-
The Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic... Aug 2020Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), a scarring alopecia that commonly affects women of African descent, can be challenging to manage, and there are limited... (Review)
Review
Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), a scarring alopecia that commonly affects women of African descent, can be challenging to manage, and there are limited treatment modalities available. The use of natural ingredients for nonscarring hair loss has gained popularity among patients, but has not been previously studied for CCCA. We sought to review clinical studies evaluating the use of natural ingredients in the treatment of CCCA. Systematic searches of the PubMed and SCOPUS databases were performed in March 2018 using various ingredient names and the terms , and . Specific ingredients included azelaic acid, peppermint oil, pumpkin seed oil, garlic supplements/shampoo, Black castor oil, jojoba oil, argan oil, olive oil, horsetail plant oil, lavender oil, coconut oil, chamomile oil, thyme oil, tea tree oil, sulfur oil, menthol, and rosemary oil. Two reviewers independently screened titles, leading to the selection of eight clinical studies. A review of the literature revealed no clinical trials that evaluated the treatment of CCCA with natural ingredients. Despite limited evidence-based research for CCCA, several natural ingredients showed efficacy in alopecia areata, androgenetic alopecia, and psoriatic alopecia. Upon review of the literature, there were no randomized, controlled studies evaluating the use of natural ingredients or aromatherapy in the management of CCCA. Despite this, several botanical and natural ingredients do show promise in treating androgenetic alopecia and alopecia areata. More clinical studies need to be performed to evaluate treatment options as a whole, including natural modalities, to better serve these patients.
PubMed: 33178378
DOI: No ID Found -
Health Science Reports May 2023As the number of demanders who want to easily cover gray hair increases, the demand market is rapidly expanding along with the demand for coloring shampoos that can be...
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
As the number of demanders who want to easily cover gray hair increases, the demand market is rapidly expanding along with the demand for coloring shampoos that can be dyed while shampooing. Among these coloring shampoo ingredients, it is necessary to differentiate products that are safe and harmless to the human body in consideration of hair loss or skin barrier problems caused by trihydroxybenzene (THB) ingredients. The correct selection criteria were presented by examining the problems, effectiveness, and side effects when used in relation to the skin barrier through previous studies by consideration of the ingredients of the coloring shampoo and the skin barrier of the scalp.
METHODS
The analysis of this study looked at previous studies through a systematic literature review through related keywords for coloring shampoo. After reviewing 150-200 related prior papers, a total of 39 review papers were finally selected using the PRISMA flow diagram.
RESULTS
It was confirmed through a literature review that the coloring shampoo containing THB, which is harmful to the human body, has a detrimental effect on the scalp-skin barrier.
CONCLUSION
This study examined the harmfulness of coloring shampoo on the scalp skin barrier. It was confirmed that frequent coloring shampoo procedures can have various harmful effects on the scalp. Therefore, it is important to reduce side effects caused by the use of harmful ingredients and maintain a healthy scalp condition through analysis of sufficient scalp conditions and consultation with experts. In addition, various studies on the standard standards and age for harmful ingredients are suggested.
PubMed: 37216053
DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.1271 -
The Science of the Total Environment Feb 2024Personal care products (PCPs) are organic compounds that are incorporated in several daily life products, such as shampoos, lotions, perfumes, cleaning products, air... (Review)
Review
Personal care products (PCPs) are organic compounds that are incorporated in several daily life products, such as shampoos, lotions, perfumes, cleaning products, air fresheners, etc. Due to their massive and continuous use and because they are not routinely monitored in the environment, these compounds are considered emerging contaminants. In fact, residues of PCPs are being discharged into the sewage system, reaching wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), where most of these compounds are not completely degraded, being partially released into the environment via the final effluents and/or accumulating in the sewage sludges. Environmental sustainability is nowadays one of the main pillars of society and the application of circular economy models, promoting the waste valorisation, is increasingly encouraged. Therefore, irrigation with reclaimed wastewater or soil fertilization with sewage sludge/biosolids are interesting solutions. However, these practices raise concerns due to the potential risks associated to the presence of hazardous compounds, including PCPs. When applied to agricultural soils, PCPs present in these matrices can contaminate the soil or be taken up by crops. Crops can therefore become a route of exposure for humans and pose a risk to public health. However, the extent to which PCPs are taken up and bioaccumulated in crops is highly dependent on the physicochemical properties of the compounds, environmental variables, and the plant species. This issue has attracted the attention of scientists in recent years and the number of publications on this topic has rapidly increased, but a systematic review of these studies is lacking. Therefore, the present paper reviews the uptake, accumulation, and translocation of different classes of PCPs (biocides, parabens, synthetic musks, phthalates, UV-filters) following application of sewage sludge or reclaimed water under field and greenhouse conditions, but also in hydroponic systems. The factors influencing the uptake mechanism in plants were also discussed.
Topics: Humans; Sewage; Soil; Waste Disposal, Fluid; Hydroponics; Cosmetics
PubMed: 38036128
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168894 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jun 2020Recently, biological markers of maternal prenatal stress, hair cortisol, along with saliva, blood, and urine cortisol, have received attention. However, it is necessary...
Recently, biological markers of maternal prenatal stress, hair cortisol, along with saliva, blood, and urine cortisol, have received attention. However, it is necessary to validate measuring hair cortisol concentrations (HCC) as a biomarker of perceived stress among healthy and high-risk pregnant women. This study aimed to confirm the correlation between HCC and the perceived stress of pregnant women over 18 years of age. In this systematic review, we used various search engines to extract relevant articles using specific keywords related to pregnancy, hair cortisol, and psychological stress. Four out of 3639 studies met the inclusion criteria. We conducted a quality assessment with the help of three independent reviewers using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. The correlation between HCC and perceived stress was confirmed in one study. There was only one study on hair washing, shampoo, conditioner, and hair structure that could affect hair samples. In four studies, hair samples differed in length, methods of storage, and laboratory analysis. The review was limited to confirming the relationship between HCC and perceived stress in pregnant women based on the current evidence. Studies on hair cortisol need regulated and standardized methods for collection, storage, and analysis of hair samples.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Biomarkers; Child; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Hair; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Infant, Newborn; Pilot Projects; Pregnancy; Prospective Studies; Stress, Psychological
PubMed: 32512943
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17114002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020COVID-19 infection poses a serious risk to patients and - due to its contagious nature - to those healthcare workers (HCWs) treating them. If the mouth and nose of...
Antimicrobial mouthwashes (gargling) and nasal sprays administered to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection to improve patient outcomes and to protect healthcare workers treating them.
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 infection poses a serious risk to patients and - due to its contagious nature - to those healthcare workers (HCWs) treating them. If the mouth and nose of patients with infection are irrigated with antimicrobial solutions, this may help the patients by killing any coronavirus present at those sites. It may also reduce the risk of the active infection being passed to HCWs through droplet transmission or direct contact. However, the use of such antimicrobial solutions may be associated with harms related to the toxicity of the solutions themselves or alterations in the natural microbial flora of the mouth or nose.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of antimicrobial mouthwashes and nasal sprays administered to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection to both the patients and the HCWs caring for them.
SEARCH METHODS
Information Specialists from Cochrane ENT and Cochrane Oral Health searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: This is a question that urgently requires evidence, however at the present time we did not anticipate finding many completed RCTs. We therefore planned to include the following types of studies: randomised controlled trials (RCTs); quasi-RCTs; non-randomised controlled trials; prospective cohort studies; retrospective cohort studies; cross-sectional studies; controlled before-and-after studies. We set no minimum duration for the studies. We sought studies comparing antimicrobial mouthwash and/or nasal spray (alone or in combination) at any concentration, delivered with any frequency or dosage to suspected/confirmed COVID-19 patients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: 1) RECOVERY* (www.recoverytrial.net) outcomes in patients (mortality; hospitalisation status; use of ventilation; use of renal dialysis or haemofiltration); 2) incidence of symptomatic or test-positive COVID-19 infection in HCWs; 3) significant adverse event: anosmia (or disturbance in sense of smell). Our secondary outcomes were: 4) change in COVID-19 viral load in patients; 5) COVID-19 viral content of aerosol (when present); 6) other adverse events: changes in microbiome in oral cavity, nasal cavity, oro- or nasopharynx; 7) other adverse events: allergy, irritation/burning of nasal, oral or oropharyngeal mucosa (e.g. erosions, ulcers, bleeding), long-term staining of mucous membranes or teeth, accidental ingestion. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We found no completed studies to include in this review. We identified 16 ongoing studies (including 14 RCTs), which aim to enrol nearly 1250 participants. The interventions included in these trials are ArtemiC (artemisinin, curcumin, frankincense and vitamin C), Citrox (a bioflavonoid), cetylpyridinium chloride, chlorhexidine, chlorine dioxide, essential oils, hydrogen peroxide, hypertonic saline, Kerecis spray (omega 3 viruxide - containing neem oil and St John's wort), neem extract, nitric oxide releasing solution, povidone iodine and saline with baby shampoo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified no studies for inclusion in this review. This is not surprising given the relatively recent emergence of COVID-19 infection. It is promising that the question posed in this review is being addressed by a number of RCTs and other studies. We are concerned that few of the ongoing studies specifically state that they will evaluate adverse events such as changes in the sense of smell or to the oral and nasal microbiota, and any consequences thereof. Very few interventions have large and dramatic effect sizes. If a positive treatment effect is demonstrated when studies are available for inclusion in this review, it may not be large. In these circumstances in particular it may be a challenge to weigh up the benefits against the harms if the latter are of uncertain frequency and severity.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Health Personnel; Humans; Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional; Mouth; Mouthwashes; Nasal Sprays; Nose; Occupational Diseases; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Therapeutic Irrigation
PubMed: 32936948
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013627.pub2