Dataset Information

Effectiveness of common household cleaning agents in reducing the viability of human influenza A/H1N1.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In the event of an influenza pandemic, the majority of people infected will be nursed at home. It is therefore important to determine simple methods for limiting the spread of the virus within the home. The purpose of this work was to test a representative range of common household cleaning agents for their effectiveness at killing or reducing the viability of influenza A virus. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Plaque assays provided a robust and reproducible method for determining virus viability after disinfection, while a National Standard influenza virus RT-PCR assay (VSOP 25, www.hpa-standardmethods.org.uk) was adapted to detect viral genome, and a British Standard (BS:EN 14476:2005) was modified to determine virus killing. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Active ingredients in a number of the cleaning agents, wipes, and tissues tested were able to rapidly render influenza virus nonviable, as determined by plaque assay. Commercially available wipes with a claimed antiviral or antibacterial effect killed or reduced virus infectivity, while nonmicrobiocidal wipes and those containing only low concentrations (<5%) of surfactants showed lower anti-influenza activity. Importantly, however, our findings indicate that it is possible to use common, low-technology agents such as 1% bleach, 10% malt vinegar, or 0.01% washing-up liquid to rapidly and completely inactivate influenza virus. Thus, in the context of the ongoing pandemic, and especially in low-resource settings, the public does not need to source specialized cleaning products, but can rapidly disinfect potentially contaminated surfaces with agents readily available in most homes.

SUBMITTER: Greatorex JS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2813869 | biostudies-literature | 2010

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of common household cleaning agents in reducing the viability of human influenza A/H1N1.

Greatorex Jane S JS Page Rosanna F RF Curran Martin D MD Digard Paul P Enstone Joanne E JE Wreghitt Tim T Powell Penny P PP Sexton Darren W DW Vivancos Roberto R Nguyen-Van-Tam Jonathan S JS

PloS one 20100201 2

<h4>Background</h4>In the event of an influenza pandemic, the majority of people infected will be nursed at home. It is therefore important to determine simple methods for limiting the spread of the virus within the home. The purpose of this work was to test a representative range of common household cleaning agents for their effectiveness at killing or reducing the viability of influenza A virus.<h4>Methodology/principal findings</h4>Plaque assays provided a robust and reproducible method for d ...[more]

PMID: 20126543

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Oseltamivir and zanamivir are recommended for treating and preventing influenza A (H1N1) worldwide. In Brazil, this official recommendation lacks an economic evaluation. Our objective was to assess the efficiency of influenza A chemoprophylaxis in the Brazilian context. Methods: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of oseltamivir and zanamivir for prophylaxis of influenza for high risk population, compared to no prophylaxis, in the perspective of Brazilian public health system. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and effectiveness data were based on literature review and costs in Brazilian real (BRL) were estimated from official sources and micro-costing of 2016's H1N1 admissions at a university hospital. We used a decision-tree model considering prophylaxis and no prophylaxis and the probabilities of H1N1, ambulatory care, admission to hospital, intensive care, patient discharge, and death. Adherence and adverse events from prophylaxis were included. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was converted to 2016 United States dollar (USD). Uncertainty was assessed with univariated and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: Adherence to prophylaxis was 0.70 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54; 0.83]; adverse events, 0.09 (95% CI 0.02; 0.18); relative risk of H1N1 infection in chemoprophylaxis, 0.43 (95% CI 0.33; 0.57); incidence of H1N1, 0.14 (95% CI 0.11; 0.16); ambulatory care, 0.67 (95% CI 0.58; 0.75); hospital admission, 0.43 (CI 95% 0.39; 0.42); hospital mortality, 0.14 (CI 95% 0.12; 0.15); intensive care unit admission, 0.23 (95% CI 0.20; 0.27); and intensive care mortality, 0.40 (95% CI 0.29; 0.52). QALY in H1N1 state was 0.50 (95% CI 0.46; 0.53); in H1N1 inpatients, 0.23 (95% CI 0.18; 0.28); healthy, 0.885 (95% CI 0.879; 0.891); death, 0. Adverse events estimated to affect QALY in -0.185 (95% CI -0.290; -0.050). Cost for chemoprophylaxis was BRL 39.42 [standard deviation (SD) 17.94]; ambulatory care, BRL 12.47 (SD 5.21); hospital admission, BRL 5,727.59 (SD 7,758.28); intensive care admission, BRL 19,217.25 (SD 7,917.33); and adverse events, BRL 292.05 (SD 724.95). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was BRL -4,080.63 (USD -1,263.74)/QALY and -982.39 (USD -304.24)/H1N1 prevented. Results were robust to sensitivity analysis. Conclusion: Chemoprophylaxis of influenza A (H1N1) is cost-saving in Brazilian health system context.

Project description:As of June 11, 2009, a total of 17,855 probable or confirmed cases of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) had been reported in the United States. Risk factors for transmission remain largely uncharacterized. We characterize the risk factors and describe the transmission of the virus within households.Probable and confirmed cases of infection with the 2009 H1N1 virus in the United States were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with the use of a standardized case form. We investigated transmission of infection in 216 households--including 216 index patients and their 600 household contacts--in which the index patient was the first case patient and complete information on symptoms and age was available for all household members.An acute respiratory illness developed in 78 of 600 household contacts (13%). In 156 households (72% of the 216 households), an acute respiratory illness developed in none of the household contacts; in 46 households (21%), illness developed in one contact; and in 14 households (6%), illness developed in more than one contact. The proportion of household contacts in whom acute respiratory illness developed decreased with the size of the household, from 28% in two-member households to 9% in six-member households. Household contacts 18 years of age or younger were twice as susceptible as those 19 to 50 years of age (relative susceptibility, 1.96; Bayesian 95% credible interval, 1.05 to 3.78; P=0.005), and household contacts older than 50 years of age were less susceptible than those who were 19 to 50 years of age (relative susceptibility, 0.17; 95% credible interval, 0.02 to 0.92; P=0.03). Infectivity did not vary with age. The mean time between the onset of symptoms in a case patient and the onset of symptoms in the household contacts infected by that patient was 2.6 days (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.5).The transmissibility of the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus in households is lower than that seen in past pandemics. Most transmissions occur soon before or after the onset of symptoms in a case patient.

Project description:BackgroundPandemic influenza A(H1N1) (pH1N1) was first identified in North America in April 2009. Vaccination against pH1N1 commenced in the U.S. in October 2009 and continued through January 2010. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pH1N1 vaccination.MethodologyA computer simulation model was developed to predict costs and health outcomes for a pH1N1 vaccination program using inactivated vaccine compared to no vaccination. Probabilities, costs and quality-of-life weights were derived from emerging primary data on pH1N1 infections in the US, published and unpublished data for seasonal and pH1N1 illnesses, supplemented by expert opinion. The modeled target population included hypothetical cohorts of persons aged 6 months and older stratified by age and risk. The analysis used a one-year time horizon for most endpoints but also includes longer-term costs and consequences of long-term sequelae deaths. A societal perspective was used. Indirect effects (i.e., herd effects) were not included in the primary analysis. The main endpoint was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsFor vaccination initiated prior to the outbreak, pH1N1 vaccination was cost-saving for persons 6 months to 64 years under many assumptions. For those without high risk conditions, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $8,000-$52,000/QALY depending on age and risk status. Results were sensitive to the number of vaccine doses needed, costs of vaccination, illness rates, and timing of vaccine delivery.ConclusionsVaccination for pH1N1 for children and working-age adults is cost-effective compared to other preventive health interventions under a wide range of scenarios. The economic evidence was consistent with target recommendations that were in place for pH1N1 vaccination. We also found that the delays in vaccine availability had a substantial impact on the cost-effectiveness of vaccination.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of common household cleaning agents in reducing the viability of human influenza A/H1N1.

Publications

Effectiveness of common household cleaning agents in reducing the viability of human influenza A/H1N1.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure