{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.058029689608636977, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0553306342780027, 'mean_word_length': 4.371980676328502, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluation of Two Methods of Determining the Efficacies of Two Alcohol-Based Hand Rubs for Surgical Hand Antisepsis

ABSTRACT The antimicrobial efficacies of preparations for surgical hand antisepsis can be determined according to a European standard (prEN 12791 [EN]) and a U.S. standard (tentative final monograph for health care antiseptic drug products [TFM]). The U.S. method differs in the product application mode (hands and lower forearms, versus hands only in EN), the number of applications (11 over 5 days, versus a single application in EN), the sampling times (0, 3, and 6 h after application, versus 0 and 3 h in EN), the sampling methods (glove juice versus fingertip sampling in EN), and the outcome requirements (absolute bacterial reduction factor [RF], versus noninferiority to reference treatment in EN). We have studied the efficacies of two hand rubs according to both methods. One hand rub was based on 80% ethanol and applied for 2 min, and the other one was based on 45% propan-2-ol, 30% propan-1-ol, and 0.2% mecetronium etilsulfate and applied for 1.5 min. The ethanol-based hand rub was equally effective as the 3-min reference disinfection of prEN 12791 in both the immediate (RFs, 2.97 ± 0.89 versus 2.92 ± 1.03, respectively) and sustained (RFs, 2.20 ± 1.07 versus 2.47 ± 1.25, respectively) effects. According to TFM, the immediate effects were 2.99 log10 (day 1), 3.00 log10 (day 2), and 3.43 log10 (day 5), and bacterial counts were still below baseline after 6 h. The propanol-based hand rub was even more effective than the reference disinfection of prEN 12791 in both the immediate (RFs, 2.35 ± 0.99 versus 1.86 ± 0.87, respectively) and sustained (RFs, 2.17 ± 1.00 versus 1.50 ± 1.26, respectively) effects. According to TFM, the immediate effects were 2.82 log10 (day 1), 3.29 log10 (day 2), and 3.25 log10 (day 5), and bacterial counts were still below baseline after 6 h. Some formulations have been reported to meet the efficacy requirements of one of the methods but not those of the other. That is why we conclude that, despite our results, meeting the efficacy requirements of one test method does not allow the claim that the requirements of the other test method are also met.