Bacteria in antiseptic skin prep? FDA ponders sterility

Kothari family

Harrison Kothari, 2, of Houston died two years ago after a meningitis infection his parents said was caused by alcohol prep wipes tainted with bacteria. Now, federal officials are asking whether antiseptic skin preparation products should be required to be sterile.

Two years after the death of a Texas toddler that focused national attention on the contamination of alcohol wipes used widely in hospitals and homes, federal health regulators are considering whether such skin prep products should be required to be sterile.

The Food and Drug Administration will hold a public hearing next week to discuss ways to reduce potentially dangerous bacteria in antiseptic wipes, swabs, pads and solutions, which have been linked to massive product recalls -- and infections blamed for illness and death.

“We think a sterile wipe should be used in health care,” said Susan Dolan, a registered nurse and epidemiologist at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora. “I’m thrilled that FDA is getting people to the table.”

Under current rules, the prep products used to swab the skin before shots or surgeries are not required to be sterile. When the regulations were written in the 1970s, experts thought the antiseptic solutions were strong enough to kill any bugs. But recent reports of contamination in widely used antiseptics have raised new worries, said Dr. Christina Y. Chang and Dr. Lesley-Anne Furlong of the FDA.

“Since that time, there have been sporadic reports of unusual bacteria that are able to live and grow in these products,” the doctors wrote in a statement to NBC News. “These reports are the reason we are moving forward to discuss this sterility issue.”

One of the most high-profile reports of bacterial contamination in prep products followed the Dec. 1, 2010 death of Harrison Kothari, a Houston 2-year-old who developed lethal bacterial meningitis after surgery. His parents, Shanoop and Sandra Kothari, sued the Triad Group and H&P Industries of Hartland, Wis., claiming that the alcohol wipes used on the boy transmitted the Bacillus cereus bacterium that caused his infection.

More than 25 others nationwide also sued the sister companies for harm they said was caused by tainted Triad and H&P products.

The Kotharis settled their claim in April and the shuttered Wisconsin companies filed for bankruptcy in August. But for more than a year, the case riveted attention on the possible contamination of tens of millions of recalled sterile and non-sterile wipes and swabs, the firms’ failure to follow safe manufacturing practices and the FDA’s lax oversight of the firms, all detailed in an NBC News investigation.

“The Triad episode supports our concern,” the FDA experts said.

However, the Triad case was only one among dozens of outbreaks involving infections tied to tainted swabs, pads or solutions dating back decades.

Antiseptics made with alcohol, iodine, CHG or cholorhexidine gluconate, and ammonia have been contaminated with a range of bacteria – including Bacillus cereus -- and implicated in problems ranging from injection site infections to death.

Existing reports probably vastly underestimate the scope of the problem, the experts say.

“Reports of these infections are rare, but we don’t know how common the infections may be,” said Chang and Furlong, who addressed the question in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine. 

That’s because consumers and even clinicians may assume, wrongly, that the antiseptic products can’t be contaminated because they kill all bacteria.

“They don’t always think to test these products when someone develops an infection days after surgery or injection,” the experts said.

Also, some single-use products, like the wipes used on Harrison Kothari, are discarded, so there’s no way to test them. Although Bacillus cereus was confirmed in some Triad wipes, no direct link could be made between the pads used on the boy and the bacterium that caused his infection.

Some infection control experts believe it’s high time the FDA required that antiseptic products be sterile. Dr. Ann-Christine Nyquist, a Colorado infection control director who blew the whistle on the Triad problem, has said there’s no place in any hospital for non-sterile prep pads.

Her colleague, Susan Dolan, a said she’s excited that the FDA is talking about the problem. “We were pleased that someone is listening,” she said.

This isn’t the first time the FDA has tackled the issue of whether to require that antiseptic skin prep products be sterile. In 2009, an FDA advisory committee tabled a vote on sterility after members couldn’t agree about the costs and benefits of a new regulation and wondered if there was enough of a problem to warrant such broad change. There were questions, too, about whether requirements for sterility might affect the purity and potency of the finished products.

Manufacturing experts at the time voiced vigorous opposition, according to a meeting transcript. “Going all the way to sterile is a huge jump,” said Patricia Tway, an analytical chemist for CMC Technical Navigator who was speaking on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry.

One of the goals of the new discussion is to encourage manufacturers to move to sterile products voluntarily, the New England Journal piece points out.

While regulators sort out the issue, the FDA experts are urging health care workers and consumers to consider antiseptic pads and solutions as possible sources of unusual infections.

Meantime, Harrison Kothari’s father said the FDA should also focus on enforcing the existing regulations. “It could have prevented a lot of pain if they made them adhere to the standards they had,” he said.

The FDA public hearing is set for Dec. 12-13. Requests for oral presentations will be accepted through Friday. Comments can be submitted through Feb. 12, 2013.

For more information, click here.

Related stories: 

 

 

 

 

Discuss this post

Maybe we should all go back to using 91% isopropyl alcohol as a skin prep and stop relying on other more 'fancy' antibiotic preparations. It worked for 100 years.

  • 7 votes
Reply#1 - Wed Dec 5, 2012 5:44 PM EST

I like your idea more since I read an article the other day about companies going out of business because the FDA can take 5+ years to decide if they are allowed to sell their product or not.

    #1.1 - Wed Dec 5, 2012 6:46 PM EST

    Please remember, microorganisms have evolved, there is no going back. We must develop new agents that wipe out the more resistant bugs. Sterility is a must, and it can be accomplished in a economically viable fashion.

      #1.2 - Thu Dec 6, 2012 10:02 AM EST
      Reply

      I test my son's blood sugar twice a day and use the BD alcohol swabs, just as Endocrine taught us. I had no idea that these products were not REQUIRED to be sterile. Very frightening.

      • 4 votes
      Reply#2 - Wed Dec 5, 2012 5:56 PM EST

      Just be prepared to pay much more for sterilized prep swabs. They have a higher margin of safety, but they are more expensive to manufacture.

        #2.1 - Wed Dec 5, 2012 11:08 PM EST

        How much more? Pennies, 1 dollar? I'll gladly pay more for a safe product.

          #2.2 - Thu Dec 6, 2012 4:07 PM EST

          I know!!!! I didnt think that this would even be PROBLEM EVER!!! Much less cause a death, my condolenses to that poor childs parents!!!

            #2.3 - Thu Dec 6, 2012 4:55 PM EST
            Reply

            This just makes me so mad. I also use alcohol wipes to test blood sugar. I had stopped after the last scare, but I had NO idea these weren't sterile. Is it any wonder that diabetics are more susceptible to infection??? To be honest, I always felt like since I started testing my blood sugar, that I was developing more inflammatory conditions (arthritis, skin infections, other weird symptoms). For now on I'll be using antibacterial soap, but is that even safe?? I bought cholorhexidine gluconate to reduce skin infections - which has worked - but now I'm SHOCKED that isn't sterile either!! I think requiring all these products to be sterile is a no brainer!!

              Reply#3 - Wed Dec 5, 2012 7:00 PM EST

              My jaw dropped. We are being prepped for surgery with a non-sterile wipe???

              The FDA needs to be replaced with a new agency and anyone who worked at the FDA except for the janitor must be banned from any government, health, or public service position for life.

              • 1 vote
              Reply#4 - Wed Dec 5, 2012 7:04 PM EST

              The FDA appears to be too cozy with the industries they are supposed to regulate. We need people who are not beholden to an industry to sit on these regulatory committees.

              • 4 votes
              #4.1 - Wed Dec 5, 2012 7:34 PM EST

              "Don't worry, we are from the gov't. We are here to help you".

                #4.2 - Thu Dec 6, 2012 9:12 AM EST
                Reply

                Frankly, the mention of wipes being sterile only in hospital settings is unsettling to me. I test my blood sugar regularly, my significant other tests four to six times daily. At least the wipes we get are 91% alchohol, at least according to the label on the wipes.

                Yes, it used to be that we used cotton balls, got them pretty wet with alchohol and then used them.It would be nice to do that again on a regular basis. But the wipes are cheaper than the balls and liquid. Would that it was the other way.

                • 1 vote
                Reply#5 - Wed Dec 5, 2012 7:08 PM EST

                yea,,, lets kill everyone to save a dollar ,,,, stupid peeps~!~ go back to cotton balls and alcohol

                • 2 votes
                #5.1 - Wed Dec 5, 2012 10:44 PM EST
                Reply

                so the fda and their bosses decided to kill this boy in 2009. fixing the problem just cut into profits too much. they decided it was too important to use the money to lobby for tort reform and fight the lawsuits. usa, usa, usa!

                • 1 vote
                Reply#6 - Wed Dec 5, 2012 8:13 PM EST

                What is the point in using wipes if dangerous bacteria can live in the wipes. It would seem better to use sterile cotton balls and 91% alcohol. What is in those wipe that doesn't kill bacteria? I glad to know about this now. I will never use those wipes again ever.

                • 2 votes
                Reply#7 - Wed Dec 5, 2012 8:42 PM EST

                me neither~!

                  #7.1 - Wed Dec 5, 2012 10:38 PM EST

                  Remember this--no matter how hard you scrub your skin or if you used 100% alcohol, there would still be bacteria on your skin. The point of scrubbing or prepping is to remove and kill as much DISEASE-CAUSING bacteria as we can before doing a procedure (or in your case, a needle stick). The issue at hand is people using a product tainted with a disease-causing bacteria that are evidently not killed even when in contact with the materials for a long time (manufacture until you use it....). Also, the wipes say directly on them whether they are sterile (devoid of a living matter) or antiseptic (they will kill most organisms).

                    #7.2 - Wed Dec 5, 2012 11:14 PM EST
                    Reply

                    I have worked in nursing for over 20 years, I had no idea that the skin prep pads and alcohol pads were not sterile and can harbor deadly bacteria. We need to encourage regulation and stop buying in to the corporations screed that it cuts into profits, life is more important than profits. This is disturbing and shameful.

                    • 3 votes
                    Reply#8 - Wed Dec 5, 2012 9:27 PM EST

                    yea you got it i thought that @!$%# was all sterile tooo~!

                      #8.1 - Wed Dec 5, 2012 10:37 PM EST
                      Reply

                      What about using Theive's Oil Essential Oils instead?

                        Reply#9 - Wed Dec 5, 2012 9:30 PM EST

                        FDA approves the sale of cigarettes to white trash, smoking must be healthy!

                          Reply#10 - Wed Dec 5, 2012 9:48 PM EST

                          yea, @!$%# how stupid are you all,, everything should be sterile, on surgery products,, and hell i thought that @!$%# was all sterile,, and antiseptic too,, dam thats is scarey @!$%#,,get that @!$%# past to get sterile them!~!~!

                            Reply#11 - Wed Dec 5, 2012 10:35 PM EST

                            i got an IDEA, lets all that do purchase them and use,, stop buying them and using them,, use the stuff that is steril and santitized................... just a thought.. seems like your endangering lives using something that supposed to clean and santitize/sterilize skin and other areas~!~!

                              Reply#12 - Wed Dec 5, 2012 10:41 PM EST

                              Yeah, and what about baby wipes? If baby has diaper rash and the wipes are contaminated will we have babies with infections, cause unknown? I can picture it now, "it must be the mother's fault" thinks the nurse. "Lets call child services and get this checked into" says the doctor. FDA, DO YOUR JOB !!! This has to stop sometime or we as a nation will just continue to slide backward into oblivion. Imo.

                                #12.1 - Thu Dec 6, 2012 4:29 AM EST

                                Yeah!!! I can totally see that happening!!! No fault of the mom but yet CPS all of a sudden has the child or children in their possesion!!!

                                  #12.2 - Thu Dec 6, 2012 5:37 PM EST
                                  Reply

                                  AND god bless this little boy and his family~!!

                                    Reply#13 - Wed Dec 5, 2012 10:45 PM EST

                                    AMEN!!

                                      #13.1 - Thu Dec 6, 2012 5:40 PM EST
                                      Reply

                                      If the "swabbe's" are being used to sterilize an entry point, and they are not required to be sterile?, then why are they being used in the first place?

                                      This is just stupid!

                                      • 2 votes
                                      Reply#14 - Wed Dec 5, 2012 11:47 PM EST

                                      It sounds like when the regulations were written about 40 years ago, the assumption was that an antiseptic pad would by its nature, be sterile. It seems like a pretty realistic expectation without actually saying it. What it amounts to is that, technically, it wasn't required. The problem then becomes that legally, the manufacturers didn't violate the regulations. My guess is that the manufacturers also probably had no idea that the wipes could be contaminated.

                                      So now the problem becomes, how does the manufacturer go about ensuring that the product is sterile? Obviously, something in the process needs to be changed and there will need to testing, record keeping and all sorts of other complications. It need to happen, but no doubt it is going to be a costly change. So the reason the FDA needs to work with the manufacturers is so they can decide the best ways to make it all work and have adequate safeguard. What this amounts to is agreeing on approved processes. I don't think this is about being cozy with the manufacturers, but about writing sensible regulations. I suppose they could just add "must be sterile" to the current regulations, but it makes more sense to develop the approved methods.

                                      The thing that I think is really interesting is trying to understand how this can happen. This seems to suggest that some of the solutions being used in the swabs is not effective enough as an antiseptic. Ideally, it seems like a dry swab ought to be able to be laden with bacteria, the solution added, and then the bacteria should be killed. I can't imagine how the bacteria can survive in the sealed package. They need to understand how that can happen. If the antiseptic can't kill the bacteria in the package, how can it possibly effective on the skin?

                                        #14.1 - Thu Dec 6, 2012 3:06 AM EST
                                        Reply

                                        No, in answer to 1New Day. The FDA should define sterile, and then require it in these specific products. It is not for the FDA to be in bed with corporations like they are now. Manufacturers already know how provide a sterile product and there may be more than one way to achieve it. So it is up to them, the manufacturers, to provide the product per FDA specifications. If it is too onerous for them they can get out of this specific business and go into business in something else.

                                          Reply#15 - Thu Dec 6, 2012 5:04 AM EST

                                          The FDA has a definition for "Sterile", it is "The absence of living organisms." The problem is our skin harbors microorganisms. The alcohol pad reduces surface bacteria, but does not eliminate it. To be effective, alcohol must remain on the skins surface 5 minutes to kill bacteria. FIVE minutes!!! Your lucky to get 2 seconds from the alcohol wipe to the time of the shot. Best recommendation, stay healthy, eat nutritious food and maintain a good immune system. Our immune system is the best defense against harmful bacteria.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          Reply#16 - Thu Dec 6, 2012 10:13 AM EST
                                          Reply

                                          The choice of sterile prep pads should be a no-brainer. Look at Band-Aids, it has been a sterile product since 1924. And all the cheap, generic knock-offs in the stores are also sterile. The prep pad manufacturers only have to spend a little money and add a sterilizing procedure to the assembly line.

                                          • 2 votes
                                          Reply#17 - Thu Dec 6, 2012 11:01 AM EST

                                          Good old soap, water and hand washing still works best.

                                            Reply#18 - Thu Dec 6, 2012 12:16 PM EST
                                            You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                            As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.