Nuestra lista de correo. Espera aprobación.
Correo electrónico:
Consultar este grupo

lunes, 25 de abril de 2016

Semana de Vacunación en las Américas, Abril 23 - 30, 2016 #vacúnate

¡Te invitamos a celebrar la SVA 2016 este año para alcanzar el oro a través de la vacunación! El 14º aniversario de la Semana de Vacunación en las Américas se celebrará del 23 al 30 de abril del 2016, con el eslogan regional: “¡Vamos por el oro! ¡Vacúnate!” Las vacunas son patógenos debilitados o muertos que ayudan a tu sistema inmune a combatir enfermedades.Las vacunas no hacen que te enfermes, pero preparan tu cuerpo para luchar contra la enfermedad si te expones a los patógenos en el futuro. Las vacunas refuerzan tu sistema inmune y te ayudan a combatir más de 20 enfermedades prevenibles diferentes.

Sigue este Blog en Facebook y Twitter

sábado, 23 de abril de 2016



Regulación de la protección
De los trabajadores de la salud

Viernes 20 de mayo de 2016, 9:00 hrs. Dirigido a todo público interesado. 
Cupo limitado a la capacidad de la sede. 
Acceso gratuito.

Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, UNAM, Ciudad de México.

Para ver UBICACIÓN DEL INSTITUTO y formas de acceder a él, pulse el siguiente vínculo:
Circuito Maestro Mario de la Cueva s/n, Ciudad de la Investigación en Humanidades, 
Ciudad Universitaria, Delegación Coyoacán, C.P. 04510, México, D. F.

----------------------------------------------------------- Sigue este Blog en Facebook y Twitter

jueves, 21 de abril de 2016

Randomised Trial of Cloth Masks Compared with Medical Masks in Healthcare Workers

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks.
Setting: 14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam.
Participants: 1607 hospital HCWs aged ≥18 years working full-time in selected high-risk wards.
Intervention: Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks.
Main outcome measure: Clinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection.
Results: The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.
Conclusions: This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.

Strengths and limitations of this study:

  1. The use of cloth masks is widespread around the world, particularly in countries at high-risk for emerging infections, but there have been no efficacy studies to underpin their use.
  2. This study is large, a prospective randomised clinical trial (RCT) and the first RCT ever conducted of cloth masks.
  3. The use of cloth masks are not addressed in most guidelines for health care workers—this study provides data to update guidelines.
  4. The control arm was ‘standard practice’, which comprised mask use in a high proportion of participants. As such (without a no-mask control), the finding of a much higher rate of infection in the cloth mask arm could be interpreted as harm caused by cloth masks, efficacy of medical masks, or most likely a combination of both.

MacIntyre, CR et al. “A Cluster Randomised Trial of Cloth Masks Compared with Medical Masks in Healthcare Workers.” BMJ Open 5.4 (2015): e006577. PMC. Web. 16 Apr. 2016.

Sigue este Blog en Facebook y Twitter

lunes, 18 de abril de 2016

Modern technologies for improving cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces in hospitals

Contact agar plate cultures showing bacterial colonies
recovered from a patient’s overbed table before (
and after (
right) the surface was cleaned by a housekeeper
using contaminated quaternary ammonium disinfectant.
Colonies on right are 
Serratia marcescens andAchromobacter xylosoxidans
Experts agree that careful cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces are essential elements of effective infection prevention programs. However, traditional manual cleaning and disinfection practices in hospitals are often suboptimal. This is often due in part to a variety of personnel issues that many Environmental Services departments encounter. Failure to follow manufacturer's recommendations for disinfectant use and lack of antimicrobial activity of some disinfectants against healthcare-associated pathogens may also affect the efficacy of disinfection practices. Improved hydrogen peroxide-based liquid surface disinfectants and a combination product containing peracetic acid and hydrogen peroxide are effective alternatives to disinfectants currently in widespread use, and electrolyzed water (hypochlorous acid) and cold atmospheric pressure plasma show potential for use in hospitals. Creating "self-disinfecting" surfaces by coating medical equipment with metals such as copper or silver, or applying liquid compounds that have persistent antimicrobial activity surfaces are additional strategies that require further investigation. Newer "no-touch" (automated) decontamination technologies include aerosol and vaporized hydrogen peroxide, mobile devices that emit continuous ultraviolet (UV-C) light, a pulsed-xenon UV light system, and use of high-intensity narrow-spectrum (405 nm) light. These "no-touch" technologies have been shown to reduce bacterial contamination of surfaces. A micro-condensation hydrogen peroxide system has been associated in multiple studies with reductions in healthcare-associated colonization or infection, while there is more limited evidence of infection reduction by the pulsed-xenon system. A recently completed prospective, randomized controlled trial of continuous UV-C light should help determine the extent to which this technology can reduce healthcare-associated colonization and infections. In conclusion, continued efforts to improve traditional manual disinfection of surfaces are needed. In addition, Environmental Services departments should consider the use of newer disinfectants and no-touch decontamination technologies to improve disinfection of surfaces in healthcare.

Boyce JM. Modern technologies for improving cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces in hospitals. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2016 Apr 11;5:10. doi: 10.1186/s13756-016-0111-x. eCollection 2016. Review.
Sigue este Blog en Facebook y Twitter