BACKGROUND: Hygienic hand disinfection using alcohol-based handrubs (AHRs) is an alternative method to conventional handwashing in hospital wards. Because a documented choice of such products would consider data from in-care evaluation, we designed a comparative study of 9 AHRs both in vitro and in vivo in actual care conditions. METHODS: The bactericidal activity of AHRs was first measured in vitro against 4 hospital strains exhibiting multiple antibiotic resistance: Acinetobacter baumannii, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter aerogenes. In a second time, AHRs were tested in an intensive care unit for antibacterial activity against the cutaneous flora of personnel hands and for acceptance by the care personnel. RESULTS: The 9 AHRs could be classified in 3 groups on the basis of their in vitro activity: products of the first group showed a bactericidal activity higher than 4 log(10) against the 4 strains. Only 1 of these products presented simultaneously an effective antibacterial activity against the cutaneous flora of care personnel hands and a good acceptance by the care personnel. CONCLUSION: The in vitro study allowed the differentiation of the AHRs tested on the basis of bactericidal activity, but evaluation in an in-care situation allowed further discrimination through both antibacterial activity and acceptance. Thus, the combination of in vitro and in vivo evaluations should provide helpful arguments in the choice of AHRs.
BACKGROUND: Hygienic hand disinfection using alcohol-based handrubs (AHRs) is an alternative method to conventional handwashing in hospital wards. Because a documented choice of such products would consider data from in-care evaluation, we designed a comparative study of 9 AHRs both in vitro and in vivo in actual care conditions. METHODS: The bactericidal activity of AHRs was first measured in vitro against 4 hospital strains exhibiting multiple antibiotic resistance: Acinetobacter baumannii, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter aerogenes. In a second time, AHRs were tested in an intensive care unit for antibacterial activity against the cutaneous flora of personnel hands and for acceptance by the care personnel. RESULTS: The 9 AHRs could be classified in 3 groups on the basis of their in vitro activity: products of the first group showed a bactericidal activity higher than 4 log(10) against the 4 strains. Only 1 of these products presented simultaneously an effective antibacterial activity against the cutaneous flora of care personnel hands and a good acceptance by the care personnel. CONCLUSION: The in vitro study allowed the differentiation of the AHRs tested on the basis of bactericidal activity, but evaluation in an in-care situation allowed further discrimination through both antibacterial activity and acceptance. Thus, the combination of in vitro and in vivo evaluations should provide helpful arguments in the choice of AHRs.
Authors: Adam J SanMiguel; Jacquelyn S Meisel; Joseph Horwinski; Qi Zheng; Elizabeth A Grice Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 5.191