Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 2.184
Filtrar
1.
Bioresour Technol ; 326: 124683, 2021 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33524885

RESUMEN

The aim of this work was to develop a soap-based method for the isolation of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) from bacterial biomass. The method consisted of adding soap derived from waste cooking oil to a concentrated (25%) biomass suspension, heating and centrifugal separation. Purity above 95% could be achieved with soap:cell dry mass ratios at least 0.125 g/g, making the method comparable to other surfactant-based protocols. Molecular weights Mw of products from all experiments were between 350 and 450 kDa, being high enough for future material applications. Addition of hydrochloric acid to the wastewater led to the precipitation of soap and part of non-P3HB cell mass. The resulting precipitate was utilized as a carbon source in biomass production and increased substrate-to-P3HB conversion.


Asunto(s)
Reactores Biológicos , Jabones , Ácido 3-Hidroxibutírico , Biomasa , Culinaria , Hidroxibutiratos , Poliésteres
2.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 12: CD004265, 2021 01 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33539552

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Diarrhoea accounts for 1.8 million deaths in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One of the identified strategies to prevent diarrhoea is hand washing. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of hand-washing promotion interventions on diarrhoeal episodes in children and adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP), and metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) on 8 January 2020, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Individually-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared the effects of hand-washing interventions on diarrhoea episodes in children and adults with no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We stratified the analyses for child day-care centres or schools, community, and hospital-based settings. Where appropriate, we pooled incidence rate ratios (IRRs) using the generic inverse variance method and a random-effects model with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 RCTs: 13 trials from child day-care centres or schools in mainly high-income countries (54,471 participants), 15 community-based trials in LMICs (29,347 participants), and one hospital-based trial among people with AIDS in a high-income country (148 participants). All the trials and follow-up assessments were of short-term duration. Hand-washing promotion (education activities, sometimes with provision of soap) at child day-care facilities or schools prevent around one-third of diarrhoea episodes in high-income countries (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; 9 trials, 4664 participants, high-certainty evidence) and may prevent a similar proportion in LMICs, but only two trials from urban Egypt and Kenya have evaluated this (IRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99; 2 trials, 45,380 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only four trials reported measures of behaviour change, and the methods of data collection were susceptible to bias. In one trial from the USA hand-washing behaviour was reported to improve; and in the trial from Kenya that provided free soap, hand washing did not increase, but soap use did (data not pooled; 3 trials, 1845 participants; low-certainty evidence). Hand-washing promotion among communities in LMICs probably prevents around one-quarter of diarrhoea episodes (IRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.81; 9 trials, 15,950 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, six of these nine trials were from Asian settings, with only one trial from South America and two trials from sub-Saharan Africa. In seven trials, soap was provided free alongside hand-washing education, and the overall average effect size was larger than in the two trials which did not provide soap (soap provided: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.75; 7 trials, 12,646 participants; education only: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; 2 trials, 3304 participants). There was increased hand washing at major prompts (before eating or cooking, after visiting the toilet, or cleaning the baby's bottom) and increased compliance with hand-hygiene procedure (behavioural outcome) in the intervention groups compared with the control in community trials (data not pooled: 4 trials, 3591 participants; high-certainty evidence). Hand-washing promotion for the one trial conducted in a hospital among a high-risk population showed significant reduction in mean episodes of diarrhoea (1.68 fewer) in the intervention group (mean difference -1.68, 95% CI -1.93 to -1.43; 1 trial, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Hand-washing frequency increased to seven times a day in the intervention group versus three times a day in the control arm in this hospital trial (1 trial, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found no trials evaluating the effects of hand-washing promotions on diarrhoea-related deaths or cost effectiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Hand-washing promotion probably reduces diarrhoea episodes in both child day-care centres in high-income countries and among communities living in LMICs by about 30%. The included trials do not provide evidence about the long-term impact of the interventions.


Asunto(s)
Diarrea/prevención & control , Desinfección de las Manos/métodos , Adulto , Sesgo , Niño , Jardines Infantiles/estadística & datos numéricos , Infecciones Comunitarias Adquiridas/prevención & control , Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & control , Países Desarrollados/estadística & datos numéricos , Países en Desarrollo/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Instituciones Académicas/estadística & datos numéricos , Jabones
3.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 2: CD013534, 2021 02 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33545739

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Eczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur together in the same people. They can be associated with an impaired skin barrier in early infancy. It is unclear whether trying to prevent or reverse an impaired skin barrier soon after birth is effective in preventing eczema or food allergy. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective To assess effects of skin care interventions, such as emollients, for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy in infants Secondary objective To identify features of study populations such as age, hereditary risk, and adherence to interventions that are associated with the greatest treatment benefit or harm for both eczema and food allergy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to July 2020: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers and checked reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We contacted field experts to identify planned trials and to seek information about unpublished or incomplete trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs of skin care interventions that could potentially enhance skin barrier function, reduce dryness, or reduce subclinical inflammation in healthy term (> 37 weeks) infants (0 to 12 months) without pre-existing diagnosis of eczema, food allergy, or other skin condition were included. Comparison was standard care in the locality or no treatment. Types of skin care interventions included moisturisers/emollients; bathing products; advice regarding reducing soap exposure and bathing frequency; and use of water softeners. No minimum follow-up was required. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and primary analyses used the IPD dataset. Primary outcomes were cumulative incidence of eczema and cumulative incidence of immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated food allergy by one to three years, both measured by the closest available time point to two years. Secondary outcomes included adverse events during the intervention period; eczema severity (clinician-assessed); parent report of eczema severity; time to onset of eczema; parent report of immediate food allergy; and allergic sensitisation to food or inhalant allergen. MAIN RESULTS: This review identified 33 RCTs, comprising 25,827 participants. A total of 17 studies, randomising 5823 participants, reported information on one or more outcomes specified in this review. Eleven studies randomising 5217 participants, with 10 of these studies providing IPD, were included in one or more meta-analysis (range 2 to 9 studies per individual meta-analysis). Most studies were conducted at children's hospitals. All interventions were compared against no skin care intervention or local standard care. Of the 17 studies that reported our outcomes, 13 assessed emollients. Twenty-five studies, including all those contributing data to meta-analyses, randomised newborns up to age three weeks to receive a skin care intervention or standard infant skin care. Eight of the 11 studies contributing to meta-analyses recruited infants at high risk of developing eczema or food allergy, although definition of high risk varied between studies. Durations of intervention and follow-up ranged from 24 hours to two years. We assessed most of this review's evidence as low certainty or had some concerns of risk of bias. A rating of some concerns was most often due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors or significant missing data, which could have impacted outcome measurement but was judged unlikely to have done so. Evidence for the primary food allergy outcome was rated as high risk of bias due to inclusion of only one trial where findings varied when different assumptions were made about missing data. Skin care interventions during infancy probably do not change risk of eczema by one to two years of age (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.31; moderate-certainty evidence; 3075 participants, 7 trials) nor time to onset of eczema (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence; 3349 participants, 9 trials). It is unclear whether skin care interventions during infancy change risk of IgE-mediated food allergy by one to two years of age (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.47; 996 participants, 1 trial) or allergic sensitisation to a food allergen at age one to two years (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.69; 1055 participants, 2 trials) due to very low-certainty evidence for these outcomes. Skin care interventions during infancy may slightly increase risk of parent report of immediate reaction to a common food allergen at two years (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.61; low-certainty evidence; 1171 participants, 1 trial). However, this was only seen for cow's milk, and may be unreliable due to significant over-reporting of cow's milk allergy in infants. Skin care interventions during infancy probably increase risk of skin infection over the intervention period (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.77; moderate-certainty evidence; 2728 participants, 6 trials) and may increase risk of infant slippage over the intervention period (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.99; low-certainty evidence; 2538 participants, 4 trials) or stinging/allergic reactions to moisturisers (RR 2.24, 95% 0.67 to 7.43; low-certainty evidence; 343 participants, 4 trials), although confidence intervals for slippages and stinging/allergic reactions are wide and include the possibility of no effect or reduced risk. Preplanned subgroup analyses show that effects of interventions were not influenced by age, duration of intervention, hereditary risk, FLG mutation,  or classification of intervention type for risk of developing eczema. We could not evaluate these effects on risk of food allergy. Evidence was insufficient to show whether adherence to interventions influenced the relationship between skin care interventions and risk of developing eczema or food allergy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Skin care interventions such as emollients during the first year of life in healthy infants are probably not effective for preventing eczema, and probably increase risk of skin infection. Effects of skin care interventions on risk of food allergy are uncertain. Further work is needed to understand whether different approaches to infant skin care might promote or prevent eczema and to evaluate effects on food allergy based on robust outcome assessments.


Asunto(s)
Eccema/prevención & control , Emolientes/uso terapéutico , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/prevención & control , Cuidados de la Piel/métodos , Sesgo , Femenino , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/inmunología , Humanos , Hipersensibilidad Inmediata/inmunología , Inmunoglobulina E/inmunología , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Masculino , Hipersensibilidad a la Leche/etiología , Enfermedades Cutáneas Infecciosas/epidemiología , Jabones
4.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD013326, 2021 01 20.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33471367

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Annually, infections contribute to approximately 25% of the 2.8 million neonatal deaths worldwide. Over 95% of sepsis-related neonatal deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. Hand hygiene is an inexpensive and cost-effective method of preventing infection in neonates, making it an affordable and practicable intervention in low- and middle-income settings. Therefore, hand hygiene practices may hold strong prospects for reducing the occurrence of infection and infection-related neonatal death. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of different hand hygiene agents for preventing neonatal infection in community and health facility settings. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 5), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 10 May 2019); Embase (1980 to 10 May 2019); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 10 May 2019). We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials. Searches were updated 1 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs, cross-over trials, and quasi-RCTs that included pregnant women, mothers, other caregivers, and healthcare workers who received interventions within the community or in health facility settings DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were incidence of (study author-defined) suspected infection within the first 28 days of life, bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life, all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life (early neonatal death), and all-cause mortality from the 8th to the 28th day of life (late neonatal death). MAIN RESULTS: Our review included five studies: one RCT, one quasi-RCT, and three cross-over trials with a total of more than 5450 neonates (two studies included all neonates but did not report the actual number of neonates involved). Four studies involved 279 nurses working in neonatal intensive care units and all neonates on admission. The fifth study did not clearly state how many nurses were included in the study. Studies examined the effectiveness of different hand hygiene practices for the incidence of (study author-defined) suspected infection within the first 28 days of life. Two studies were rated as low risk for selection bias, another two were rated as high risk, and one study was rated as unclear risk. One study was rated as low risk for allocation bias, and four were rated as high risk. Only one of the five studies was rated as low risk for performance bias. 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) compared to plain liquid soap We are uncertain whether plain soap is better than 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) for nurses' skin based on very low-certainty evidence (mean difference (MD) -1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.31 to -0.19; 16 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We identified no studies that reported on other outcomes for this comparison. 4% chlorhexidine gluconate compared to triclosan 1% One study compared 1% w/v triclosan with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate and suggests that 1% w/v triclosan may reduce the incidence of suspected infection (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.60; 1916 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There may be fewer cases of infection in the 1% w/v triclosan group compared to the 4% chlorhexidine gluconate group (RR 6.01, 95% CI 3.56 to 10.14; 1916 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); however, we are uncertain of the available evidence. We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality, duration of hospital stay, and adverse events for this comparison. 2% CHG compared to alcohol hand sanitiser (61% alcohol and emollients) We are uncertain whether 2% chlorhexidine gluconate reduces the risk of all infection in neonates compared to 61% alcohol hand sanitiser with regards to the incidence of all bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.69; 2932 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) in the 2% chlorhexidine gluconate group, but the evidence is very uncertain.   The adverse outcome was reported as mean visual scoring on the skin. There may be little to no difference between the effects of 2% CHG on nurses' skin compared to alcohol hand sanitiser based on very low-certainty evidence (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.59; 118 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality and other outcomes for this comparison. None of the included studies assessed all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life nor duration of hospital stay.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain as to the superiority of one hand hygiene agent over another because this review included very few studies with very serious study limitations.


Asunto(s)
Infecciones Bacterianas/prevención & control , Higiene de las Manos/métodos , Factores de Edad , Antiinfecciosos Locales/administración & dosificación , Infecciones Bacterianas/epidemiología , Sesgo , Clorhexidina/administración & dosificación , Clorhexidina/análogos & derivados , Estudios Cruzados , Desinfectantes para las Manos/administración & dosificación , Desinfectantes para las Manos/efectos adversos , Humanos , Recién Nacido , Enfermería Neonatal/estadística & datos numéricos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Jabones/administración & dosificación , Triclosán/administración & dosificación
5.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33466953

RESUMEN

Diarrhea is a leading cause of death among children under five (U5) in Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR). This study assessed the association between the presence of household hand-washing facilities with water and soap and diarrhea episodes among children U5 in Lao PDR. Data from the Lao Social Indicator Survey II were used. The outcome variable was diarrhea episodes in the two weeks preceding the survey. The main predictor variable was the presence of household hand-washing facilities with or without water and/or soap. Mixed-effect logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association, controlling for clustering, and other predictor variables. Of the 8640 households surveyed with 11,404 children, 49.1% possessed hand-washing facilities with both water and soap and 34.7% possessed hand-washing facilities with water alone. Children whose households possessed hand-washing facilities with water alone were significantly more likely to have a diarrhea episode compared to children whose households possessed hand-washing facilities with both water and soap (8.1% vs. 5.9%; odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.81). The association remained significant even after adjusting for other predictors. The absence of soap in hand-washing facilities was associated with higher odds of having a diarrhea episode among children U5 in Lao PDR.


Asunto(s)
Jabones , Agua , Niño , Preescolar , Estudios Transversales , Diarrea/epidemiología , Humanos , Incidencia , Laos/epidemiología
6.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33477909

RESUMEN

By promoting personal hygiene and improving comfort, bed baths can decrease the risk of infection and help maintain skin integrity in critically ill patients. Current bed-bathing practices commonly involve the use of either soap and water (SAW) or disposable wipes (DWs). Previous research has shown both bed-bathing methods are equally effective in removing dirt, oil, and microorganisms. This experimental study compared the cost, staff satisfaction, and effects of two bed-bathing practices on critically ill patients' vital signs. We randomly assigned 138 participants into 2 groups: an experimental group that received bed baths using DWs and a control group that received bed baths using SAW. We compared the bath duration, cost, vital sign trends, and nursing staff satisfaction between the two groups. We used the chi-square test and t-test for the statistical analysis, and we expressed the quantitative data as mean and standard deviation. Our results showed the bed baths using DWs had a shorter duration and lower cost than those using SAW. There were no significant differences in the vital sign trends between the two groups. The nursing staff preferred to use DWs over SAW. This study can help clinical nursing staff decide which method to use when assisting patients with bed baths.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedad Crítica , Personal de Enfermería , Baños , Humanos , Jabones , Signos Vitales
7.
Int J Dermatol ; 60(3): 327-331, 2021 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33320331

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral illness caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 which spreads via droplets from an infected person. There has been an unprecedented rise in the use of personal protective equipment and practice of personal hygiene measures against COVID-19. The extended use of protective measures (PM) can lead to ill effects on the skin. Our aim was to investigate PM-induced dermatoses amongst healthcare workers and the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted over a period of 2 months. The study subjects were patients who presented to dermatology outpatient clinics or sought teleconsultation for skin problems related to the use of PMs against COVID-19. A detailed history was obtained and cutaneous examination was documented for all the patients in a pre-set proforma. Diagnoses of the adverse skin effects were formulated based upon history and clinical examination. RESULTS: A total of 101 cases with cutaneous adverse effects due to the use of PMs against COVID-19 were included in the study. The general population and healthcare workers were affected similarly, comprising of 54.5% and 45.5%, respectively. The mean age of the study participants was 36.71 ± 15.72 years. The most common culprit material was soap and water (56.4%). Contact dermatitis was found to be the most common adverse effect in the majority of our patients (72.3%). The most common symptom reported was pruritus (45.5%). The wearing of personal protective equipment for a longer duration was significantly associated with multiple symptoms (P = 0.026). CONCLUSION: The enhanced use of different PMs against COVID-19 can result in a variety of adverse skin effects. In our study, the use of soap and water was the most common culprit PM, and contact dermatitis was the most common adverse effect noted.


Asunto(s)
/prevención & control , Dermatitis por Contacto/epidemiología , Dermatitis Profesional/epidemiología , Higiene de las Manos/normas , Pandemias/prevención & control , Equipo de Protección Personal/efectos adversos , Adulto , /transmisión , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/instrumentación , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/normas , Estudios Transversales , Dermatitis por Contacto/etiología , Dermatitis Profesional/etiología , Femenino , Higiene de las Manos/métodos , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Equipo de Protección Personal/normas , Jabones/efectos adversos , Adulto Joven
8.
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd ; 1642020 11 05.
Artículo en Holandés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33331733

RESUMEN

Because of COVID-19 outbreak people wash more often their hands and use more often and longer disposable gloves. The natural skin barrier function is damaged by washing hand or using disinfectants, because of this allergic and irritative hand eczema develops. Allergic hand eczema can be caused by materials which people work with, and by ingredients of creme and soap, but also by wearing gloves. To prevent hand eczema, good protection of the hands is essential. It is very important to have knowledge about different gloves to inform (health) worker about wearing gloves in the proper way.


Asunto(s)
Eccema , Guantes Protectores , Desinfección de las Manos/métodos , Desinfectantes para las Manos/efectos adversos , Prevención Primaria/métodos , Jabones/efectos adversos , /epidemiología , Eccema/etiología , Eccema/prevención & control , Guantes Protectores/efectos adversos , Guantes Protectores/clasificación , Mano , Humanos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios
9.
Glob Health Sci Pract ; 8(4): 638-653, 2020 12 23.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33361232

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic poses a grave threat to refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs). We examined knowledge, attitudes, and practices with respect to COVID-19 prevention among IDPs in war-torn Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). METHODS: Mixed-methods study with qualitative (focus group discussions, [FGDs]) and quantitative (52-item survey questionnaire) data collection and synthesis. RESULTS: FGDs (N=23) and survey questionnaires (N=164 IDPs; N=143 comparison group) were conducted in May 2020. FGD participants provided narratives of violence that they had fled. IDPs were statistically more likely to have larger household size, experience more extreme poverty, have lower educational attainment, and have less access to information through media and internet versus the comparison group (P<.05 for the comparison group). IDPs had a high level of awareness (99%) and fear (98%) of COVID-19, but lower specific knowledge (15% sufficient knowledge versus 30% among the comparison group, P<.0001), a difference which remained significant in a multivariable model adjusting for confounding. IDPs faced major barriers to implementing COVID-19 prevention measures. Physical distancing was impossible for IDPs in crowded shelters, and 70% reported coming in close contact with someone other than a family member within the past 24 hours (versus 56% of the comparison group, P=.014). Frequent movements in and out of the camp for subsistence left IDPs vulnerable to the introduction of COVID-19: 61% left the camp on a daily basis and 65% had received a visitor in the past month. Despite acceptance of hand hygiene for prevention, 92% lacked soap (versus 65% of the comparison group, P<.0001). IDPs' desire for peace and to return to their native homes, where COVID-19 precautions could be feasibly implemented, overshadowed their perceived benefits of measures such as a COVID-19 vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide empiric evidence supporting the vulnerability of IDPs to COVID-19 and call for action to protect neglected displaced populations.


Asunto(s)
/prevención & control , Conductas Relacionadas con la Salud , Conocimientos, Actitudes y Práctica en Salud , Pandemias , Refugiados , Condiciones Sociales , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , /virología , República Democrática del Congo , Femenino , Higiene de las Manos , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Jabones , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Violencia
10.
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci ; 24(21): 11432-11439, 2020 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33215466

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Soap has been used by humankind since ancient times and was probably already known to the Sumerians. It is a fatty acid salt obtained from the reaction of a strong base with a fatty substance of animal (tallow) or plant origin (oil). This reaction is called saponification. Syndets, on the other hand, are much more recent and have been in use for about a century. In the case of liquid syndets, they are mainly alkyl sulphates and their derivatives alkyl ether sulphates while isethionates and sarcosinates are more commonly found in solid syndets. Synthetic soaps and detergents are surfactants and, as such, they have detergent properties. The way soap works accounts for its antimicrobial properties. Thanks to its amphiphilic structure, it is able to interact with the lipid membranes of microorganisms (viruses, bacteria, etc.) and inactivate them. In this coronavirus pandemic period, health authorities worldwide recommend hand washing with soap and water. We therefore wanted to provide a summary of the chemical characteristics and applications of soaps, on the one hand, and synthetic detergents, on the other. Soap is not the only product used for hand hygiene and, given the current situation, alternatives are complex and varied.


Asunto(s)
Antiinfecciosos/farmacología , Betacoronavirus/efectos de los fármacos , Infecciones por Coronavirus/prevención & control , Detergentes/farmacología , Desinfección de las Manos/métodos , Pandemias/prevención & control , Neumonía Viral/prevención & control , Jabones/farmacología , Antiinfecciosos/química , Antiinfecciosos/normas , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/métodos , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/normas , Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Infecciones por Coronavirus/transmisión , Infecciones por Coronavirus/virología , Detergentes/química , Detergentes/normas , Desinfección de las Manos/normas , Humanos , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Neumonía Viral/transmisión , Neumonía Viral/virología , Jabones/química , Jabones/normas
11.
Am J Trop Med Hyg ; 103(5): 2116-2126, 2020 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32959761

RESUMEN

Observational data suggest maternal handwashing with soap prevents neonatal mortality. We tested the impact of a chlorhexidine-based waterless hand cleansing promotion on the behavior of mothers and other household members. In rural Bangladesh in 2014, we randomized consenting pregnant women to chlorhexidine provision and hand cleansing promotion or standard practices. We compared hand cleansing with chlorhexidine or handwashing with soap before baby care, among mothers and household members in the two groups, and measured chlorhexidine use in the intervention arm. Chlorhexidine was observed in the baby's sleep space in 97% of 130 intervention homes, versus soap in 59% of 128 control homes. Hand cleansing before baby care was observed 5.6 times more frequently among mothers in the intervention arm than in the controls (95% CI = 4.0-7.7). Hand cleansing was significantly more frequently observed in the intervention arm among women other than the mother (RR = 10.9) and girls (RR = 37.0). Men and boys in the intervention arm cleansed hands before 29% and 44% of baby care events, respectively, compared with 0% in the control arm. The median number of grams consumed during the neonatal period was 176 (IQR = 95-305 g), about 7.8 g/day (IQR = 4.2-13.8 g). Promotion of waterless chlorhexidine increased hand cleansing behavior among mothers and other household members. Discrepancy between observed use and measured chlorhexidine consumption suggested courtesy bias in structured observations. A waterless hand cleanser may represent one component of the multimodal strategies to prevent neonatal infections in low-resource settings.


Asunto(s)
Antiinfecciosos Locales/farmacología , Clorhexidina/farmacología , Desinfección de las Manos , Bangladesh , Demografía , Femenino , Mano , Humanos , Recién Nacido , Masculino , Madres , Embarazo , Jabones
12.
Am J Trop Med Hyg ; 103(4): 1726-1734, 2020 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32815501

RESUMEN

Formative research findings from the fast-growing Babati town were used to assess the prevalence of sanitation and hygiene practices among individuals and institutions and associated factors. A cross-sectional study involving household surveys, spot-checks, focus group discussions, in-depth interviews, and structured observations of behaviors showed that 90% of households have sanitation facilities, but 68% have safely managed sanitation services. The most common types of household sanitation facilities were pit latrines with slab (42%) followed by flush/pour flush toilets (32%). Therefore, the management of wastewater depends entirely on onsite sanitation systems. The majority of households (70%) do not practice proper hygiene behaviors. Thirteen percent of the households had handwashing stations with soap and water, handwashing practice being more common to women (38%) than men (18%). The reported handwashing practices during the four critical moments (handwashing with soap before eating and feeding, after defecation, after cleaning child's bottom, and after touching any dirt/dust) differed from the actual/observed practices. Households connected to the town's piped water supply were more likely to practice handwashing than those not directly connected. Sanitation and hygiene behaviors of the people in the study area were seen to be influenced by sociodemographic, cultural, and economic factors. The conditions of sanitation and hygiene facilities in public places were unsatisfactory. There is an urgent need to ensure that the sanitation and hygiene services and behaviors along the value chain (from waste production/source to disposal/end point) are improved both at the household level and in public places through improved sanitation services and the promotion of effective hygiene behavior change programs integrated into ongoing government programs and planning.


Asunto(s)
Higiene , Saneamiento , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Ciudades , Estudios Transversales , Composición Familiar , Femenino , Grupos Focales , Desinfección de las Manos , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Jabones , Tanzanía , Cuartos de Baño , Abastecimiento de Agua , Adulto Joven
14.
Food Chem Toxicol ; 145: 111702, 2020 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32860861

RESUMEN

Our surrounding environment, especially often-touched contaminated surfaces, plays an important role in the transmission of pathogens in society. The shortage of effective sanitizing fluids, however, became a global challenge quickly after the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) outbreak in December 2019. In this study, we present the effect of surfactants on coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) virucidal efficiency in sanitizing fluids. Sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate (SDBS), sodium laureth sulfate (SLS), and two commercial dish soap and liquid hand soap were studied with the goal of evaporation rate reduction in sanitizing liquids to maximize surface contact time. Twelve fluids with different recipes composed of ethanol, isopropanol, SDBS, SLS, glycerin, and water of standardized hardness (WSH) were tested for their evaporation time and virucidal efficiency. Evaporation time increased by 17-63% when surfactant agents were added to the liquid. In addition, surfactant incorporation enhanced the virucidal efficiency between 15 and 27% according to the 4-field test in the EN 16615:2015 European Standard method. Most importantly, however, we found that surfactant addition provides a synergistic effect with alcohols to inactivate the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This study provides a simple, yet effective solution to improve the virucidal efficiency of commonly used sanitizers.


Asunto(s)
Antivirales/farmacología , Betacoronavirus/efectos de los fármacos , Infecciones por Coronavirus/prevención & control , Desinfectantes para las Manos/farmacología , Pandemias/prevención & control , Neumonía Viral/prevención & control , Jabones/farmacología , Tensoactivos/farmacología , 2-Propanol/farmacología , Células A549 , Bencenosulfonatos/farmacología , Sinergismo Farmacológico , Etanol/farmacología , Glicerol/farmacología , Humanos , Dodecil Sulfato de Sodio/análogos & derivados , Dodecil Sulfato de Sodio/farmacología , Volatilización/efectos de los fármacos
16.
J Laryngol Otol ; 134(7): 571-576, 2020 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32605666

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: An objective evaluation of coronavirus disease 2019 in the first days of infection is almost impossible, as affected individuals are generally in home quarantine, and there is limited accessibility for the operator who should perform the test. To overcome this limitation, a recently validated psychophysical self-administered test was used, which can be performed remotely in the assessment of early-stage coronavirus disease 2019 patients. METHODS: Olfactory and gustatory functions were objectively assessed in 300 patients in the first 7 days from coronavirus disease 2019 symptom onset. RESULTS: Seventy per cent of the patients presented olfactory and/or gustatory disorders. The dysfunctions detected were mainly complete anosmia (47 per cent) or ageusia (38 per cent). A significant correlation was found between taste dysfunction and female gender (odds ratio = 1.936, p = 0.014) and fever (odds ratio = 2.132, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The psychophysical evaluation protocol proposed is an effective tool for the fast and objective evaluation of patients in the early stages of coronavirus disease 2019. Chemosensitive disorders have been confirmed to be frequent and early symptoms of the coronavirus infection, and, in a significant number of cases, they are the first or only manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019.


Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Coronavirus/fisiopatología , Autoevaluación Diagnóstica , Técnicas y Procedimientos Diagnósticos , Trastornos del Olfato/diagnóstico , Neumonía Viral/fisiopatología , Trastornos del Gusto/diagnóstico , Telemedicina , Ácido Acético , Adulto , Betacoronavirus , Chocolate , Café , Combinación de Medicamentos , Femenino , Jugos de Frutas y Vegetales , Productos Domésticos , Humanos , Italia , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Antisépticos Bucales , Trastornos del Olfato/fisiopatología , Pandemias , Extractos Vegetales , Autoinforme , Umbral Sensorial , Factores Sexuales , Jabones , Especias , Trastornos del Gusto/fisiopatología , Umbral Gustativo , Terpenos , Pastas de Dientes , Vino
17.
J Am Acad Dermatol ; 83(6): 1730-1737, 2020 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32707253

RESUMEN

The recent COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in increased hand hygiene and hand cleansing awareness. To prevent virus transmission, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends frequent hand washing with soap and water. Hand hygiene products are available in a variety of forms, and while each of these formulations may be effective against COVID-19, they may also alter skin barrier integrity and function. As health care workers and the general population focus on stringent hand hygiene, the American Contact Dermatitis Society anticipates an increase in both irritant contact and allergic contact hand dermatitis. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers with moisturizers have the least sensitizing and irritancy potential when compared to soaps and synthetic detergents. This article provides an overview of the most frequently used hand hygiene products and their associations with contact dermatitis as well as recommendations from the American Contact Dermatitis Society on how to treat and prevent further dermatitis.


Asunto(s)
Dermatitis por Contacto/prevención & control , Dermatitis Profesional/prevención & control , Dermatosis de la Mano/prevención & control , Higiene de las Manos/normas , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Antiinfecciosos Locales/administración & dosificación , Antiinfecciosos Locales/efectos adversos , Betacoronavirus/patogenicidad , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/métodos , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/normas , Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Infecciones por Coronavirus/prevención & control , Infecciones por Coronavirus/transmisión , Infecciones por Coronavirus/virología , Dermatitis por Contacto/etiología , Dermatitis Profesional/etiología , Dermatosis de la Mano/inducido químicamente , Personal de Salud , Humanos , Irritantes/administración & dosificación , Irritantes/efectos adversos , Pandemias/prevención & control , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Neumonía Viral/prevención & control , Neumonía Viral/transmisión , Neumonía Viral/virología , Jabones/efectos adversos , Sociedades Médicas/normas , Estados Unidos
18.
Dermatitis ; 31(4): 233-237, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32568806

RESUMEN

In-hospital transmission is one of the main routes of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) spreading among health care workers (HCWs) who are the frontline fighters. However, coming into contact with COVID-19-positive patients is unavoidable. Therefore, hand hygiene is of utmost importance for the prevention of COVID-19 among HCWs. This purpose can be achieved by applying alcohol-based hand rubs, washing hands properly with soap and water, and applying other antiseptic agents. Nevertheless, regular hand hygiene could also be challenging, because water, detergents, and disinfectants may predispose HCWs to hand dermatitis. The current article reviews the risk factors for the development of hand dermatitis, with further focus on the most common agents used among HCWs. In addition, the risk of occupational hand dermatitis for each agent is evaluated to increase awareness of this common condition. Finally, some recommendations are discussed to reduce the effect of hand dermatitis on HCWs.


Asunto(s)
Betacoronavirus , Infecciones por Coronavirus/prevención & control , Dermatitis Profesional/etiología , Dermatitis Profesional/prevención & control , Higiene de las Manos , Pandemias/prevención & control , Neumonía Viral/prevención & control , Antiinfecciosos Locales/efectos adversos , Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Desinfectantes/efectos adversos , Personal de Salud , Humanos , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Jabones/efectos adversos
19.
Am J Infect Control ; 48(9): 1062-1067, 2020 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32565272

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The emergence of the novel virus, SARS-CoV-2, has posed unprecedented challenges to public health around the world. Currently, strategies to deal with COVID-19 are purely supportive and preventative, aimed at reducing transmission. An effective and simple method for reducing transmission of infections in public or healthcare settings is hand hygiene. Unfortunately, little is known regarding the efficacy of hand sanitizers against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: In this review, an extensive literature search was performed to succinctly summarize the primary active ingredients and mechanisms of action of hand sanitizers, compare the effectiveness and compliance of gel and foam sanitizers, and predict whether alcohol and non-alcohol hand sanitizers would be effective against SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Most alcohol-based hand sanitizers are effective at inactivating enveloped viruses, including coronaviruses. With what is currently known in the literature, one may not confidently suggest one mode of hand sanitizing delivery over the other. When hand washing with soap and water is unavailable, a sufficient volume of sanitizer is necessary to ensure complete hand coverage, and compliance is critical for appropriate hand hygiene. CONCLUSIONS: By extrapolating effectiveness of hand sanitizers on viruses of similar structure to SARS-CoV-2, this virus should be effectively inactivated with current hand hygiene products, though future research should attempt to determine this directly.


Asunto(s)
Betacoronavirus , Infecciones por Coronavirus/prevención & control , Higiene de las Manos/métodos , Desinfectantes para las Manos/análisis , Pandemias/prevención & control , Neumonía Viral/prevención & control , Etanol/análisis , Humanos , Jabones/análisis
20.
Int J Equity Health ; 19(1): 82, 2020 06 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32493409

RESUMEN

The COVID-19 pandemic has spread rapidly since the first case notification of the WHO in December 2019. Lacking an effective treatment, countries have implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions including social distancing measures and have encouraged maintaining adequate and frequent hand hygiene to slow down the disease transmission. Although access to clean water and soap is universal in high-income settings, it remains a basic need many do not have in low- and middle-income settings.We analyzed data from Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) of 16 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, using the most recent survey since 2015. Differences in the percentage of households with an observed handwashing place with water and soap were estimated by place of residence and wealth quintiles. Equiplots showed wide within-country disparities, disproportionately affecting the poorest households and rural residents, who represent the majority of the population in most of the countries.Social inequalities in access to water and soap matter for the COVID-19 response in sub-Saharan Africa. Interventions such as mass distribution of soap and ensuring access to clean water, along with other preventive strategies should be scaled up to reach the most vulnerable populations.


Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Infecciones por Coronavirus/prevención & control , Pandemias/prevención & control , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Neumonía Viral/prevención & control , Jabones/provisión & distribución , Abastecimiento de Agua/estadística & datos numéricos , África del Sur del Sahara/epidemiología , Demografía , Humanos , Factores Socioeconómicos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...