September 14, 2010 in Nation/World

Study finds hand sanitizers don’t stop flu, colds

Karen Kaplan Los Angeles Times
 

LOS ANGELES – If the presence of all those alcohol-based hand sanitizers makes you feel safe from disease, read no further.

The sanitizers – Purell, Germ-X and the like – started popping up everywhere last year after the outbreak of the H1N1 “swine flu” virus. But new research out of the University of Virginia finds that they are of no particular use in warding off the flu. They also failed to ward off rhinovirus, a major cause of the common cold.

The researchers, led by Dr. Ronald B. Turner, tested the sanitizers in real-world conditions. They asked 116 volunteers to carry around a sanitizer with “enhanced antiviral activity” and use it every three hours while they were awake. Another group of 96 volunteers followed their usual routines.

Researchers tracked them for 10 weeks, collecting specimens once a week to test for flu and rhinovirus. Additional samples were taken whenever a study participant complained of cold or flu-like symptoms.

It turned out that sanitizer users developed 12 flu infections per 100 volunteers, compared with 15 cases of flu per 100 volunteers in the group that didn’t do anything special. In addition, there were 42 cases of rhinovirus per 100 volunteers among the sanitizer users, versus 51 for the control group. Neither difference was statistically significant.

The researchers surmise that hand transmission is less important for these viruses than previously thought. Perhaps public health officials should pay more attention to how these viruses spread through the air, they said.

Previously, Turner and colleagues had established that alcohol-based sanitizers removed rhinovirus from hands better than soap and water.

The results were presented Sunday at the annual meeting of the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy in Boston. The study was funded by the Dial Corp., which makes hand sanitizers and old-school soap.

Recent stories in Nation/World
Three comments on this story so far. Add yours!

  • Dazzeetrader11 on September 14 at 1:54 a.m.

    Small sample. Insufficient power for stastically relevant conclusions. Need at least 1000 volunteers…maybe more…to have clinically relevent conclusions. Surprised the study was published…..

    Back to their original study which showed sanitizers betterthan soap and water. I wonder if there was a handwashing protocol.
    I can see the usual soap and water casual hand wash being inferior to a sanitzer alcohol wash as those folks usually are pretty thorough…a bias in the methods of the study.

    Newspaper wpople? Any idea which journals? Important since this is a $50 million business.

  • JBlim on September 14 at 6:02 a.m.

    Daisy, you really should contact them right away and let them know you feel their study is flawed. Maybe you could give them a few pointers.

  • soccermomsusie on September 14 at 7:16 a.m.

    I will keep using my sanitizer. Also I have never read any directions that it is for topical use only.

    I am sure some have realized, along with me. that this gel probably mixes pretty well with anything. The best part is that you could beat the Liberals at their own game. No more driving to Idaho to pay lesser taxes. You could stay at home and pay no taxes. It sort of smells like Dry Fly gin to begin with. It’s worth a shot or two.

    W Again in 2010!!
    HEAR OUR VOICE!!!

You must be logged in to post comments.
Please create a profile or log in here.