healthcare
Environmental solutionsnews Covering infection prevention, medical waste management & sustainable practices
VOL. NO. 42 VOL. XIII XII NO.
Attention Readers !
Are you looking for Products, Equipment or Services for your business or healthcare facility? If so, please check out these leading companies advertised in this issue:
industry associations
www.HealthcareEnvironmentalSolutions.com
Industry-Funded Research for Antibacterial Products: Boon or Bane?
Medical Waste Management Assoc (MWMA) – pg 15
Infectious & Non-Infectious Waste Containers & Linen Carts EnviroTain – pg 6 McClure Incustries Inc – pg 9 Royal Baskets Trucks – pg 11 Snyder Industries – pg 10 Solutions, Inc – pg 5 TQ Industries – pg 13
MEDICAL WASTE DISPOSAL & Recycling programs Clean Earth Inc – pg 2
Infectious Waste Sterilizing Systems Bondtech Corporation – pg 7 Clean Waste Systems – pgs 10 & 16 Gient Heating Industry Co – pg 12 San-i-Pak – pg 9 The Mark-Costello Co – pg 6 Vertisa – pg 11
Shredders Allegheny Shredders – pg 13 Shred-Tech – pg 7 Vecoplan LLC – pg 8
Summer 2017 WINTER 2016
By P.J. Heller
A
s hospitals struggle to reduce drugresistant bacterial infections among patients, one of the tools they have turned to is germ-killing chemical chlorhexidine. But a recent Reuters news report raises serious questions about studies conducted by medical researchers promoting the use of the powerful antiseptic – studies paid for by companies that manufacture and market the antibacterial products. “Makers of products using chlorhexidine to fight bacteria in hospitals provide support for scientists who repeatedly find those products to be very effective – even as concerns about safety have mounted,” the special report by Reuters said. “. . . as use of chlorhexidine products has grown, so have concerns about their effectiveness and safety – and about the role of industrybacked research in promoting them. The industry money funding chlorhexidine research muddies the message of the results, in the view of many health experts,” the report said. The news agency cited funding for a patient study on chlorhexidine wipes provided by manufacturer Sage Products, at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago. The findings, published in 2006, reported that the wipes were highly effective at preventing vancomycin-
resistant enterococci (VRE), an antimicrobialresistant bacteria which most often occurs in hospitals. VRE outbreaks, which have occurred worldwide, can be fatal. Following publication of its study, Rush University Medical Center received a $1 million donation from a family foundation of Sage’s founder. According to Reuters, the money was to go to Dr. Robert A. Weinstein, the senior scientist who conducted the chlorhexidine study. The foundation said the money was to be used for research and that there were no strings attached to the funds. “Since then, Sage has provided funding and millions of dollars in wipes for studies by Weinstein and his colleagues,” Reuters reported, noting that during that time “ . . . Weinstein and his colleagues have published 11 articles on six trials that endorse daily washing of patients with Sage’s patented wipes – an ‘off-label’ use, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the wipes only for cleaning patients before surgery.” Those findings, as well as others that were published following industry-backed funding and support, raise questions about their validity and about whether results may have been skewed, according to health experts. Such concern is nothing new, having
Continued on page 3