Hand sanitizers not contributing to superbugs, experts say | TribLIVE.com
Health

Hand sanitizers not contributing to superbugs, experts say

The Washington Post
1274125_web1_gtr-hth-sanitizers-062519
Jonna Miller | Tribune-Review
Alcohol-based hand sanitizers kill more than 99% of germs that infect humans.
1274125_web1_gtr-hth-sanitizer02-062519
Associated Press
Alcohol-based hand sanitizer is safe and effective for combating germs and infections.

Mysteriously slick subway poles, a sneezing colleague, the arrival of flu season: These are all reasons to be grateful for any bottle of alcohol-based hand sanitizer that’s within reach.

Yet in an era of superbugs — bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics — and fears about being too clean, you might wonder whether constantly pouring Purell into our palms is doing more harm than good.

Absolutely not, according to Elaine Larson, a professor of epidemiology at the Columbia Mailman School of Public Health and the School of Nursing. “Superbugs are not arising from topical antiseptic products,” Larson said. “Primarily, they’re arising from the use of systemic antibiotics.”

Michelle Barron, a professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine who specializes in infectious disease, affirmed that assessment. “Our hands become contaminated by things we touch. The intent of sanitizer is to clean your hands” of bacteria, viruses and germs in general. “The rise of superbugs is a function of the push and pull of antibiotic use.”

Too clean?

Nor is there any compelling evidence that overuse of hand sanitizer could somehow compromise your immune response — which seems to be a misapplied extrapolation of the hygiene hypothesis, or the idea that being “too clean” can hamper a child’s immune system. “You’re killing the organisms that you’re picking up in the environment,” Larson said, not the normal bacteria that grow on your skin.

One recent study has raised questions about frequent usage of alcohol-based hand sanitizer in hospitals. A 2018 paper, co-authored by Timothy Stinear, a researcher at the University of Melbourne’s Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, found that the bacterium E. faecium is becoming “more tolerant” to alcohol-based hand-sanitizers in hospital environments. “Any environment where we repeat the same action, with the same chemicals, over and over, those bacteria and other microorganisms that can survive best under those conditions will come to dominate that environment,” Stinear wrote in an email.

At the moment, however, that shouldn’t dissuade the general public from using the products, Larson said. “What we know right now is that alcohol hand sanitizers are the fastest and best.”

The concept of disinfecting our hands with antiseptics is a medical innovation that dates to the early 1820s, when doctors started moistening their hands with liquid chlorides to help contain the spread of contagious diseases. But it wasn’t until the 1990s that water-free antiseptic cleansing started becoming widely accepted practice in U.S. hospitals. In 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a hygiene guide that recommended using hand sanitizers instead of soap and water in hospital settings.

“The way alcohol-based hand sanitizers work is basically by busting the cell wall of germs” and thus killing them, Larson said. Compared with soap and water, sanitizers are a convenient alternative when you’re on the go and can also be more effective in general: If you did the same 15-second wash with alcohol hand sanitizer vs. soap and water, “alcohol is just more potent,” Barron said.

Start of sanitizers

At first, hand sanitizers were found mostly in occupational settings such as hospitals and restaurants. In 1988, a company called GOJO developed a hand sanitizer for health care and restaurant employees to use on the job; by 1997, its product, Purell, was being sold to the general public. Germ-X released its own formulation to consumers around the same time. In the years since, new products have proliferated from brands such as the Honest Co., Dr. Bronner’s and Mrs. Meyer’s, while various retailers have introduced generic versions. According to a report published by Credence Research in May 2017, the global market for hand sanitizer was predicted to reach close to $3 billion by 2025, an increase of 12.9%.

“Busy consumers are increasingly looking for easy, on-the-go wellness products, and hand sanitizers allow them to get a fresh boost while out and about,” says Harriet Kilikita, an associate lifestyle editor at the trend forecasting organization WGSN, via email. She added that herbal formulas are becoming more popular and that brands are experimenting with packaging to come up with “more playful or Instagrammable designs.”

With all the hand sanitizer products out there, there are a few points consumers should remember. First, hand sanitizer’s effects are short-lived. “It literally lasts for that moment, and then you touch something, and you’ve recontaminated your hands,” Barron said. That’s why resisting the urge to touch your eyes, scratch your nose, or put your fingers against or in your mouth is another important practice for keeping bacteria and viruses at bay.

Water and soap

Sometimes, water and soap are preferable. While alcohol-based hand sanitizers kill more than 99 percent of germs that infect humans, said Jennifer Lighter, an epidemiologist and pediatric infectious disease specialist at New York University’s Lagone Health, they don’t kill spores from viruses such as norovirus or C. difficile. That means that whenever someone is experiencing gastrointestinal issues, washing hands is a must.

The bottom line: “Alcohol sanitizers — natural or not natural — are safe, or safer than anything else to clean your hands with,” Larson said. “Unless you’re putting sanitizer on so often that your skin breaks down, right now I don’t see any reason, or downside, to using it.”

Categories: News | Health Now
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.