-
1.
Oral antiseptics against coronavirus: in-vitro and clinical evidence.
Mateos-Moreno, MV, Mira, A, Ausina-Márquez, V, Ferrer, MD
The Journal of hospital infection. 2021;:30-43
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is the cellular receptor for SARS-CoV-2, so ACE2-expressing cells can act as target cells and are susceptible to infection. ACE2 receptors are highly expressed in the oral cavity, so this may be a potential high-risk route for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, the virus can be detected in saliva, even before COVID-19 symptoms appear, with the consequent high risk of virus transmission in asymptomatic/presymptomatic patients. Reducing oral viral load could lead to a lower risk of transmission via salivary droplets or aerosols and therefore contribute to the control of the pandemic. Our aim was to evaluate the available evidence testing the in-vitro and in-vivo effects of oral antiseptics to inactivate or eradicate coronaviruses. The criteria used were those described in the PRISMA declaration for performing systematic reviews. An electronic search was conducted in Medline (via PubMed) and in Web of Sciences, using the MeSH terms: 'mouthwash' OR 'oral rinse' OR 'mouth rinse' OR 'povidone iodine' OR 'hydrogen peroxide' OR 'cetylpyridinium chloride' AND 'COVID-19' OR 'SARS-CoV-2' OR 'coronavirus' OR 'SARS' OR 'MERS'. The initial search strategy identified 619 articles on two electronic databases. Seventeen articles were included assessing the virucidal efficacy of oral antiseptics against coronaviruses. In conclusion, there is sufficient in-vitro evidence to support the use of antiseptics to potentially reduce the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses. However, in-vivo evidence for most oral antiseptics is limited. Randomized clinical trials with a control group are needed to demonstrate its clinical efficacy.
-
2.
Considerations for povidone-iodine antisepsis in pediatric nasal and pharyngeal surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Chorney, SR, Rizzi, MD, Dedhia, K
American journal of otolaryngology. 2020;(6):102737
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE Surgeons resuming elective procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic should consider strategies to mitigate risk of exposure. For otolaryngologists performing surgery on children, unique vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 results from a regular interface with the upper respiratory tract mucosa. A growing interest in perioperative application of povidone‑iodine (PVP-I) to the nasopharynx and oropharynx has emerged. The purpose of this review is to provide an evidence-based assessment of PVP-I in pediatric oral, nasal and pharyngeal surgery. METHODS A contemporary literature review with algorithmic approach to the potential use of PVP-I in pediatric mucosal surgery. RESULTS Several formulations of PVP-I have shown rapid in vitro virucidal activity against SARS-CoV-2. Antisepsis using 1.0% PVP-I mouthwash and 0.45% PVP-I throat spray can occur after 30 seconds of contact time. To date, in vivo effectiveness of PVP-I against SARS-CoV-2 has yet to be established and possible risks of its direct use on upper aerodigestive mucosa of children must be weighed. CONCLUSION Further research is required prior to strongly recommending PVP-I use in preparation for nasal, oral or pharyngeal surgery in children.
-
3.
Addressing the challenges in antisepsis: focus on povidone iodine.
Barreto, R, Barrois, B, Lambert, J, Malhotra-Kumar, S, Santos-Fernandes, V, Monstrey, S
International journal of antimicrobial agents. 2020;(3):106064
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Using antiseptics in wound care can promote healing by preventing and treating infection. However, using antiseptics can present many challenges, including issues with tolerability, inactivation by organic matter and the emergence of antimicrobial resistance/cross-resistance. This review discussed the key challenges in antisepsis, focusing on povidone-iodine (PVP-I) antiseptic. METHODS Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, in January 2019, with a filter for the previous 5 years. Searches were based on the antimicrobial efficacy, antiseptic resistance, wound healing properties, and skin tolerability for the commonly used antiseptics PVP-I, chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), polyhexanide (PHMB), and octenidine (OCT). Additional papers were identified based on author expertise. RESULTS When compared with CHG, PHMB and OCT, PVP-I had a broader spectrum of antimicrobial activity against Gram-negative bacteria, actinobacteria, bacterial spores, fungi and viruses, and a similar and broad spectrum of activity against Gram-positive bacteria. PVP-I was also highly effective at eradicating bacterial biofilms, which is a vitally important consideration for wound care and infection control. Despite a long history of extensive use, no resistance or cross-resistance to PVP-I has been recorded, which is in contrast with other antiseptics. Despite previous misconceptions, it has been shown that PVP-I has low allergenic properties, low cytotoxicity and can promote wound healing through increased expression of transforming growth factor beta. CONCLUSION With increased understanding of the importance of tackling antimicrobial resistance and bacterial biofilms in acute and chronic wound care, alongside improved understanding of the challenges of antiseptic use, PVP-I remains a promising agent for the management of antisepsis.
-
4.
Safety alert for hospital environments and health professional: chlorhexidine is ineffective for coronavirus.
Assis, MS, Araújo, RAAM, Lopes, AMM
Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992). 2020;(Suppl 2):124-129
Abstract
An alarming fact was revealed by recent publications concerning disinfectants: chlorhexidine digluconate is ineffective for disinfecting surfaces contaminated by the new coronavirus. This is a finding that requires immediate disclosure since this substance is widely used for the disinfection of hands and forearms of surgeons and auxiliaries and in the antisepsis of patients in minimally invasive procedures commonly performed in hospital environments. The objective of this study is to compare the different disinfectants used for disinfection on several surfaces, in a review of worldwide works. Scientific studies were researched in the BVS (Virtual Health Library), PubMed, Medline, and ANVISA (National Health Surveillance Agency) databases. The following agents were studied: alcohol 62-71%, hydrogen peroxide 0.5%, sodium hypochlorite 0.1%, benzalkonium chloride 0.05-0.2%, povidone-iodine 10%, and chlorhexidine digluconate 0.02%, on metal, aluminum, wood, paper, glass, plastic, PVC, silicone, latex (gloves), disposable gowns, ceramic, and Teflon surfaces. Studies have shown that chlorhexidine digluconate is ineffective for inactivating some coronavirus subtypes, suggesting that it is also ineffective to the new coronavirus.
-
5.
Bactericidal and virucidal activity of ethanol and povidone-iodine.
Sauerbrei, A
MicrobiologyOpen. 2020;(9):e1097
Abstract
Ethanol and povidone-iodine (PVP-I) are important microbicides that inactivate bacteria and viruses. The present study provides a review of literature data on the concentration-dependent bactericidal and virucidal activity of ethanol and PVP-I in vitro. A systematic search was performed using the meta-database for biomedicine PubMed. Eventually, 74 studies with original data on the reduction of bacterial and viral infectivity using in vitro tests were analyzed. A safe bactericidal effect of ethanol can be expected at concentrations between 60% and 85%, and the exposure times vary between ≤0.5 and ≥5 min. Within an exposure of up to 5 min, 80%-90% ethanol also exerts virucidal/low-level activity, which includes its action against enveloped viruses plus adeno-, noro-, and rotaviruses. For PVP-I, the best bactericidal and virucidal/high-level effect is present at a concentration range of approx. 0.08%-0.9% depending on the free iodine concentration. The maximum exposure times are 5 min for bacteria and 60 min for viruses. The available data may help optimize the significant inactivation of bacteria and viruses in various areas. However, as the conditions in application practice can vary, concrete recommendations for the application can only be derived to a limited extent.
-
6.
Topical preparations to reduce SARS-CoV-2 aerosolization in head and neck mucosal surgery.
Parhar, HS, Tasche, K, Brody, RM, Weinstein, GS, O'Malley, BW, Shanti, RM, Newman, JG
Head & neck. 2020;(6):1268-1272
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
AIM: The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has put health care workers at risk when exposed to aerosolized viral particles during upper airway mucosal surgery. The objective of this review was to discuss topical preparations that could be utilized preoperatively to help to decrease viral load and potentially reduce the risks of viral transmission. METHODS A PubMed/MEDLINE database review of articles was performed querying topical preparations with virucidal activity against coronaviruses. RESULTS Povidone-iodine (PVP-I) solutions ranging from 0.23% to 7% have been found to demonstrate highly effective virucidal activity against a broad range of viruses including several coronaviruses responsible for recent epidemics including SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV. CONCLUSIONS While specific evidence regarding SARS-CoV-2 is lacking, PVP-I-based preparations have been successfully demonstrated to reduce viral loads of coronaviruses. They are relatively safe to use in the upper airway and may reduce risk of SARS-CoV-2 aerosolization during upper airway mucosal surgery.
-
7.
Nasal decontamination for the prevention of surgical site infection in Staphylococcus aureus carriers.
Liu, Z, Norman, G, Iheozor-Ejiofor, Z, Wong, JK, Crosbie, EJ, Wilson, P
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2017;(5):CD012462
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surgical site infection rates in the month following surgery vary from 1% to 5%. Due to the large number of surgical procedures conducted annually, the costs of these surgical site infections (SSIs) can be considerable in financial and social terms. Nasal decontamination using antibiotics or antiseptics is performed to reduce the risk of SSIs by preventing organisms from the nasal cavity being transferred to the skin where a surgical incision will be made. Staphylococcus aureus (S aureus) colonises the nasal cavity and skin of carriers and can cause infection in open or unhealed surgical wounds. S aureus is the leading nosocomial (hospital-acquired) pathogen in hospitals worldwide. The potential effectiveness of nasal decontamination of S aureus is thought to be dependent on both the antibiotic/antiseptic used and the dose of application; however, it is unclear whether nasal decontamination actually reduces postoperative wound infection in S aureus carriers. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of nasal decontamination on preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in people who are S aureus carriers undergoing surgery. SEARCH METHODS In September 2016 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched three clinical trial registries and the references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions based on language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which enrolled S aureus carriers with any type of surgery and assessed the use of nasal decontamination with antiseptic/antibiotic properties were included in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and GRADE assessment. MAIN RESULTS We located two studies (291 participants) for inclusion in this review. The trials were clinically heterogeneous with differences in duration of follow-up, and nasal decontamination regimens. One study compared mupirocin (2% contained in a base of polyethylene glycol 400 and polyethylene glycol 3350) with a placebo in elective cardiac surgery patients; and one study compared Anerdian (iodine 0.45% to 0.57% (W/V), chlorhexidine acetate 0.09% to 0.11% (W/V)) with no treatment also in cardiac surgery patients. The trials reported limited outcome data on SSI, adverse events and secondary outcomes (e.g. S aureus SSI, mortality). Mupirocin compared with placeboThis study found no clear difference in SSI risk following use of mupirocin compared with placebo (1 trial, 257 participants); risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 3.25 based on 18/130 events in the mupirocin group and 11/127 in the control group; low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice due to imprecision). Anerdian compared with no treatmentIt is uncertain whether there is a difference in SSI risk following treatment with Anerdian compared with no treatment (1 trial, 34 participants); RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.08 based on 1/18 events in the Anerdian group and 1/16 in the control group; very low certainty evidence (downgraded twice due to imprecision and once due to risk of bias). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is currently limited rigorous RCT evidence available regarding the clinical effectiveness of nasal decontamination in the prevention of SSI. This limitation is specific to the focused question our review addresses, looking at nasal decontamination as a single intervention in participants undergoing surgery who are known S aureus carriers. We were only able to identify two studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review and one of these was very small and poorly reported. The potential benefits and harms of using decontamination for the prevention of SSI in this group of people remain uncertain.
-
8.
Povidone iodine in wound healing: A review of current concepts and practices.
Bigliardi, PL, Alsagoff, SAL, El-Kafrawi, HY, Pyon, JK, Wa, CTC, Villa, MA
International journal of surgery (London, England). 2017;:260-268
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Of the many antimicrobial agents available, iodophore-based formulations such as povidone iodine have remained popular after decades of use for antisepsis and wound healing applications due to their favorable efficacy and tolerability. Povidone iodine's broad spectrum of activity, ability to penetrate biofilms, lack of associated resistance, anti-inflammatory properties, low cytotoxicity and good tolerability have been cited as important factors, and no negative effect on wound healing has been observed in clinical practice. Over the past few decades, numerous reports on the use of povidone iodine have been published, however, many of these studies are of differing design, endpoints, and quality. More recent data clearly supports its use in wound healing. METHODS Based on data collected through PubMed using specified search criteria based on above topics and clinical experience of the authors, this article will review preclinical and clinical safety and efficacy data on the use of povidone iodine in wound healing and its implications for the control of infection and inflammation, together with the authors' advice for the successful treatment of acute and chronic wounds. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION Povidone iodine has many characteristics that position it extraordinarily well for wound healing, including its broad antimicrobial spectrum, lack of resistance, efficacy against biofilms, good tolerability and its effect on excessive inflammation. Due to its rapid, potent, broad-spectrum antimicrobial properties, and favorable risk/benefit profile, povidone iodine is expected to remain a highly effective treatment for acute and chronic wounds in the foreseeable future.
-
9.
Antibiotics and antiseptics for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention.
Norman, G, Dumville, JC, Mohapatra, DP, Owens, GL, Crosbie, EJ
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2016;(3):CD011712
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Following surgery, incisions are usually closed by fixing the edges together with sutures (stitches), staples, adhesives (glue) or clips. This process helps the cut edges heal together and is called 'healing by primary intention'. However, a minority of surgical wounds are not closed in this way. Where the risk of infection is high or there has been significant loss of tissue, wounds may be left open to heal by the growth of new tissue rather than by primary closure; this is known as 'healing by secondary intention'. There is a risk of infection in open wounds, which may impact on wound healing, and antiseptic or antibiotic treatments may be used with the aim of preventing or treating such infections. This review is one of a suite of Cochrane reviews investigating the evidence on antiseptics and antibiotics in different types of wounds. It aims to present current evidence related to the use of antiseptics and antibiotics for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention (SWHSI). OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of systemic and topical antibiotics, and topical antiseptics for the treatment of surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. SEARCH METHODS In November 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched three clinical trials registries and the references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials which enrolled adults with a surgical wound healing by secondary intention and assessed treatment with an antiseptic or antibiotic treatment. Studies enrolling people with skin graft donor sites were not included, neither were studies of wounds with a non-surgical origin which had subsequently undergone sharp or surgical debridement or other surgical treatments or wounds within the oral or aural cavities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. MAIN RESULTS Eleven studies with a total of 886 participants were included in the review. These evaluated a range of comparisons in a range of surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. In general studies were small and some did not present data or analyses that could be easily interpreted or related to clinical outcomes. These factors reduced the quality of the evidence.Two comparisons compared different iodine preparations with no antiseptic treatment and found no clear evidence of effects for these treatments. The outcome data available were limited and what evidence there was low quality.One study compared a zinc oxide mesh dressing with a plain mesh dressing. There was no clear evidence of a difference in time to wound healing between groups. There was some evidence of a difference in measures used to assess wound infection (wound with foul smell and number of participants prescribed antibiotics) which favoured the zinc oxide group. This was low quality evidence.One study reported that sucralfate cream increased the likelihood of healing open wounds following haemorrhoidectomy compared to a petrolatum cream (RR: 1.50, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.99) over a three week period. This evidence was graded as being of moderate quality. The study also reported lower wound pain scores in the sucralfate group.There was a reduction in time to healing of open wounds following haemorrhoidectomy when treated with Triclosan post-operatively compared with a standard sodium hypochlorite solution (mean difference -1.70 days, 95% CI -3.41 to 0.01). This was classed as low quality evidence.There was moderate quality evidence that more open wounds resulting from excision of pyomyositis abscesses healed when treated with a honey-soaked gauze compared with a EUSOL-soaked gauze over three weeks' follow-up (RR: 1.58, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.42). There was also some evidence of a reduction in the mean length of hospital stay in the honey group. Evidence was taken from one small study that only had 43 participants.There was moderate quality evidence that more Dermacym®-treated post-operative foot wounds in people with diabetes healed compared to those treated with iodine (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.93). Again estimates came from one small study with 40 participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is no robust evidence on the relative effectiveness of any antiseptic/antibiotic/anti-bacterial preparation evaluated to date for use on SWHSI. Where some evidence for possible treatment effects was reported, it stemmed from single studies with small participant numbers and was classed as moderate or low quality evidence. This means it is likely or very likely that further research will have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect, and may change this estimate.
-
10.
The Gastrointestinal Microbiome: Alcohol Effects on the Composition of Intestinal Microbiota.
Engen, PA, Green, SJ, Voigt, RM, Forsyth, CB, Keshavarzian, A
Alcohol research : current reviews. 2015;(2):223-36
Abstract
The excessive use of alcohol is a global problem causing many adverse pathological health effects and a significant financial health care burden. This review addresses the effect of alcohol consumption on the microbiota in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). Although data are limited in humans, studies highlight the importance of changes in the intestinal microbiota in alcohol-related disorders. Alcohol-induced changes in the GIT microbiota composition and metabolic function may contribute to the well-established link between alcohol-induced oxidative stress, intestinal hyperpermeability to luminal bacterial products, and the subsequent development of alcoholic liver disease (ALD), as well as other diseases. In addition, clinical and preclinical data suggest that alcohol-related disorders are associated with quantitative and qualitative dysbiotic changes in the intestinal microbiota and may be associated with increased GIT inflammation, intestinal hyperpermeability resulting in endotoxemia, systemic inflammation, and tissue damage/organ pathologies including ALD. Thus, gut-directed interventions, such as probiotic and synbiotic modulation of the intestinal microbiota, should be considered and evaluated for prevention and treatment of alcohol-associated pathologies.