-
The Journal of Hospital Infection Sep 2023This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) comprehensively compared the effectiveness of different mouth rinses in reducing the viral load/infectivity of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) comprehensively compared the effectiveness of different mouth rinses in reducing the viral load/infectivity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) (Part I), alleviating clinical symptoms or severity of disease (Part II), and decreasing the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Part III).
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) with restrictions were searched up to 3 March 2023. Twenty-three studies (22 RCTs and one NRCT) met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review.
RESULTS
Five RCTs (454 patients and nine interventions) in Part I were eligible for NMA. The NMA results showed that, in comparison with no rinse, sodium chloride (NaCl) was the most effective mouth rinse for reducing the viral load, followed by povidone-iodine (PVP-I), ß-cyclodextrin + citrox (CDCM), hydrogen peroxide (HP), chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX), cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), placebo and hypochlorous acid (HClO). However, these results were not significant. Based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve scores, PVP-I was likely to be the most efficacious mouth rinse for reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral load, followed by CDCM, HP, NaCl, CHX, CPC, placebo, no rinse and HClO.
CONCLUSION
Due to heterogeneity of the primary studies, the effectiveness of different mouth rinses to reduce viral infectivity, improve clinical symptoms or prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection remains inconclusive.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Mouthwashes; Povidone-Iodine; SARS-CoV-2; Sodium Chloride; Network Meta-Analysis; Hydrogen Peroxide; Mouth
PubMed: 37419189
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2023.06.022 -
BMC Oral Health Jul 2023The risk of SARS-COV-2 transmission is relatively high during dental procedures. A study was conducted to investigate the effects of mouthwashes on SARS-COV-2 viral load... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The risk of SARS-COV-2 transmission is relatively high during dental procedures. A study was conducted to investigate the effects of mouthwashes on SARS-COV-2 viral load reduction in the oral cavity.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library for relevant studies up to 20 July, 2022. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trial and quasi-experimental studies evaluating patients with Covid-19 infection (patients) who used mouthwashes (intervention) compared to the same patients before using the mouthwash (comparison) for reducing the SARS-COV-2 load or increasing the cycle threshold (Ct) value (outcome) were searched according to PICO components. Three independent reviewers conducted literature screening and data extraction. The Modified Downs and Black checklist was used for quality assessment. A meta-analysis was performed with a random effects model in the Revman 5.4.1software using the mean difference (MD) of cycle threshold (Ct) values.
RESULTS
Of 1653 articles, 9 with a high methodological quality were included. A meta-analysis indicated that 1% Povidone-iodine (PVP-I) was an effective mouthwash for reducing the SARS-COV-2 viral load [MD 3.61 (95% confidence interval 1.03, 6.19)]. Cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) [MD 0.61 (95% confidence interval -1.03, 2.25)] and Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) [MD -0.04 95% confidence interval (-1.20, 1.12)] were not effective against SARS-COV-2.
CONCLUSION
Using mouthwashes containing PVP-I may be recommended for reducing the SARS-COV-2 viral load in the oral cavity of patients before and during dental procedures, while the evidence is not sufficient for such effects for CPC and CHX-containing mouthwashes.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Mouth; Mouthwashes; Povidone-Iodine; SARS-CoV-2; Viral Load; Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37400836
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03126-4 -
Contact Lens & Anterior Eye : the... Oct 2023To evaluate if topical povidone iodine (alone (PI) or combined with dexamethasone (PI-DXM)) is superior to placebo for treating adenoviral conjunctivitis (AC). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate if topical povidone iodine (alone (PI) or combined with dexamethasone (PI-DXM)) is superior to placebo for treating adenoviral conjunctivitis (AC).
METHODS
A systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for the Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement. An electronic search was made on PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library. Randomized control studies that compared PI or PI-DXM with placebo were included. At least three researchers were involved in all phases. Primary outcomes were AC duration and the number of clinical resolutions during the first week. Secondary outcomes were conjunctival redness and serous discharge one week after starting treatment and the rate of AC complications.
RESULTS
Only five studies met the inclusion criteria. PI-DXM reduced the duration of the disease by 2.4 days (IC95% 4.09-0.71), however this result was based only in one study. PI and PI-DXM did not modify the probability of clinical resolution during the first week; relative risk (RR) = 1.77 (IC95% 0.63-4.96) and 1.70 (IC95% 0.67-4.36). The impact of PI on the probability of pseudomembranes could not be estimated. PI-DXM did not influence the risk of developing subepithelial infiltrates RR = 0.73 (IC95% 0.02-33.38).
CONCLUSIONS
At this time there is great uncertainty about the usefulness of PI on the course of adenoviral conjunctivitis. PI-DXM may have a small effect on AC duration. To make future reviews possible, it is important to standardize the way in which these results are reported. Futures studies should include etiological confirmation, unit of study (eyes vs patients) and report on those aspects that are more relevant for patient quality of life (duration of the disease, development of complications: pseudomembranes and subepithelial infiltrates).
Topics: Humans; Povidone-Iodine; Povidone; Quality of Life; Conjunctivitis
PubMed: 37380515
DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2023.101873 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders May 2023Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication with total joint arthroplasty (TJA), that necessitates reoperation. Pre-closure irrigation with dilute... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication with total joint arthroplasty (TJA), that necessitates reoperation. Pre-closure irrigation with dilute povidone-iodine (PI) is among the preventive measures, but its efficiency is still controversial. As a result, the focus of this systematic review and meta-analysis is on the effect of dilute PI wound irrigation in the prevention of PJI following TJA.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed and analyzed articles that compared PI with other agents in terms of PJI rate after TJA, searching Medline, Scopus, Web of science, and Cochrane databases. A number of 13 papers including 63,950 patients in total, were finally considered in qualitative and quantitative assessments. We have also further assessed review articles.
RESULTS
In comparison with normal saline (NS), PI reduced post-operative infection rate (OR: 0.44; CI 95%: 0.34-0.56). However, there was no difference between PI and chlorhexidine (CHG) (OR: 1.61; CI 95%: 0.83-3.09)) or undetermined comparators (OR: 1.08; CI 95%: 0.67-1.76).
CONCLUSION
PI irrigation seems an efficient preventive measure for post-operative PJI and would seem to be the most feasible for TJA protocol.
Topics: Humans; Povidone-Iodine; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Arthritis, Infectious; Surgical Wound Infection; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37231378
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06548-x -
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine 2023Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most common nosocomial infections affecting one-third of patients with mechanical ventilation. This study aimed to... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most common nosocomial infections affecting one-third of patients with mechanical ventilation. This study aimed to synthesize available evidence regarding the effect of treatment with povidone-iodine (PI) among adult patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) for the prevention of VAP.
METHODS
An extensive search was conducted in online databases, including PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus, from the earliest records until January 1, 2023. STATA software v14 was used for statistical analysis. Publication bias was assessed via funnel plot, Begg's and Egger's tests. A P-value less than 0.1 was considered statistically significant for publication bias value.
RESULTS
Four studies were included in the meta-analysis. Three studies showed rhat PI decreased VAP compared to the placebo group, but it was not statistically significant (RR: 0.61, 95%CI: 0.25 to 1.47, Z=1.10, P=0.27, I2:71.5%). One study compared the effect of PI with chlorhexidine on the rate of VAP, the difference between which was not statistically significant (RR: 1.50, 95%CI: 0.46 to 4.87, Z=0.67, P=0.50, I2:0). Two studies demonstrated that the use of PI intervention compared to placebo decreased the average length of stay in ICU; however, it was not statistically significant (WMD: -0.35, 95%CI:-3.90 to 3.20, Z=0.19, P=0.85, I2:0). Also, three studies showed that using PI had almost no effect on mortality rate compared to placebo (RR: 1.05, 95%CI: 0.66 to 1.53, Z=0.8, P=0.27, I2:29.0%).
CONCLUSION
More rigorously designed randomized clinical trials and further evidence are required to make a better decision/comparison about using PI as a suitable choice for preventing VAP among adult patients admitted to the ICU.
PubMed: 37215234
DOI: 10.22037/aaem.v11i1.1874 -
American Journal of Obstetrics &... Aug 2023Precesarean vaginal antisepsis can benefit pregnant women with ruptured membranes. However, in the general population, recent trials have shown mixed results in reducing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Precesarean vaginal antisepsis can benefit pregnant women with ruptured membranes. However, in the general population, recent trials have shown mixed results in reducing postoperative infections. This study aimed to systematically review clinical trials and summarize the most suitable vaginal preparations for cesarean delivery in preventing postoperative infection.
DATA SOURCES
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, SinoMed databases, and the ClinicalTrials.gov clinical trials registry for randomized controlled trials and conference presentations (past 20 years, 2003-2022). Reference lists of previous meta-analyses were searched manually. In addition, we conducted subgroup analysis on the basis of whether the studies were conducted in developed or developing countries, whether the membranes were ruptured, and whether patients were in labor.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials comparing vaginal preparation methods for the prevention of postcesarean infection with each other or with negative controls.
METHODS
Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. The effectiveness of prevention strategies was assessed by frequentist-based network meta-analysis models. The outcomes were endometritis, postoperative fever, and wound infection.
RESULTS
A total of 23 trials including 10,026 cesarean delivery patients were included in this study. Vaginal preparation methods included 19 iodine-based disinfectants (1%, 5%, and 10% povidone-iodine; 0.4% and 0.5% iodophor) and 4 guanidine-based disinfectants (0.05% and 0.20% chlorhexidine acetate; 1% and 4% chlorhexidine gluconate). Overall, vaginal preparation significantly reduced the risks of endometritis (3.4% vs 8.1%; risk ratio, 0.41 [0.32-0.52]), postoperative fever (7.1% vs 11.4%; risk ratio, 0.58 [0.45-0.74]), and wound infection (4.1% vs 5.4%; risk ratio, 0.73 [0.59-0.90]). With regard to disinfectant type, iodine-based disinfectants (risk ratio, 0.45 [0.35-0.57]) and guanidine-based disinfectants (risk ratio, 0.22 [0.12-0.40]) significantly reduced the risk of endometritis, and iodine-based disinfectants reduced the risk of postoperative fever (risk ratio, 0.58 [0.44-0.77]) and wound infection (risk ratio, 0.75 [0.60-0.94]). With regard to disinfectant concentration, 1% povidone-iodine was most likely to simultaneously reduce the risks of endometritis, postoperative fever, and wound infection.
CONCLUSION
Preoperative vaginal preparation can significantly reduce the risk of postcesarean infectious diseases (endometritis, postoperative fever, and wound infection); 1% povidone-iodine has particularly outstanding effects.
Topics: Humans; Female; Pregnancy; Povidone-Iodine; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Surgical Wound Infection; Endometritis; Network Meta-Analysis; Iodine; Disinfectants; Communicable Diseases
PubMed: 37178722
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.100990 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Central venous catheters (CVC) are associated with potentially dangerous complications such as thromboses, pericardial effusions, extravasation, and infections in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Central venous catheters (CVC) are associated with potentially dangerous complications such as thromboses, pericardial effusions, extravasation, and infections in neonates. Indwelling catheters are amongst the main risk factors for nosocomial infections. The use of skin antiseptics during the preparation for central catheter insertion may prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) and central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI). However, it is still not clear which antiseptic solution is the best to prevent infection with minimal side effects.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of different antiseptic solutions in preventing CRBSI and other related outcomes in neonates with CVC.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries up to 22 April 2022. We checked reference lists of included trials and systematic reviews that related to the intervention or population examined in this Cochrane Review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion in this review if they were performed in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and were comparing any antiseptic solution (single or in combination) against any other type of antiseptic solution or no antiseptic solution or placebo in preparation for central catheter insertion. We excluded cross-over trials and quasi-RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methods from Cochrane Neonatal. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three trials that had two different comparisons: 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropyl alcohol (CHG-IPA) versus 10% povidone-iodine (PI) (two trials); and CHG-IPA versus 2% chlorhexidine in aqueous solution (CHG-A) (one trial). A total of 466 neonates from level III NICUs were evaluated. All included trials were at high risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence for the primary and some important secondary outcomes ranged from very low to moderate. There were no included trials that compared antiseptic skin solutions with no antiseptic solution or placebo. CHG-IPA versus 10% PI Compared to PI, CHG-IPA may result in little to no difference in CRBSI (risk ratio (RR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 3.25; risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06; 352 infants, 2 trials, low-certainty evidence) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.68; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.06; 304 infants, 1 trial, low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CHG-IPA on CLABSI (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.08; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.11; 48 infants, 1 trial; very low-certainty evidence) and chemical burns (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.24 to 4.48; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 352 infants, 2 trials, very low-certainty evidence), compared to PI. Based on a single trial, infants receiving CHG-IPA appeared less likely to develop thyroid dysfunction compared to PI (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.85; RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.02; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 17, 95% CI 10 to 50; 304 infants). Neither of the two included trials assessed the outcome of premature central line removal or the proportion of infants or catheters with exit-site infection. CHG-IPA versus CHG-A The evidence suggests CHG-IPA may result in little to no difference in the rate of proven CRBSI when applied on the skin of neonates prior to central line insertion (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.87; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.13; 106 infants, 1 trial, low-certainty evidence) and CLABSI (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.34 to 3.84; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.15; 106 infants, 1 trial, low-certainty evidence), compared to CHG-A. Compared to CHG-A, CHG-IPA probably results in little to no difference in premature catheter removal (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.19; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.13; 106 infants, 1 trial, moderate-certainty evidence) and chemical burns (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.03; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.18; 114 infants, 1 trial, moderate-certainty evidence). No trial assessed the outcome of all-cause mortality and the proportion of infants or catheters with exit-site infection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on current evidence, compared to PI, CHG-IPA may result in little to no difference in CRBSI and mortality. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CHG-IPA on CLABSI and chemical burns. One trial showed a statistically significant increase in thyroid dysfunction with the use of PI compared to CHG-IPA. The evidence suggests CHG-IPA may result in little to no difference in the rate of proven CRBSI and CLABSI when applied on the skin of neonates prior to central line insertion. Compared to CHG-A, CHG-IPA probably results in little to no difference in chemical burns and premature catheter removal. Further trials that compare different antiseptic solutions are required, especially in low- and middle-income countries, before stronger conclusions can be made.
Topics: Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Burns, Chemical; Central Venous Catheters; Chlorhexidine; Sepsis
PubMed: 37142550
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013841.pub2 -
Acta Ophthalmologica Nov 2023
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Humans; Povidone-Iodine; Network Meta-Analysis; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Conjunctivitis, Viral
PubMed: 37130094
DOI: 10.1111/aos.15689 -
Scientific Reports Jan 2023Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common complication of surgery, increasing healthcare costs and hospital stay. Chlorhexidine (CHX) and povidone-iodine (PVI)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common complication of surgery, increasing healthcare costs and hospital stay. Chlorhexidine (CHX) and povidone-iodine (PVI) are used for skin antisepsis, minimising SSIs. There is concern that resistance to topical biocides may be emergeing, although the potential clinical implications remain unclear. The objective of this systematic review was to determine whether the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of topical preparations of CHX or PVI have changed over time, in microbes relevant to SSI. We included studies reporting the MBC of laboratory and clinical isolates of common microbes to CHX and PVI. We excluded studies using non-human samples and antimicrobial solvents or mixtures with other active substances. MBC was pooled in random effects meta-analyses and the change in MBC over time was explored using meta-regression. Seventy-nine studies were included, analysing 6218 microbes over 45 years. Most studies investigated CHX (93%), with insufficient data for meta-analysis of PVI. There was no change in the MBC of CHX to Staphylococci or Streptococci over time. Overall, we find no evidence of reduced susceptibility of common SSI-causing microbes to CHX over time. This provides reassurance and confidence in the worldwide guidance that CHX should remain the first-choice agent for surgical skin antisepsis.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Povidone-Iodine; Chlorhexidine; Preoperative Care; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 36611032
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-26658-1 -
The efficacy of mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in human saliva: A systematic review.New Microbes and New Infections 2022This systematic review aimed to evaluate existing randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies on the efficacy of mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral loads... (Review)
Review
This systematic review aimed to evaluate existing randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies on the efficacy of mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in human saliva. Searches with pertinent search terms were conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for relevant records published up to Oct 15, 2022. Google Scholar and ProQuest were searched for grey literature. Manual searches were conducted as well for any pertinent articles. The protocol was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022324894). Eligible studies were critically appraised for risk of bias and quality of evidence to assess the efficacy of mouthwash in reducing the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in human saliva. Eleven studies were included. The effect on viral load using various types of mouthwash was observed, including chlorhexidine (CHX), povidone-iodine (PI), cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), hydrogen peroxide (HP), ß-cyclodextrin-citrox mouthwash (CDCM), and Hypochlorous acid (HCIO). Eight articles discussed CHX use. Five were found to be significant and three did not show any significant decrease in viral loads. Eight studies reviewed the use of PI, with five articles identifying a significant decrease in viral load, and three not showing a significant decrease in viral load. HP was reviewed in four studies, two studies identified significant viral load reductions, and two did not. CPC was reviewed in four studies, two of which identified significant viral load reductions, and two did not. CDCM was reviewed in one article which found a significant decrease in viral load reduction. Also, HCIO which was evaluated in one study indicated no significant difference in CT value. The current systematic review indicates that based on these eleven studies, mouthwashes are effective at reducing the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in human saliva. However, further studies should be performed on larger populations with different mouthwashes. The overall quality of evidence was high.
PubMed: 36530834
DOI: 10.1016/j.nmni.2022.101064