Use of antimicrobial mouthwashes (gargling) and nasal sprays by healthcare workers to protect them when treating patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Burton MJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8202127 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8187985 | 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of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and additional sources for published and unpublished trials.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: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:Impact of Technical Sources of Variation on the Hand Microbiome Dynamics of Healthcare Workers
| PRJEB5147 | ENA
Project description:BackgroundThe burden of severe disease and death due to SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic among healthcare workers (HCWs) worldwide has been substantial. Masking is a critical control measure to effectively protect HCWs from respiratory infectious diseases, yet for COVID-19, masking policies have varied considerably across jurisdictions. As Omicron variants began to be predominant, the value of switching from a permissive approach based on a point of care risk assessment (PCRA) to a rigid masking policy needed to be assessed.MethodsA literature search was conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid platform), Cochrane Library, Web of Science (Ovid platform), and PubMed to June 2022. An umbrella review of meta-analyses investigating protective effects of N95 or equivalent respirators and medical masks was then conducted. Data extraction, evidence synthesis and appraisal were duplicated.ResultsWhile the results of Forest plots slightly favoured N95 or equivalent respirators over medical masks, eight of the ten meta-analyses included in the umbrella review were appraised as having very low certainty and the other two as having low certainty.ConclusionThe literature appraisal, in conjunction with risk assessment of the Omicron variant, side-effects and acceptability to HCWs, along with the precautionary principle, supported maintaining the current policy guided by PCRA rather than adopting a more rigid approach. Well-designed prospective multi-centre trials, with systematic attention to the diversity of healthcare settings, risk levels and equity concerns are needed to support future masking policies.
| S-EPMC9932689 | 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:Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 infection is a global pandemic. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to protect healthcare workers has been a recurrent challenge in terms of global stocks, supply logistics and suitability. In some settings, around 20% of healthcare workers treating COVID-19 cases have become infected, which leads to staff absence at peaks of the pandemic, and in some cases mortality. Methods: To address shortcomings in PPE, we developed a simple powered air purifying respirator, made from inexpensive and widely available components. The prototype was designed to minimize manufacturing complexity so that derivative versions could be developed in low resource settings with minor modification. Results: The "Personal Respirator - Southampton" (PeRSo) delivers High-Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filtered air from a battery powered fan-filter assembly into a lightweight hood with a clear visor that can be comfortably worn for several hours. Validation testing demonstrates that the prototype removes microbes, avoids excessive CO2 build-up in normal use, and passes fit test protocols widely used to evaluate standard N95/FFP2 and N99/FFP3 face masks. Feedback from doctors and nurses indicate the PeRSo prototype was preferred to standard FFP2 and FFP3 masks, being more comfortable and reducing the time and risk of recurrently changing PPE. Patients report better communication and reassurance as the entire face is visible. Conclusion: Rapid upscale of production of cheaply produced powered air purifying respirators, designed to achieve regulatory approval in the country of production, could protect healthcare workers from infection and improve healthcare delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC8757800 | 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:RNA was extracted from whole blood of subjects collected in Tempus tubes prior to COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccination. D01 and D21 correspond to samples collected at pre-dose 1 and pre-dose 2 respectively. RNA was also extracted from blood collected at indicated time points post-vaccination. DB1, DB2, DB4 and DB7 correspond to booster day 1 (pre-booster), booster day 2, booster day 4 and booster day 7 respectively. The case subject experienced cardiac complication following mRNA booster vaccination. We performed gene expression analysis of case versus controls over time.
2023-03-20 | E-MTAB-12829 | biostudies-arrayexpress