1 / 37

Community-Based Studies of Consumer Antiseptics FDA Nonprescription Drug Advisory Committee Meeting

Community-Based Studies of Consumer Antiseptics FDA Nonprescription Drug Advisory Committee Meeting . Allison E. Aiello, PhD, MS Assistant Professor of Epidemiology University of Michigan-School of Public Health Center for Social Epidemiology & Population Health. Outline. Literature Review

Leo
Download Presentation

Community-Based Studies of Consumer Antiseptics FDA Nonprescription Drug Advisory Committee Meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Community-Based Studies of Consumer AntisepticsFDA Nonprescription Drug Advisory Committee Meeting Allison E. Aiello, PhD, MS Assistant Professor of Epidemiology University of Michigan-School of Public Health Center for Social Epidemiology & Population Health

  2. Outline • Literature Review • Methodological Issues • Summary and Future Research Needs

  3. Overall Goal Estimate the reduction in risk attributed to specific hand hygiene products: • Plain soap handwash • Antiseptic soap handwash • Triclosan,Triclocarban • Hand sanitizers • Alcohol-based • Non-alcohol based hand sanitizers • Benzalkonium chloride

  4. Methods • Use of earlier systematic review articles: • Aiello, AE & Larson, EL. (2002) What is the evidence for a causal link between hygiene and infections? Lancet Infect Dis. Vol.2 • Curtis, V & Cairncross, S. (2003) Effect of washing hands with soap on diarrhoea risk in the community: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis. Vol.3 • Meadows, E & Le Saux, N. (2004) A systematic review of the effectiveness of antimicrobial rinse-tree hand sanitizers for prevention of illness-related absenteeism in elementary school children. BMC Pub Health.(4)50 • PubMed database search for other articles from 1980 to 2005 • Key word combinations: hygiene, infection, soap, washing, handwashing, community, alcohol, antibacterial, triclosan, day care, school, hand sanitizer

  5. Methods Continued • Inclusion Criteria: • Outcome: • Culture confirmed infection, symptoms of infection, or absenteeism associated with infectious illness • Study Design: • Community based • Intervention or cross-over study with or without formal randomization • Intervention arm provided • Plain soap (not identified) • Antiseptic soap • Alcohol-based hand sanitizer • Non-alcohol hand sanitizer

  6. Number of Studies Meeting Criteria • Soap (plain/unidentified) N=8 • Antiseptic Soap N=5 • Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizers N=9 • Non-Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizers N=2

  7. Plain or Unidentified Soap Versus Control (N=8)

  8. Plain or Unidentified Soap (N=8): Study Methods Overview • Formal randomization (n=3) • Soap form: • Bars (n=8) • Reported plain or non-medicated soap (n=4) • Unknown soap type (n=4) • Educational component • Wash hands at critical points (n=7) • Hygiene promotion seminar (n=3) • Washing of dishes (n=1) • Follow regular routine (n=1)

  9. Plain or Unidentified Soap (N=8): Study Methods Overview • Outcomes: • Diarrhea Incidence/Risk (n=6) • Prevalence, Healthcare Visits • Culture confirmed Shigella sp. • Impetigo (n=2) • Skin and eye disease (n=1) • Runny nose, cough, and pneumonia (n=1)

  10. Plain or Unidentified Soap (N=8): Study Methods Overview • Exposure measurements • Measured Soap use or Hand Washing (n=6) • Controlled for confounding or reported balance on covariates (n=7)

  11. Plain or Unidentified Soap (N=8):ResultsReduction inDiarrhea Incidence (n=6) All Results Statistically Significant (P < 0.05)

  12. Plain or Unidentified Soap (N=8): Results Continued • Other significant findings: • Luby, S. et al. (2005) Lancet • 51% reduction in cough or difficulty breathing • 54% reduction in coryza (runny nose) • 50% reduction in pneumonia • 34% reduction in impetigo • Null findings: • Luby, S. et al. (2002) Am J Trop Med Hyg • 25% reduction in total impetigo (p=0.21) • No prompting of change in hygiene

  13. Plain or Unidentified Soap Type (N=8): Summary of Results Reduction in incidence of diarrhea ranged from 30% to 89% • Median reduction: 53% • Similar reduction range for other outcomes

  14. Most studies prior to 2004 lack formal randomization Not possible to mask participants or interviewers Only two studies used techniques to control for clustering Limited measurement on hygiene / soap use Varying definitions of symptoms and reporting methods across studies All studies were conducted outside of USA High risk populations Difficult to tease apart the effect of soap use from that of hygiene education Only one study asked participants to follow regular routine Plain or Unidentified Soap Type: Study Design Issues

  15. Plain or Unidentified Soap Type (N=8): Conclusions • Consistent reductions observed • regardless of varying methods and study populations • Plain soap in conjunction with proper hygiene is effective in reducing diarrheal illness in high risk populations

  16. Antiseptic Soap Versus Plain Soap or Control (N=5)

  17. Antiseptic Soap (N=5): Study Methods Overview • Comparison Groups: • Antiseptic Soap versus Plain Soap (placebo) (n=2) • Antiseptic Soap versus Plain Soap (placebo) and versus Control Group (nothing) (n=3) • Formal randomization (n=3) • Soap form: • Bars (n=4) (1.2% triclocarban) • Liquid (n=1) (0.2% triclosan) • Educational component • Washing hands at critical points (n=3) • Follow regular routine (n=2)

  18. Antiseptic Soap (N=5): Study Methods Overview • Outcomes: • Diarrhea Incidence/Risk (n=3) • Impetigo (n=2) • Pneumonia (n=1) • Symptoms of infection (n=2)

  19. Antiseptic Soap (N=5): Study Methods Overview • Measured Soap use and/or Hand Washing (n=4) • Masked participants and interviewers (n=4) • Among placebo groups only • Controlled for confounding or reported balance on covariates (n=5)

  20. Antiseptic Soap vs. Plain Soap: Reduction inDiarrhea Incidence (n=2) 10% Reduction* Luby (2004) Pakistan, Children Larson (2004) United States, Families 6% Higher** *Not statistically significant ** Not statistically significant and not designed or powered to make this comparison

  21. Antiseptic Soap vs. Plain Soap:Reduction inIncidence of Other Symptoms / Infections (n=3) No results were statistically significant

  22. Diarrhea Impetigo Diarrhea Antiseptic Soap versus Control Group (No Soap Provided in Control Group)Reduction inIncidence of Impetigo and Diarrhea (n=3) All results statistically significant (P < 0.05)

  23. Antiseptic Soap: Summary of Results • Antiseptic Soap vs. Plain Soap (n=3) • No statistically significant differences for all infectious symptoms • Antiseptic Soap vs. Control Group (no soap) (n=2) • Reduction in incidence of diarrhea ranged from 29% to 50% • Similar to reductions associated with use of plain soap

  24. Antiseptic Soap: Study Design Issues • Study Design Limitations • Possible viral or parasitic etiology for symptom definitions • High risk groups • Study Design Strengths: • All studies used techniques to control for clustering • All studies measured baseline hygiene information • Hygiene practices over duration of the study (n=1) • Product monitoring (n=2) • Three studies masked participants and/or interviewers • Use of a placebo plain soap (n=3) • Extensive follow-up for symptoms

  25. Antiseptic Soap: Conclusions • Lack of evidence that antiseptic soaps provide a benefit beyond plain soap in community setting in US and Pakistan • Diarrhea • Impetigo • Other infectious symptoms • When compared to a control group (no provision of plain soap or hygiene education) • Antiseptic soap with hygiene education is an effective intervention for reducing impetigo and diarrheal illness in high risk groups

  26. Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizers (N=9)

  27. Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizer (N=9): Study Methods Overview • Comparison Groups: • Alcohol + Education versus Control Group (nothing) (n=6) • Alcohol + Education versus Control Group (education) (n=2) • Alcohol versus Control Group (nothing) (n=1) • Formal randomization (n=4) • Cross-over (n=2) • Alcohol form: • Hand rinse (n=1) • 60% isopropyl alcohol • Disinfectant (n=2) • 63% isopropyl alcohol, 70-90% ethanol and isopropanol • Foam • Instant hand sanitizer (n=5) • 60-62% or unknown

  28. Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizer (N=9): Study Methods Overview • Outcomes: • Gastrointestinal illness (n=3) • Upper respiratory illness (n=3) • Viral Respiratory Illnesses (n=1) • Symptoms of infection (n=3) • Absence related

  29. Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizer (N=9): Study Methods Overview • Measured Alcohol use (n=3) • Supplies (n=3) • Frequency of use (n=1) • Total hand hygiene practices (n=1) • None masked participants or interviewers • One study collected illness data from masked parents of children in the study • Controlled for confounding or reported balance on covariates (n=4)

  30. * * * Alcohol-based Hand Sanitizer Reduction inDiarrheal Illness (n=3) * All P < 0.05, Statistically Significant Reduction

  31. * ** ** ** Alcohol-based Hand Sanitizer Reduction in Respiratory Illness (n=4) *P < 0.05, statistically significant ** Not statistically significant

  32. Alcohol-based Hand Sanitizer Symptoms of Infection (n=4) * * * * * All P < 0.05, Statistically significant reduction

  33. Alcohol-based Hand Sanitizer: Summary of Results • Reductions in diarrheal illness ranged from 48% to 71% • Similar to reductions associated with use of plain soap • Most Reductions in respiratory illness were not statistically significant • 3%-20% • Infectious symptoms / absence ranged from 9% to 43% • Variable definitions and reporting

  34. Alcohol-based Hand Sanitizer: Study Design Issues • Study Design Limitations • Unknown etiology for symptom definitions • Variability in definition of symptoms and reporting methods • Not balanced on education intervention • Lack consistent measurement of alcohol use and other hand hygiene practices (soap use?) • Difficult to employ masking • Only one study controlled for clustering

  35. Alcohol-based Hand Sanitizer: Conclusions • Alcohol-based hand sanitizers in conjunction with hygiene education can effectively reduce diarrhea and general infectious symptoms in the community setting • Alcohol alone? • There is less evidence of effectiveness for reducing upper respiratory infections

  36. Future Research Needs • Assess the effect of antiseptic soaps and alcohol-based hand sanitizers in culture confirmed viral and bacterial infections studies • Assess the benefit of alcohol-based hand sanitizers in groups with similar baseline levels of hygiene education • Better control of confounding factors • Analytical techniques that accommodate clustered data • Further household level studies

  37. Conflicts of Interest Statement and Acknowledgements • Consulted for Pfizer in September • Thanks to Dr. Elaine L. Larson

More Related