A comparative study on the effect of alcohol-based hand sanitizers in spray and gel formulation on the skin: A prospective, randomised, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Many formulations of Alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHRs), such as liquid, gel, and spray have been developed and used for preventing infections. This study aimed to compare skin irritation from using ABHRs in gel and spray formulations. METHOD: This was a prospective, randomised, crossover trial conducted to investigate the effect of skin irritation caused by ABHRs in gel compared to spray formulation after 21 days of using each formulation. Clinical outcomes were assessed using subjective Larson's skin assessment score and Frosch and Kligman observer skin assessment score, as well as bioengineering measures: transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and skin capacitance on days 3, 7, 14, and 21. RESULTS: Among 38 participants, both formulations showed no significant change in clinical scores and skin capacitance during the study. However, TEWL increased significantly from baseline on day 3 (p = 0.029) for the spray formulation and on day 21 (p = 0.019) for the gel formulation, with no statistically significant difference between the formulations (p = 0.46). CONCLUSION: Our research supports the safety of gel and spray ABHRs for regular use, with the only potential issue being mild skin irritation. For those with sensitive skin, the gel formulation is preferable.

COVID-19, Overzealous Sanitizer Use, and Hair Discoloration: Case Reports.

Proper hand hygiene is one of the top preventive measures against the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this study, we report the cases of four patients who presented with blonde discoloration of hair of the dorsal hands and distal forearms during the COVID-19 pandemic. The mean age of participants was 41.25±4.35 years, and 75% percent of them were men. Three patients were medical staff who had to use antiseptics frequently, and one of them was a housewife. In all participants, the primary color of hand hair was black. The duration of sanitizer use was approximately four months (Table 1). One of the patients, a 42-year-old male ophthalmologist, was examined due to the blonde discoloration of hairs of the dorsal hands and distal forearms (Figure 1). The color of the hand and forearms hair had changed to blonde. However, the underlying skin was unaffected. A dermoscopy examination showed lighter hair compared with the natural black hair of unaffected parts. In addition, the hair color of the scalp, upper arms, and other body parts was normal. The patient had frequently used a hand sanitizer that contained 70% ethanol and didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride (DDAC) for the past five months. The three other patients also had blonde discoloration observable on the hair of dorsal hands. They all reported excessive use of various alcoholic sanitizers. However, they were unaware of other ingredients. In addition, the examination of hair shafts and underlying skin was normal. The COVID-19 pandemic caused an abrupt increase in the use of sanitizers. Hand disinfectants consist of two main categories: non-alcohol-based hand sanitizers and alcohol-based hand sanitizers. The alcohol-based type is an effective measure for the inactivation of enveloped viruses such as coronaviruses (1). It has been shown that percutaneous absorption of alcohol is possible through intact skin. The use of ethanol as a penetration enhancer for pharmaceutical purposes also confirms that ethanol can be absorbed via the skin and be systematically distributed in the body (2). Reisfield et al. observed that intensive use of ethanol-based sanitizers led to an increase in urinary ethanol biomarkers concentrations (3). Alcohols used in various types of gels and solutions are easily released during hand rubbing (4). Ethanol absorption by inhalation should therefore also be taken into account (5). Different pathways of ethanol metabolism can produce free radicals, which affect the antioxidant system (6). In addition, DDAC is also associated with cell growth inhibition and stress oxidative induction (7). Hair discoloration may be a voluntary cosmetic change or a result of chemical or metal exposure. Most unwanted hair discolorations are blonde or white (8). Previous data suggested that an increase in pro-oxidants and a decrease in antioxidants play an important role in hair discoloration. A study performed by Akin Belli et al. demonstrated that hair discoloration is closely related to factors such as emotional stress and alcohol consumption, which cause oxidative stress (9). Hair discoloration might therefore result from oxidative stress induced by ethanol and DDAC used in sanitizers. Golden hair discoloration has been associated with chloride in water. Hypochlorous acid in swimming pool water can penetrate the hair cortex through the cuticle, where it can oxidize and degenerate melanosomes (10). Another possible hypothesis is that the chloride compound in DDAC might be the culprit in sanitizer hair discoloration. Additionally, the bleaching compounds used in some hand disinfectants could be another possible cause of hair discoloration. To the best of our knowledge, this observation of hair discoloration was not previously reported during the COVID-19 outbreak. It is also noteworthy that most hair discoloration normalizes over time (8). The limitations of our study included the fact that the hand sanitizers used by the patients were unavailable and thus their ingredients could not be examined. Furthermore, as most of the sanitizers in this current pandemic are not standardized, they may have unknown ingredients with discoloration properties. Due to the overzealous use of various antiseptics during the pandemic, it is expected that this side-effect will be observed more and more often. Therefore, physicians must be aware of this presentation and reassure the patient regarding this phenomenon. Additionally, products free of such agents should be prescribed to avoid hair discoloration.

Tratamiento de las intoxicaciones agudas por desinfectantes durante la COVID-19 / Treatment of acute poisoning by disinfectants during COVID-19

Introducción: El uso de productos de limpieza, a expensa de los desinfectantes se ha incrementado por la población mundial como consecuencia de la COVID-19. El manejo frecuente de estas sustancias químicas por las personas puede ocasionar cuadros de intoxicaciones agudas. Esta situación se evidencia en los reportes emitidos por los centros antitóxicos del orbe, donde consta el aumento en el número de consultas toxicológicas. Objetivo: Describir el tratamiento de las intoxicaciones agudas por desinfectantes durante la COVID-19. Métodos: Se realizó una revisión bibliográfica acerca del tratamiento de las intoxicaciones agudas por desinfectantes durante la COVID-19. Se incluyeron artículos escritos en español, inglés y portugués. Además, se abordaron aspectos relacionados con las intoxicaciones agudas por el uso de desinfectantes, el cuadro clínico, así como elementos del diagnóstico y tratamiento de las intoxicaciones agudas por estas sustancias químicas. Conclusiones: Las intoxicaciones agudas por hipoclorito de sodio y geles hidroalcohólicos son las más frecuentes en la población durante la COVID-19 en proporción con el uso de estos productos químicos. La atención médica precoz, eficaz y oportuna disminuirá la posibilidad de aparición de complicaciones. El tratamiento de estás intoxicaciones agudas está en relación con los síntomas y signos que presentan los pacientes al ser recibidos en los servicios de urgencia(AU)

Introduction: The use of cleaning products, at the expense of disinfectants, has increased by the world population as a consequence of COVID-19. Frequent handling of these chemical substances by people can cause acute poisoning. This situation is evidenced in the reports issued by the world's anti-toxic centers, where the increase in the number of toxicological consultations is recorded. Objective: To describe the treatment of acute poisoning by disinfectants during COVID-19. Methods: A literature review on the treatment of acute poisoning by disinfectants during COVID-19 was carried out. Articles written in Spanish, English and Portuguese were included. In addition, aspects related to acute poisoning due to the use of disinfectants, the clinical condition, as well as elements of the diagnosis and treatment of acute poisoning by these chemical substances were addressed. Conclusions: Acute poisoning by sodium hypochlorite and hydroalcoholic gels are the most frequent in the population during COVID-19 in proportion to the use of these chemical products. Early, effective and timely medical care will reduce the possibility of complications. The treatment of these acute intoxications is related to the symptoms and signs presented by patients when they are received in the emergency services(AU)

Shifting trends in demographic features of chemical eye injuries during COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the etiological cause distribution in chemical eye injuries during COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this retrospective case series, the medical records of patients, who presented with chemical eye injuries between March 30, 2020, and March 1, 2021, were evaluated and compared with the data covering 10 years before the pandemic. RESULTS: Twenty-seven eyes of twenty-three patients (19 adults, 4 children) who presented in pandemic period were included. Alcohol-based hand sanitizer was one of the two most common agents (n = 6 eyes) in the pandemic era. In the last 10 years before the pandemic, 137 eyes of 102 patients were treated for chemical eye injuries. Injuries due to alcohol-based hand sanitizer increased from 3.1 to 21.1% among all patients, and from 0 to 75% among pediatric patients during the pandemic era compared to the pre-pandemic period. The increase was statistically significant both in all patients (p = .003) and in the pediatric patient group (p = .048). CONCLUSION: Due to COVID-19 pandemic, alcohol-based hand sanitizer use became more common. Consequently, the frequency of hand sanitizer related chemical injuries showed a 13-fold increase and the age group affected by such accidents is altered during the pandemic. Three out of four pediatric patients (75%) were injured with alcohol-based hand sanitizers, which draws attention to the fact that improperly placed hand sanitizer stations, being just at the eye level of children, can cause chemical eye injuries in the pediatric population even more.

An update on the prevalence and risk exposures associated with hand eczema in Danish hospital employees: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study.

BACKGROUND: Hand eczema (HE) is common in health care workers (HCWs). During the last decade, new recommendations have supported increased use of alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) to partially replace hand washings to lower the prevalence of HE. However, newer data on this recommendation is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To assess current 1-year prevalence of HE in HCWs, to investigate exposure, and the extent of subjective discomfort to hand washings and ABHR. METHODS: A digital questionnaire was sent to 4876 HCWs from April to May 2020. RESULTS: Of 2125 respondents (1779 women, 346 men), 14.7% reported HE within the last year. In total, 9.1% reported >20 hand washings per shift and 76.0% reported ABHR use >20 times per shift. HE was significantly associated with hand washings (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.73 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-2.36]) and glove use on wet skin (adjusted OR 1.99 [95% CI 1.27-3.12]). Subjective discomfort to ABHR was reported significantly more often than to hand washings (P < .001) and significantly more often in HCWs with HE than in those without HE (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The current 1-year HE prevalence in HCWs of 14.7% was lower than in previously reported Scandinavian data. HE was related to frequent hand washings, as previously reported, and to glove use on wet skin, which is a possible risk factor for HE that should be further explored.

Ocular chemical burn associated with gel type alcohol-based hand sanitizer: A case report.

INTRODUCTION: Alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHS) are widely used for hand hygiene due to the coronavirus disease pandemic. However, risk awareness regarding its adverse effects is lacking. We aim to report a case of ocular chemical burn that showed severe clinical presentation associated with ABHS. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 5-year-old girl presented with severe left eye pain after 62% gel-type ABHS splashed into her eye. DIAGNOSIS: On slit lamp examination, a near total corneal and conjunctival epithelial defect with limbal pale on the lower half of the cornea was noted. Severe ocular burn by ABHS was prominent with suspected limbal stem cell damage. INTERVENTIONS: She was hospitalized and was prescribed topical medications including antibiotics, steroid eye drops with preservative-free artificial tears, and oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. OUTCOMES: Despite intensive medical treatments, the corneal and conjunctival epithelial defects showed no improvement up to the 4th hospital day. After additional instillation of autoserum eye drops to promote epithelial healing, the corneal epithelium barely recovered from the temporal limbus. On the third week of admission, the epithelial defect was completely resolved without corneal opacity, although with minimal symblepharon in the lower fornix. CONCLUSIONS: Gel-type ABHS can cause severe form of ocular chemical burn such as delayed ocular surface healing. In clinical setting, immediate and thorough rinsing of alcohol-based gel and early intensive treatment are crucial.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children with psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Children with psoriasis may have been directly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and their illness may also have affected their ability to follow preventive measures. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children with psoriasis. METHODS: A survey of children (<18 years) with psoriasis, conducted from June 10 to June 29, 2020. RESULTS: In total, 92 children were included: 71.7% had psoriasis lesions at the time of home lockdown while 45.2% were receiving systemic treatments, and two contracted COVID-19. During lockdown, psoriasis worsened in 47.3% of the children and 18.8% stopped their systemic treatments, mainly for reasons linked to the pandemic. A total of 41.3% had a consultation for psoriasis during lockdown (71.1% by teleconsultation): 39.5% due to worsening of their psoriasis and 21.1% for pandemic-related issues. Among patients not having a consultation during lockdown, 27.5% had a cancellation by the doctor and 9.3% had concerns over going to see the doctor. Finally, 22.8% of patients reported finding it difficult to respect hygiene measures because of their psoriasis, e.g., application of alcohol-based hand sanitizers (47.6%), handwashing routines (42.9%), and wearing a mask (28.6%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the major clinical impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children with psoriasis. Teleconsultations played a key role in patient management as regards patient monitoring, provision of information, and renewal of treatments. It is vital that we learn from these data to improve and adapt the monitoring of chronic dermatoses in both children and adults in the event of a future health crisis.

Fluctuating Palmar Erythema in a Toddler during COVID-19 Pandemic: Do You Know the Offender?

Palmar erythema in children can be due to various reasons, such as chronic liver disease, rheumatological disorders, medications, irritant contact dermatitis and atopic dermatitis. Recently, there are few reports about contact dermatitis caused by frequent, daily use of hand sanitizers during this COVID-19 pandemic. A 3-year-old toddler brought with the concern of waxing-waning bilateral palmar erythema for the past 2 weeks. The parents revealed that the child liked the bright color of a recently bought hand sanitizer bottle so much he used to wash his hands every 20-30 min throughout the day. The atypical presentation of contact dermatitis might be because the child was using the sanitizer more frequently during the daytime. The dermatitis resolved with stopping excessive use of the hand sanitizer by the toddler. Clinicians should be aware of contact dermatitis during these pandemic times. Instead of investigating them extensively, careful history taking and merely advising them to judicially utilize the sanitizer can lead to complete reversal of symptoms.

Pediatric Eye Injuries by Hydroalcoholic Gel in the Context of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has made alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHS) widely available in public places. This may warrant determining whether cases of unintentional ocular exposure are increasing, especially in children. Objective: To describe the epidemiologic trend of pediatric eye exposures to ABHS and to report the severity of the ocular lesions. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective case series conducted from April 1, 2020, to August 24, 2020. Cases were retrieved from the national database of the French Poison Control Centers (PCC) and from a pediatric ophthalmology referral hospital in Paris, France. Cases of ocular exposure to chemical agents in children younger than 18 years during the study period were reviewed. Cases of ABHS exposure were included. Exposures: The following data were collected: age, sex, circumstances of exposure, symptoms, size of the epithelial defect at first examination, time between the incident and re-epithelialization, and medical and/or surgical management. Main Outcomes and Measures: Comparison of the number of eye exposures to ABHS in children between April to August 2020 and April to August 2019. Results: Between April 1 and August 24, 2020, there were 7 times more pediatric cases of ABHS eye exposures reported in the PCC database compared with the same period in 2019 (9.9% of pediatric eye exposures in 2020 vs 1.3% in 2019; difference, 8.6%; 95% CI, 7.4-9.9; P < .001). The number of cases occurring in public places increased in 2020 (from 16.4% in May to 52.4% in August). Similarly, admissions to the eye hospital for ABHS exposure increased at the same period (16 children in 2020 including 10 boys; mean [SD] age, 3.5 [1.4] years vs 1 boy aged 16 months in 2019). Eight of them presented with a corneal and/or conjunctival ulcer, involving more than 50% of the corneal surface for 6 of them. Two cases required amniotic membrane transplant. Conclusions and Relevance: These data support the likelihood of an increasing number of unintentional ocular exposures to ABHS in the pediatric population. To maintain good public compliance with hand disinfection, these findings support that health authorities should ensure the safe use of these devices and warn the parents and caregivers about their potential danger for children.

Hand hygiene for the prevention of infections in neonates.

BACKGROUND: Annually, infections contribute to approximately 25% of the 2.8 million neonatal deaths worldwide. Over 95% of sepsis-related neonatal deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. Hand hygiene is an inexpensive and cost-effective method of preventing infection in neonates, making it an affordable and practicable intervention in low- and middle-income settings. Therefore, hand hygiene practices may hold strong prospects for reducing the occurrence of infection and infection-related neonatal death. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of different hand hygiene agents for preventing neonatal infection in community and health facility settings. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 5), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 10 May 2019); Embase (1980 to 10 May 2019); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 10 May 2019). We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials. Searches were updated 1 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs, cross-over trials, and quasi-RCTs that included pregnant women, mothers, other caregivers, and healthcare workers who received interventions within the community or in health facility settings DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were incidence of (study author-defined) suspected infection within the first 28 days of life, bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life, all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life (early neonatal death), and all-cause mortality from the 8th to the 28th day of life (late neonatal death). MAIN RESULTS: Our review included five studies: one RCT, one quasi-RCT, and three cross-over trials with a total of more than 5450 neonates (two studies included all neonates but did not report the actual number of neonates involved). Four studies involved 279 nurses working in neonatal intensive care units and all neonates on admission. The fifth study did not clearly state how many nurses were included in the study. Studies examined the effectiveness of different hand hygiene practices for the incidence of (study author-defined) suspected infection within the first 28 days of life. Two studies were rated as low risk for selection bias, another two were rated as high risk, and one study was rated as unclear risk. One study was rated as low risk for allocation bias, and four were rated as high risk. Only one of the five studies was rated as low risk for performance bias. 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) compared to plain liquid soap We are uncertain whether plain soap is better than 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) for nurses' skin based on very low-certainty evidence (mean difference (MD) -1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.31 to -0.19; 16 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We identified no studies that reported on other outcomes for this comparison. 4% chlorhexidine gluconate compared to triclosan 1% One study compared 1% w/v triclosan with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate and suggests that 1% w/v triclosan may reduce the incidence of suspected infection (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.60; 1916 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There may be fewer cases of infection in the 1% w/v triclosan group compared to the 4% chlorhexidine gluconate group (RR 6.01, 95% CI 3.56 to 10.14; 1916 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); however, we are uncertain of the available evidence. We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality, duration of hospital stay, and adverse events for this comparison. 2% CHG compared to alcohol hand sanitiser (61% alcohol and emollients) We are uncertain whether 2% chlorhexidine gluconate reduces the risk of all infection in neonates compared to 61% alcohol hand sanitiser with regards to the incidence of all bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.69; 2932 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) in the 2% chlorhexidine gluconate group, but the evidence is very uncertain.   The adverse outcome was reported as mean visual scoring on the skin. There may be little to no difference between the effects of 2% CHG on nurses' skin compared to alcohol hand sanitiser based on very low-certainty evidence (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.59; 118 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality and other outcomes for this comparison. None of the included studies assessed all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life nor duration of hospital stay.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain as to the superiority of one hand hygiene agent over another because this review included very few studies with very serious study limitations.