-
International Journal of Environmental... Mar 2022The use of pre-procedural rinses has been investigated to reduce the number of viral particles and bacteria in aerosols, potentially decreasing the risk of... (Review)
Review
The use of pre-procedural rinses has been investigated to reduce the number of viral particles and bacteria in aerosols, potentially decreasing the risk of cross-infection from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during medical and dental procedures. This review aims to confirm whether there is evidence in the literature describing a reduction in salivary load of SARS-CoV-2 when povidone-iodine (PVP-I) is used as a pre-intervention mouthwash. An search of the MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane library databases was conducted. The criteria used followed the PRISMA Statement guidelines. Randomized controlled trials investigating the reduction of salivary load of SARS-CoV-2 using PVP-I were included. Ultimately, four articles were included that met the established criteria. According to the current evidence, PVP-I is effective against SARS-CoV-2 in saliva and could be implemented as a rinse before interventions to decrease the risk of cross-infection in healthcare settings.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Mouthwashes; Povidone-Iodine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; Viral Load
PubMed: 35270569
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19052877 -
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 -
Journal of Wound Care Feb 2022To compare the effectiveness of antiseptic solutions to that of non-antiseptic solutions in reducing wound infection rate, reducing bacterial load and improving wound...
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effectiveness of antiseptic solutions to that of non-antiseptic solutions in reducing wound infection rate, reducing bacterial load and improving wound healing.
METHOD
We searched PubMed MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ProQuest Medical Database and medRxiv for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antiseptic solutions with non-antiseptic solutions in simple, uncomplicated acute traumatic wounds. Qualitative data synthesis was employed. Risk of bias was assessed and GRADE assessment was used to evaluate quality of evidence.
RESULTS
In this systematic review, four studies with a total of 875 participants were included, of which two studies showed a significant reduction of wound infection rate using povidone-iodine (p=0.001 and p=0.03). The use of non-antiseptic solutions significantly increased bacterial load on acute traumatic wounds (p=0.0001). The quality of evidence was very low. No studies reported on wound healing outcome.
CONCLUSION
No robust conclusions can be implemented in clinical practice. Future studies are needed to compare the use of antiseptic and non-antiseptic solutions in acute traumatic wounds.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Humans; Povidone-Iodine; Wound Healing; Wound Infection
PubMed: 35148627
DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2022.31.2.162 -
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 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies Mar 2022Chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine are the most common disinfectants used in preoperative skin preparation. However, there is no consistent conclusion regarding the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine are the most common disinfectants used in preoperative skin preparation. However, there is no consistent conclusion regarding the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) and bacterial culture data.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine in the prevention of postoperative SSI and relevant bacterial data.
DESIGN
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis SETTINGS: N/A PARTICIPANTS: N/A METHOD: Literature relevant to "skin antisepsis" and "surgical site infections" was retrieved from PUBMED, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINHAL and CNKI. The incidence of SSI was the primary outcome, while the secondary outcome was bacterial data from the infected incision. All data were analyzed with Revman 5.3 and Stata Statistical Software.
RESULTS
A total of 36 studies were identified in this study, which included 16,872 participants. This study revealed that chlorhexidine is superior to povidone-iodine in the prevention of postoperative SSI (risk ratio [RR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.87; p = 0.019, I = 39%). Further meta-regression analysis revealed that the effect of chlorhexidine was directly associated with the type of incision, but failed to differentiate between the subgroups divided according to the type of incision. With respect to bacteria colonization, the most common bacteria for chlorhexidine arm were propionibacterium's, while the most common bacteria for the iodine arm were staphylococci species.
CONCLUSION
In comparison to povidone-iodine, chlorhexidine showed better results in preventing postoperative SSI.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Iodine; Preoperative Care; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 35121520
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.104059 -
Infectious Disorders Drug Targets 2022Puerperal infection is used to describe any bacterial infection of the reproductive tract after delivery. Identifying the factors affecting postpartum infections can...
BACKGROUND
Puerperal infection is used to describe any bacterial infection of the reproductive tract after delivery. Identifying the factors affecting postpartum infections can reduce the risk and complications of such factors and postpartum maternal mortality.
OBJECTIVE
This structured study was designed to evaluate factors affecting postpartum infections.
METHODS
In this study, after selecting Scopus, PubMed, SID, and Web of Science electronic databases, all observational studies (cohort and case-control) available and published in Farsi and English to investigate factors affecting postpartum infections were searched. The search was performed using the terms postpartum, infection, wound infection, puerperium, reason, risk factor, and their equivalent Persian words from 2010 to November 2019 regardless of publication status.
RESULTS
Out of the 3227 studies obtained, 19 were reviewed after removing irrelevant articles, duplicates (shared in databases), and animal samples. Age, level of education, delivery method, presence of episiotomy, anemia due to postpartum hemorrhage, interventions and manipulations during childbirth, prenatal hygiene, Povidone Iodine usage before delivery to wash the vagina, antibiotic prevention, increased labor duration, obesity, and the presence of bacteria were common symptoms affecting postpartum infection.
CONCLUSION
In this study, the factors affecting postpartum infection have been identified, some of which are avoidable. Identifying these factors helps reduce postpartum infections and their complications.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Female; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy; Puerperal Infection
PubMed: 34844548
DOI: 10.2174/1871526521666211129100519 -
Minerva Dental and Oral Science Oct 2021Antiseptic mouthwash is widely recommended to treat various oral diseases as well as to improve oral health. Most of the dental procedures lead to the generation of...
INTRODUCTION
Antiseptic mouthwash is widely recommended to treat various oral diseases as well as to improve oral health. Most of the dental procedures lead to the generation of aerosols. These aerosols have a high potential to transmit disease. Preprocedural oral rinse with antimicrobial agents in the form of mouthwashes reduces the bacterial and viral load many folds. The purpose of this review was to summarize the effectiveness of mouthwash against viruses affecting human beings.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Search engines like PubMed, Google Scholar, and others were used to search the electronic database. Articles were identified in which the effectiveness of antiseptic mouth rinse against the virus was tested. A comprehensive search strategy was designed to select the articles and then independently screened for eligibility.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of 9624 articles out of the 13 titles met the eligibility criteria. The selected papers were included in the present manuscript according to their relevance to the topic. Authors searched the most used chemicals as mouthwashes but records of three types of mouthwash tested against various types of viruses i.e. chlorhexidine gluconate, Povidone-iodine and essential oil containing mouthwash (Listerine) were found.
CONCLUSIONS
Povidone-iodine mouth rinse is effective in reducing viral load either in-vitro or in-vivo conditions. Chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash and essential oils have shown its effectiveness in a few studies. Insufficient evidence is available to support the claim that oral antiseptics can reduce the risk of developing viral loads in humans or the rate of progression of diseases caused by viruses.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Humans; Mouthwashes; Oral Health; Povidone-Iodine; Viruses
PubMed: 34842407
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6329.21.04418-6 -
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 -
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 -
International Journal of Dental Hygiene Feb 2022A wide variety of mouth rinses are available to combat micro-organisms in the oral cavity. At the present global pandemic, the need of the hour is to control the viral... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
A wide variety of mouth rinses are available to combat micro-organisms in the oral cavity. At the present global pandemic, the need of the hour is to control the viral infection due to the novel corona virus SARS-COV-2, as its port of entry is through the receptors located in the oral and pharyngeal mucosa. This systematic literature review focuses on the in vivo studies [randomized control trials (RCTs)] done on the efficacy of existing mouth rinses which have been used in reducing the viral loads.
METHODS
The electronic database which includes PubMed-MEDLINE, Google scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, ProQuest and CINAHL was searched from December 2019 to June 2021 with appropriate Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and Boolean operators. Two reviewers independently reviewed the abstracts.
RESULTS
Of the 2438 retrieved titles, 905 remained after removing duplicates. Twelve articles were eligible to be included in this review of which seven were randomized with adequate sample size.
CONCLUSIONS
Mouth washes containing povidone iodine and chlorhexidine decrease the viral load transiently. Large amount of in vivo studies are of paramount importance, especially RCTs, to prove the efficacy of these mouth rinses.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Mouth; Mouthwashes; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34628705
DOI: 10.1111/idh.12555