Modified World Health Organization Hand Rub Formulations Comply with European Efficacy Requirements for Preoperative Surgical Hand Preparations

Background. The World Health Organization (WHO) has published "Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care” recommending 2 hand rub formulations based on 80% vol/vol ethanol or 75% vol/vol isopropanol for local production in healthcare settings where commercial products are not available or are too expensive. Previous investigations have shown that neither formulation meets the efficacy requirements of European norm (EN) 12791, which is the most stringent available norm for surgical hand rub preparations. Even when modified with approximately 5% higher alcohol content, the formulations proved to be inferior to the reference of the norm when measured after 3 hours. Objective. Because the high glycerol content of the formulations was suspected to negatively influence their efficacy, additional investigations were performed with varying glycerol content. Methods. Modified formulations with higher alcohol concentration (mass instead of volume percentage) and lower glycerol concentration (0.725% instead of 1.45%) or without the addition of glycerol were evaluated for their conformity with the efficacy requirements of EN 12791, which demands noninferiority in comparison with a reference hand antisepsis procedure immediately and 3 hours after treatment on volunteers' hands. Design. Randomized Latin-square design. Setting. Microbiology laboratory of the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Participants. Twenty-five healthy volunteers. Results. Reducing the concentration of glycerol or omitting it completely rendered both WHO formulations noninferior to the reference, both immediately and 3 hours after surgical hand antisepsis. Conclusions. Both WHO-recommended formulations meet the efficacy requirements of EN 12791 by increasing their alcohol concentrations by 5%, prolonging their application to 5 minutes and reducing the glycerol concentration to 0.725

Causality and the Interpretation of Epidemiologic Evidence

There is an ongoing debate regarding how and when an agent’s or determinant’s impact can be interpreted as causation with respect to some target disease. The so-called criteria of causation, originating from the seminal work of Sir Austin Bradford Hill and Mervyn Susser, are often schematically applied disregarding the fact that they were meant neither as criteria nor as a checklist for attributing to a hazard the potential of disease causation. Furthermore, there is a tendency to misinterpret the lack of evidence for causation as evidence for lack of a causal relation. There are no criteria in the strict sense for the assessment of evidence concerning an agent’s or determinant’s propensity to cause a disease, nor are there criteria to dismiss the notion of causation. Rather, there is a discursive process of conjecture and refutation. In this commentary, I propose a dialogue approach for the assessment of an agent or determinant. Starting from epidemiologic evidence, four issues need to be addressed: temporal relation, association, environmental equivalence, and population equivalence. If there are no valid counterarguments, a factor is attributed the potential of disease causation. More often than not, there will be insufficient evidence from epidemiologic studies. In these cases, other evidence can be used instead that increases or decreases confidence in a factor being causally related to a disease. Even though every verdict of causation is provisional, action must not be postponed until better evidence is available if our present knowledge appears to demand immediate measures for health protection

Three-dose versus four-dose primary schedules for tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) vaccine FSME-immun for those aged 50 years or older : A single-centre, open-label, randomized controlled trial

Background: TBE vaccination failures among those past middle age have raised concern about immune response declining with age. We investigated immunogenicity of the TBE-vaccine FSME-Immun among those aged 50+ years using the standard three-dose primary series and alternative four-dose schedules. Methods: In this single-centre, open-label, randomized controlled trial, 200 TBE-naive Swedish adults were given primary TBE vaccination with FSME-Immun. Those aged 50+ years (n = 150) were randomized to receive the standard three-dose (days 0-30-360) or one of two four-dose series (0-7-21-360; 0-30- 90-360). For participants < 50 years (n = 50) the standard three-dose schedule was used. Titres of neu-tralizing antibodies were determined on days 0, 60, 120, 360, and 400. The main outcome was the log titre of TBE virus-specific neutralizing antibodies on day 400. Results: The three-dose schedule yielded lower antibody titres among those aged 50+ years than the younger participants on day 400 (geometric mean titre 41 versus 74, p < 0.05). The older group showed higher titres for the four-dose 0-7-21-360 than the standard three-dose schedule both on day 400 (103 versus 41, p < 0.01; primary end point) and at the other testing points (days 60,120, 360). Using the other four-dose schedule (0-30-90-360), no such difference was observed on day 400 (63 versus 41, NS). Conclusion: Immune response to the TBE vaccine declined with age. A four-dose schedule (0-7-21-360) may benefit those aged 50 years or older. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01361776. (c) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Peer reviewe

mHealth based interventions for the assessment and treatment of psychotic disorders: a systematic review

The relative burden of mental health disorders is increasing globally, in terms of prevalence and disability. There is limited data available to guide treatment choices for clinicians in low resourced settings, with mHealth technologies being a potentially beneficial avenue to bridging the large mental health treatment gap globally. The aim of the review was to search the literature systematically for studies of mHealth interventions for psychosis globally, and to examine whether mHealth for psychosis has been investigated. A systematic literature search was completed in Embase, Medline, PsychINFO and Evidence Based Medicine Reviews databases from inception to May 2016. Only studies with a randomised controlled trial design that investigated an mHealth intervention for psychosis were included. A total of 5690 records were identified with 7 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The majority of included studies, were conducted across Europe and the United Sates with one being conducted in China. The 7 included studies examined different parameters, such as Experiential Sampling Methodology (ESM), medication adherence, cognitive impairment, social functioning and suicidal ideation in veterans with schizophrenia. Considering the increasing access to mobile devices globally, mHealth may potentially increase access to appropriate mental health care. The results of this review show promise in bridging the global mental health treatment gap, by enabling individuals to receive treatment via their mobile phones, particularly for those individuals who live in remote or rural areas, areas of high deprivation and for those from low resourced settings