Objectives To investigate the association between occupational exposure to disinfectants/antiseptics used for hand hygiene and asthma control in nurses.
Methods In 2014, we invited female nurses with asthma drawn from the Nurses’ Health Study II to complete two supplemental questionnaires on their occupation and asthma (cross-sectional study, response rate: 80%). Among 4055 nurses (mean age: 59 years) with physician-diagnosed asthma and asthma medication use in the past year, we examined asthma control, as defined by the Asthma Control Test (ACT). Nurses were asked about the daily frequency of hand hygiene tasks: ‘wash/scrub hands with disinfectants/hand sanitizers’ (hand hygiene) and ‘wash/scrub arms with disinfecting products’ (surrogate of surgical hand/arm antisepsis). Analyses were adjusted for age, race, ethnicity, smoking status and body mass index.
Results Nurses with partly controlled asthma (ACT: 20–24, 50%) and poorly controlled asthma (ACT ≤19, 18%) were compared with nurses with controlled asthma (ACT=25, 32%). In separate models, both hand and arm hygiene were associated with poorly controlled asthma. After mutual adjustment, only arm hygiene was associated with poorly controlled asthma: OR (95% CI) for <1 time/day, 1.38 (1.06 to 1.80); ≥1 time/day, 1.96 (1.52 to 2.51), versus never. We observed a consistent dose–response relationship between frequency of arm hygiene tasks (never to >10 times/day) and poor asthma control. Associations persisted after further adjustment for surfaces/instruments disinfection tasks.
Conclusions Frequency of hand/arm hygiene tasks in nurses was associated with poor asthma control. The results suggest an adverse effect of products used for surgical hand/arm antisepsis. This potential new occupational risk factor for asthma warrants further study.
- occupational asthma
- health care workers
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors OD contributed to the study conception, the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of the data and primary manuscript preparation. RV, AD, PKH, CQ and J-PZ were involved in the data interpretation and critical revision of the manuscript. KMB and FES contributed to the acquisition and interpretation of the data and critical revision of the manuscript. NLM contributed to the study conception, data interpretation and critical revision of the manuscript. CAC participated in the study conception, acquisition of the data, data interpretation and critical revision of the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Funding Centers for Disease Control and Prevention R01 OH-10359; National Institutes of Health UM1 CA176726. The research leading to these results has received funding from the People Program (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union’s Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007-2013) under REA grant agreement n. PCOFUND-GA-2013-609102, through the PRESTIGE programme coordinated by Campus France.
Disclaimer The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Obtained.
Ethics approval This investigation was approved by the institutional review board at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts, USA).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.