-
International Dental Journal Nov 2023This narrative review describes the oral microbiome, and its role in oral health and disease, before considering the impact of commonly used over-the-counter (OTC)... (Review)
Review
This narrative review describes the oral microbiome, and its role in oral health and disease, before considering the impact of commonly used over-the-counter (OTC) mouthwashes on oral bacteria, viruses, bacteriophages, and fungi that make up these microbial communities in different niches of the mouth. Whilst certain mouthwashes have proven antimicrobial actions and clinical effectiveness supported by robust evidence, this review reports more recent metagenomics evidence, suggesting that mouthwashes such as chlorhexidine may cause "dysbiosis," whereby certain species of bacteria are killed, leaving others, sometimes unwanted, to predominate. There is little known about the effects of mouthwashes on fungi and viruses in the context of the oral microbiome (virome) in vivo, despite evidence that they "kill" certain viral pathogens ex vivo. Evidence for mouthwashes, much like antibiotics, is also emerging with regards to antimicrobial resistance, and this should further be considered in the context of their widespread use by clinicians and patients. Therefore, considering the potential of currently available OTC mouthwashes to alter the oral microbiome, this article finally proposes that the ideal mouthwash, whilst combatting oral disease, should "balance" antimicrobial communities, especially those associated with health. Which antimicrobial mouthwash best fits this ideal remains uncertain.
Topics: Humans; Mouthwashes; Chlorhexidine; Mouth; Anti-Infective Agents; Bacteria; Microbiota
PubMed: 37867065
DOI: 10.1016/j.identj.2023.08.010 -
Allergologie Select 2023Not available.
Guideline for allergological diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions: S2k Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) in cooperation with the German Dermatological Society (DDG), the Association of German Allergologists (ÄDA), the German Society for...
Not available.
PubMed: 37705676
DOI: 10.5414/ALX02422E -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Aug 2023Vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) is a common condition associated with discomfort in affected women. Due to the presence of different forms of the disease, diverse... (Review)
Review
Vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) is a common condition associated with discomfort in affected women. Due to the presence of different forms of the disease, diverse treatment regimens are developed; the newest ones include oteseconazole and ibrexafungerp. Here, we focus on the most up-to-date recommendations regarding VVC treatment, as well as novel treatment options. Topical and oral azoles are the drugs of choice in uncomplicated mycosis. The efficacy of probiotics and substances such as TOL-463 and chlorhexidine is indicated as satisfactory; however, there are no relevant guidelines. Although the majority of researchers agree that the treatment of non-albicans VVC should be long-lasting, the recommendations are inconsistent. Another clinical problem is the treatment of VVC with azole intolerance or resistance, for which literature proposes the use of several drugs including oteseconazole, ibrexafungerp, and voriconazole. The treatment schedules for recurrent VVC include mainly fluconazole; however, alternative options such as immunotherapeutic vaccine (NDV-3A) or designed antimicrobial peptides (dAMPs) were also described. We also focused on VVC affecting pregnant women, which is a substantial challenge in clinical practice, also due to the heterogeneous relevant guidelines. Thus far, few precise recommendations are available in the literature. Future studies should focus on atypical VVC forms to elucidate the inconsistent findings.
PubMed: 37629418
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12165376 -
JAMA Oncology Jul 2023Evidence-based approaches for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) are limited, and additional strategies are necessary to optimize care. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
Evidence-based approaches for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) are limited, and additional strategies are necessary to optimize care.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the efficacy of bacterial decolonization (BD) to reduce ARD severity compared with standard of care.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This phase 2/3 randomized clinical trial was conducted from June 2019 to August 2021 with investigator blinding at an urban academic cancer center and enrolled patients with breast cancer or head and neck cancer receiving radiation therapy (RT) with curative intent. Analysis was performed on January 7, 2022.
INTERVENTIONS
Intranasal mupirocin ointment twice daily and chlorhexidine body cleanser once daily for 5 days prior to RT and repeated for 5 days every 2 weeks through RT.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome as planned prior to data collection was the development of grade 2 or higher ARD. Based on wide clinical variability of grade 2 ARD, this was refined to grade 2 ARD with moist desquamation (grade 2-MD).
RESULTS
Of 123 patients assessed for eligibility via convenience sampling, 3 were excluded, and 40 refused to participate, with 80 patients in our final volunteer sample. Of 77 patients with cancer (75 patients with breast cancer [97.4%] and 2 patients with head and neck cancer [2.6%]) who completed RT, 39 were randomly assigned BC, and 38 were randomly assigned standard of care; the mean (SD) age of the patients was 59.9 (11.9) years, and 75 (97.4%) were female. Most patients were Black (33.7% [n = 26]) or Hispanic (32.5% [n = 25]). Among patients with breast cancer and patients with head and neck cancer (N = 77), none of the 39 patients treated with BD and 9 of the 38 patients (23.7%) treated with standard of care developed ARD grade 2-MD or higher (P = .001). Similar results were observed among the 75 patients with breast cancer (ie, none treated with BD and 8 [21.6%] receiving standard of care developed ARD grade ≥2-MD; P = .002). The mean (SD) ARD grade was significantly lower for patients treated with BD (1.2 [0.7]) compared with patients receiving standard of care (1.6 [0.8]) (P = .02). Of the 39 patients randomly assigned to BD, 27 (69.2%) reported regimen adherence, and only 1 patient (2.5%) experienced an adverse event related to BD (ie, itch).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that BD is effective for ARD prophylaxis, specifically for patients with breast cancer.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03883828.
Topics: Humans; Female; Middle Aged; Male; Radiodermatitis; Chlorhexidine; Mupirocin; Breast Neoplasms; Head and Neck Neoplasms
PubMed: 37140904
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.0444 -
Toxics Nov 2023Guanidine disinfectants are important chemical agents with a broad spectrum of activity that are effective against most microorganisms. Chlorhexidine, one of the most...
Guanidine disinfectants are important chemical agents with a broad spectrum of activity that are effective against most microorganisms. Chlorhexidine, one of the most used guanidine disinfectants, is added to shampoo and mouthwash and applied in medical device sterilization. During the use of chlorhexidine, aerosols with micron particle size may be formed, which may cause inhalation toxicity. To assess the toxicity of inhaled chlorhexidine aerosol, mice underwent the intratracheal instillation of different concentrations of chlorhexidine (0, 0.125%, 0.25%, 0.5%, and 1%) using a MicroSprayer Aerosolizer. The mice were exposed for eight weeks and then sacrificed to obtain lung tissue for subsequent experiments. Histopathology staining revealed damaged lung tissues and increased collagen exudation. At the same time, pulmonary function tests showed that chlorhexidine exposure could cause restrictive ventilatory dysfunction, consistent with pulmonary fibrosis. The results of transcriptome analyses suggest that chlorhexidine may trigger an inflammatory response and promote the activation of pathways related to extracellular matrix deposition. Further, we identified that chlorhexidine exposure might enhance mucus secretion by up-regulating and genes, thereby inducing fibrosis-like injury. These findings underscore the need for standardized use of disinfectants and the assessment of their inhalation toxicity.
PubMed: 37999562
DOI: 10.3390/toxics11110910 -
International Dental Journal Nov 2023This is the concluding article in the supplement on the role of mouthwashes in oral care, which summarises the current guidelines across the globe regarding their... (Review)
Review
This is the concluding article in the supplement on the role of mouthwashes in oral care, which summarises the current guidelines across the globe regarding their acceptable adjunctive use for managing caries, gingivitis, and periodontal disease. Based on moderate evidence for clinical effectiveness, most current guidelines suggest fluoride mouthwashes for the management of dental caries, and chlorhexidine for the management of periodontal diseases. However there still appears to be gaps in the literature underpinning these recommendations. Importantly, all evidence supports such mouthwash use "adjunctively," alongside mechanical oral hygiene measures. Other antimicrobial mouthwashes such as essential oils and cetylpyridinium chloride may also be clinically effective against plaque and gingivitis, but there is a current lack of robust evidence of natural mouthwashes to recommend their adjunctive use. The authors of the current review are of the view that mouthwashes may not be of much value in those with good periodontal health or low caries risk. The reasons for this are, the potential i) risks of allergic reactions, ii) dysbiosis of the oral microbiota, iii) emergence of antimicrobial resistance, and iv) deleterious effects on the environment. There is, however, much empirical research needed on mouthwashes, particularly in vivo research derived through clinical trials. Thus, dental practitioners need to keep abreast of the evidence base on the current, and the emerging, over-the-counter mouthwashes, and pay heed to the consensus views emanating from systematic reviews, as well as international guidelines on mouthwashes.
Topics: Humans; Mouthwashes; Dental Caries; Dentists; Professional Role; Chlorhexidine; Gingivitis; Periodontal Diseases; Anti-Infective Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local
PubMed: 37867062
DOI: 10.1016/j.identj.2023.08.013 -
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection... Jun 2023Antiseptic bathing did not reduce central-line (CL) associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates in intensive care units (ICU) according to a recent cluster... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Central-line associated bloodstream infections in intensive care units before and after implementation of daily antiseptic bathing with chlorhexidine or octenidine: a post-hoc analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial.
BACKGROUNDS
Antiseptic bathing did not reduce central-line (CL) associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates in intensive care units (ICU) according to a recent cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT). However, this analysis did not consider baseline infection rates. Our post-hoc analysis of this cRCT aimed to use a before-after comparison to examine the effect of daily bathing with chlorhexidine, octenidine or water and soap (control) on ICU-attributable CLABSI rates.
METHODS
A post-hoc analysis of a multi-center cRCT was done. ICUs that did not yet perform routine antiseptic bathing were randomly assigned to one of three study groups applying daily bathing with 2% chlorhexidine-impregnated cloths, 0.08% octenidine wash mitts or water and soap (control) for 12 months. Baseline data was assessed 12 months before the intervention started when all ICUs routinely used water and soap. Poisson regression and generalised estimating equation models were applied to identify changes of CLABSI rates per 1000 CL days between intervention and baseline periods in each study group.
RESULTS
The cRCT was conducted in 72 ICUs (24 per study group) including 76,139 patients in the baseline and 76,815 patients in the intervention period. In the chlorhexidine group, incidence density of CLABSI was reduced from 1.48 to 0.90 CLABSI per 1000 CL days comparing baseline versus intervention period (P = 0.0085). No reduction was observed in the octenidine group (1.26 versus 1.47 CLABSI per 1000 CL days, P = 0.8735) and the control group (1.20 versus 1.17, P = 0.3298). Adjusted incidence rate ratios (intervention versus baseline) were 0.63 (95%CI 0.46-0.87, P = 0.0172) in the chlorhexidine, 1.17 (95% CI 0.79-1.72, P = 0.5111) in the octenidine and 0.98 (95% CI 0.60-1.58, P = 0.9190) in the control group. Chlorhexidine bathing reduced CLABSI with gram-positive bacteria, mainly coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS).
CONCLUSIONS
In this post-hoc analysis of a cRCT, the application of 2% chlorhexidine-impregnated cloths reduced ICU-attributable CLABSI. This preventive effect of chlorhexidine was restricted to CLABSI caused by gram-positive pathogens (CoNS). In contrast, 0.08% octenidine wash mitts did not reduce CLABSI rates in ICUs. Trial registration Registration number DRKS00010475, registration date August 18, 2016.
Topics: Humans; Chlorhexidine; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Soaps; Cross Infection; Intensive Care Units; Sepsis
PubMed: 37270604
DOI: 10.1186/s13756-023-01260-w -
International Journal of Nursing Studies Jan 2024Central venous catheters are commonly used in healthcare, but they come with a range of potential complications. Over the last 15 years, an influx of securement and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Central venous catheters are commonly used in healthcare, but they come with a range of potential complications. Over the last 15 years, an influx of securement and dressing products has been released, with unknown overall effectiveness to prevent these complications.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effects of dressings and securement devices for central venous catheters on a range of common complications including catheter-related bloodstream infection, catheter tip colonisation, entry/exit-site infection, skin colonisation, skin irritation, failed catheter securement, dressing durability and mortality.
DESIGN
Systematic review with meta-analysis.
METHODS
Following standard Cochrane methods, a systematic search of Cochrane Wounds Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, EBSCO CINAHL, and multiple clinical trial registries was completed in November 2022. Randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of dressing and securement devices for all CVC types were included. A random-effects model was used during the meta-analysis. Results were expressed using risk ratio (RR), rate ratio, or mean difference (MD), with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Methodological quality and bias were assessed.
RESULTS
We included 46 studies involving 10,054 participants. All studies had either an unclear or high-performance bias. The blinding of outcome assessment was unclear in most studies. Chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressings, compared with standard polyurethane dressings, may reduce the incidence (7 studies; N = 5816; RR 0.60, 95 % CI 0.44-0.83; low certainty evidence) and rate (4 studies; N = 4447; RR 0.51, 95 % CI 0.32-0.79; moderate certainty evidence) of catheter-related bloodstream infection and catheter tip colonisation (8 studies; N = 4788; RR 0.70, 95 % CI 0.52-0.95; very low certainty evidence). Medication-impregnated dressings may reduce the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection (6 studies; N = 5687; RR 0.60, 95 % CI 0.39-0.93; low certainty evidence) and catheter-tip colonisation (7 studies; N = 4769; RR 0.60, 95 % CI 0.47-0.76; low certainty evidence) relative to non-impregnated dressing types. Tissue adhesive may increase the risk of skin irritation or damage compared with integrated securement dressings (3 studies; N = 166; RR 1.88, 95 % CI 1.09-3.24; low certainty evidence) or sutureless securement devices (4 studies; N = 241; RR 1.64, 95 % CI 1.10-2.44; moderate certainty evidence). Tissue adhesive increased dressing durability compared with integrated securement dressings (MD 43.03 h, 95 % CI 4.88-81.18; moderate certainty evidence) and sutureless securement devices (MD 42.90 h, 4.64-81.16; moderate certainty evidence). Tissue adhesive increased failed catheter securement rate compared with suture (2 studies; N = 103; RR 9.33, 95 % CI 1.10-79.21; moderate certainty evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of the review provide insights and guidance for clinicians in selecting the appropriate dressings and securements for catheters. Findings should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity in catheters and patient types.
REGISTRATION
#CD010367.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT
Time to implement chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressings to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections; a meta-analysis by @GraceNP and team.
Topics: Humans; Central Venous Catheters; Tissue Adhesives; Bandages; Sepsis
PubMed: 37879273
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2023.104620