Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 76
Filter
1.
Ann Med ; 54(1): 1488-1499, 2022 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1860599

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Accumulating data suggest antiviral effects of povidone-iodine against the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. This narrative review aims to examine the antiviral mechanisms of povidone-iodine, efficacy of povidone-iodine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and safety of povidone-iodine to human epithelial cells and thyroid function. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for articles containing the keywords "povidone-iodine", "SARS-CoV-2" and "COVID-19" from database inception till 3 June 2021. RESULTS: Despite in vitro data supporting the anti-SARS-CoV-2 effects of povidone-iodine, findings from clinical studies revealed differences in treatment response depending on study settings (healthy vs. hospitalized individuals), treatment target (nasal vs. oral vs. pharynx), method of administration (oral rinse vs. gargle vs. throat spray) and choice of samples used to measure study endpoints (nasopharyngeal vs. saliva). One large-scale clinical trial demonstrated reduction in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among participants who administered povidone-iodine 3 times daily during an active outbreak. Povidone-iodine is also used to disinfect the oro-pharyngeal space prior to dental or otolaryngology procedures. Although existing data suggest minimal impact of povidone-iodine on thyroid function, high-quality safety data are presently lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Povidone-iodine application to the oropharyngeal space could complement existing non-pharmacological interventions to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection especially in high exposure settings.Key messagesAccumulating data suggest antiviral effects of povidone-iodine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.Findings from clinical studies reveal differences in treatment response depending on study settings, treatment target, method of administration and choice of samples used to measure study endpoints. One large-scale clinical trial observed reduction in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among participants who administered povidone-iodine 3 times daily during an active outbreak.Povidone-iodine application to the oropharyngeal space could complement existing non-pharmacological interventions to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection especially in high exposure settings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Povidone-Iodine , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Humans , Mouthwashes/pharmacology , Mouthwashes/therapeutic use , Povidone-Iodine/pharmacology , Povidone-Iodine/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2
2.
J Lipid Res ; 63(6): 100208, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1859914

ABSTRACT

The lipid envelope of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an essential component of the virus; however, its molecular composition is undetermined. Addressing this knowledge gap could support the design of antiviral agents as well as further our understanding of viral-host protein interactions, infectivity, pathogenicity, and innate immune system clearance. Lipidomics revealed that the virus envelope comprised mainly phospholipids (PLs), with some cholesterol and sphingolipids, and with cholesterol/phospholipid ratio similar to lysosomes. Unlike cellular membranes, procoagulant amino-PLs were present on the external side of the viral envelope at levels exceeding those on activated platelets. Accordingly, virions directly promoted blood coagulation. To investigate whether these differences could enable selective targeting of the viral envelope in vivo, we tested whether oral rinses containing lipid-disrupting chemicals could reduce infectivity. Products containing PL-disrupting surfactants (such as cetylpyridinium chloride) met European virucidal standards in vitro; however, components that altered the critical micelle concentration reduced efficacy, and products containing essential oils, povidone-iodine, or chlorhexidine were ineffective. This result was recapitulated in vivo, where a 30-s oral rinse with cetylpyridinium chloride mouthwash eliminated live virus in the oral cavity of patients with coronavirus disease 19 for at least 1 h, whereas povidone-iodine and saline mouthwashes were ineffective. We conclude that the SARS-CoV-2 lipid envelope i) is distinct from the host plasma membrane, which may enable design of selective antiviral approaches; ii) contains exposed phosphatidylethanolamine and phosphatidylserine, which may influence thrombosis, pathogenicity, and inflammation; and iii) can be selectively targeted in vivo by specific oral rinses.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mouthwashes , Antiviral Agents , Cetylpyridinium , Humans , Lipids , Mouthwashes/pharmacology , Povidone-Iodine , RNA, Viral , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Odontology ; 110(2): 376-392, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1750724

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Chlorhexidine , Chlorhexidine/pharmacology , Humans , Mouthwashes/pharmacology , Povidone-Iodine , SARS-CoV-2
4.
J Am Dent Assoc ; 153(7): 635-648.e16, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1739486

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Considering that the oral cavity is a major entryway and reservoir for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the aim of the authors was to perform a systematic review of in vivo and in vitro studies to assess the effectiveness of mouthrinses on SARS-CoV-2 viral load. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, and bioRxiv databases, including in vitro and in vivo studies assessing the virucidal effect of mouthrinses on SARS-CoV-2 or surrogates. From a total of 1,622 articles retrieved, the authors included 39 in this systematic review. RESULTS: Povidone-iodine was the most studied mouthrinse (14 in vitro and 9 in vivo studies), frequently showing significant reductions in viral load in in vitro assays. Similarly, cetylpyridinium chloride also showed good results, although it was evaluated in fewer studies. Chlorhexidine gluconate and hydrogen peroxide showed conflicting results on SARS-CoV-2 load reduction in both in vitro and in vivo studies. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Povidone-iodine-based mouthrinses appear to be the best option as an oral prerinse in the dental context for SARS-CoV-2 viral load reduction. Although the results of primary studies are relevant, there is a need for more in vivo studies on mouthrinses, in particular, randomized controlled clinical trials, to better understand their effect on SARS-CoV-2 viral load and infection prevention.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Mouthwashes/pharmacology , Mouthwashes/therapeutic use , Povidone-Iodine/pharmacology , Povidone-Iodine/therapeutic use , Viral Load
5.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(5)2022 Mar 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1715376

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Povidone-Iodine , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Mouthwashes , Povidone-Iodine/therapeutic use , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Viral Load
6.
BMC Oral Health ; 22(1): 47, 2022 02 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1701128

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals, especially dentists and dental hygienists, are at increased risk for contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) through air-borne particles and splatter. This study assessed the in vitro virucidal activity of 0.5% (w/v) povidone-iodine (PVP-I) oral rinse against SARS-CoV-2 to demonstrate its utility as a professional oral rinse. METHODS: A 0.5% (w/v) PVP-I oral rinse formulation, placebo oral rinse, and positive (70% [v/v] ethanol and water) and negative (water) controls were assessed using the time-kill method. SARS-CoV-2 was propagated in Vero 76 host cells. Following neutralization validation, triplicate tests were performed for each test formulation and virucidal activity measured at 15, 30, and 60 s and 5 min. RESULTS: The 0.5% (w/v) PVP-I oral rinse demonstrated effective in vitro virucidal activity against SARS-CoV-2 as early as 15 s after exposure; viral titer was reduced to < 0.67 log10 50% cell culture infectious dose (CCID50)/0.1 mL (log10 reduction of > 4.0) at 30 s, whereas the placebo oral rinse reduced the SARS-CoV-2 viral titer to 4.67 and 4.5 log10 CCID50/0.1 mL at the 15- and 30-s time points, with a log10 reduction of 0.63 and 0.17, respectively. No toxicity or cytotoxic effects against Vero 76 host cells were observed with the 0.5% (w/v) PVP-I oral rinse; positive and negative controls performed as expected. CONCLUSIONS: In vitro virucidal activity of 0.5% (w/v) PVP-I oral rinse against SARS-CoV-2 was demonstrated. Rapid inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 was observed with 0.5% (w/v) formulation with a contact duration of 15 s. Clinical investigations are needed to assess the effectiveness of PVP-I oral rinse against SARS-CoV-2 in dental practice.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Povidone-Iodine , Humans , Mouthwashes/pharmacology , Povidone-Iodine/pharmacology , SARS-CoV-2
7.
J Hosp Infect ; 122: 194-202, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1665175

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Ten percent povidone-iodine (PVP-I) was initially promoted as 'tamed iodine' as the chemical activity of the active biocide, uncomplexed or free molecular iodine (I2), is reduced 30- to 50-fold compared with Lugol's solution. The idea that I2 is responsible for topical iodine staining and irritation remains widely held. However, there are no controlled studies that characterize the cytotoxicity and staining of the hydrophobic I2 species compared with the other hydrophilic iodine species that comprise over 99.9% of the total iodine in topical iodine disinfectants. AIMS: To compare the staining properties of the I2 species with other topical iodine disinfectants; to evaluate if the concentrations of I2 in diluted PVP-I used to reduce severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 in the nasal cavity are potentially cytotoxic; and to determine if high concentrations of I2 can be delivered beyond the stratum corneum into the hypodermis, which could provide a mechanistic rationale for I2 out-gassing. METHODS: Five liquid compositions that contained complexed and uncomplexed (free) I2 in aqueous and non-aqueous carriers were used to evaluate the interaction of I2 with mammalian cells in culture as well as human and pig skin. FINDINGS: Concentrations of I2 (7800 ppm) that are 1500 times higher than that found in PVP-I can be applied to skin without irritation and staining. I2 is not cytotoxic at concentrations >100 times higher than that found in PVP-I, and does not contribute materially to staining of skin at concentrations found in Lugol's solution (approximately 170 ppm). I2 can partition into hypodermis tissue, remain there for hours and out-gas from skin. PVP-I and Lugol's solution are highly effective topical disinfectants, but do not facilitate diffusion of I2 through the stratum corneum. CONCLUSION: The maximum concentration of I2 found in diluted PVP, approximately 25 ppm, is not cytotoxic or irritating. The potential clinical utility of I2 has been limited by incorporating this broad-spectrum biocide into acidic aqueous formulations that contain numerous chemical species that contribute toxicity but not biocidal activity. I2 can be delivered topically into hypodermis tissue without irritation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Disinfectants , Iodine , Animals , Disinfectants/pharmacology , Humans , Iodine/pharmacology , Iodophors , Mammals , Povidone-Iodine/toxicity , Swine
9.
Minerva Dent Oral Sci ; 70(5): 206-213, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1576849

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local , Viruses , Humans , Mouthwashes , Oral Health , Povidone-Iodine
10.
J Int Med Res ; 49(12): 3000605211063695, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1575873

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the antiviral activity of the oral disinfectant povidone-iodine (PVP-I) against severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV2) in vitro. METHODS: The cytotoxic effects of PVP-I were determined in Vero and Calu-3 cell lines using that by Cell Counting Kit-8 assay. Viral load in the cell culture medium above infected cells was quantitated using real-time polymerase chain reaction. The cytopathic effect (CPE) and viral infective rate were observed by immunofluorescence microscopy. RESULTS: PVP-I at a concentration >0.5 mg/ml in contact with SARS-CoV-2 for 30 s, 1 min, 2 min and 5 min showed up to 99% viral inhibition. For in vitro testing, upon exposure for 1 min, PVP-I showed a virucidal effect. PVP-I had no cytotoxic effects at the range of concentrations tested (0.125-1 mg/ml; CC50 > 2.75 mM) in Vero and Calu-3 cells. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that the ideal contact time was 1 min and the optimal concentration was 1 mg/ml, which provides an experimental basis for the use of oral disinfectants in dental hospitals.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Cell Line , Humans , Povidone-Iodine/pharmacology , RNA, Viral
11.
Environ Sci Technol ; 55(23): 16044-16055, 2021 12 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1539856

ABSTRACT

Lasting disinfection effects, that is, the residual disinfection effects (RDEs), of skin-coated disinfectants have rarely been considered for infection control owing to the challenges involved in the accurate evaluation of RDEs. In this study, we constructed a new skin evaluation model and determined the RDEs of existing disinfectants against viruses. Our results showed that ethanol and isopropanol had no RDE, whereas povidone-iodine, chlorhexidine gluconate, and benzalkonium chloride (BAC) exhibited RDEs, with 10% povidone-iodine and 0.2% BAC showing particularly strong RDEs. The RDE of 0.2% BAC was strong enough to reduce the median survival times of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2, human coronavirus-OC43, and influenza virus from 670 to 5.2, 1300 to 12, and 120 to 4.2 min, respectively. Additionally, this strong RDE was maintained even 4 h after coating the skin. Clinical data also showed that the strong RDE of 0.2% BAC was maintained for more than 2 h. Thus, applying disinfectants with strong RDEs on the skin correlates with a reduction in virus survival time and appears to create a skin surface environment that is not conducive to virus survival. A prolonged reduction in virus survival decreases the contact transmission risk, thereby enabling stronger infection control.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Disinfectants , Disinfection , Humans , Povidone-Iodine , SARS-CoV-2
12.
ScientificWorldJournal ; 2021: 9342748, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1495720

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Recently, an outbreak of a novel human coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has become a world health concern leading to severe respiratory tract infections in humans. Virus transmission occurs through person-to-person contact, respiratory droplets, and contaminated hands or surfaces. Accordingly, we aim at reviewing the literature on all information available about the persistence of coronaviruses, including human and animal coronaviruses, on inanimate surfaces and inactivation strategies with biocides employed for chemical and physical disinfection. METHOD: A comprehensive search was systematically conducted in main databases from 1998 to 2020 to identify various viral disinfectants associated with HCoV and methods for control and prevention of this newly emerged virus. RESULTS: The analysis of 62 studies shows that human coronaviruses such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus or endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV), canine coronavirus (CCV), transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV), and mouse hepatitis virus (MHV) can be efficiently inactivated by physical and chemical disinfectants at different concentrations (70, 80, 85, and 95%) of 2-propanol (70 and 80%) in less than or equal to 60 s and 0.5% hydrogen peroxide or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite within 1 minute. Additionally, glutaraldehyde (0.5-2%), formaldehyde (0.7-1%), and povidone-iodine (0.1-0.75%) could readily inactivate coronaviruses. Moreover, dry heat at 56°C, ultraviolet light dose of 0.2 to 140 J/cm2, and gamma irradiation could effectively inactivate coronavirus. The WHO recommends the use of 0.1% sodium hypochlorite solution or an ethanol-based disinfectant with an ethanol concentration between 62% and 71%. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study can help researchers, policymakers, health decision makers, and people perceive and take the correct measures to control and prevent further transmission of COVID-19. Prevention and decontamination will be the main ways to stop the ongoing outbreak of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Disinfectants/pharmacology , Disinfection/instrumentation , SARS-CoV-2 , Virus Inactivation/drug effects , 2-Propanol/pharmacology , Animals , COVID-19/virology , Coronavirus, Canine/drug effects , Disinfection/methods , Ethanol/pharmacology , Formaldehyde/pharmacology , Gamma Rays , Glutaral/pharmacology , Hot Temperature , Humans , Hydrogen Peroxide/pharmacology , Mice , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus/drug effects , Murine hepatitis virus/drug effects , Povidone-Iodine/pharmacology , SARS Virus/drug effects , Sodium Hypochlorite/pharmacology , Transmissible gastroenteritis virus/drug effects , Ultraviolet Rays
13.
Curr Opin Ophthalmol ; 33(1): 28-34, 2022 Jan 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1494046

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Endophthamitis following intraocular surgery is rare using current antiseptic techniques, such as single application of 5% povidone-iodine to the ocular surface and adjuvant topical or intracameral antibiotics. Challenges remain, however, including increased multidrug-resistant bacterial endophthalmitis, increased fungal endophthalmitis, and the low but nonzero endophthalmitis rate attributable to the typical bacteria that colonize the ocular surface. RECENT FINDINGS: Povidone-iodine has a wide spectrum of activity, including activity against novel pathogens, such as SARS-CoV-2. Povidone-iodine alternatives, such as hypochlorous acid can have significantly less efficacy in vitro against endophthalmitis isolates. Repetitive application of dilute povidone-iodine has an excellent safety profile and strong evidence base for efficacy. SUMMARY: Povidone-iodine is widely available, inexpensive, and commonly used by ophthalmologists. The repetitive application of dilute povidone-iodine is a well studied, well tolerated, and efficacious way to transiently sterilize the ocular surface during intraocular surgery. Additional benefits include activity against multidrug-resistant bacteria, fungi, and lack of inducible resistance.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local , COVID-19 , Endophthalmitis , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Anti-Infective Agents, Local/therapeutic use , Endophthalmitis/prevention & control , Humans , Postoperative Complications/drug therapy , Povidone-Iodine , SARS-CoV-2
14.
Retina ; 41(11): 2215-2220, 2021 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1483570

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To investigate the bacterial growth in the surgical face masks used by patients who received intravitreal injections and study the effect of povidone-iodine on the periocular area (PA) of masks. METHODS: Forty patients who attended for intravitreal injections were divided in those with less (<4 hours) and more (>4 hours) than 4 hours of mask use. Each group was divided depending on the application or not of povidone-iodine in the PA of the mask. Bacterial load was studied on PA and mouth area samples. RESULTS: The bacterial load in the PA was higher in the >4 hours group compared with the <4 hours group (13.2 vs. 48.75 colony-forming units/µL; P = 0.03). The contamination in the PA significantly decreased after applying povidone-iodine in the >4 hours group (P = 0.01). The use or not of povidone-iodine was strongly correlated to a positive culture (OR = 9.0, P = 0.00. CI 1.63-49.44). CONCLUSION: Surgical face masks worn for more than 4 hours present higher contamination in the PA than those with less use. Bacterial load in the PA is reduced with povidone-iodine on masks used for more than 4 hours. This contamination should be considered in the asepsis protocol of intravitreal injections.


Subject(s)
Angiogenesis Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Bacteria/isolation & purification , COVID-19/epidemiology , Equipment Contamination , Masks/microbiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anti-Infective Agents, Local/administration & dosage , Bacterial Load , Bacteriological Techniques , Female , Humans , Intravitreal Injections , Male , Middle Aged , Povidone-Iodine/administration & dosage , Prospective Studies , Retinal Diseases/drug therapy , Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A/antagonists & inhibitors
15.
Int Orthod ; 19(4): 685-688, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1472124

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: In orthodontic patients using any chemical substances in oral environment could change the elastomeric properties of their appliances. Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, efforts have been devoted to explore methods of prevention including the use of antiviral mouthwashes. This study aimed to investigate the effects of Povidone Iodine (PVP-I) and two other disinfecting solutions on the mechanical properties of orthodontic elastomeric ligatures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, 130 elastomeric ligatures in five groups (three test groups and two control groups) were examined in laboratory conditions for a period of 28 days. In the control group, specimens were kept dry in a dark environment while all other ligatures were stored in artificial saliva. Elastomeric ligatures were immersed into PVP-I solution (1%) Chlorhexidine (0.02%), and hydrogen peroxide (5%) for one minute each day in three time intervals of one day, 7 days and 28 days. Next, the maximum tensile strength of elastomeric ligatures was tested by a universal testing machine (CN 1174, Germany). RESULTS: The results showed that the tensile strength of elastomeric ligatures was significantly decreased in all three test groups after 28 days (p-value<0.05). However, the difference between groups was not statistically significant. Between-subject ANOVA test showed that there were significant correlations between the time of exposure and type of disinfecting solutions. CONCLUSIONS: PVP-I has comparable effects on elastomeric ligatures as artificial saliva, chlorhexidine, and hydrogen peroxide.


Subject(s)
Chlorhexidine/pharmacology , Hydrogen Peroxide/pharmacology , Orthodontic Appliances , Povidone-Iodine/pharmacology , Tensile Strength/drug effects , COVID-19 , Elastomers , Humans , Materials Testing , SARS-CoV-2 , Saliva, Artificial
16.
J Hosp Infect ; 119: 84-117, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1472041

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Disinfection , Humans , Pandemics , Povidone-Iodine
17.
Odontology ; 110(2): 376-392, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1460347

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Chlorhexidine , Chlorhexidine/pharmacology , Humans , Mouthwashes/pharmacology , Povidone-Iodine , SARS-CoV-2
18.
J Formos Med Assoc ; 121(5): 879-885, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1458570

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection that is mainly through the airborne transmission, is a worldwide health concern. This review seeks to assess the potential effectiveness of mouthwash in reducing the oropharyngeal load of SARS-CoV-2 based on the available evidence. Articles related to mouthwash and COVID-19 in PubMed were electronically searched in July, 2021. After manually excluding articles lacking sufficient scientific evidence or validation processes, those with inaccessible online full text, those that did not test the effectiveness of mouthwash against SARS-CoV-2, and those not written in English, 17 original and 13 review articles were chosen for this review. The eligible articles revealed that the main virucidal mechanism of mouthwash was via interactions with the viral envelope. Povidone-iodine (PVP-I), cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), and essential oils with ethanol showed virucidal effects on SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, potentially by interfering with the viral envelope. A few clinical studies demonstrated that PVP-I, CPC, hydrogen peroxide, and chlorhexidine reduced the oropharyngeal load of SARS-CoV-2. Although the available evidence is limited, mouthwash containing PVP-I or CPC shows potential for reducing the oropharyngeal load of SARS-CoV-2 and thus may present a risk-mitigation strategy for COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Mouthwashes/pharmacology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Povidone-Iodine/pharmacology , Povidone-Iodine/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2
20.
Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) ; 66(Suppl 2): 124-129, 2020. tab, graf
Article in English | WHO COVID, LILACS (Americas) | ID: covidwho-1390138

ABSTRACT

SUMMARY 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.


RESUMO Um dado alarmante revelado por publicações a respeito dos agentes desinfetantes: o digluconato de clorexidina é ineficaz para desinfecção de superfícies contaminadas por coronavírus. Trata-se de uma constatação que reclama imediata divulgação, uma vez que essa substância é amplamente usada para degermação de mãos e antebraços dos cirurgiões e auxiliares e na antissepsia dos pacientes, em procedimentos minimamente invasivos, comumente em ambientes hospitalares. O objetivo deste trabalho foi comparar os diferentes desinfetantes usados para desinfecção em diversas superfícies em revisão de trabalhos mundiais. Foram pesquisados trabalhos científicos na BVS (Biblioteca Virtual de Saúde), PubMed, Medline e Anvisa (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária). Foram estudados os seguintes agentes: álcool 62-71%, peróxido de hidrogênio 0,5%, hipoclorito de sódio 0,1%, cloreto de benzancônio 0,05-0,2%, iodo povidina 10% e digluconato de clorexidina 0,02%, em superfícies de metal, alumínio, madeira, papel, vidro, plástico, PVC, silicone, látex (luvas), avental descartável, cerâmica e teflon. Os estudos demonstraram que o digluconato de clorexidina é ineficaz para a inativação de alguns subtipos de coronavírus, sugerindo que também seja ineficaz contra o novo coronavírus.


Subject(s)
Humans , Povidone-Iodine/pharmacology , Chlorhexidine/pharmacology , Coronavirus/drug effects , Disinfectants/pharmacology , Anti-Infective Agents, Local/pharmacology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Disinfection , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Pandemics
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL