Antimicrobial mouthwashes (gargling) and nasal sprays administered to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection to improve patient outcomes and to protect healthcare workers treating them.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Burton MJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8187985 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8202127 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 infection poses a serious risk to patients and - due to its contagious nature - to those healthcare workers (HCWs) treating them. The risks of transmission of infection are greater when a patient is undergoing an aerosol-generating procedure (AGP). Not all those with COVID-19 infection are symptomatic, or suspected of harbouring the infection. If a patient who is not known to have or suspected of having COVID-19 infection is to undergo an AGP, it would nonetheless be sensible to minimise the risk to those HCWs treating them. If the mouth and nose of an individual undergoing an AGP are irrigated with antimicrobial solutions, this may be a simple and safe method of reducing the risk of any covert infection being passed to HCWs through droplet transmission or direct contact. Alternatively, the use of antimicrobial solutions by the HCW may decrease the chance of them acquiring COVID-19 infection. However, the use of such antimicrobial solutions may be associated with harms related to the toxicity of the solutions themselves or alterations in the natural microbial flora of the mouth or nose.ObjectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of antimicrobial mouthwashes and nasal sprays administered to HCWs and/or patients when undertaking AGPs on patients without suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection.Search methodsInformation Specialists from Cochrane ENT and Cochrane Oral Health searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: This is a question that urgently requires evidence, however at the present time we did not anticipate finding many completed RCTs. We therefore planned to include the following types of studies: randomised controlled trials (RCTs); quasi-RCTs; non-randomised controlled trials; prospective cohort studies; retrospective cohort studies; cross-sectional studies; controlled before-and-after studies. We set no minimum duration for the studies. We sought studies comparing any antimicrobial mouthwash and/or nasal spray (alone or in combination) at any concentration, delivered to the patient or HCW before and/or after an AGP.Data collection and analysisWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: 1) incidence of symptomatic or test-positive COVID-19 infection in HCWs or patients; 2) significant adverse event: anosmia (or disturbance in sense of smell). Our secondary outcomes were: 3) COVID-19 viral content of aerosol (when present); 4) change in COVID-19 viral load at site(s) of irrigation; 5) other adverse events: changes in microbiome in oral cavity, nasal cavity, oro- or nasopharynx; 6) other adverse events: allergy, irritation/burning of nasal, oral or oropharyngeal mucosa (e.g. erosions, ulcers, bleeding), long-term staining of mucous membranes or teeth, accidental ingestion. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.Main resultsWe found no completed studies to include in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified no studies for inclusion in this review, nor any ongoing studies. The absence of completed studies is not surprising given the relatively recent emergence of COVID-19 infection. However, we are disappointed that this important clinical question is not being addressed by ongoing studies.
| S-EPMC8188293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesPatients with allergic rhinitis receive their information about administering intranasal corticosteroid sprays (INCS) from healthcare workers. Since the majority of patients does not administer these sprays correctly, we investigated whether healthcare workers know how to administer INCS.SettingsWe studied participants at their working place: pharmacy, outpatient clinic or general practitioner centre for emergencies.ParticipantsPharmacist assistants, general practitioners, paediatricians and ear nose throat doctors.DesignObservational study. All the participants demonstrated the administration technique with a spray device filled with water.Primary outcomeNumber of steps of administration of INCS based on the established INCS protocol.Secondary outcomeNumber of five steps are labelled essential to obtain optimal distribution of the medication.ResultsAmong the 75 participants, none performed all the steps correctly. The median of correctly performed steps in the protocol was 14 out of 29. A significantly better result was found among the pharmacist assistants. The essential steps were performed by 27 out of the 75 participants (36%).ConclusionThe majority of healthcare workers does not know how to administer INCS correctly. Patients could, therefore, receive incorrect and non-uniform instructions. The education of healthcare workers on how to administer INCS correctly may be an option for improvement.
| S-EPMC7462155 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The highest viral loads of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 are detectable in the oral cavity, so a potential reduction of infectious virus by nasal and oral sprays could reduce transmission. Therefore, the inactivation capacity of nine nasal and oral sprays was evaluated according to EN 14476. One nasal spray based on sodium hypochlorite and one oral spray containing essential oils reduced viral titres by two to three orders of magnitude. Although clinical data are still sparse, nasal and oral sprays display a more convenient application for elderly people or those who are unable to rinse/gargle.
| S-EPMC8572043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The deposition, residence time, and dissolution profile of nasal suspensions containing corticosteroids play a key role in their in vivo efficacy after administration. However, the conventional methods available to characterize nasal products appear to be unsuitable to exhaustively cover these aspects. The work aims to investigate technological aspects of Ryaltris (mometasone furoate and olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray) compared to other commercial anti-allergic nasal products, namely, Dymista (azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate), Nasonex (mometasone furoate), and Avamys (fluticasone furoate). Innovative characterization methods were combined with more traditional approaches to investigate the anti-allergic nasal sprays. These methods applied together allowed to differentiate between the different products and provided a clear picture of the nasal product behavior in terms of drug dissolution and deposition. In particular, the dissolution tests were performed exploiting the Respicell® apparatus, an innovative technique that allows for the investigation of inhalation products. Then, formulation viscosities were considered along with a formulation flow test on an inclined plane. Finally, the intranasal deposition profile of the commercial formulations was determined using a silicon nasal cast. The results highlight in vitro significant differences in terms of viscosity as well as dissolution rate of the nasal products, with Ryaltris showing a higher viscosity and lower flow compared to other products, which, along with a corticosteroid faster dissolution rate than Dymista, suggest a potential advantage in terms of clinical behavior.
| S-EPMC11357686 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo establish the prevalence, risk factors and implications of suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection among healthcare workers in the United Kingdom (UK).DesignCross-sectional observational study.SettingUK-based primary and secondary care.ParticipantsHealthcare workers aged ≥18 years working between 1 February and 25 May 2020.Main outcome measuresA composite endpoint of laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, or self-isolation or hospitalisation due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19.ResultsOf 6,152 eligible responses, the composite endpoint was present in 1,806 (29.4%) healthcare workers, of whom 49 (0.8%) were hospitalised, 459 (7.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and 1,776 (28.9%) reported self-isolation. Overall, between 11,870 and 21,158 days of self-isolation were required by the cohort, equalling approximately 71 to 127 working days lost per 1,000 working days. The strongest risk factor associated with the presence of the primary composite endpoint was increasing frequency of contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases without adequate personal protective equipment (PPE): 'Never' (reference), 'Rarely' (adjusted odds ratio 1.06, (95% confidence interval: [0.87-1.29])), 'Sometimes' (1.7 [1.37-2.10]), 'Often' (1.84 [1.28-2.63]), 'Always' (2.93, [1.75-5.06]). Additionally, several comorbidities (cancer, respiratory disease, and obesity); working in a 'doctors' role; using public transportation for work; regular contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients; and lack of PPE were also associated with the presence of the primary endpoint. A total of 1,382 (22.5%) healthcare workers reported lacking access to PPE items while having clinical contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases.ConclusionsSuspected or confirmed COVID-19 was more common in healthcare workers than in the general population and is associated with significant workforce implications. Risk factors included inadequate PPE, which was reported by nearly a quarter of healthcare workers. Governments and policymakers must ensure adequate PPE is available as well as developing strategies to mitigate risk for high-risk healthcare workers during future COVID-19 waves.
| S-EPMC7868068 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the clinical features and presence in CSF of antineuronal antibodies in patients with pathologically proven autoimmune encephalitis derived from a cohort of patients with suspected Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD).MethodsThe Dutch Surveillance Centre for Prion Diseases performed 384 autopsies on patients with suspected CJD over a 14-year period (1998-2011). Clinical information was collected from treating physicians. Antineuronal antibodies were tested in CSF obtained postmortem by immunohistochemistry on fresh frozen rat brain sections, by Luminex assay for the presence of well-characterized onconeural antibodies, and by cell-based assays for antibodies against NMDAR, GABABR1/2, GABAAR GLUR1/2, LGI1, Caspr2, and DPPX.ResultsIn 203 patients, a diagnosis of definite CJD was made, while in 181 a variety of other conditions were diagnosed, mainly neurodegenerative. In 22 of these 181, the neuropathologist diagnosed autoimmune encephalitis. One patient was excluded because of lack of clinical information. Inflammatory infiltrates were predominantly perivascular and consisted mainly of T cells. The predominant locations were basal ganglia and thalamus (90%) and temporal lobes and hippocampus (81%). In 6 patients (29%), antineuronal antibodies were detected in postmortem CSF, directed against Hu, NMDAR, GABABR1/2, Caspr2, and an unidentified synaptic antigen in 2. The most frequent symptoms were dementia (90%), gait disturbance (86%), cerebellar signs (67%), and neuropsychiatric symptoms (67%). Immunopathologic and clinical findings did not differ between autoantibody-negative patients and patients with antineuronal antibodies.ConclusionsIt is important to consider immune-mediated disorders in the differential diagnosis of rapidly progressive neurologic deficits.
| S-EPMC4645173 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has required a variety of non-medical interventions to limit the transmission of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). One such option is over-the-counter nasal sprays that aim to block virus entry and transmission within the nasal cavity. In this study, we assessed the ability of three hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC)-based powder nasal sprays, produced by Nasaleze, to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection and release in vitro. Upon application, the HPMC powder forms a gel-like matrix within the nasal cavity-a process we recapitulated in cell culture. We found that virus release from cells previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 was inhibited by the gel matrix product in a dose-dependent manner, with virus levels reduced by >99.99% over a 72 h period at a dose of 6.4 mg/3.5 cm2. We also show that the pre-treatment of cells with product inhibited SARS-CoV-2 infection, independent of the virus variant. The primary mechanism of action appears to be via the formation of a physical, passive barrier. However, the addition of wild garlic provided additional direct antiviral properties in some formulations. We conclude that HPMC-based nasal sprays may offer an additional component to strategies to limit the spread of respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2.
| S-EPMC8705245 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There are no antivirals to treat viral upper respiratory tract infection (URTI). Since numerous viruses cause URTI, antiviral therapy is impractical. As we have evidence of chloride-ion dependent innate antiviral response in epithelial cells, we conducted a pilot, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial of hypertonic saline nasal irrigation and gargling (HSNIG) vs standard care on healthy adults within 48 hours of URTI onset to assess recruitment (primary outcome). Acceptability, symptom duration and viral shedding were secondary outcomes. Participants maintained a symptom diary until well for two days or a maximum of 14 days and collected 5 sequential mid-turbinate swabs to measure viral shedding. The intervention arm prepared hypertonic saline and performed HSNIG. We recruited 68 participants (2.6 participants/week; November 2014-March 2015). A participant declined after randomisation. Another was on antibiotics and hence removed (Intervention:32, Control:34). Follow up data was available from 61 (Intervention:30, Control:31). 87% found HSNIG acceptable, 93% thought HSNIG made a difference to their symptoms. In the intervention arm, duration of illness was lower by 1.9 days (p = 0.01), over-the-counter medications (OTCM) use by 36% (p = 0.004), transmission within household contacts by 35% (p = 0.006) and viral shedding by ≥0.5 log10/day (p = 0.04). We hence need a larger trial to confirm our findings.
| S-EPMC6355924 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCorticosteroid nasal sprays are the mainstay of treatment for allergic rhinitis. These sprays have sensory attributes such as scent and/or odor, taste and aftertaste, and run down the throat and/or the nose, which, when unpleasant, can affect patient preference for, and compliance with, treatment.ObjectiveThis study examined patient preference for fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) or mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) based on their sensory attributes after administration in patients with allergic rhinitis.MethodsThis was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over study. Patient preferences were determined by using three questionnaires (Overall Preference, Immediate Attributes, and Delayed Attributes).ResultsOverall, 56% of patients stated a preference for FFNS versus 32% for MFNS (p < 0.001); the remaining 12% stated no preference. More patients stated a preference for FFNS versus MFNS for the attributes of "less drip down the throat" (p < 0.001), "less run out of the nose" (p < 0.05), "more soothing" (p < 0.05), and "less irritating" (p < 0.001). More patients responded in favor of FFNS versus MFNS for the immediate attributes, "run down the throat" (p < 0.001), and "run out of the nose" (p < 0.001), and, in the delayed attributes, "run down the throat" (p < 0.001), "run out of the nose" (p < 0.01), "presence of aftertaste" (p < 0.01), and "no nasal irritation" (p < 0.001).ConclusionPatients with allergic rhinitis preferred FFNS versus MFNS overall and based on a number of individual attributes, including "less drip down the throat," "less run out of the nose," and "less irritating." Greater preference may improve patient adherence and thereby improve symptom management of the patient's allergic rhinitis.
| S-EPMC5244277 | biostudies-literature