Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Centre for the AIDS Program of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA) 004 trial assessed the effectiveness and safety of a 1% vaginal gel formulation of tenofovir, a nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor, for the prevention of HIV acquisition in women. A double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted comparing tenofovir gel (n = 445 women) with placebo gel (n = 444 women) in sexually active, HIV-uninfected 18- to 40-year-old women in urban and rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. HIV serostatus, safety, sexual behavior, and gel and condom use were assessed at monthly follow-up visits for 30 months. HIV incidence in the tenofovir gel arm was 5.6 per 100 women-years (person time of study observation) (38 out of 680.6 women-years) compared with 9.1 per 100 women-years (60 out of 660.7 women-years) in the placebo gel arm (incidence rate ratio = 0.61; P = 0.017). In high adherers (gel adherence > 80%), HIV incidence was 54% lower (P = 0.025) in the tenofovir gel arm. In intermediate adherers (gel adherence 50 to 80%) and low adherers (gel adherence < 50%), the HIV incidence reduction was 38 and 28%, respectively. Tenofovir gel reduced HIV acquisition by an estimated 39% overall, and by 54% in women with high gel adherence. No increase in the overall adverse event rates was observed. There were no changes in viral load and no tenofovir resistance in HIV seroconverters. Tenofovir gel could potentially fill an important HIV prevention gap, especially for women unable to successfully negotiate mutual monogamy or condom use.

Skin antisepsis with iodine povacrylex resulted in fewer surgical-site infections than antisepsis with chlorhexidine gluconate in patients with closed limb fractures but not in those with open fractures.

In this single-center trial comparing chlorhexidine–alcohol with iodine–alcohol for skin antisepsis before cesarean delivery, the use of chlorhexidine–alcohol resulted in a risk of surgical-site infection that was significantly lower than that associated with iodine–alcohol. Cesarean delivery is the most common major surgical procedure among women in the United States. 1 In 2013, more than 32.7% (1.3 million) of the 3.9 million births were by cesarean section. 2 Surgical-site infections complicate 2 to 5% of all surgical procedures and 5 to 12% of cesarean deliveries. 3 – 6 Infection occurring after delivery places an extra burden on the new mother and may impair mother–infant bonding and breast-feeding. The average attributable hospital cost per surgical-site infection after cesarean delivery is estimated to be $3,529. 7 The skin is a major source of pathogens that cause surgical-site infections. Therefore, preoperative skin antisepsis . . .

Nursing home residents are often colonized with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. In this trial involving 28 nursing homes, decolonization with chlorhexidine and povidone–iodine reduced the risk of hospitalization for infection.

The skin is a source of infection associated with surgery. In this multicenter, randomized trial, the preoperative application of chlorhexidine–alcohol was found to be a more effective skin preparation than povidone–iodine for preventing incisional infections. The preoperative application of chlorhexidine–alcohol was found to be a more effective skin preparation than povidone–iodine for preventing incisional infections. Despite the implementation of preoperative preventive measures, which include skin cleansing with povidone–iodine, surgical-site infection occurs in 300,000 to 500,000 patients who undergo surgery in the United States each year. 1 – 6 Since the patient's skin is a major source of pathogens, it is conceivable that improving skin antisepsis would decrease surgical-site infections. 7 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that 2% chlorhexidine-based preparations be used to cleanse the site of insertion of vascular catheters. 8 However, the CDC has not issued a recommendation as to which antiseptics should be used preoperatively to prevent postoperative surgical-site infection in the 27 . . .

Colonization with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is associated with increased infection risk after hospital discharge. In a multicenter, randomized trial, a program of MRSA decolonization at home led to a significantly lower risk of MRSA infection over a 1-year period than hygiene education alone.

PurposeAntiseptic bathing has garnered attention in an effort to reduce hospital-acquired infections. Previous studies have shown the efficacy of antiseptic bathing in high-risk environments, such as intensive care units (ICUs), using chlorhexidine. In this study we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of octenidine as a potential alternative due to its established popularity and widespread use in Europe.MethodsWe compared the rates of ICU-acquired primary bacteremia and ICU-acquired multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in a multicenter, cluster-randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study using octenidine-impregnated and placebo washcloths. On 44 ICUs in 23 hospitals throughout Germany, we compared individual ICUs with themselves over two 12-month time periods. All data were obtained digitally via hospital information systems as individual ward-movement data and microbiological test results; both endpoints were algorithmically derived.Results104,039 ICU episodes from 93,438 patients with 712,784 microbiological test results were analyzed, thereby detecting 1508 cases of ICU-acquired primary bacteremia and 1871 cases of ICU-acquired MDRO. Bathing with octenidine-impregnated washcloths prevented ICU-acquired primary bacteremia; a risk reduction of 17% was seen homogeneously across all participating ICUs (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.75; 0.92], p = 0.0003). This reduction affected predominantly coagulase-negative staphylococci (53%) and enterococci (17%). However, no intervention effect was seen for ICU-acquired MDROs (adjusted HR 0.98, 95% CI [0.83; 1.15]). Heterogeneity among intra-ICU intervention effects on MDRO acquisition was substantial.ConclusionsAntiseptic bathing with octenidine may be effective in preventing ICU-acquired primary bacteremia, particularly due to Gram-positive bacteria and common skin commensals.

PurposeOne of the key approaches to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission would be to reduce the titres of SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva of infected COVID-19 patients. This is particularly important in high-risk procedures like dental treatment. The present randomized control trial evaluated the efficacy of three commercial mouth-rinse viz. povidone–iodine (PI), chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) and cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), in reducing the salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load in COVID-19 patients compared with water.MethodsA total of 36 SARS-CoV-2-positive patients were recruited, of which 16 patients were randomly assigned to four groups—PI group (n = 4), CHX group (n = 6), CPC group (n = 4) and water as control group (n = 2). Saliva samples were collected from all patients at baseline and at 5 min, 3 h and 6 h post-application of mouth-rinses/water. The samples were subjected to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR analysis.ResultsComparison of salivary Ct values of patients within each group of PI, CHX, CPC and water at 5 min, 3 h and 6 h time points did not show any significant differences. However, when the Ct value fold change of each of the mouth-rinse group patients were compared with the fold change of water group patients at the respective time points, a significant increase was observed in the CPC group patients at 5 min and 6 h and in the PI group patients at 6 h.ConclusionThe effect of decreasing salivary load with CPC and PI mouth-rinsing was observed to be sustained at 6 h time point. Within the limitation of the current study, as number of the samples analyzed, the use of CPC and PI formulated that commercial mouth-rinses may be useful as a pre-procedural rinse to help reduce the transmission of COVID-19.ISRCTN (ISRCTN95933274), 09/09/20, retrospectively registered

Intravascular-catheter-related infections are frequent life-threatening events in health care, but incidence can be decreased by improvements in the quality of care. Optimisation of skin antisepsis is essential to prevent short-term catheter-related infections. We hypothesised that chlorhexidine–alcohol would be more effective than povidone iodine–alcohol as a skin antiseptic to prevent intravascular-catheter-related infections. In this open-label, randomised controlled trial with a two-by-two factorial design, we enrolled consecutive adults (age ≥18 years) admitted to one of 11 French intensive-care units and requiring at least one of central-venous, haemodialysis, or arterial catheters. Before catheter insertion, we randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) patients via a secure web-based random-number generator (permuted blocks of eight, stratified by centre) to have all intravascular catheters prepared with 2% chlorhexidine–70% isopropyl alcohol (chlorhexidine–alcohol) or 5% povidone iodine–69% ethanol (povidone iodine–alcohol), with or without scrubbing of the skin with detergent before antiseptic application. Physicians and nurses were not masked to group assignment but microbiologists and outcome assessors were. The primary outcome was the incidence of catheter-related infections with chlorhexidine–alcohol versus povidone iodine–alcohol in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01629550 and is closed to new participants. Between Oct 26, 2012, and Feb 12, 2014, 2546 patients were eligible to participate in the study. We randomly assigned 1181 patients (2547 catheters) to chlorhexidine–alcohol (594 patients with scrubbing, 587 without) and 1168 (2612 catheters) to povidone iodine–alcohol (580 patients with scrubbing, 588 without). Chlorhexidine–alcohol was associated with lower incidence of catheter-related infections (0·28 vs 1·77 per 1000 catheter-days with povidone iodine–alcohol; hazard ratio 0·15, 95% CI 0·05–0·41; p=0·0002). Scrubbing was not associated with a significant difference in catheter colonisation (p=0·3877). No systemic adverse events were reported, but severe skin reactions occurred more frequently in those assigned to chlorhexidine–alcohol (27 [3%] patients vs seven [1%] with povidone iodine–alcohol; p=0·0017) and led to chlorhexidine discontinuation in two patients. For skin antisepsis, chlorhexidine–alcohol provides greater protection against short-term catheter-related infections than does povidone iodine–alcohol and should be included in all bundles for prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. University Hospital of Poitiers, CareFusion.

Background: the establishment of periodontitis is regulated by the primary etiological factor and several individual conditions including the immune response mechanism of the host and individual genetic factors. It results when the oral homeostasis is interrupted, and biological reactions favor the development and progression of periodontal tissues damage. Different strategies have been explored for reinforcing the therapeutic effect of non-surgical periodontal treatment of periodontal tissue damage. Gaseous ozone therapy has been recognized as a promising antiseptic adjuvant, because of its immunostimulating, antimicrobial, antihypoxic, and biosynthetic effects. Then, we hypothesized that the adjunct of gaseous ozone therapy to standard periodontal treatment may be leveraged to promote the tissue healing response. Methods: to test this hypothesis, we conducted a prospective randomized study comparing non-surgical periodontal treatment plus gaseous ozone therapy to standard therapy. A total of 90 healthy individuals with moderate or severe generalized periodontitis were involved in the study. The trial was conducted from September 2019 to October 2020. Forty-five patients were randomized to receive scaling and root-planning (SRP) used as conventional non-surgical periodontal therapy plus gaseous ozone therapy (GROUP A); forty-five were allocated to standard treatment (GROUP B). The endpoint was defined as the periodontal response rate after the application of the ozone therapy at 3 months and 6 months, defined as no longer meeting the criteria for active periodontitis. Statistical analysis was performed employing SPSS v.18 Chicago: SPSS Inc. Results: periodontal parameters differed significantly between patients treated with the two distinct procedures at 3 months (p ≤ 0.005); a statistically significant difference between groups was observed from baseline in the CAL (p ≤ 0.0001), PPD (p ≤ 0.0001) and BOP (p ≤ 0.0001) scores. Conclusions: The present study suggests that SRP combined with ozone therapy in the treatment of periodontitis revealed an improved outcome than SRP alone.