-
The Science of the Total Environment Nov 2021A year into the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the role of washing hands with soap and hand disinfectants is unavoidable as a primary way to control the infection... (Review)
Review
A year into the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the role of washing hands with soap and hand disinfectants is unavoidable as a primary way to control the infection spread in communities and healthcare facilities. The extraordinary surge in demand for handwashing products has led to environmental concerns. Since soaps are complex mixtures of toxic and persistent active ingredients, the prudent option is to promote eco-friendly replacements for the current products. On the other hand, with the increase in soap packaging waste production, soap packaging waste management and recycling become essential to reduce environmental impact. This systematic review aimed to collect some recent methods for identifying biodegradable and sustainable raw materials to produce and package cleaning agents, especially soap.
Topics: COVID-19; Environment; Hand Disinfection; Humans; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2; Soaps
PubMed: 34271380
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149013 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Leg ulcers are open skin wounds that occur below the knee but above the foot. The majority of leg ulcers are venous in origin, occurring as a result of venous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Leg ulcers are open skin wounds that occur below the knee but above the foot. The majority of leg ulcers are venous in origin, occurring as a result of venous insufficiency, where the flow of blood through the veins is impaired; they commonly arise due to blood clots and varicose veins. Compression therapy, using bandages or stockings, is the primary treatment for venous leg ulcers. Wound cleansing can be used to remove surface contaminants, bacteria, dead tissue and excess wound fluid from the wound bed and surrounding skin, however, there is uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of cleansing and the best method or solution to use.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of wound cleansing, wound cleansing solutions and wound cleansing techniques for treating venous leg ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS
In September 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing wound cleansing with no wound cleansing, or RCTs comparing different wound cleansing solutions, or different wound cleansing techniques.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We screened studies for their appropriateness for inclusion, assessed their risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and used GRADE methodology to determine the certainty of evidence. Two review authors undertook these tasks independently, using predetermined criteria. We contacted study authors for missing data where possible.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four studies with a total of 254 participants. All studies included comparisons between different types of cleansing solutions, and three of these reported our primary outcomes of complete wound healing or change in ulcer size over time, or both. Two studies reported the secondary outcome, pain. One study (27 participants), which compared polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) solution with saline solution for cleansing venous leg ulcers, did not report any of the review's primary or secondary outcomes. We did not identify any studies that compared cleansing with no cleansing, or that explored comparisons between different cleansing techniques. One study (61 participants) compared aqueous oxygen peroxide with sterile water. We are uncertain whether aqueous oxygen peroxide makes any difference to the number of wounds completely healed after 12 months of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 3.20). Similarly, we are uncertain whether aqueous oxygen peroxide makes any difference to change in ulcer size after eight weeks of follow-up (mean difference (MD) -1.38 cm, 95% CI -4.35 to 1.59 cm). Finally, we are uncertain whether aqueous oxygen peroxide makes any difference to pain reduction, assessed after eight weeks of follow-up using a 0 to 100 pain rating, (MD 3.80, 95% CI -10.83 to 18.43). The evidence for these outcomes is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision; for the pain outcome we also downgraded for indirectness). Another study (40 participants) compared propyl betaine and polihexanide with a saline solution. The authors did not present the raw data in the study report so we were unable to conduct independent statistical analysis of the data. We are uncertain whether propyl betaine and polihexanide make any difference to the number of wounds completely healed, change in ulcer size over time, or wound pain reduction. The evidence is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision). The final study (126 participants) compared octenidine dihydrochloride/phenoxyethanol (OHP) with Ringer's solution. We are uncertain whether OHP makes any difference to the number of wounds healed (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.72) or to the change in ulcer size over time (we were unable to conduct independent statistical analysis of available data). The evidence is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision). None of the studies reported patient preference, ease of use of the method of cleansing, cost or health-related quality of life. In one study comparing propyl betaine and polihexanide with saline solution the authors do not report any adverse events occurring. We are uncertain whether OHP makes any difference to the number of adverse events compared with Ringer's solution (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.14). The evidence is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently a lack of RCT evidence to guide decision making about the effectiveness of wound cleansing compared with no cleansing and the optimal approaches to cleansing of venous leg ulcers. From the four studies identified, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether the use of PHMB solution compared with saline solution; aqueous oxygen peroxide compared with sterile water; propyl betaine and polihexanide compared with a saline solution; or OHP compared with Ringer's solution makes any difference in the treatment of venous leg ulcers. Evidence from three of the studies is of very low certainty, due to study limitations and imprecision. One study did not present data for the primary or secondary outcomes. Further well-designed studies that address important clinical, quality of life and economic outcomes may be important, based on the clinical and patient priority of this uncertainty.
Topics: Aged; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Betaine; Bias; Biguanides; Confidence Intervals; Detergents; Disinfectants; Ethylene Glycols; Female; Humans; Hydrogen Peroxide; Imines; Male; Middle Aged; Pain Measurement; Pyridines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ringer's Solution; Saline Solution; Varicose Ulcer; Wound Healing
PubMed: 33734426
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011675.pub2 -
Clinical and Experimental Allergy :... Mar 2021Eczema and food allergy start in infancy and have shared genetic risk factors that affect skin barrier. We aimed to evaluate whether skincare interventions can prevent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Eczema and food allergy start in infancy and have shared genetic risk factors that affect skin barrier. We aimed to evaluate whether skincare interventions can prevent eczema or food allergy.
DESIGN
A prospectively planned individual participant data meta-analysis was carried out within a Cochrane systematic review to determine whether skincare interventions in term infants prevent eczema or food allergy.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries to July 2020.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTED STUDIES
Included studies were randomized controlled trials of infants <1 year with healthy skin comparing a skin intervention with a control, for prevention of eczema and food allergy outcomes between 1 and 3 years.
RESULTS
Of the 33 identified trials, 17 trials (5823 participants) had relevant outcome data and 10 (5154 participants) contributed to IPD meta-analysis. Three of seven trials contributing to primary eczema analysis were at low risk of bias, and the single trial contributing to primary food allergy analysis was at high risk of bias. Interventions were mainly emollients, applied for the first 3-12 months. Skincare interventions probably do not change risk of eczema by age 1-3 years (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.81, 1.31; I =41%; moderate certainty; 3075 participants, 7 trials). Sensitivity analysis found heterogeneity was explained by increased eczema in a trial of daily bathing as part of the intervention. It is unclear whether skincare interventions increase risk of food allergy by age 1-3 years (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.47; very low certainty; 996 participants, 1 trial), but they probably increase risk of local skin infections (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02, 1.77; I =0%; moderate certainty; 2728 participants, 6 trials).
CONCLUSION
Regular emollients during infancy probably do not prevent eczema and probably increase local skin infections.
Topics: Dermatitis, Atopic; Emollients; Food Hypersensitivity; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Skin Care; Skin Diseases, Infectious; Soaps; Water Softening
PubMed: 33550675
DOI: 10.1111/cea.13847 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Eczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur together in the same people. They can be associated with an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Eczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur together in the same people. They can be associated with an impaired skin barrier in early infancy. It is unclear whether trying to prevent or reverse an impaired skin barrier soon after birth is effective in preventing eczema or food allergy.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective To assess effects of skin care interventions, such as emollients, for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy in infants Secondary objective To identify features of study populations such as age, hereditary risk, and adherence to interventions that are associated with the greatest treatment benefit or harm for both eczema and food allergy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to July 2020: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers and checked reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We contacted field experts to identify planned trials and to seek information about unpublished or incomplete trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs of skin care interventions that could potentially enhance skin barrier function, reduce dryness, or reduce subclinical inflammation in healthy term (> 37 weeks) infants (0 to 12 months) without pre-existing diagnosis of eczema, food allergy, or other skin condition were included. Comparison was standard care in the locality or no treatment. Types of skin care interventions included moisturisers/emollients; bathing products; advice regarding reducing soap exposure and bathing frequency; and use of water softeners. No minimum follow-up was required.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This is a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and primary analyses used the IPD dataset. Primary outcomes were cumulative incidence of eczema and cumulative incidence of immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated food allergy by one to three years, both measured by the closest available time point to two years. Secondary outcomes included adverse events during the intervention period; eczema severity (clinician-assessed); parent report of eczema severity; time to onset of eczema; parent report of immediate food allergy; and allergic sensitisation to food or inhalant allergen.
MAIN RESULTS
This review identified 33 RCTs, comprising 25,827 participants. A total of 17 studies, randomising 5823 participants, reported information on one or more outcomes specified in this review. Eleven studies randomising 5217 participants, with 10 of these studies providing IPD, were included in one or more meta-analysis (range 2 to 9 studies per individual meta-analysis). Most studies were conducted at children's hospitals. All interventions were compared against no skin care intervention or local standard care. Of the 17 studies that reported our outcomes, 13 assessed emollients. Twenty-five studies, including all those contributing data to meta-analyses, randomised newborns up to age three weeks to receive a skin care intervention or standard infant skin care. Eight of the 11 studies contributing to meta-analyses recruited infants at high risk of developing eczema or food allergy, although definition of high risk varied between studies. Durations of intervention and follow-up ranged from 24 hours to two years. We assessed most of this review's evidence as low certainty or had some concerns of risk of bias. A rating of some concerns was most often due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors or significant missing data, which could have impacted outcome measurement but was judged unlikely to have done so. Evidence for the primary food allergy outcome was rated as high risk of bias due to inclusion of only one trial where findings varied when different assumptions were made about missing data. Skin care interventions during infancy probably do not change risk of eczema by one to two years of age (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.31; moderate-certainty evidence; 3075 participants, 7 trials) nor time to onset of eczema (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence; 3349 participants, 9 trials). It is unclear whether skin care interventions during infancy change risk of IgE-mediated food allergy by one to two years of age (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.47; 996 participants, 1 trial) or allergic sensitisation to a food allergen at age one to two years (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.69; 1055 participants, 2 trials) due to very low-certainty evidence for these outcomes. Skin care interventions during infancy may slightly increase risk of parent report of immediate reaction to a common food allergen at two years (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.61; low-certainty evidence; 1171 participants, 1 trial). However, this was only seen for cow's milk, and may be unreliable due to significant over-reporting of cow's milk allergy in infants. Skin care interventions during infancy probably increase risk of skin infection over the intervention period (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.77; moderate-certainty evidence; 2728 participants, 6 trials) and may increase risk of infant slippage over the intervention period (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.99; low-certainty evidence; 2538 participants, 4 trials) or stinging/allergic reactions to moisturisers (RR 2.24, 95% 0.67 to 7.43; low-certainty evidence; 343 participants, 4 trials), although confidence intervals for slippages and stinging/allergic reactions are wide and include the possibility of no effect or reduced risk. Preplanned subgroup analyses show that effects of interventions were not influenced by age, duration of intervention, hereditary risk, FLG mutation, or classification of intervention type for risk of developing eczema. We could not evaluate these effects on risk of food allergy. Evidence was insufficient to show whether adherence to interventions influenced the relationship between skin care interventions and risk of developing eczema or food allergy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Skin care interventions such as emollients during the first year of life in healthy infants are probably not effective for preventing eczema, and probably increase risk of skin infection. Effects of skin care interventions on risk of food allergy are uncertain. Further work is needed to understand whether different approaches to infant skin care might promote or prevent eczema and to evaluate effects on food allergy based on robust outcome assessments.
Topics: Bias; Eczema; Emollients; Female; Filaggrin Proteins; Food Hypersensitivity; Humans; Hypersensitivity, Immediate; Immunoglobulin E; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Milk Hypersensitivity; Skin Care; Skin Diseases, Infectious; Soaps
PubMed: 33545739
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013534.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Diarrhoea accounts for 1.8 million deaths in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One of the identified strategies to prevent diarrhoea is hand washing. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Diarrhoea accounts for 1.8 million deaths in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One of the identified strategies to prevent diarrhoea is hand washing.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of hand-washing promotion interventions on diarrhoeal episodes in children and adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP), and metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) on 8 January 2020, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Individually-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared the effects of hand-washing interventions on diarrhoea episodes in children and adults with no intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We stratified the analyses for child day-care centres or schools, community, and hospital-based settings. Where appropriate, we pooled incidence rate ratios (IRRs) using the generic inverse variance method and a random-effects model with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 29 RCTs: 13 trials from child day-care centres or schools in mainly high-income countries (54,471 participants), 15 community-based trials in LMICs (29,347 participants), and one hospital-based trial among people with AIDS in a high-income country (148 participants). All the trials and follow-up assessments were of short-term duration. Hand-washing promotion (education activities, sometimes with provision of soap) at child day-care facilities or schools prevent around one-third of diarrhoea episodes in high-income countries (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; 9 trials, 4664 participants, high-certainty evidence) and may prevent a similar proportion in LMICs, but only two trials from urban Egypt and Kenya have evaluated this (IRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99; 2 trials, 45,380 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only four trials reported measures of behaviour change, and the methods of data collection were susceptible to bias. In one trial from the USA hand-washing behaviour was reported to improve; and in the trial from Kenya that provided free soap, hand washing did not increase, but soap use did (data not pooled; 3 trials, 1845 participants; low-certainty evidence). Hand-washing promotion among communities in LMICs probably prevents around one-quarter of diarrhoea episodes (IRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.81; 9 trials, 15,950 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, six of these nine trials were from Asian settings, with only one trial from South America and two trials from sub-Saharan Africa. In seven trials, soap was provided free alongside hand-washing education, and the overall average effect size was larger than in the two trials which did not provide soap (soap provided: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.75; 7 trials, 12,646 participants; education only: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; 2 trials, 3304 participants). There was increased hand washing at major prompts (before eating or cooking, after visiting the toilet, or cleaning the baby's bottom) and increased compliance with hand-hygiene procedure (behavioural outcome) in the intervention groups compared with the control in community trials (data not pooled: 4 trials, 3591 participants; high-certainty evidence). Hand-washing promotion for the one trial conducted in a hospital among a high-risk population showed significant reduction in mean episodes of diarrhoea (1.68 fewer) in the intervention group (mean difference -1.68, 95% CI -1.93 to -1.43; 1 trial, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Hand-washing frequency increased to seven times a day in the intervention group versus three times a day in the control arm in this hospital trial (1 trial, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found no trials evaluating the effects of hand-washing promotions on diarrhoea-related deaths or cost effectiveness.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Hand-washing promotion probably reduces diarrhoea episodes in both child day-care centres in high-income countries and among communities living in LMICs by about 30%. The included trials do not provide evidence about the long-term impact of the interventions.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Child; Child Day Care Centers; Community-Acquired Infections; Cross Infection; Developed Countries; Developing Countries; Diarrhea; Hand Disinfection; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schools; Soaps
PubMed: 33539552
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004265.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Annually, infections contribute to approximately 25% of the 2.8 million neonatal deaths worldwide. Over 95% of sepsis-related neonatal deaths occur in low- and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Annually, infections contribute to approximately 25% of the 2.8 million neonatal deaths worldwide. Over 95% of sepsis-related neonatal deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. Hand hygiene is an inexpensive and cost-effective method of preventing infection in neonates, making it an affordable and practicable intervention in low- and middle-income settings. Therefore, hand hygiene practices may hold strong prospects for reducing the occurrence of infection and infection-related neonatal death.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of different hand hygiene agents for preventing neonatal infection in community and health facility settings.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 5), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 10 May 2019); Embase (1980 to 10 May 2019); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 10 May 2019). We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials. Searches were updated 1 June 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs, cross-over trials, and quasi-RCTs that included pregnant women, mothers, other caregivers, and healthcare workers who received interventions within the community or in health facility settings DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were incidence of (study author-defined) suspected infection within the first 28 days of life, bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life, all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life (early neonatal death), and all-cause mortality from the 8th to the 28th day of life (late neonatal death).
MAIN RESULTS
Our review included five studies: one RCT, one quasi-RCT, and three cross-over trials with a total of more than 5450 neonates (two studies included all neonates but did not report the actual number of neonates involved). Four studies involved 279 nurses working in neonatal intensive care units and all neonates on admission. The fifth study did not clearly state how many nurses were included in the study. Studies examined the effectiveness of different hand hygiene practices for the incidence of (study author-defined) suspected infection within the first 28 days of life. Two studies were rated as low risk for selection bias, another two were rated as high risk, and one study was rated as unclear risk. One study was rated as low risk for allocation bias, and four were rated as high risk. Only one of the five studies was rated as low risk for performance bias. 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) compared to plain liquid soap We are uncertain whether plain soap is better than 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) for nurses' skin based on very low-certainty evidence (mean difference (MD) -1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.31 to -0.19; 16 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We identified no studies that reported on other outcomes for this comparison. 4% chlorhexidine gluconate compared to triclosan 1% One study compared 1% w/v triclosan with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate and suggests that 1% w/v triclosan may reduce the incidence of suspected infection (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.60; 1916 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There may be fewer cases of infection in the 1% w/v triclosan group compared to the 4% chlorhexidine gluconate group (RR 6.01, 95% CI 3.56 to 10.14; 1916 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); however, we are uncertain of the available evidence. We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality, duration of hospital stay, and adverse events for this comparison. 2% CHG compared to alcohol hand sanitiser (61% alcohol and emollients) We are uncertain whether 2% chlorhexidine gluconate reduces the risk of all infection in neonates compared to 61% alcohol hand sanitiser with regards to the incidence of all bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.69; 2932 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) in the 2% chlorhexidine gluconate group, but the evidence is very uncertain. The adverse outcome was reported as mean visual scoring on the skin. There may be little to no difference between the effects of 2% CHG on nurses' skin compared to alcohol hand sanitiser based on very low-certainty evidence (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.59; 118 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality and other outcomes for this comparison. None of the included studies assessed all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life nor duration of hospital stay. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain as to the superiority of one hand hygiene agent over another because this review included very few studies with very serious study limitations.
Topics: Age Factors; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Bacterial Infections; Bias; Chlorhexidine; Cross-Over Studies; Hand Hygiene; Hand Sanitizers; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Neonatal Nursing; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Soaps; Triclosan
PubMed: 33471367
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013326.pub2 -
Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta.... Mar 2021Structure determination of membrane proteins is critical to the molecular understanding of many life processes, yet it has historically been a technically challenging... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Structure determination of membrane proteins is critical to the molecular understanding of many life processes, yet it has historically been a technically challenging endeavor. This past decade has given rise to a number of technological advancements, techniques, and reagents, which have facilitated membrane protein structural biology, resulting in an ever-growing number of membrane protein structures determined. To collate these advances, we have mined available literature to analyze the purification and structure determination specifics for all uniquely solved membrane protein structures from 2010 to 2019. Our analyses demonstrate the strong impact of single-particle cryo-electron microscopy on the field and illustrate how this technique has affected detergent and membrane mimetic usage. Furthermore, we detail how different structure determination methods, taxonomic domains and protein classes have unique detergent/membrane mimetic profiles, highlighting the importance of tailoring their selection. Our analyses provide a quantitative overview of where the field of membrane protein structural biology stands and how it has developed over time. We anticipate that these will serve as a useful tool to streamline future membrane protein structure determination by guiding the choice of detergent/membrane mimetic.
Topics: Biomimetic Materials; Cryoelectron Microscopy; Detergents; Lipid Bilayers; Membrane Proteins
PubMed: 33340490
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2020.183533 -
Clinical and Experimental Allergy :... Mar 2021Hard domestic water has been reported to worsen atopic eczema (AE) and may contribute to its development in early life. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hard domestic water has been reported to worsen atopic eczema (AE) and may contribute to its development in early life.
OBJECTIVE
To review the literature on the relationship between the effect of water hardness (high calcium carbonate; CaCO ) on (a) the risk of developing AE, (b) the treatment of existing AE and (c) skin barrier function in human and animal studies.
DESIGN , DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We systematically searched databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, GREAT and Web of Science) from inception until 30/6/2020. Human and animal observational and experimental studies were included. The primary outcomes were risk of AE and skin barrier function. Studies were meta-analysed using a random effects model. Evidence certainty was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included. Pooled observational data from seven studies on 385,901 participants identified increased odds of AE in children exposed to harder versus softer water (odds ratio 1.28, 95% CI 1.09, 1.50; GRADE certainty: very low). Two mechanistic studies in humans reported higher deposition of the detergent sodium lauryl sulphate in those exposed to harder versus softer water. Two randomized controlled trials comparing water softeners with standard care did not show a significant difference in objective AE severity with softened water (standardized mean difference 0.06 standard deviations higher, 95% CI 0.16 lower to 0.27 higher; GRADE certainty: moderate).
CONCLUSIONS & CLINICAL RELEVANCE
There was a positive association between living in a hard water (range: 76 to > 350 mg/L CaCO ) area and AE in children. There is no evidence that domestic water softeners improve objective disease severity in established AE. There may be a role of water hardness in the initiation of skin inflammation in early life, but there is a need for further longitudinal and interventional studies.
Topics: Animals; Calcium Carbonate; Dermatitis, Atopic; Detergents; Humans; Severity of Illness Index; Skin; Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate; Surface-Active Agents; Water; Water Softening
PubMed: 33259122
DOI: 10.1111/cea.13797 -
Sao Paulo Medical Journal = Revista... 2020Faced with a pandemic, all healthcare actions need to reflect best practices, in order to avoid high transmissibility, complications and even hospitalizations. For...
BACKGROUND
Faced with a pandemic, all healthcare actions need to reflect best practices, in order to avoid high transmissibility, complications and even hospitalizations. For hospital environments, the products recommended and authorized by regulatory institutions for environmental cleaning and disinfection need to be highly effective.
OBJECTIVE
To identify, systematically evaluate and summarize the best available scientific evidence on environmental cleaning to prevent COVID-19 infection.
DESIGN AND SETTING
A systematic review of studies analyzing cleaning products that inactivate coronavirus, conducted within the evidence-based health program of a federal university in São Paulo (SP), Brazil.
METHODS
A systematic search of the relevant literature was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and LILACS databases, for articles published up to May 27, 2020, relating to studies evaluating cleaning products that inactivate coronavirus in the environment.
RESULTS
Seven studies were selected. These analyzed use of 70% alcohol, detergent, detergent containing iodine, household bleach, sodium hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide, chlorine dioxide, glutaraldehyde, ultraviolet irradiation and plasma air purifier. The effectiveness of treating sewage with sodium hypochlorite and chlorine dioxide was also evaluated.
CONCLUSION
Disinfection of environments, especially those in ordinary use, such as bathrooms, needs to be done constantly. Viral inactivation was achieved using chlorine-based disinfectants, alcohol, detergents, glutaraldehyde, iodine-containing detergents, hydrogen peroxide compounds and household bleaches. Alcohol showed efficient immediate activity. In sewage, sodium hypochlorite had better action than chlorine dioxide.
REGISTRATION NUMBER
DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YC5P4 in the Open Science Framework.
Topics: Brazil; COVID-19; Disinfectants; Disinfection; Humans; Infection Control
PubMed: 33206913
DOI: 10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0417.09092020 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Feb 2021The present study aimed to systematically review the literature about the interproximal anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis efficacy of cetylpyrydinium chloride (CPC)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The effect of cetylpyridinium chloride mouthrinse as adjunct to toothbrushing compared to placebo on interproximal plaque and gingival inflammation-a systematic review with meta-analyses.
OBJECTIVES
The present study aimed to systematically review the literature about the interproximal anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis efficacy of cetylpyrydinium chloride (CPC) mouthrinse compared to placebo solution.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Three databases (PUBMED, SCOPUS, and EMBASE) were searched for randomized clinical trials that compared the interproximal anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis effect of CPC and placebo mouthrinses as an adjunct to toothbrushing, after a minimum of 6 weeks. Individuals with any periodontal diagnosis were considered. Two meta-analyses were performed for the Turesky modification of the Quigley-Hein plaque index and the Löe and Silness gingival index. For both analyses, the mean differences (MD) between baseline and 6-weeks were calculated using a random-effect model.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included. All included studies showed significant improvement in at least one of the parameters, favoring the CPC mouthrinse when compared to placebo. The meta-analysis demonstrated that groups that used CPC displayed a significantly greater reduction in the plaque index score (MD; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: - 0.70; - 0.83 to - 0.57) and in the gingival index (MD; 95%CI: - 0.38; - 0.47 to - 0.28) when compared to placebo. However, high heterogeneity was observed in both analyses (I = 89% and I = 98%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
When considering interproximal surfaces, CPC is efficacious both in plaque and gingival inflammatory parameters, demonstrating the potential to compensate for the limitations of interproximal plaque control.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
CPC may be a good alternative to compensate interproximal plaque removal, improving interproximal gingivitis.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Cetylpyridinium; Dental Plaque Index; Gingivitis; Humans; Inflammation; Mouthwashes; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 33185736
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03661-2