 15 s, and thorough cleaning with paper towels while hands are still wet, followed by a standard application of ABHS. This study investigated the effectiveness of the SaniTwice methodology as an alternative to hand washing for cleaning and removal of microorganisms. On hands moderately soiled with beef broth containing Escherichia coli (ATCC 11229), washing with a nonantimicrobial hand washing product achieved a 2.86 (±0.64)-log reduction in microbial contamination compared with the baseline, whereas the SaniTwice method with 62 % ethanol (EtOH) gel, 62 % EtOH foam, and 70 % EtOH advanced formula gel achieved reductions of 2.64 ± 0.89, 3.64 ± 0.57, and 4.61 ± 0.33 log units, respectively. When hands were heavily soiled from handling raw hamburger containing E. coli, washing with nonantimicrobial hand washing product and antimicrobial hand washing product achieved reductions of 2.65 ± 0.33 and 2.69 ± 0.32 log units, respectively, whereas SaniTwice with 62 % EtOH foam, 70 % EtOH gel, and 70 % EtOH advanced formula gel achieved reductions of 2.87 ± 0.42, 2.99 ± 0.51, and 3.92 ± 0.65 log units, respectively. These results clearly demonstrate that the in vivo antibacterial efficacy of the SaniTwice regimen with various ABHS is equivalent to or exceeds that of the standard hand washing approach as specified in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Food Code. Implementation of the SaniTwice regimen in food handling settings with limited water availability should significantly reduce the risk of foodborne infections resulting from inadequate hand hygiene.