-
Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck... Mar 2018There is uncertainty regarding the safety of surgical antiseptic preparations in the ear. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to assess the evidence... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
There is uncertainty regarding the safety of surgical antiseptic preparations in the ear. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to assess the evidence regarding ototoxicity of surgical antiseptic preparations.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted using the PRISMA methods. Key words included "ototoxicity" "hearing loss", "antiseptic", "surgical preparation", "tympanoplasty", "vestibular dysfunction", "chlorhexidine", "iodine", "povidone", "ethanol", and "hydrogen peroxide" using Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Web of Science. We included peer-reviewed papers that 1) objectively measured ototoxicity in humans or animals through hearing, vestibular function or histologic examination, 2) studied topically applied surgical antiseptic preparations, 3) were either in English or had an English abstract. We excluded papers that were 1) in vitro studies, 2) ear trauma studies, 3) studies of ototoxic ear drops intended for therapy, or 4) case reports. Studies included in the final review were screened using the PRISMA method. Current systematic review registration number pending: 83,675.
RESULTS
Fifty-six papers were identified as using PRISMA criteria. After applying our exclusion criteria, 13 papers met overall study criteria. Of these, six papers reported ototoxicity of iodine based solutions, five papers reported ototoxicity of chlorhexidine and ethanol and two papers assessed hydrogen peroxide. All papers reviewed were animal studies. Iodine based solutions show least harm overall, while chlorhexidine and high concentrations of alcohol based solutions showed most harm. The evidence on hydrogen based solutions was inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS
The overall evidence for anyone antiseptic solution is weak. There is some evidence that iodine, chlorhexidine, hydrogen peroxide and alcohol based antiseptics have ototoxicity. Conclusive evidence for human ototoxicity from any solution is not strong.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Ear, Middle; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Preoperative Care; Risk Assessment; Sensitivity and Specificity; Surgical Wound Infection; Tympanoplasty
PubMed: 29490694
DOI: 10.1186/s40463-018-0265-z -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. A range of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. A range of treatments with antimicrobial properties, including impregnated dressings, are widely used in the treatment of pressure ulcers. A clear and current overview is required to facilitate decision making regarding use of antiseptic or antibiotic therapies in the treatment of pressure ulcers. This review is one of a suite of Cochrane reviews investigating the use of antiseptics and antibiotics in different types of wounds. It also forms part of a suite of reviews investigating the use of different types of dressings and topical treatments in the treatment of pressure ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of systemic and topical antibiotics, and topical antiseptics on the healing of infected and uninfected pressure ulcers being treated in any clinical setting.
SEARCH METHODS
In October 2015 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched three clinical trials registries and the references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials which enrolled adults with pressure ulcers of stage II or above were included in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 trials (576 participants); 11 had two arms and one had three arms. All assessed topical agents, none looked at systemic antibiotics. The included trials assessed the following antimicrobial agents: povidone iodine, cadexomer iodine, gentian violet, lysozyme, silver dressings, honey, pine resin, polyhexanide, silver sulfadiazine, and nitrofurazone with ethoxy-diaminoacridine. Comparators included a range of other dressings and ointments without antimicrobial properties and alternative antimicrobials. Each comparison had only one trial, participant numbers were low and follow-up times short. The evidence varied from moderate to very low quality.Six trials reported the primary outcome of wound healing. All except one compared an antiseptic with a non-antimicrobial comparator. There was some moderate and low quality evidence that fewer ulcers may heal in the short term when treated with povidone iodine compared with non-antimicrobial alternatives (protease-modulating dressings (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.98) and hydrogel (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97)); and no clear difference between povidone iodine and a third non-antimicrobial treatment (hydrocolloid) (low quality evidence). Pine resin salve may heal more pressure ulcers than hydrocolloid (RR 2.83, 95% CI 1.14 to 7.05) (low quality evidence). There is no clear difference between cadexomer iodine and standard care, and between honey a combined antiseptic and antibiotic treatment (very low quality evidence).Six trials reported adverse events (primary safety outcome). Four reported no adverse events; there was very low quality evidence from one showing no clear evidence of a difference between cadexomer iodine and standard care; in one trial it was not clear whether data were appropriately reported.There was limited reporting of secondary outcomes. The five trials that reported change in wound size as a continuous outcome did not report any clear evidence favouring any particular antiseptic/anti-microbial treatments. For bacterial resistance, one trial found some evidence of more MRSA eradication in participants with ulcer treated with a polyhexanide dressing compared with a polyhexanide swab (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.13); patients in the dressing group also reported less pain (MD -2.03, 95% CI -2.66 to -1.40). There was no clear evidence of a difference between interventions in infection resolution in three other comparisons. Evidence for secondary outcomes varied from moderate to very low quality; where no GRADE assessment was possible we identified substantial limitations which an assessment would have taken into account.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The relative effects of systemic and topical antimicrobial treatments on pressure ulcers are not clear. Where differences in wound healing were found, these sometimes favoured the comparator treatment without antimicrobial properties. The trials are small, clinically heterogenous, generally of short duration, and at high or unclear risk of bias. The quality of the evidence ranges from moderate to very low; evidence on all comparisons was subject to some limitations.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Apitherapy; Bandages, Hydrocolloid; Humans; Iodophors; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resins, Plant; Wound Healing
PubMed: 27040598
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011586.pub2 -
Infection Control and Hospital... Jan 2020Cutaneous antisepsis with chlorhexidine or povidone-iodine, usually with alcohol, has been extensively studied. This review of published studies reveals that sequential...
Cutaneous antisepsis with chlorhexidine or povidone-iodine, usually with alcohol, has been extensively studied. This review of published studies reveals that sequential use of povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine leads to a greater reduction in the bioburden of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria on the skin, lower risk of intravascular catheter colonization, and lower risk of surgical site infection compared to use of either agent alone. As such, sequential use of cutaneous antiseptic agents may further reduce risk of surgical site infections, as well as infections associated with insertion of transdermal devices such as nephrostomy tubes, left-ventricular assistance devices, and intravascular catheters.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Alcohols; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Bacteria, Aerobic; Bacteria, Anaerobic; Bacterial Load; Catheter-Related Infections; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Povidone-Iodine; Skin; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 31619301
DOI: 10.1017/ice.2019.287 -
Odontology Apr 2022This study aimed to systematically review the literature about the virucidal efficacy of CHX in comparison to other substances used in the oral cavity. Electronic...
This study aimed to systematically review the literature about the virucidal efficacy of CHX in comparison to other substances used in the oral cavity. Electronic searches were performed in four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science). Only studies that presented the following characteristics were included: (1) verified virucidal efficacy of CHX against Herpes Simplex Type-1 (HSV-1), any Influenza, or any human coronavirus (HcoV); and (2) compared the virucidal efficacy of CHX with essential oils (Listerine), quaternary ammonium compounds, povidone-iodine, hydrogen peroxide, negative control substance, and absence of therapy. Two researchers independently selected the studies, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias. A narrative data synthesis was used. Twenty-five studies were included, of which 21 were in vitro and four were randomized clinical trials (RCT). Studies assessed the virucidal efficacy of CHX against Herpes Simplex Type-1 (HSV-1) (10 studies), Influenza A (InfluA) (4 studies), human coronavirus (HCoV) (4 studies) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Related Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) (11 studies). Most studies demonstrated that CHX has a positive virucidal efficacy against HSV-1 and InfluA strains. However, lower efficacy was shown to InfluA strain in comparison to povidone-iodine. Lower to none virucidal efficacy of CHX is expected for HCoV and SARS-CoV-2 strains for in vitro studies. Three RCT demonstrated that CHX was able to significantly reduce the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 for a short period. CHX may present an interesting virucidal efficacy against HSV-1 and InfluA viruses. CHX also presents transient efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 when used as a mouthwash.
Topics: COVID-19; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Mouthwashes; Povidone-Iodine; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34637092
DOI: 10.1007/s10266-021-00660-x -
BMC Infectious Diseases Oct 2023COVID-19 has been a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) for a lengthy period of time. The novel coronavirus is primarily spread via aerosols at a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 has been a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) for a lengthy period of time. The novel coronavirus is primarily spread via aerosols at a short distance, with infected individuals releasing large amounts of aerosols when speaking and coughing. However, there is an open question regarding whether mouthwash could effectively reduce virus transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic and support the prevention of infection among medical workers.
METHODS
Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were systematically searched from the inception of each database to January 12, 2023 for currently available randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the effect of mouthwash on novel coronavirus load in the oral cavity in COVID-19 patients. The treatment group received mouthwash for rinsing the mouth, while the control group received a placebo or distilled water for COVID-19 patients. The primary outcomes were CT value and viral load. Odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using a random-effects model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to minimize the bias and the impact of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs were included. Seven studies reported the intervention effect of mouthwash on the CT value of novel coronavirus. The analysis results showed that the mouthwash group had a positive impact on the CT value of novel coronavirus [ SMD = 0.35, 95% CI (0.21, 0.50)] compared with the control group. In addition, subgroup analysis showed a significant positive effect of mouthwash on CT values in the treatment group compared with the control group, with chlorhexidine (CHX) [SMD = 0.33, 95% CI (0.10, 0.56)], povidone-iodine (PVP-I) [SMD = 0.61, 95% CI (0.23, 0.99)], or hydrogen peroxide (HP) [SMD = 1.04, 95% CI (0.30, 1.78)] as an ingredient of the mouthwash. Six studies reported the intervention effect of mouthwash on the viral load, 263 cases in the treatment group and 164 cases in the control group. The analysis results showed that there was no statistical difference between the mouthwash group and the control group in the viral load of novel coronavirus [SMD = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.18, 0.05)]. In the subgroup analysis by measurement time, there were statistically significant differences between the mouthwash and control groups for CT values [SMD = 0.52, 95% CI (0.31, 0.72)] and viral load [SMD = - 0.32, 95% CI (- 0.56, - 0.07)] within 30 min of gargling.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, mouthwash has some efficacy in reducing the viral load of novel coronavirus, especially within 30 min after rinsing the mouth. Mouthwash containing CHX, PVP-I and HP all had significant positive effects on CT values, and PVP-I-containing mouthwash may be a promising option to control novel coronavirus infections and relieve virus-related symptoms. However, studies on the dose and frequency of use of mouthwash for infection control are still lacking, which may limit the clinical application of mouthwash.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Protocol registration: The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023401961).
Topics: Humans; Mouthwashes; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Povidone-Iodine; Viral Load; Respiratory Aerosols and Droplets; Chlorhexidine; Hydrogen Peroxide
PubMed: 37821800
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08669-z -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Ophthalmia neonatorum is an infection of the eyes in newborns that can lead to blindness, particularly if the infection is caused by Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Antiseptic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ophthalmia neonatorum is an infection of the eyes in newborns that can lead to blindness, particularly if the infection is caused by Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Antiseptic or antibiotic medication is dispensed into the eyes of newborns, or dispensed systemically, soon after delivery to prevent neonatal conjunctivitis and potential vision impairment.
OBJECTIVES
1. To determine if any type of systemic or topical eye medication is better than placebo or no prophylaxis in preventing ophthalmia neonatorum. 2. To determine if any one systemic or topical eye medication is better than any other medication in preventing ophthalmia neonatorum.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and three trials registers, date of last search 4 October 2019. We also searched references of included studies and contacted pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of any topical, systemic, or combination medical interventions used to prevent ophthalmia neonatorum in newborns compared with placebo, no prophylaxis, or with each other.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. Outcomes were: blindness or any adverse visual outcome at 12 months, conjunctivitis at 1 month (gonococcal (GC), chlamydial (CC), bacterial (BC), any aetiology (ACAE), or unknown aetiology (CUE)), and adverse effects. MAIN RESULTS: We included 30 trials with a total of 79,198 neonates. Eighteen studies were conducted in high-income settings (the USA, Europe, Israel, Canada), and 12 were conducted in low- and middle-income settings (Africa, Iran, China, Indonesia, Mexico). Fifteen of the 30 studies were quasi-randomised. We judged every study to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain. Ten studies included a comparison arm with no prophylaxis. There were 14 different prophylactic regimens and 12 different medications in the 30 included studies. Any prophylaxis compared to no prophylaxis Unless otherwise indicated, the following evidence comes from studies assessing one or more of the following interventions: tetracycline 1%, erythromycin 0.5%, povidone-iodine 2.5%, silver nitrate 1%. None of the studies reported data on the primary outcomes: blindness or any adverse visual outcome at any time point. There was only very low-certainty evidence on the risk of GC with prophylaxis (4/5340 newborns) compared to no prophylaxis (5/2889) at one month (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 2.65, 3 studies). Low-certainty evidence suggested there may be little or no difference in effect on CC (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.61, 4874 newborns, 2 studies) and BC (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.93, 3685 newborns, 2 studies). Moderate-certainty evidence suggested a probable reduction in risk of ACAE at one month (RR 0.65, 95% 0.54 to 0.78, 9666 newborns, 8 studies assessing tetracycline 1%, erythromycin 0.5%, povidone-iodine 2.5%, silver nitrate 1%, colostrum, bacitracin-phenacaine ointment). There was only very low-certainty evidence on CUE (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.37 to 8.28, 330 newborns, 1 study). Very low-certainty evidence on adverse effects suggested no increased nasolacrimal duct obstruction (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.28, 404 newborns, 1 study of erythromycin 0.5% and silver nitrate 1%) and no increased keratitis (single study of 40 newborns assessing silver nitrate 1% with no events). Any prophylaxis compared to another prophylaxis Overall, evidence comparing different interventions did not suggest any consistently superior intervention. However, most of this evidence was of low-certainty and was extremely limited.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There are no data on whether prophylaxis for ophthalmia neonatorum prevents serious outcomes such as blindness or any adverse visual outcome. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the use of prophylaxis may lead to a reduction in the incidence of ACAE in newborns but the evidence for effect on GC, CC or BC was less certain. Comparison of individual interventions did not suggest any consistently superior intervention, but data were limited. A trial comparing tetracycline, povidone-iodine (single administration), and chloramphenicol for GC and CC could potentially provide the community with an effective, universally applicable prophylaxis against ophthalmia neonatorum.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Bias; Blindness; Erythromycin; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Ophthalmia Neonatorum; Povidone-Iodine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Silver Nitrate; Tetracycline; Trachoma; Vision Disorders
PubMed: 32959365
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001862.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Viruses cause about 80% of all cases of acute conjunctivitis. Human adenoviruses are believed to account for 65% to 90% of cases of viral conjunctivitis, or 20% to 75%... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Viruses cause about 80% of all cases of acute conjunctivitis. Human adenoviruses are believed to account for 65% to 90% of cases of viral conjunctivitis, or 20% to 75% of all causes of infectious keratoconjunctivitis worldwide. Epidemic keratoconjunctivitis (EKC) is a highly contagious subset of adenoviral conjunctivitis that has been associated with large outbreaks at military installations and at medical facilities. It is accompanied by severe conjunctival inflammation, watery discharge, and light sensitivity, and can lead to chronic complications such as corneal and conjunctival scarring with discomfort and poor quality of vision. Due to a lack of consensus on the efficacy of any pharmacotherapy to alter the clinical course of EKC, no standard of care exists, therefore many clinicians offer only supportive care.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of topical pharmacological therapies versus placebo, an active control, or no treatment for adults with EKC.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), with no restrictions on language or year of publication. The date of the last search was 27 April 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials in which antiseptic agents, virustatic agents, or topical immune-modulating therapy was compared with placebo, an active control, or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 10 studies conducted in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa with a total of 892 participants who were treated for 7 days to 6 months and followed for 7 days up to 1.5 years. Study characteristics and risk of bias In most studies participants were predominantly men (range: 44% to 90%), with an age range from 9 to 82 years. Three studies reported information on trial registration, but we found no published study protocol. The majority of trials had small sample sizes, ranging from 18 to 90 participants enrolled per study; the only exception was a trial that enrolled 350 participants. We judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias across risk of bias domains. Findings We included 10 studies of 892 EKC participants and estimated combined intervention effects in analyses stratified by steroid-containing control treatment or artificial tears. Six trials contributed to the comparisons of topical interventions (povidone-iodine [PVP-I], trifluridine, ganciclovir, dexamethasone plus neomycin) with artificial tears (or saline). Very low certainty evidence from two trials comparing trifluridine or ganciclovir with artificial tears showed inconsistent effects on shortening the mean duration of cardinal symptoms or signs of EKC. Low certainty evidence based on two studies (409 participants) indicated that participants treated with PVP-I alone more often experienced resolution of symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.24) and signs (RR 3.19, 95% CI 2.29 to 4.45) during the first week of treatment compared with those treated with artificial tears. Very low certainty evidence from two studies (77 participants) suggested that PVP-I or ganciclovir prevented the development of subepithelial infiltrates (SEI) when compared with artificial tears within 30 days of treatment (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.56). Four studies compared topical interventions (tacrolimus, cyclosporin A [CsA], trifluridine, PVP-I + dexamethasone) with topical steroids, and one trial compared fluorometholone (FML) plus polyvinyl alcohol iodine (PVA-I) with FML plus levofloxacin. Evidence from one trial showed that more eyes receiving PVP-I 1.0% plus dexamethasone 0.1% had symptoms resolved by day seven compared with those receiving dexamethasone alone (RR 9.00, 95% CI 1.23 to 66.05; 52 eyes). In two trials, fewer eyes treated with PVP-I or PVA-I plus steroid developed SEI within 15 days of treatment compared with steroid alone or steroid plus levofloxacin (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55; 69 eyes). One study found that CsA was no more effective than steroid for resolving SEI within four weeks of treatment (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.06; N = 88). The evidence from trials comparing topical interventions with steroids was overall of very low level certainty. Adverse effects Antiviral or antimicrobial agents plus steroid did not differ from artificial tears in terms of ocular discomfort upon instillation (RR 9.23, 95% CI 0.61 to 140.67; N = 19). CsA and tacrolimus eye drops were associated with more cases of severe ocular discomfort, and sometimes intolerance, when compared with steroids (RR 4.64, 95% CI 1.15 to 18.71; 2 studies; N = 141). Compared with steroids, tacrolimus did not increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0 to 1.13; 1 study; N = 80), while trifluridine conferred no additional risk compared to tear substitute (RR 5.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 96.49; 1 study; N = 97). Overall, bacterial superinfection was rare (one in 23 CsA users) and not associated with use of the intervention steroid (RR 3.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 84.98; N = 51). The evidence for all estimates was of low or very low certainty.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence for the seven specified outcomes was of low or very low certainty due to imprecision and high risk of bias. The evidence that antiviral agents shorten the duration of symptoms or signs when compared with artificial tears was inconclusive. Low certainty evidence suggests that PVP-I alone resolves signs and symptoms by seven days relative to artificial tears. PVP-I or PVA-I, alone or with steroid, is associated with lower risks of SEI development than artificial tears or steroid (very low certainty evidence). The currently available evidence is insufficient to determine whether any of the evaluated interventions confers an advantage over steroids or artificial tears with respect to virus eradication or its spread to initially uninvolved fellow eyes. Future updates of this review should provide evidence of high-level certainty from trials with larger sample sizes, enrollment of participants with similar durations of signs and symptoms, and validated methods to assess short- and long-term outcomes.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Child; Conjunctivitis; Conjunctivitis, Viral; Cyclosporine; Dexamethasone; Female; Fluorometholone; Ganciclovir; Humans; Keratoconjunctivitis; Levofloxacin; Lubricant Eye Drops; Male; Middle Aged; Povidone-Iodine; Tacrolimus; Trifluridine; Young Adult
PubMed: 35238405
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013520.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017Molluscum contagiosum is a common skin infection that is caused by a pox virus and occurs mainly in children. The infection usually resolves within months in people... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Molluscum contagiosum is a common skin infection that is caused by a pox virus and occurs mainly in children. The infection usually resolves within months in people without immune deficiency, but treatment may be preferred for social and cosmetic reasons or to avoid spreading the infection. A clear evidence base supporting the various treatments is lacking.This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006, and updated previously in 2009.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of specific treatments and management strategies, including waiting for natural resolution, for cutaneous, non-genital molluscum contagiosum in people without immune deficiency.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to July 2016: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We searched six trial registers and checked the reference lists of included studies and review articles for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field to identify further relevant randomised controlled trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of any treatment of molluscum contagiosum in people without immune deficiency. We excluded trials on sexually transmitted molluscum contagiosum and in people with immune deficiency (including those with HIV infection).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data from selected studies. We obtained missing data from study authors where possible.
MAIN RESULTS
We found 11 new studies for this update, resulting in 22 included studies with a total of 1650 participants. The studies examined the effects of topical (20 studies) and systemic interventions (2 studies).Among the new included studies were the full trial reports of three large unpublished studies, brought to our attention by an expert in the field. They all provided moderate-quality evidence for a lack of effect of 5% imiquimod compared to vehicle (placebo) on short-term clinical cure (4 studies, 850 participants, 12 weeks after start of treatment, risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.93), medium-term clinical cure (2 studies, 702 participants, 18 weeks after start of treatment, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.14), and long-term clinical cure (2 studies, 702 participants, 28 weeks after start of treatment, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.17). We found similar but more certain results for short-term improvement (4 studies, 850 participants, 12 weeks after start of treatment, RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.47; high-quality evidence). For the outcome 'any adverse effect', we found high-quality evidence for little or no difference between topical 5% imiquimod and vehicle (3 studies, 827 participants, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.07), but application site reactions were more frequent in the groups treated with imiquimod (moderate-quality evidence): any application site reaction (3 studies, 827 participants, RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.77, the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) was 11); severe application site reaction (3 studies, 827 participants, RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.16 to 16.19, NNTH over 40).For the following 11 comparisons, there was limited evidence to show which treatment was superior in achieving short-term clinical cure (low-quality evidence): 5% imiquimod less effective than cryospray (1 study, 74 participants, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.78) and 10% potassium hydroxide (2 studies, 67 participants, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.93); 10% Australian lemon myrtle oil more effective than olive oil (1 study, 31 participants, RR 17.88, 95% CI 1.13 to 282.72); 10% benzoyl peroxide cream more effective than 0.05% tretinoin (1 study, 30 participants, RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.79); 5% sodium nitrite co-applied with 5% salicylic acid more effective than 5% salicylic acid alone (1 study, 30 participants, RR 3.50, 95% CI 1.23 to 9.92); and iodine plus tea tree oil more effective than tea tree oil (1 study, 37 participants, RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.57) or iodine alone (1 study, 37 participants, RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.50). Although there is some uncertainty, 10% potassium hydroxide appears to be more effective than saline (1 study, 20 participants, RR 3.50, 95% CI 0.95 to 12.90); homeopathic calcarea carbonica appears to be more effective than placebo (1 study, 20 participants, RR 5.57, 95% CI 0.93 to 33.54); 2.5% appears to be less effective than 5% solution of potassium hydroxide (1 study, 25 participants, RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.01); and 10% povidone iodine solution plus 50% salicylic acid plaster appears to be more effective than salicylic acid plaster alone (1 study, 30 participants, RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.16).We found no statistically significant differences for other comparisons (most of which addressed two different topical treatments). We found no randomised controlled trial evidence for expressing lesions or topical hydrogen peroxide.Study limitations included no blinding, many dropouts, and no intention-to-treat analysis. Except for the severe application site reactions of imiquimod, none of the evaluated treatments described above were associated with serious adverse effects (low-quality evidence). Among the most common adverse events were pain during application, erythema, and itching. Included studies of the following comparisons did not report adverse effects: calcarea carbonica versus placebo, 10% povidone iodine plus 50% salicylic acid plaster versus salicylic acid plaster, and 10% benzoyl peroxide versus 0.05% tretinoin.We were unable to judge the risk of bias in most studies due to insufficient information, especially regarding concealment of allocation and possible selective reporting. We considered five studies to be at low risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No single intervention has been shown to be convincingly effective in the treatment of molluscum contagiosum. We found moderate-quality evidence that topical 5% imiquimod was no more effective than vehicle in terms of clinical cure, but led to more application site reactions, and high-quality evidence that there was no difference between the treatments in terms of short-term improvement. However, high-quality evidence showed a similar number of general side effects in both groups. As the evidence found did not favour any one treatment, the natural resolution of molluscum contagiosum remains a strong method for dealing with the condition.
Topics: Adjuvants, Immunologic; Aminoquinolines; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Benzoyl Peroxide; Cimetidine; Humans; Hydroxides; Imiquimod; Molluscum Contagiosum; Myrtus; Olive Oil; Phytotherapy; Plant Oils; Potassium Compounds; Povidone-Iodine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission, Spontaneous; Salicylic Acid; Sodium Nitrite
PubMed: 28513067
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004767.pub4 -
Veterinary Surgery : VS Jul 2022To provide a systematic assessment of the efficacy of preoperative skin asepsis using chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine based protocols for surgical site infection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To provide a systematic assessment of the efficacy of preoperative skin asepsis using chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine based protocols for surgical site infection (SSI) prevention in veterinary surgery.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic meta-analytical review according to PRISMA-P guidelines.
SAMPLE POPULATION
Studies comparing preoperative skin asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine in veterinary surgery identified by systematic search between 1990 and 2020.
METHODS
A search using MEDLINE/Pubmed, Web of Science and CAB Abstracts was performed, followed by secondary searches of Google Scholar, Proquest Dissertation and Theses, and relevant bibliographic articles. Primary and secondary outcome measures were the efficacy of skin asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine on SSI incidence and skin bacterial colonization, respectively. A meta-analysis was performed with a random-effect model, with effect size calculated as risk ratio (RR) or mean standard deviation (MSD) with 95% CI. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.
RESULTS
Among 1067 publications that met the initial search criteria, 9 relevant studies were eligible for analysis. No difference in the incidence of postoperative SSI or skin bacterial colonization between preoperative asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine was found. Insufficient information and detail were frequent among studies and precluded a clear assessment of bias.
CONCLUSION
This study showed that asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine were comparable to povidone-iodine in preventing postoperative SSI and reducing skin bacterial colonization.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Given the limitations of the studies that were included in terms of both quality and quantity, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these conclusions.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Asepsis; Chlorhexidine; Clinical Protocols; Ethanol; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Povidone-Iodine; Preoperative Care; Surgery, Veterinary; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 35437786
DOI: 10.1111/vsu.13810 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Oct 2015Capsular contracture is common and distressing after aesthetic breast augmentation. The precise cause of capsular contracture is not well established. This systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Capsular contracture is common and distressing after aesthetic breast augmentation. The precise cause of capsular contracture is not well established. This systematic review investigates current available evidence regarding perioperative povidone-iodine irrigation safety and efficacy in reducing capsular contracture.
METHODS
PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched for publications through December of 2014. Studies with the following criteria were included: (1) primary breast augmentation with implants; (2) perioperative povidone-iodine use; and (3) documentation of capsular contracture. Our primary outcome was incidence of Baker class III/IV capsular contracture. The methodologic quality of included studies was assessed independently. Trials were meta-analyzed to obtain a pooled odds ratio describing the effect of povidone-iodine irrigation on Baker class III/IV capsular contracture.
RESULTS
Nine studies with a total of 5153 patients undergoing aesthetic breast augmentation with implants were included. Only three comparative studies achieved high methodologic quality. The meta-analysis included four studies, with 1191 patients receiving povidone-iodine irrigation and 595 patients receiving saline irrigation. The meta-analysis favored povidone-iodine irrigation for decreasing Baker class III/IV capsular contracture (2.7 percent versus 8.9 percent; OR, 0.30; 95 percent CI, 0.18 to 0.50; p < 0.00001; I = 0 percent). The reported implant rupture rates for both saline implants and silicone implants were less than 1 percent.
CONCLUSIONS
Perioperative povidone-iodine irrigation reduces Baker class III/IV capsular contracture and is not associated with implant rupture. Low methodologic quality of included studies limits recommendations for perioperative povidone-iodine irrigation as the standard of practice. Additional high-quality trials are warranted to corroborate the findings of this meta-analysis.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Therapeutic, II.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Breast Implantation; Female; Humans; Implant Capsular Contracture; Incidence; Odds Ratio; Povidone-Iodine; Therapeutic Irrigation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26397246
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001576