-
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 -
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 -
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 -
Pain Physician Sep 2021Intrawound treatments have been reported to have favorable efficacy for preventing surgical site infection (SSI); however, the best strategy remains unknown. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Intrawound treatments have been reported to have favorable efficacy for preventing surgical site infection (SSI); however, the best strategy remains unknown.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of intrawound treatments to prevent SSI after spine surgery.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Library, EMbase, PubMed, Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang Data from the date of inception to March 2, 2020. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies were identified and extracted by 2 reviewers independently. We performed a traditional pairwise meta-analysis to evaluate overall efficacy of intrawound treatments. Meanwhile, a network meta-analysis was performed to compare and rank the treatment efficacy using frequentist approach.
RESULTS
Thirty-three publications (6 RCTs and 27 retrospective cohort studies) were included, involving 22,763 patients. For pairwise meta-analysis, the combined results showed that the intrawound treatment had a significantly lower SSI rate than the control group (CG) (odds ratio [OR] = 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.55). For network meta-analysis, the treatment of vancomycin (VA) (OR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.39-0.71), povidone-iodine (PI) (OR = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.04 - 0.23), and vancomycin + povidone-iodine (VA+PI) (OR = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.11-0.58) were found to be significantly more efficacious than CG on reduction of SSI rate. PI ranked first on reducing SSI, followed by PI+HP, VA+PI, gentamicin (GM), VA, and hydrogen peroxide (HP); CG ranked last.
LIMITATIONS
Firstly, only 6 RCTs are included in this systematic review. Retrospective cohort studies tend to exaggerate the real results, although most of them are high-quality according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOQAS). More high-quality RCTs need to be included to obtain convincing conclusions. Secondly, the population of this study involves both adult and pediatric cohorts, patients with tumor, congenital disease, or degenerative disease. There is no subgroup analysis for ages and type of diseases, which might have influence on the overall pooled analysis. Thirdly, we define the application of saline solution and no intrawound treatment as the control group, which might ignore their heterogeneity. Fourthly, follow-up periods are variable and the sample size of HP is small. Finally, additional research is needed to compare the complications of different treatments and the benefits of various dosages.
CONCLUSION
We found that VA and PI show promising results on reducing SSI. PI is recommended as the most efficacious intrawound treatment to prevent SSI after spine surgery.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Surgical Wound Infection; Treatment Outcome; Vancomycin
PubMed: 34554687
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Sep 2021Of the several methods used to prevent surgical site infection (SSI), diluted povidone-iodine (PI) lavage is used widely. However, the clinical utility of PI for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Of the several methods used to prevent surgical site infection (SSI), diluted povidone-iodine (PI) lavage is used widely. However, the clinical utility of PI for preventing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the utility of dilute PI lavage for preventing PJI in primary and revision surgery.
METHODS
This study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA checklist for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov , and Cochrane Library databases was performed. The results are summarized qualitatively and as a meta-analysis of pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Heterogeneity of treatment effects among studies was classified as low, moderate, or high, corresponding to I values of < 25%, 25-50%, and > 50%. A random effects model was applied in cases of high heterogeneity; otherwise, the fixed effects model was applied. Subgroup analyses were conducted to identify potential sources of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
After the screening and eligibility assessment process, eight studies were finally extracted for analysis. Overall, the results showed that PI had no significant effect on PJI with ununified control group. However, subgroup analysis of studies with a saline control group revealed an odds ratio of 0.33 (95% CI, 0.16-0.71) for the PI group, suggesting a significant effect for preventing PJI.
CONCLUSION
The systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature demonstrates that diluted PI lavage is significantly better than saline solution lavage for preventing PJI.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level I, Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Topics: Arthritis, Infectious; Humans; Povidone-Iodine; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Saline Solution; Surgical Wound Infection; Therapeutic Irrigation
PubMed: 34551791
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02703-z -
Respiration; International Review of... 2022Congenital chylothorax (CCT) of the newborn is a rare entity but the most common cause of pleural effusion in this age-group. We aimed to find the optimal treatment...
BACKGROUND
Congenital chylothorax (CCT) of the newborn is a rare entity but the most common cause of pleural effusion in this age-group. We aimed to find the optimal treatment strategy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A PubMed search was performed according to the PRISMA criteria. All cases were analyzed according to prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal treatment modalities and follow-ups.
RESULTS
We identified 753 cases from 157 studies published between 1990 and 2018. The all-cause mortality rate was 28%. Prematurity was present in 71%, male gender dominated 57%, mean gestational age was 34 weeks, and birth weight was 2,654 g. Seventy-nine percent of newborns had bilateral CCT, the most common associated congenital anomalies with CCT were pulmonary lymphangiectasia and pulmonary hypoplasia, and the most common chromosomal aberrations were Down, Noonan, and Turner syndromes, respectively. Mechanical ventilation was reported in 381 cases for mean 17 (range 1-120) days; pleural punctuations and drainages were performed in 32% and 64%, respectively. Forty-four percent received total parenteral nutrition (TPN) for mean 21 days, 46% medium-chain triglyceride (MCT) diet for mean 37 days, 20% octreotide, and 3% somatostatin; chemical pleurodesis was performed in 116 cases, and surgery was reported in 48 cases with a success rate of 69%. In 462 cases (68%), complete restitution was reported; in 34 of 44 cases (77%), intrauterine intervention was carried out.
CONCLUSION
Respiratory support, pleural drainages, TPN, and MCT diet as octreotide remain to be the cornerstones of CCT management. Pleurodesis with OK-432 done prenatally and povidone-iodine postnatally might be discussed for use in life-threatening CCT.
Topics: Chylothorax; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Octreotide; Pleural Effusion; Pleurodesis
PubMed: 34515211
DOI: 10.1159/000518217 -
Journal of Infection and Public Health Sep 2021This systematic review aims to evaluate the evidence on the efficacy of mouth rinses on SARS-CoV-2 from in vitro studies. Five electronic databases were searched up to... (Review)
Review
This systematic review aims to evaluate the evidence on the efficacy of mouth rinses on SARS-CoV-2 from in vitro studies. Five electronic databases were searched up to February 2021; no language or time restrictions were used. Two independent reviewers conducted both selection and data extraction processes. The toxicological data reliability assessment tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias. Starting from 239 articles, retrieved by the electronic search, only eight studies were included in our systematic review. Povidone Iodine (PVP-I) was effective in killing SARS-CoV-2, demonstrated higher virucidal activity than other commonly used active ingredients. Conflicting results were found about the effectiveness of Chlorhexidine (CHX) while hydrogen peroxide (HO) proved less effective than PVP-I. Other active ingredients, such as quaternary ammonium compounds and Ethanol (particularly when combined with essential oils), have also shown promising results in reducing viral load, with results comparable to PVP-I.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; COVID-19; Humans; Hydrogen Peroxide; Mouthwashes; Reproducibility of Results; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34399189
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiph.2021.07.020 -
European Journal of Vascular and... Aug 2021This study aimed to develop and internally validate risk prediction models for predicting groin wound surgical site infections (SSIs) following arterial intervention and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
Groin Wound Infection after Vascular Exposure (GIVE) Risk Prediction Models: Development, Internal Validation, and Comparison with Existing Risk Prediction Models Identified in a Systematic Literature Review.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to develop and internally validate risk prediction models for predicting groin wound surgical site infections (SSIs) following arterial intervention and to evaluate the utility of existing risk prediction models for this outcome.
METHODS
Data from the Groin wound Infection after Vascular Exposure (GIVE) multicentre cohort study were used. The GIVE study prospectively enrolled 1 039 consecutive patients undergoing an arterial procedure through 1 339 groin incisions. An overall SSI rate of 8.6% per groin incision, and a deep/organ space SSI rate of 3.8%, were reported. Eight independent predictors of all SSIs, and four independent predictors of deep/organ space SSIs were included in the development and internal validation of two risk prediction models. A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify relevant risk prediction models for their evaluation.
RESULTS
The "GIVE SSI risk prediction model" ("GIVE SSI model") and the "GIVE deep/organ space SSI risk prediction model" ("deep SSI model") had adequate discrimination (C statistic 0.735 and 0.720, respectively). Three other groin incision SSI risk prediction models were identified; both GIVE risk prediction models significantly outperformed these other risk models in this cohort (C statistic 0.618 - 0.629; p < .050 for inferior discrimination in all cases).
CONCLUSION
Two models were created and internally validated that performed acceptably in predicting "all" and "deep" groin SSIs, outperforming current existing risk prediction models in this cohort. Future studies should aim to externally validate the GIVE models.
Topics: Aged; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Area Under Curve; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Chlorhexidine; Endovascular Procedures; Female; Groin; Humans; Logistic Models; Male; Middle Aged; Multivariate Analysis; Observational Studies as Topic; Povidone-Iodine; Probability; ROC Curve; Regression Analysis; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 34246547
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2021.05.009