Considerations for the Selection and Use of Disinfectants Against SARS-CoV-2 in a Health Care Setting.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tyan K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7499694 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The virucidal activity of a series of cationic surfactants differing in the length and number of hydrophobic tails (at the same hydrophilic head) and the structure of the hydrophilic head (at the same length of the hydrophobic n-alkyl tail) was compared. It was shown that an increase in the length and number of hydrophobic tails, as well as the presence of a benzene ring in the surfactant molecule, enhance the virucidal activity of the surfactant against SARS-CoV-2. This may be due to the more pronounced ability of such surfactants to penetrate and destroy the phospholipid membrane of the virus. Among the cationic surfactants studied, didodecyldimethylammonium bromide was shown to be the most efficient as a disinfectant, its 50% effective concentration (EC50) being equal to 0.016 mM. Two surfactants (didodecyldimethylammonium bromide and benzalkonium chloride) can deactivate SARS-CoV-2 in as little as 5 s.
| S-EPMC9224290 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe recent COVID-19 pandemic highlights the need for efficacious virucidal products to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Several studies have suggested that alcohol-based sanitizers and some disinfectants are effective. While virucidal activity data of low-level disinfectants are lacking and some conclusions are not clear yet.MethodsWe evaluated the virucidal activity of 2 quaternary ammonium compounds (QAC) disinfectants (MICRO-CHEM PLUS and FWD), W30 (an amphoteric surfactant), and Medical EtOH against SARS-CoV-2. Suspension tests covering different concentration and contact time were performed using the integrated cell culture-qPCR method.ResultsEach of disinfectants was effective at inactivating SARS-CoV-2. MCP and FWD are highly effective within 15 seconds. W30 is also efficient within 2 minutes at concentration of 1%. Consistent with previous report, our results also demonstrated that 38% ethanol was sufficient to completely inactivate virus, which proved the method used in this study is feasible.Conclusions and discussionQAC disinfectants, MCP and FWD, are highly effective for the inactivation of SARS-CoV-2, which making them practical for use in health care setting and laboratories where prompt disinfection is important. The low-level disinfectant based on amphoteric surfactant, W30, which may present in commonly available household hygiene agents is also able to inactivate SARS-CoV-2.
| S-EPMC8585555 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The focus on treatment of COVID19 patients during the Sars-CoV-2 outbreak has most likely implications for the extent and quality of diagnosis and treatment of non-COVID19 patients. Medical care of cancer patients is a particularly sensitive area. To draw holistic conclusions, it is necessary to analyze the provision of healthcare as broadly as possible with regard to the dimensions of access, processes and outcome during the Sars-CoV-2 pandemic. This will be implemented exemplarily for the early detection, diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) and pancreatic cancer (PaCa) in Saxony. Patients with diagnosis, treatment or early detection measures for type 2 diabetes (T2D), coronary heart disease (CHD) and multiple sclerosis (MS) serve as comparison groups.
| 2743388 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Individualized antibody reacitivty levels for SARS-CoV-2 antigens were successfully quantified and reactivity classification (Reactive non reactive) was performed based on a logistic regression model. Individuals were tested at several time points including their reactivity before the mRNA vaccination (Pfizer and Moderna), soon after first and second doses and up to 6 months after immunization
2022-04-04 | GSE199668 | GEO
Project description:During the course of 2020, the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) spread rapidly across the world. Clinical diagnostic testing for SARS-Cov-2 infection has relied on the real-time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction and is considered the gold standard assay. Commercial vendors and laboratories quickly mobilised to develop diagnostic tests to detect the novel coronavirus, which was fundamentally important in the pandemic response. These SARS-Cov-2 assays were developed in line with the Food Drug Administration-Emergency Use Authorization guidance. Although new tests are continuously being developed, information about SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic molecular test accuracy has been limited and at times controversial. Therefore, the analytical and clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 test kits should be carefully considered by the appropriate regulatory authorities and evaluated by independent laboratory validation. This would provide improved end-user confidence in selecting the most reliable and accurate diagnostic test. Moreover, it is unclear whether some of these rapidly developed tests have been subjected to rigorous quality control and assurance required under good manufacturing practice. Variable target gene regions selected for currently available tests, potential mutation in target gene regions, non-standardized pre-analytic phase, a lack of manufacturer independent validation data all create difficulties in selecting tests appropriate for different countries and laboratories. Here we provide information on test criteria which are important in the assessment and selection of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic tests and outline the potential issues associated with a proportion of the tests on the market.
| S-EPMC9019540 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Age is among the most prominent risk factors for developing severe COVID-19 disease, and therefore older adults are a major target group for vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. This review focusses on age-associated aspects of COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination strategies, and summarizes data on immunogenicity, efficacy and effectiveness of the four COVID-19 vaccines, which are licensed in the US and/or Europe; namely, the two mRNA vaccines by BioNTech/Pfizer (BNT162b2) and Moderna (mRNA-1273), and the adenovector vaccines developed by AstraZeneca/University Oxford (ChAdOx1-nCoV-19, AZD1222) and Janssen/Johnson&Johnson (Ad26.COV2-S), respectively. After very high protection rates in the first months after vaccination even in the older population, effectiveness of the vaccines, particularly against asymptomatic infection and mild disease, declined at later time points and with the emergence of virus variants. Many high-income countries have recently started administration of additional doses to older adults and other high-risk groups, whereas other parts of the world are still struggling to acquire and distribute vaccines for primary vaccination. Other vaccines are available in other countries and clinical development for more vaccine candidates is ongoing, but a complete overview of COVID-19 vaccine development is beyond the scope of this article.
| S-EPMC8704374 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSelf-reported substance use is more likely to be influenced by underreporting bias compared to the biological markers. Underreporting bias or validity of self-reported substance use depends on the study population and cannot be generalized to the entire population. This study aimed to compare the validity of self-reported substance use between research setting and primary health care setting from the same source population.Methods and materialsThe population in this study included from Rafsanjan Youth Cohort Study (RYCS) and from primary care health centers. The sample from RYCS is made up 607 participants, 113 (18.62%) women and 494 (81.38%) men and sample from PHC centers is made up 522 individuals including 252 (48.28%) women and 270 (51.72%) men. We compared two groups in respect of prevalence estimates based on self-reported substance use and urine test. Then for evaluating validity of self-reported substance use in both group, the results of reference standard, urine tests, were compared with the results of self-reported drug use using measures of concordance.ResultsThe prevalence of substance use based on urine test was significantly higher in both settings compared to self-reported substance use over the past 72 h. The sensitivity of self-report substance use over the past 72 h in research setting was 39.4, 20, 10% and zero for opium, methadone, cannabis and amphetamine, respectively and in primary health care setting was 50, 20.7, 12.5% and zero for opium, methadone, cannabis and amphetamine, respectively. The level of agreement between self-reported substance use over the past 72 h and urine test indicated fair and moderate agreement for opium in both research and primary health care settings, respectively and also slight agreement for methadone and cannabis in both settings were reported. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of self-reported substance use. For all substances, the level of agreement increased with longer recall periods. The specificity of self-report for all substances in both groups was more than 99%.ConclusionIndividuals in primary health care setting were more likely to self-reported substance use than in research setting, but setting did not have a statistically significant effect in terms of self-reported substance use. Programs that rely on self-reported substance use may not estimate the exact prevalence of substance use in both research and primary health care settings, especially for substances that have a higher social stigma. Therefore, it is recommended that self-report and biological indicators be used for more accurate evaluation in substance use studies. It is also suggested that future epidemiological studies be performed to reduce bias of social desirability and find a method providing the highest level of privacy.
| S-EPMC8439053 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn early 2022, there was a sudden surge of patients infected by the Omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Hong Kong (HK), resulting in 9,163 deaths as of 29 May 2022. Many of the local population had not been vaccinated before this wave. The number of patients who developed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related respiratory failure outnumbered the capacity of intensive care unit (ICU) beds. Some of these patients had to be supported with high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy outside ICU setting. HK was in crisis situation. The primary objective of this study is to assess the 28-day mortality of this group of patients. The secondary objective is to explore any predictors of non-survivors to help clinical decision-making in future crisis.MethodsThis is a retrospective observational study of patients suffering from COVID-19 related respiratory failure who received HFNC therapy in general medical wards of two hospitals during the period of 17 Mar to 30 Apr 2022. Survival and risk factors were reviewed.ResultsForty-nine patients were recruited. Twenty-six patients (53%) survived at 28-day after initiation of HFNC support. Three clinical parameters were found to be significantly associated with mortality at 28-day: (I) SpO2/FiO2 (SF) ratio <160 at 48 hours; (II) SF ratio <191 at 72 hours; (III) serial SF ratio at 48 or 72 hours showing no improvement over that at the time of initiation of HFNC therapy.ConclusionsUse of HFNC outside ICU setting showed benefit to patients suffering from COVID-19 related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). Serial SF ratio monitoring at 48 and 72 hours after therapy initiation might serve as predictors of outcome and thus guide clinical decision-making for medical resource allocation in outbreak situation.
| S-EPMC10407535 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ScopeThis guideline addresses the indications for direct testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in asymptomatic individuals in health care facilities, with the aim to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmissions in these settings. The benefit of testing asymptomatic individuals to create a safe environment for patients and health care workers must be weighed against potential unintended consequences, including delaying necessary treatments owing to false positive results and lower quality of care owing to strict isolation measures.MethodsA total of nine PICOs (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) on the topic of testing asymptomatic individuals was selected by the panel members. Subsequently, a literature search for existing guidelines and systematic reviews was performed on PubMed, Epistemonikos, and RecMap using relevant filters available in each database. Data on article/recommendation type, setting, target population, intervention, and quality of the evidence were extracted. Credibility of the systematic reviews was evaluated using the AMSTAR tool, and level of agreement with available recommendation was evaluated with the AGREE II score. Because the evidence available from systematic reviews was deemed insufficiently updated to formulate relevant recommendations, an additional search targeting relevant guidance documents from major public health institutions and original studies was performed. Provisional recommendations were discussed via web conferences until agreement was reached, and final recommendations were formulated according to the GRADE approach.RecommendationsRecommendations were formulated regarding systematic testing in asymptomatic individuals upon admission to a health care setting, during hospital stay, before elective procedures, and before scheduled nonsurgical procedures. Moreover, recommendations regarding testing of asymptomatic visitors, personal caregivers, and health care workers in health care facilities were presented. Recommendations also were given on contact tracing in asymptomatic patients or health care workers and the possibility of a negative screening test to shorten the quarantine period. Furthermore, if applicable, recommendations were specified to transmission rate and vaccination coverage.
| S-EPMC8812094 | biostudies-literature
Project description:High-touch environmental surfaces are acknowledged as potential sources of pathogen transmission, particularly in health care settings where infectious agents may be readily abundant. Methods of disinfecting these surfaces often include direct application of a chemical disinfectant or simply wiping the surface with a disinfectant pre-soaked wipe (DPW). In this study, we examine the ability of four disinfectants, ethanol (EtOH), sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), chlorine dioxide (ClO2), and potassium monopersulfate (KMPS), to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 on a hard, non-porous surface, assessing the effects of concentration and contact time. The efficacy of DPWs to decontaminate carriers spiked with SARS-CoV-2, as well as the transferability of the virus from used DPWs to clean surfaces, is also assessed. Stainless steel carriers inoculated with approximately 6 logs of SARS-CoV-2 prepared in a soil load were disinfected within 5 min through exposure to 66.5% EtOH, 0.5% NaOCl, and 1% KMPS. The addition of mechanical wiping using DPWs impregnated with these biocides rendered the virus inactive almost immediately, with no viral transfer from the used DPW to adjacent surfaces. Carriers treated with 100 ppm of ClO2 showed a significant amount of viable virus remaining after 10 min of biocide exposure, while the virus was only completely inactivated after 10 min of treatment with 500 ppm of ClO2. Wiping SARS-CoV-2-spiked carriers with DPWs containing either concentration of ClO2 for 5 s left significant amounts of viable virus on the carriers. Furthermore, higher titers of infectious virus retained on the ClO2-infused DPWs were transferred to uninoculated carriers immediately after wiping. Overall, 66.5% EtOH, 0.5% NaOCl, and 1% KMPS appear to be highly effective biocidal agents against SARS-CoV-2, while ClO2 formulations are much less efficacious.
| S-EPMC8981239 | biostudies-literature