-
The Journal of Hospital Infection Jan 2022Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019, has caused millions of deaths worldwide. The virus is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019, has caused millions of deaths worldwide. The virus is transmitted by inhalation of infectious particles suspended in the air, direct deposition on mucous membranes and indirect contact via contaminated surfaces. Disinfection methods that can halt such transmission are important in this pandemic and in future viral infections.
AIM
To highlight the efficacy of several disinfection methods against SARS-CoV-2 based on up-to-date evidence found in the literature.
METHODS
Two databases were searched to identify studies that assessed disinfection methods used against SARS-CoV-2. In total, 1229 studies were identified and 60 of these were included in this review. Quality assessment was evaluated by the Office of Health Assessment and Translation's risk-of-bias tool.
FINDINGS
Twenty-eight studies investigated disinfection methods on environmental surfaces, 16 studies investigated disinfection methods on biological surfaces, four studies investigated disinfection methods for airborne coronavirus, and 16 studies investigated methods used to recondition personal protective equipment (PPE).
CONCLUSIONS
Several household and hospital disinfection agents and ultraviolet-C (UV-C) irradiation were effective for inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 on environmental surfaces. Formulations containing povidone-iodine can provide virucidal action on the skin and mucous membranes. In the case of hand hygiene, typical soap bars and alcohols can inactivate SARS-CoV-2. Air filtration systems incorporated with materials that possess catalytic properties, UV-C devices and heating systems can reduce airborne viral particles effectively. The decontamination of PPE can be conducted safely by heat and ozone treatment.
Topics: COVID-19; Disinfection; Humans; Pandemics; Povidone-Iodine; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34673114
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2021.07.014 -
International Journal of Clinical... 2020Combined use of povidone iodine (PI) along with topical fluorides (TF) has been suggested as a promising strategy to reduce dental caries incidence and cariogenic... (Review)
Review
Comparing the Effectiveness of Topical Fluoride and Povidone Iodine with Topical Fluoride Alone for the Prevention of Dental Caries among Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Combined use of povidone iodine (PI) along with topical fluorides (TF) has been suggested as a promising strategy to reduce dental caries incidence and cariogenic bacterial load. However, the available literature presents mixed evidence regarding its effectiveness as compared to TF application alone.
AIM AND OBJECTIVE
'TF + PI' vs TF alone in the prevention of dental caries among 1-12-year-old children assessed through caries increment and mean and counts.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Five databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBSCOhost, PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched for relevant literature. Out of 72 studies that were screened, 7 eligible studies were included out of which 4 studies were subjected to meta-analysis. The generic inverse variance test was used to assess the primary outcome reported as mean ± SD/events occurred (caries incidence), whereas for mean post-intervention colony count, inverse variance function was used. The Cochrane's Collaboration tool and Modified Downs and Black scoring criteria were used to evaluate the quality of the included articles. Heterogeneity across the studies was assessed using the statistic. Statistical significance was set at < 0.05.
RESULTS
Overall, for primary and permanent dentition combined, the dental caries incidence was found to be significantly lower in the 'TF + PI' combined therapy group as compared to TF alone [SMD -0.4 (-0.78 to -0.03), = 0.04]. The two groups showed no significant difference with respect to post-intervention count [SMD -0.1 (-0.57 to +0.37), = 0.69]. No study was found that compared post-intervention count between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
Based on the pooled analysis from the limited literature available, there is a very low quality of evidence that 'TF + PI' combined therapy is more effective in the prevention of new caries lesions among 1-12-year-old children as compared to TF use alone. Future clinical trials with robust methodologies are recommended to generate conclusive evidence.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
PI application might exert an added benefit with TF in preventing the occurrence of new carious lesions among 1-12-year-old children.
HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE
Gupta A, Nishant, Sharda S, Comparing the Effectiveness of Topical Fluoride and Povidone Iodine with Topical Fluoride Alone for the Prevention of Dental Caries among Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020;13(5):559-565.
PubMed: 33623347
DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1844 -
The Saudi Dental Journal Mar 2022This systematic review aimed to evaluate the antiviral effect of mouthwashes against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aimed to evaluate the antiviral effect of mouthwashes against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, ProQuest, and Google Scholar, and was complemented by a manual search. Both clinical and studies that focused on the antiviral effect of mouthwashes against SARS-CoV-2 were included. Risk of bias assessment was performed only on the clinical studies using the RoB-2 and ROBINS-I tools.
RESULTS
A total of 907 records were found; after initial selection by title and abstract, 33 full-text articles were selected to be evaluated for eligibility. Finally, a total of 27 studies were included for the qualitative synthesis, including 16 studies and 11 clinical trials. Antiviral effects were evaluated separately for the and clinical studies. In vitro studies included mouthwashes containing hydrogen peroxide, chlorhexidine digluconate, povidone-iodine, essential oils, cetylpyridinium chloride, and other compounds; studies included mouthwashes containing hydrogen peroxide, chlorhexidine digluconate, povidone-iodine, cetylpyridinium chloride, essential oils, chlorine dioxide, β-cyclodextrin-citrox, and sorbitol with xylitol. Povidone-iodine, cetylpyridinium chloride, and essential oils were effective , while hydrogen peroxide, chlorhexidine digluconate, povidone-iodine, cetylpyridinium chloride, β-cyclodextrin-citrox, and sorbitol with xylitol were effective . Unclear or high risk of bias was found for almost all clinical studies, and only one study presented with a low risk of bias. No further quantitative analysis was performed.
CONCLUSION
Although povidone-iodine, cetylpyridinium chloride, and essential oils may be an alternative to reduce the viral load and , more studies are needed to determine the real antiviral effect of these different mouthwashes against SARS-CoV-2.This work was not funded. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (identification number: CRD42021236134).
PubMed: 35125835
DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2022.01.006 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Apr 2024Antiseptics have been suggested to enhance the outcomes of non-surgical periodontal treatment (NSPT). Among these, povidone-iodine (PVP-iodine) was reported to... (Review)
Review
Antiseptics have been suggested to enhance the outcomes of non-surgical periodontal treatment (NSPT). Among these, povidone-iodine (PVP-iodine) was reported to significantly reduce periodontal pocket depths (PPDs). The aim of this study was to systematically re-assess the existing literature regarding the potential benefit of using PVP-iodine in step II periodontal therapy. The scientific literature was systematically searched across electronic libraries for randomized controlled trials employing PVP-iodine during NSPT through to September 2023, using search items related to PVP-iodine and periodontitis. The selection process was performed by two independent reviewers. The primary outcomes were reductions in periodontal probing depth (PPD) and clinical attachment level (CAL). When reasonable, a meta-analysis of the included studies was performed. Initially, 799 records were identified. After abstract and title screening and fulltext revision, 15 RCTs were included. The data from eight studies were merged in meta-analyses. The use of PVP-iodine had no significant effect on PPD reduction at 6 months (means [standard deviation]: -0.12 mm [-0.33; 0.09]) but it did at 12 months (-0.29 mm [-0.56; -0.02]). CAL was significantly better at 6 (-0.42 mm [-0.64; -0.20]) and 12 months (-0.39 mm [-0.66; -0.11]). PVP-iodine rinsing during NSPT may slightly improve patients' PPD and CAL.
PubMed: 38610876
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13072111 -
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 -
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 -
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... 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 -
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