Abstract
Background The COVID-19 pandemic has created global shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as medical exam gloves, forcing healthcare workers to either forgo or reuse PPE to keep themselves and patients safe from infection. In severely resource-constrained situations, limited cycles of disinfection and extended use of gloves is recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to conserve supplies. However, these guidelines are based on limited evidence.
Methods Serial cycles of hand hygiene were performed on gloved hands using alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) (six and ten cycles), 0.1% sodium hypochlorite (bleach) solution (ten cycles), or soap and water (ten cycles) on three types of latex and three types of nitrile medical exam gloves, purchased in the United States and India. A modified FDA-approved water-leak test was performed to evaluate glove integrity after repeated applications of these disinfecting agents. 80 gloves per disinfectant-glove type combination were tested. Within each glove type the proportion of gloves that failed the water-leak test for each disinfectant was compared to that of the control using a non-inferiority design with a non-inferiority margin of five percentage points. Results were also aggregated by glove material, and combined for overall results.
Findings When aggregated by glove material, the dilute bleach exposure demonstrated the lowest difference in proportion failed between treatment and control arms: −2.5 percentage points (95% CI: −5.3 to 0.3) for nitrile, 0.6 percentage points (95% CI: −2.6 to 3.8) for non-powdered latex. For US-purchased gloves tested with six and ten applications of ABHR, the mean difference in failure risk between treatment and control gloves was within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of five percentage points or less, though some findings were inconclusive because confidence intervals extended beyond the non-inferiority margin. The aggregated difference in failure risk between treatment and control gloves was 3.5 percentage points (0.6 to 6.4) for soap and water, and 2.3 percentage points (−0.5 to 5.0) and 5.0 percentage points (1.8 to 8.2) for 10 and 6 applications of ABHR, respectively. The majority of leaks occurred in the interdigital webs (35%) and on the fingers (34%).
Conclusion Current guidelines do not recommend extended use of a single-use PPE under normal supply conditions. However, our findings indicate that some combinations of glove types and disinfection methods may allow for extended use under crisis conditions. We found that ten applications of dilute bleach solution have the least impact on glove integrity, compared to repeated applications of ABHR and soap and water. However, the majority of glove and exposure combinations were inconclusive with respect to non-inferiority with a 5 percentage point non-inferiority margin. Testing specific glove and disinfectant combinations may be worthwhile for settings facing glove shortages during which extended use is necessary. The modified water-leak testing method used here is a low-resource method that could easily be reproduced in different contexts.
Competing Interest Statement
One co-author reports, through membership to the American Hygiene Association Protective Clothing and Equipment volunteer committee (un-paid), past and current statuses as chair and member, respectively.
Funding Statement
The Fogarty International Center and the Stanford Center for Innovation in Global Health supported the cost of materials for this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A. All testing was performed on gloves. There were no human subjects.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data used in the manuscript is publicly available through the listed Google Drive link.
