-
Infectious Diseases and Therapy Dec 2019With reports of vancomycin-resistant enterococci recently emerging in hospital settings, renewed focus is turning to the importance of multifaceted infection prevention... (Review)
Review
With reports of vancomycin-resistant enterococci recently emerging in hospital settings, renewed focus is turning to the importance of multifaceted infection prevention efforts. Careful compliance with established hygiene practices by healthcare workers together with effective antiseptic options is essential for the protection of patients from infectious agents. For over 60 years, povidone iodine (PVP-I) formulations have been shown to limit the impact and spread of infectious diseases with potent antiviral, antibacterial and antifungal effects. In addition to a lack of reported resistance, the benefits of PVP-I include an excellent safety profile and a broad spectrum of effect due to its multimodal action. Studies have shown that hand washing with PVP-I-based antiseptics is effective for the decontamination of skin, while PVP-I mouthwashes and gargles significantly reduce viral load in the oral cavity and the oropharynx. The importance of PVP-I has been emphasised by its inclusion in the World Health Organization's list of essential medicines, and high potency for virucidal activity has been observed against viruses of significant global concern, including hepatitis A and influenza, as well as the Middle-East Respiratory Syndrome and Sudden Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronaviruses. Together with its diverse applications in antimicrobial control, broad accessibility across the globe, and outstanding safety and tolerability profile, PVP-I offers an affordable, potent, and widely available antiseptic option.Funding Mundipharma Singapore Holding Pte Limited.
PubMed: 31414403
DOI: 10.1007/s40121-019-00260-x -
Biological & Pharmaceutical Bulletin Sep 2023Personal protective equipment (PPE), including medical masks, should be worn for preventing the transmission of respiratory pathogens via infective droplets and...
Personal protective equipment (PPE), including medical masks, should be worn for preventing the transmission of respiratory pathogens via infective droplets and aerosols. In medical masks, the key layer is the filter layer, and the melt-blown nonwoven fabric (NWF) is the most used fabric. However, the NWF filter layer cannot kill or inactivate the pathogens spread via droplets and aerosols. Povidone-iodine (PVP-I) has been used as an antiseptic solution given its potent broad-spectrum activity against pathogens. To develop PPE (e.g., medical masks) with anti-pathogenic activity, we integrated PVP-I into nylon-66 NWF. We then evaluated its antiviral activity against influenza A viruses by examining the viability of Madin-Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells after inoculation with the virus strains exposed to the PVP-I-integrated nylon-66 NWF. The PVP-I nylon-66 NWF protected the MDCK cells from viral infection in a PVP-I concentration-dependent manner. Subsequently, we found to integrate PVP-I into nylon-66 and polyurethane materials among various materials. These PVP-I materials were also effective against influenza virus infection, and treatment with PVP-I nylon-66 NWF showed the highest cell survival among all the tested materials. PVP-I showed anti-influenza A virus activity when used in conjunction with PPE materials. Moreover, nylon-66 NWF integrated with PVP-I was found to be the best material to ensure anti-influenza activity. Therefore, PVP-I-integrated masks could have the potential to inhibit respiratory virus infection. Our results provide new information for developing multi-functional PPEs with anti-viral activity by integrating them with PVP-I to prevent the potential transmission of respiratory viruses.
Topics: Animals; Dogs; Humans; Povidone-Iodine; Nylons; Respiratory Aerosols and Droplets; Influenza, Human; Orthomyxoviridae
PubMed: 37357386
DOI: 10.1248/bpb.b23-00161 -
Biological Trace Element Research Aug 2022Iodine-based mouthwash and throat sprays contain povidone iodine (PVP-I) for disinfection. PVP-I mouthwash has been commonly used for decades in Japan and other...
Iodine-based mouthwash and throat sprays contain povidone iodine (PVP-I) for disinfection. PVP-I mouthwash has been commonly used for decades in Japan and other countries and frequent and/or prolonged use of PVP-I mouthwash can induce transient hypothyroidism. To assess the amount of iodine ingested from an oral rinse, 22 healthy adult volunteers (mean age: 48.1, 29-70 years) were recruited for the study. The subjects were instructed to rinse for 15 s three times with 20 mL of commercially available PVP-I mouthwash diluted into 0.23% or pure water. This method is a standardized method of gargling recommended by the manufacturers. The total iodine in the PVP-I mouthwash was measured with inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry. Although the 7% PVP-I mouthwash contains 7 mg of effective iodine/mL, 24.3 mg/mL of iodine was detected in the solution. The median value and ratio of the total iodine ingested were 5.0 mg (range: 2.6-10.8 mg) and 20.5% (range: 10.6-44.5%), respectively. The iodine species released from the PVP-I mouthwash are effective iodine (PVP・nHI, I, and I) and I; however, the amount and types of iodine actually absorbed into the bloodstream are unknown. PVP-I mouthwash should be used carefully since around 5 mg of iodine could theoretically enter the body with one gargle which exceeds the tolerable upper intake level of iodine for adults. This study was prospectively registered to University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) on March 29, 2021, with the study ID of UMIN000043770.
Topics: Adult; Eating; Humans; Hypothyroidism; Iodides; Iodine; Mouthwashes; Povidone-Iodine
PubMed: 34674109
DOI: 10.1007/s12011-021-02978-7 -
Journal of Indian Society of... 2021Dentists across the globe are witnessing a completely unforeseen and uncertain professional situation during these times of COVID-19 pandemic. There is conflicting...
CONTEXT
Dentists across the globe are witnessing a completely unforeseen and uncertain professional situation during these times of COVID-19 pandemic. There is conflicting evidence regarding the effectiveness of routinely used mouthwashes and especially Chlorhexidine, to reduce the viral load in oral cavity and the aerosols during oral procedures.
AIMS
Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of the current 'gold standard' chlorhexidine and povidone iodine as a control agent, through an in-vitro analysis.
SETTINGS AND DESIGN
laboratory analysis.
METHODS AND MATERIAL
All the experiments for analysis of antiviral efficacy of chlorhexidine digluconate (2%)and povidone iodine(1%), against SARS-CoV-2 virus were performed in the BSL3 facility at the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research-Institute of Microbial Technology, using the VeroE6 cell lines. The analysis of the virus inactivation was based on quantification of viral RNA (Cycle threshold (Ct) profile) present in the culture supernatant using Real-Time Quantitative Reverse Transcription PCR (qRT-PCR).
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED
Descriptive analysis (Statistical package for social sciences (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, version 15.0 for Windows).
RESULTS
Chlorhexidine digluconate in 0.2% concentration inactivated more than 99.9% of SARS CoV 2 virus, in minimal contact time of 30 seconds, which was considered better efficacy than povidone-iodine utilized for 30 and 60 seconds. Subtle differences were observed in the activity of both the compounds in terms of percent inactivation of virus, though a greater relative change in Ct values was observed for chlorhexidine.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that Chlorhexidine digluconate in 0.2% concentration inactivated SARS CoV 2 in minimal contact time i.e 30 secs, however both compounds tested i.e Chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine were found to have antiviral activity against SARS CoV2 virus.
PubMed: 33642749
DOI: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_824_20 -
Surgery Open Science Jun 2023The occurrence of surgical site infections (SSIs) is associated with increased risk of mortality, development of other infections, and the need for reintervention,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The occurrence of surgical site infections (SSIs) is associated with increased risk of mortality, development of other infections, and the need for reintervention, posing a significant health burden. The aim of this review was to examine the current data and guidelines around the use of antiseptic povidone‑iodine (PVP-I) for the prevention of SSIs at each stage of surgical intervention.
METHODS
A literature search for selected key words was performed using PubMed. Additional papers were identified based on author expertise.
RESULTS
Scientific evidence demonstrates that PVP-I can be used at every stage of surgical intervention: preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative. PVP-I is one of the most widely used antiseptics on healthy skin and mucous membranes for preoperative surgical site preparation and is associated with a low SSI rate. For intraoperative irrigation, aqueous PVP-I is the recommended agent and has been demonstrated to decrease SSIs in a range of surgical settings, and for postoperative wound healing, there is a growing body of evidence to support the use of PVP-I.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a need for more stringent study designs in clinical trials to enable meaningful comparisons between antiseptic agents, particularly for preoperative skin preparation. The use of a single agent (PVP-I) at each stage of surgical intervention could potentially provide advantages, including economic benefits, over agents that can only be used at discrete stages of the surgical procedure.
KEY MESSAGE
Evidence supports the use of PVP-I at all stages of surgical intervention, from preoperative measures (including skin preparation, preoperative washing, and nasal decolonization) to intraoperative irrigation, through to postoperative wound management. However, there is a need for more stringent study designs in clinical trials to enable meaningful comparisons between antiseptic agents, particularly for preoperative skin preparation.
PubMed: 37034245
DOI: 10.1016/j.sopen.2023.03.005 -
Annals of Medicine Dec 2022Accumulating data suggest antiviral effects of povidone-iodine against the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. This narrative review aims... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Accumulating data suggest antiviral effects of povidone-iodine against the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. This narrative review aims to examine the antiviral mechanisms of povidone-iodine, efficacy of povidone-iodine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and safety of povidone-iodine to human epithelial cells and thyroid function.
METHODS
We searched the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for articles containing the keywords "povidone-iodine", "SARS-CoV-2" and "COVID-19" from database inception till 3 June 2021.
RESULTS
Despite data supporting the anti-SARS-CoV-2 effects of povidone-iodine, findings from clinical studies revealed differences in treatment response depending on study settings (healthy hospitalized individuals), treatment target (nasal oral pharynx), method of administration (oral rinse gargle throat spray) and choice of samples used to measure study endpoints (nasopharyngeal saliva). One large-scale clinical trial demonstrated reduction in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among participants who administered povidone-iodine 3 times daily during an active outbreak. Povidone-iodine is also used to disinfect the oro-pharyngeal space prior to dental or otolaryngology procedures. Although existing data suggest minimal impact of povidone-iodine on thyroid function, high-quality safety data are presently lacking.
CONCLUSIONS
Povidone-iodine application to the oropharyngeal space could complement existing non-pharmacological interventions to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection especially in high exposure settings.Key messagesAccumulating data suggest antiviral effects of povidone-iodine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.Findings from clinical studies reveal differences in treatment response depending on study settings, treatment target, method of administration and choice of samples used to measure study endpoints. One large-scale clinical trial observed reduction in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among participants who administered povidone-iodine 3 times daily during an active outbreak.Povidone-iodine application to the oropharyngeal space could complement existing non-pharmacological interventions to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection especially in high exposure settings.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Humans; Mouthwashes; Povidone-Iodine; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35594333
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2022.2076902 -
Spartan Medical Research Journal 2022Despite advancements in the field of adult reconstruction, prosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a common and devastating complication of total joint arthroplasty....
INTRODUCTION
Despite advancements in the field of adult reconstruction, prosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a common and devastating complication of total joint arthroplasty. Eradication of these infections can often prove difficult, and they remain a source of considerable morbidity and mortality. This clinical review paper will focus on some of the more commonly used irrigation solutions; povidone-iodine (PI), chlorhexidine (CHG), acetic acid (AA), hydrogen peroxide (HP), antibiotic irrigations, taurolidine, and polyhexanide-betaine (PB).
SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE
Significant research has been performed on the prevention of PJI, including use of intraoperative joint irrigation solutions. Several solutions have been theorized to aid in infection prevention, but no evidence-based practice guidelines in this area of orthopaedics have been established. There is a paucity of prospective randomized control trials to compare the efficacy of these joint irrigation solutions.
CONCLUSIONS
The authors present a review regarding seven major categories of commonly used intraoperative joint irrigation solutions. The current literature fails to demonstrate a clear consensus for a preferred solution and concentration for povidone-iodine, chlorhexidine, hydrogen peroxide, acetic acid, antibiotic irrigations, taurolidine, and polyhexanide-betaine. Prospective, randomized control trials directly comparing these different irrigation solutions are needed.
PubMed: 36128028
DOI: 10.51894/001c.37502 -
Ear, Nose, & Throat Journal Nov 2020Approaches to nasal and oral decontamination with povidone-iodine (PVP-I) have been published to reduce nosocomial spread of Severe Acute Respiratory... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Approaches to nasal and oral decontamination with povidone-iodine (PVP-I) have been published to reduce nosocomial spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The safety of PVP-I topically applied to the nasal and oral cavity is addressed by a literature review. The specific efficacy of PVP-I against coronaviruses and its potential efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 is discussed.
METHODS
A review was performed utilizing PubMed and Cochrane Databases. All citations in protocols for nasal and oral PVP-I use regarding COVID-19 were independently reviewed.
RESULTS
Povidone-iodine has been safely administered for up to 5 months in the nasal cavity and 6 months in the oral cavity. Concentrations less than 2.5% in vitro do not reduce ciliary beat frequency or cause pathological changes in ciliated nasal epithelium, upper respiratory, or mucosal cells. Adverse events with oral use have not been reported in conscious adults or children. Allergy and contact sensitivity is rare. Chronic mucosal use up to 5% has not been shown to result in clinical thyroid disease. PVP-I is rapidly virucidal and inactivates coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).
CONCLUSIONS
Povidone-iodine can safely be used in the nose at concentrations up to 1.25% and in the mouth at concentrations up to 2.5% for up to 5 months. Povidone-iodine rapidly inactivates coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS, when applied for as little as 15 seconds. There is optimism that PVP-I can inactivate SARS-CoV-2, but in vitro efficacy has not yet been demonstrated.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus; Coronavirus Infections; Disinfection; Humans; Mouth; Nasal Cavity; Pandemics; Paranasal Sinuses; Pneumonia, Viral; Povidone-Iodine; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 32520599
DOI: 10.1177/0145561320932318 -
Orthopaedic Surgery Sep 2022Surgical site infection is a common complication of surgery, especially in orthopedics. Povidone-Iodine (PI) is one of the oldest and most commonly used disinfectants in...
OBJECTIVE
Surgical site infection is a common complication of surgery, especially in orthopedics. Povidone-Iodine (PI) is one of the oldest and most commonly used disinfectants in surgery. However, the toxicity and antimicrobial effect of PI have not been discussed. In addition, no study has explored the optimum PI concentration for sterilization and tissue healing. This study explores the germicidal efficacy of different concentrations PI, in addition, the toxicity and antibacterial effects of PI irrigation in fracture surgery are also discussed.
METHODS
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) were used to evaluate the germicidal efficacy of PI in vitro and in vivo. In vitro, the effects of PI on bacterial growth were analyzed. 2.5%, 1.25%, 0.5%, 0.25%, 0.05%, 0.025%, 0.005%, 0.0025% and 0% PI was added into the bacterial suspension, besides, the bacterial algebra and growth rate were tested. Meanwhile, the fluorescence intensity of viable bacteria was also tested to evaluate the effects of PI on bacterial survival. In vivo, first, femoral fracture with wound infection rat models were established. Second, thyroid gland sections, blood thyroxine, urinary iodine, wound local skin, muscle and bone tissue sections, serum creatinine and alanine aminotransferase, serum and bone local tissue interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-10 (IL-10), bone morphogenetic protein (BMP-2), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and transforming growth factor (TGF-β1) were detected in rat femoral shaft fracture model with 5%, 2.5%, 0.5%, 0.05%, and 0% PI irrigation. Third, tissue bacteria culture was tested in rat femoral fracture with wound infection model with different concentrations PI irrigation.
RESULTS
In vitro, 2.5%, 1.25%, 0.5% PI inhibited the growth of bacteria. 1.25%, 0.5% PI killed all the bacteria, while 0.25%, 0.05% PI had not killed bacteria after about 10 min. The iodine absorption of 5%, 2.5%, 0.5% PI irrigation did not cause thyroid injury. The 5%, 2.5%, 0.5% PI irrigation did not make serum creatinine and alanine aminotransferase abnormal and can remove bacteria from wounds. The 0.5%, 2.5% PI irrigation can promote tissue healing and increase BMP-2, VEGF, TGF-β1, IL-10, in addition, decrease IL-6. 5% PI irrigation would inhibit tissue healing, and increase IL-6, decrease BMP-2, VEGF, TGF-β1, IL-10.
CONCLUSIONS
Povidone-Iodine was a widely used disinfectant and 2.5%, 1.25% and 0.5% PI could effectively kill bacteria. Five percent and lower concentration PI irrigation was safe and could not cause thyroid, kidney and liver damage. The 0.5% PI irrigation was beneficial for tissue healing but 5% PI irrigation was the opposite.
Topics: Alanine Transaminase; Animals; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Creatinine; Disinfectants; Femoral Fractures; Interleukin-10; Interleukin-6; Iodine; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Povidone-Iodine; Rats; Surgical Wound Infection; Therapeutic Irrigation; Thyroxine; Transforming Growth Factor beta1; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 35913384
DOI: 10.1111/os.13422 -
Canadian Journal of Dental Hygiene :... Oct 2022This narrative review aims to compile and analyse infection prevention and control (IPAC) practices followed by dental clinics during 3 coronavirus outbreaks: SARS... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
This narrative review aims to compile and analyse infection prevention and control (IPAC) practices followed by dental clinics during 3 coronavirus outbreaks: SARS (2002-2004), MERS (2012-2014), and COVID-19 (2019-); and to draw parallels from them for future epidemics.
METHODS
Data were collected from 3 databases: Google Scholar, PubMed, and Embase using search terms "SARS," "MERS," "COVID-19," "infection control," "disinfection," and "sterilization".
RESULTS
Careful examination of 108 peer-reviewed articles on the 3 outbreaks revealed the following commonalities in the IPAC practices of dental clinics: use of sodium hypochlorite (surface disinfectant), ethanol and 1-propanol (hand hygiene), povidone-iodine (oral rinse), high-volume evacuation (HVE), rubber dam isolation, anti-retraction handpieces, and fogging.
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION
Ethanol, 1-propanol, sodium hypochlorite, povidone-iodine, photocatalysis, and fogging have been shown to be effective against various coronaviruses. However, more studies are required to validate the effectiveness of anti-retraction handpieces, rubber dam isolation, HVE, and cold atmospheric plasma specifically in infection control of the current coronavirus strain, SARS-CoV-2.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Povidone-Iodine; 1-Propanol; Sodium Hypochlorite; SARS-CoV-2; Disease Outbreaks; Dental Care; Disinfection
PubMed: 36451994
DOI: No ID Found