Polihexanide 0.06% eye drops preservative free

BackgroundMaintenance of oral microbiota balance is the simplest way to prevent infectious oral diseases, through controlling dental biofilm. Combined use of mouthwash and mechanical removal has been shown to be a very effective way for this.ObjectivesTo identify clinical studies comparing the antimicrobial effect and possible adverse effects and/or side effects of chlorhexidine-based mouthwashes with those of mouthwashes containing chlorine dioxide and/or polyhexanide, for controlling oral microbiota.Design and settingSystematic review designed by the stomatology sector of postgraduation in applied dental sciences of Bauru Dentistry School, University of São Paulo, Brazil.MethodsA systematic review was conducted using online databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Science Direct) up to April 8, 2020. The search was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.ResultsThe studies included comprised eight articles published between 2001 and 2017. A total of 295 young adults, adults and elderly people were evaluated (males 44.75% and females 55.25%). Three articles compared polyhexanide with chlorhexidine and five articles compared chlorine dioxide with chlorhexidine. No studies comparing all three mouthwashes were found. The concentrations of the study solutions were quite varied, and all rinses had an antimicrobial effect. In four studies, it was stated that no side effects or adverse effects had been found. Three studies did not address these results and only one study addressed side effects and/or adverse effects.ConclusionMouthwashes containing chlorine dioxide and polyhexanide are viable alternatives to chlorhexidine, since they reduce oral biofilm and have little or no reported side or adverse effects.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Background and Objectives: Signs and symptoms of vulvovaginitis, especially when recurrent, have a significant impact on a woman's quality of life. The aim of this study was to survey gynecologists about their habits regarding the treatments of the pathology and to evaluate the efficacy of a novel vaginal hydrogel composed of wheat extracts and polyhexanide aimed at reducing vulvovaginitis symptomatology. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of a national survey using 155 Italian gynecologists and a prospective, open-label, observational study were carried out in 75 outpatient clinics across Italy. Pre- and postmenopausal women with suspicion of vulvovaginitis due to at least four of the following symptoms (leucoxanthorrhea, bad odor from genitalia, vulvovaginal dryness, petechiae, burning, and pruritus) while waiting for microbiological swab analysis were included and treated with one hydrogel application every 3 days for 1 week. Primary endpoint was the complete resolution of symptomatology. Results: The pre-study survey reported that, for most clinicians, local or oral treatment (65.7% and 82.8%, respectively) with antibiotics or antifungals is used very often. Therefore, we proceeded to carry out an observational study. Overall, 615 (362 of fertile age and 253 in postmenopause) women were included in this study. At the 28th follow-up examination, complete resolution of symptomatology was achieved in 578/615 (94.1%; p p = 0.342). All of the evaluated symptoms were significantly reduced after treatment (p = 0.001) without differences according to the patient's menopausal status. A slightly significant reduction in Gardnerella Vaginalis (p = 0.040) and Candida Albicans (p = 0.049) was found after treatment. No patient reported side effects, adverse reactions, or discontinued therapy. Conclusions: This pilot study showed that a hydrogel based on Rigenase® (wheat extract) and polyhexanide could be a promising treatment for the relief of vulvovaginitis symptoms. However, these results are limited by the absence of a control group. Additional comparative and randomized controlled trials between the hydrogel and other non-antibiotic devices as well as local antibiotic therapy should be performed to increase the validity of the findings.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Therapy of dog bite wounds often includes empirical usage of antibiotics. This prospective clinical study aimed to compare the efficacy of polyhexanide and hypochlorous acid in reducing bacterial wound bio-burden and preventing the necessity for prophylactic antibiotics and to monitor the prevalence of multidrug- resistant bacteria. Thirty-four dogs with 51 bite wounds were randomly assigned to one of the treatment groups. Wounds were surgically debrided and treated with polyhexanide or hypochlorous acid. Swabs for culturing were taken three times: before and directly after debridement and directly after lavage. Veterinary patients were further divided into post-surgery care with and without prophylactic antibiotics. Wound healing until suture removal was monitored. Data were analyzed using a generalized linear model for ordinal data. Positive bacterial culture results after the first swab were obtained in 82.4 % wounds. Staphylococcus pseudintermedius was overrepresented in wounds, which later on developed complications. Neisseria species and streptococci species were overrepresented in cases of delayed wound closure. In 41.2 % of wounds multi-drug resistant bacteria could be detected. No negative effect of occurrence of multi-drug resistant bacteria on wound healing was observed. None of the compared antiseptics showed a significantly better wound decontamination. No superior antiseptic was found for wound lavage. Hypochlorous acid-based antiseptics provide the practical advantage of a shorter contact time. Prophylactic antibiotics should always be considered in severe dog bite wounds and might not be needed in low grade bite wounds.

Abstract licence: CC BY