Grayson M Lindsay, Melvani Sharmila, Druce Julian, Barr Ian G, Ballard Susan A, Johnson Paul D R, Mastorakos Tasoula, Birch Christopher
Infectious Diseases Department, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084, Australia.
Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Feb 1;48(3):285-91. doi: 10.1086/595845.
Although pandemic and avian influenza are known to be transmitted via human hands, there are minimal data regarding the effectiveness of routine hand hygiene (HH) protocols against pandemic and avian influenza.
Twenty vaccinated, antibody-positive health care workers had their hands contaminated with 1 mL of 10(7) tissue culture infectious dose (TCID)(50)/0.1 mL live human influenza A virus (H1N1; A/New Caledonia/20/99) before undertaking 1 of 5 HH protocols (no HH [control], soap and water hand washing [SW], or use of 1 of 3 alcohol-based hand rubs [61.5% ethanol gel, 70% ethanol plus 0.5% chlorhexidine solution, or 70% isopropanol plus 0.5% chlorhexidine solution]). H1N1 concentrations were assessed before and after each intervention by viral culture and real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The natural viability of H1N1 on hands for >60 min without HH was also assessed.
There was an immediate reduction in culture-detectable and PCR-detectable H1N1 after brief cutaneous air drying--14 of 20 health care workers had H1N1 detected by means of culture (mean reduction, 10(3-4) TCID(50)/0.1 mL), whereas 6 of 20 had no viable H1N1 recovered; all 20 health care workers had similar changes in PCR test results. Marked antiviral efficacy was noted for all 4 HH protocols, on the basis of culture results (14 of 14 had no culturable H1N1; (P< .002) and PCR results (P< .001; cycle threshold value range, 33.3-39.4), with SW statistically superior (P< .001) to all 3 alcohol-based hand rubs, although the actual difference was only 1-100 virus copies/microL. There was minimal reduction in H1N1 after 60 min without HH.
HH with SW or alcohol-based hand rub is highly effective in reducing influenza A virus on human hands, although SW is the most effective intervention. Appropriate HH may be an important public health initiative to reduce pandemic and avian influenza transmission.
虽然已知大流行性流感和禽流感可通过人手传播,但关于常规手部卫生(HH)方案预防大流行性流感和禽流感有效性的数据极少。
20名接种过疫苗且抗体呈阳性的医护人员,在进行5种手部卫生方案之一(不进行手部卫生[对照]、用肥皂和水洗手[SW]或使用3种含酒精洗手液中的一种[61.5%乙醇凝胶、70%乙醇加0.5%洗必泰溶液或70%异丙醇加0.5%洗必泰溶液])之前,将1毫升含10(7)组织培养感染剂量(TCID)(50)/0.1毫升的甲型流感病毒活病毒(H1N1;A/新喀里多尼亚/20/99)涂抹在手上使其污染。在每次干预前后,通过病毒培养和实时逆转录聚合酶链反应(PCR)评估H1N1浓度。还评估了在不进行手部卫生的情况下,H1N1在手上超过60分钟的自然存活能力。
短暂皮肤空气干燥后,培养可检测到的和PCR可检测到的H1N1立即减少——20名医护人员中有14名通过培养检测到H1N1(平均减少量为10(3 - 4) TCID(50)/0.1毫升),而20名中有6名未检测到存活的H1N1;所有20名医护人员的PCR检测结果都有类似变化。根据培养结果(14名中的14名未培养出H1N1;(P <.002))和PCR结果(P <.001;循环阈值范围为33.3 - 39.4),所有4种手部卫生方案都显示出显著的抗病毒效果,其中SW在统计学上优于所有3种含酒精洗手液(P <.001),尽管实际差异仅为1 - 100个病毒拷贝/微升。在不进行手部卫生60分钟后,H1N1减少极少。
用SW或含酒精洗手液进行手部卫生在减少人手上的甲型流感病毒方面非常有效,不过SW是最有效的干预措施。适当的手部卫生可能是减少大流行性流感和禽流感传播的一项重要公共卫生举措。