Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Failures of Current Hand Hygiene, and the Search for Solutions
Document related concepts
Transcript
Colette Cozean, PhD Promise of Alcohol Sanitizers Failure of Alcohol Sanitizers Reasons for Failure The Ideal Product Potential Solutions Alcohol Sanitizer showed more complete kill against bacteria than soap and water Alcohol is much more convenient, with the potential to decrease time spent while increasing compliance After more than 10 years of alcohol sanitizer use, 5% of patients get an HAI, 90,000 deaths Studies – 7 comparison studies between handwashing and alcohol sanitizer in medical ◦ 4 Studies show alcohol increases infections ◦ 2 Studies report improvement in HAIs with alcohol ◦ 1 Study shows no difference in surgical site infections Fendler et al, The Impact of hand sanitizer use on infection rates in an extended care facility, AJIC, 30:4, 226-33, 2002 Hilburn et al, Use of alcohol hand sanitizer as an infection control strategy in an acute care facility, AJIC, 31:2, 109-116, 2003 Rupp M et al, Prospective, Controlled, Cross‐Over Trial of Alcohol‐Based Hand Gel in Critical Care Units, Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology; 29:1, 2008 Larsen E et al, Effect of Antiseptic Handwashing vs Alcohol Sanitizer on Health Care–Associated Infections in Neonatal Intensive Care Units, Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159(4):377-383 3 ICUs, crossover (multiple) study, 3,000+ pts, compared CHG handwash vs. alcohol sanitizer, sponsored by Calgon-Vestal Shown significant increase in HAIs with alcohol Change with Alcohol Overall +33.4% UTI +40.0% Skin Infections +93.0% GI Infections +436% Doebbeling BN, Stanley GL, Sheetz CT, et al. Comparative efficacy of alternative handwashing agents in reducing nosocomial infections in intensive care units, New England Journal of Medicine, 1992; 327: 88-93 Nearly 3,000 pts, 2 NICUs, crossover, comparison with 2% CHG handwash Increase in HAIs of 27.3% overall, and in 4/5 categories, sponsored by 3M (Avagard) Change with Alcohol Overall +27.3% Bloodstream +23.0% Pneumonia +29.4% Skin Infections +77.4% CNS +6.0% Conjunctivitis -15.8% Larsen E et al, Effect of Antiseptic Handwashing vs Alcohol Sanitizer on Health Care–Associated Infections in Neonatal Intensive Care Units, Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159(4):377-383 Two-year study, 2 ICUs, crossover, monitored compliance and HAIs, sponsored by GOJO, compared against PCMX soap No improvement noted with addition of alcohol sanitizer Worse than baseline in 4/6 categories, equivalent in 1/6, improvement in 1/6. Rupp M et al, Prospective, Controlled, Cross‐Over Trial of Alcohol‐Based Hand Gel in Critical Care Units, Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology; 29:1, 2008 Study in 6 surgical centers, randomized, crossover (multiple) 4,000+ pts Compared alcohol vs. CHG or iodine as a surgical scrub in between patients, when hands were not visibly soiled No difference between handwashing and alcohol rub (2.48% vs. 2.44%), concluded alcohol was equivalent. Sponsored by Rivardis Laboratories Parienti JJ et al, Hand-rubbing with an aqueous alcoholic solution vs. traditional surgical hand-scrubbing and 30-day surgical site infection rates: a randomized equivalence study, JAMA, 2002; 288:722-727 Showed a 30% decrease, sponsored by GOJO Compared against a PCMX soap, not CHG or other top-tier antimicrobial No crossover design Significant differences between control and experimental groups ◦ Exp. group only in residential wards ◦ Control group on main floor, with cafeteria, dialysis, recreation/activity area, and rehab room – all common areas where germs can be transmitted ◦ Control group (1:8.5 staff/pt), Exp. group (1:4.5) Fendler et al, The impact of alcohol hand sanitizer use on infection rates in an extended care facility, AJIC, 30:4, 226-233, 2002 Showed 36% decrease, sponsored by GOJO Also compared against PCMX soap No crossover design Gave additional education to staff, including in-service, posters, brochures, and reminders, that were not given to controls Gave patients individual bottles of hand sanitizer and additional education Only performed in orthopedic surgery suite, not in general ward (SS infections and UTIs) Hillburn et al, Use of alcohol hand sanitizer as an infection control strategy in an acute care facility, AJIC, 31:2, 109-166, 2003 Improves compliance and skin condition No improvement in HAIs Never shown in any trial to be better than top-tier antiseptic handwashes (CHG, iodine, etc.), only PCMX ◦ “PCMX had the weakest immediate and residual activity of any of the agents studied…studies (2) demonstrated the immediate and residual activity of PCMX was inferior to both CHG and povidoneiodine.” – CDC Hand Hygiene Guidelines, 2002 Study of 61 long-term care facilities, sponsored by the CDC, largest multi-center look at medical infections ever done. Showed that facilities that rely on alcohol sanitizers were six times more likely to have an illness outbreak (Norovirus) than ones relying on soap and water alone. Only study unfunded by sanitizer company, and truly “real-world” situation Blaney D et al, Use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers as a risk factor for norovirus outbreaks in long-term care facilities in northern New England: December 2006 to March 2007, American Journal of Infection Control, 39 (4) 296-301, 2011 CDC, Vessel Sanitation Program, http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/vsp/surv/gilist.htm Alcohol sanitizers kill bacteria faster and more completely than soap and water. They are more convenient and more widely used. Why have we not seen the anticipated drop in infection and illness? “Antiseptic handwash….[should be] broadspectrum, fast-acting, and if possible persistent.” CDC Guidelines, 2002 “Persistence, defined as prolonged activity, is a valuable attribute that assures antimicrobial activity during the interval between washings, and is important to a safe and effective healthcare personnel handwash” FDA Tentative Final Monograph, 1994 “Alcohols are rapidly germicidal when applied to the skin, but they have no appreciable persistent (i.e., residual) activity.” CDC Hand Hygiene Guidelines, 2002 Kills the bacteria on the skin, but hands can immediately become recontaminated by the next surface or patient touched. Compliance has to be perfect in order to eliminate risk of transmission Determine if preparations with persistent antimicrobial activity reduce infection rates more effectively than do preparations whose activity is limited to immediate effect CDC Hand Hygiene Guidelines, 2002, “Hand Hygiene Research Agenda” Because HCWs <health care workers> may wash their hands….as many as 30 times per shift, the tendency of products to cause skin irritation and dryness is a substantial factor that influences acceptance, and ultimate usage CDC Hand Hygiene Guidelines, 2002 Studies show that healthcare workers only comply with hand hygiene protocols 40-50% of the time CDC studies have shown that 25% of HCWs have contact dermatitis from their hand hygiene products. Other studies put this number closer to 50%. Overall, 85% of HCWs have reported skin problems Without persistence, each failure leaves the patient and worker open to pathogen transmission. Erasmus V et al. Systematic Review of Studies on Compliance with Hand Hygiene Guidelines in Hospital Care, Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 31(3) 2010 CDC Guidelines for Hand Hygiene, 2002 Approximately 22% of HAIs are viral, though we typically think of them as bacterial Alcohol sanitizers are relatively ineffective against non-enveloped viruses Researchers at Emory University showed that rinsing the hands with water alone was more effective than using an alcohol sanitizer against Norovirus Lack of Persistence ◦ Every failure to use product leaves HCW exposed Lack of Compliance ◦ Drying effects of alcohol cause skin irritation, reducing usage and compliance Lack of Efficacy against Viruses ◦ Viruses cause 22% of HAIs, and a high percentage of visitor illnesses (flu, colds, stomach flu, etc.). Alcohol sanitizers less effective than water rinse against many non-enveloped viruses Ideal Sanitizer Alcohol Sanitizer Fast-acting Effective against bacteria Effective against viruses Less effective than water rinse Persistent No persistence Non-irritating (compliance) 40-50% compliance. 25-50% of HCWs report contact dermatitis Non-alcohol sanitizers Alcohol-plus sanitizers “Immediate efficacy occurs more slowly than that of alcohols” – CDC Guidelines “It has in-vivo efficacy against enveloped viruses…but substantially less activity against non-enveloped viruses” - CDC High skin irritation HibiClens (4% CHG)* Some persistence Acinetobacter baumannii 1 min Bacteroides fragilis Enterococcus faecalis Enterococcus faecium Staphylococcus aureus Staphylococcus epidermis Staphylococcus saprophyticus Streptococcus pyogenes 10 minutes 10 minutes 10 minutes 10 minutes 3 min 3 min 10 minutes Serious health concerns, lawsuits against FDA and Dial, unable to pass the new FDA regulations governing soaps Slower immediate activity than alcohol Relatively ineffective against gram-negative bacteria, even resulting in contamination High skin irritation Persistent Slow-killing (2+ minutes) Relatively weak against gram-negative bacteria Good antiviral activity Persistent Well-tolerated on the skin Dermal Moisture after 100 Uses 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Skin Irritation after 5 Day Dermal Test 3.5 1 1 1 CHG (0.75%) PCMX (1.0%) Triclosan (0.3%) 0 BZT (0.2%) CHG (4.0%) Ideal Fast-acting Bacteria Viruses Persistence Non-irritating Alcohol CHG Triclosan QATs Use a combination of alcohol (immediate kill) and another antimicrobial (persistence) Avagard (61% ethanol, 1% CHG), ChloraPrep (70% isopropyl alcohol, 2% CHG) Surgicept (70% alcohol, BZK, CHG) Typically used only as surgical scrubs, increase skin irritation (alcohol + additional irritating ingredient) Ideal Fast-acting Bacteria Viruses Persistence Non-irritating Alcohol Nonalcohol Alcohol + (CHG, QAT) “Selection committees must consider factors that can affect the overall efficacy of such products, including the relative efficacy of antiseptic agents against various pathogens and acceptance of hand hygiene products by personnel. Because HCWs may wash their hands….as many as 30 times per shift, the tendency of products to cause skin irritation and dryness is a substantial factor that influences acceptance, and ultimate usage” “An antiseptic…(should be) broad-spectrum, fast-acting, and if possible, persistent.”
