Pre-injection Alco Swabs, Pack of 100

Product Information

the total liability of VWR for any loss or damage suffered by a customer in connection with the supply of the products under this contract is limited to the invoice price of the products in relation to which loss or damage is claimed. Any liability accepted by VWR under this contract is in lieu of any terms implied by law as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of the products and/or the standard of the services and all such implied terms are, to the fullest extent permitted by law, excluded from the contract between VWR and the customer. The customer shall indemnify VWR against any claims made against VWR by the customer’s employees, contractors or agents. Intellectual property rights Various health organizations including the WHO, 1 United Kingdom’s Department of Health, 4 and Australia’s Department of Health 5 have stated that if the skin is visibly clean, disinfecting the skin (or alcohol swabbing) is not necessary and does not reduce infection. To the contrary, the Public Health Agency of Canada 6 advises the practice of cleaning the skin with a suitable antiseptic solution prior to vaccination or injection. Hence, there is ongoing debate whether the continued use of alcohol swabbing is clinically necessary and effective for routine injections or vaccinations. VWR shall under no circumstances whatsoever be liable to the customer (whether in contract, tort (including negligence), breach of statutory duty or otherwise), for any loss of profit, or any indirect or consequential loss arising in connection with the supply of products under this contract; and While care has been taken to ensure that the information prepared by CADTH in this document is accurate, complete, and up-to-date as at the applicable date the material was first published by CADTH, CADTH does not make any guarantees to that effect. CADTH does not guarantee and is not responsible for the quality, currency, propriety, accuracy, or reasonableness of any statements, information, or conclusions contained in any third-party materials used in preparing this document. The views and opinions of third parties published in this document do not necessarily state or reflect those of CADTH.

Authorisation will be subject to the condition that the products are returned to VWR Customer Service Centre or to the manufacturer or other source and by the method advised by VWR. Additionally, the study was described as being partially blinded with the all participants, parents and pediatricians (administering the injections) being blinded, though the clinic-based research assistant who performed the skin preparation for both intervention and control groups was not blinded. The choice of unblinding the clinic-based research assistant who performed skin preparation was considered justifiable as it may not have been possible to blind the individual performing this task. As this was the only unblinded person in this study, the risk of bias was. Nevertheless, the same clinic-based research assistant who performed the skin preparation also interviewed the parents post-vaccination for the results. This may bias the study results as the clinic-based research assistant’s knowledge of treatment group allocation for each patient may have affected the reporting of results. Additionally, the randomization and allocation were clearly defined in the study protocol and both groups were followed up for the same amount of time. This reduces selection bias and the influence of confounding variables in the study and strengthens the internal validity (the extent to which the study supports a claim about cause and effect) of the study. 8 A power calculation was performed, but the study did not recruit enough participants to meet this threshold and to appropriately measure to main outcome. Rather, the researchers powered it for the secondary outcome (i.e., incidence of delayed pain). Although the authors indicated that it was not feasible to recruit a sufficient number of patients for the primary outcome, this may limit the interpretation of results and conclusion of the study.Evidence from the randomized-controlled trial suggested that alcohol swabbing does not reduce local skin reactions prior to vaccination. The study had reasonable attempts at blinding where possible and described the main outcomes, recruitment process and overall results. There were no statistically significant differences between the alcohol swab group and control group for delayed pain, redness, swelling and warmth to touch while there were no reported cases of cellulitis and infectious abscesses. Post-hoc analysis showed that the duration of pain was statistically significantly higher in the alcohol swab group compared to the control group although the clinical significance of this outcome not discussed by the authors. The study was underpowered to detect differences in the primary outcome of skin infection and instead focused on the differences of local skin reaction between groups. Therefore, the study did not answer the primary outcome and a larger sample size is needed to detect whether alcohol swabbing does reduce the risk of infection. While the authors report that this is one of the first studies to report on the effectiveness of alcohol swabbing prior to vaccinations, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from a single trial. 8 This document is prepared and intended for use in the context of the Canadian health care system. The use of this document outside of Canada is done so at the user’s own risk. Various health organizations including the WHO, United Kingdom’s Department of Health, and Australia’s Department of Health have stated that if the skin is visibly clean, disinfecting the skin (or alcohol swabbing) is not necessary and does not reduce infection. To the contrary, the Public Health Agency of Canada advises the practice of cleaning the skin with a suitable antiseptic solution prior to vaccination or injection. Hence, there is ongoing debate whether the continued use of alcohol swabbing is clinically necessary and effective for routine injections or vaccinations.

Authorisation for the return of products which fail to meet current published manufacturer’s specifications must be requested in writing within 28 days of delivery. VWR will assist customers, at customers’ expense, to obtain any manufacturer’s warranty consistent with that granted to VWR.In view of the wide range of uses of chemicals and apparatus, the customer will be solely responsible for determining the suitability and specification of products, services, information and advice for its purposes. Where delivery or performance dates are stated by VWR these are estimates only and time is not of the essence; however, if VWR needs to change such dates it will do so only after providing information to the customer and having regards to the customer’s stated objectives. VWR shall provide services to the customer in accordance with the specification agreed between them from time to time. Such services will be provided with all reasonable care and skill. Subject to the aforementioned limitations, the views expressed herein are those of CADTH and do not necessarily represent the views of Canada’s federal, provincial, or territorial governments or any third party supplier of information. The customer shall cooperate with VWR in all matters relating to the services, provide all such access and information as is necessary and obtain any licences permissions and consents required before commencement of the services.

The reporting of the RCT was considered well done overall, with a clear description of the objective, patient eligibility criteria, inventions and controls. The outcomes were described; however, most of the outcomes were reported by the parents of the patients (except cellulitis and infectious abscesses which were diagnosed by a pediatrician) rather than an objective assessment of the outcome by a health professional. This subjective approach to reporting outcomes may bias the outcomes; though the authors noted that this would not introduce differential reporting between groups. As patients and the parents were blinded to the treatment group, they would unlikely be influenced differently between groups in their outcome reporting (i.e., the assessment of outcomes is equally flawed across groups). The study reported that approximately 20% of diaries were not returned by parents which may impact the validity and interpretation of results. Furthermore, the authors undertook a post-hoc analysis for both groups regarding the duration of local skin reaction and this analysis was considered justifiable as this outcome was unspecified before the data was seen. 8 Exclusion criteria: Children were excluded if a parent was not fluent in English or was unavailable for the 15 days post vaccination follow-up period, previously participated in the study, documented allergy to isopropyl alcohol, taking antibiotics or had a contraindication to vaccination.Inclusion criteria: Healthy children aged zero to 18 years who qualified for vaccination in accordance with the Ontario Immunization Schedule were eligible.

On termination of the contract for any reason the customer shall immediately pay to VWR all of its outstanding unpaid invoices and interest. Confidentiality The customer is responsible for unloading and transporting large and/or heavy items from delivery vans and for supervising the unloading of all other products delivered.Authorisation to return products damaged during delivery must be requested within 3 days of delivery. VWR has the right to repair and return damaged products.