Hypochlorous Acid 0.01% vs Povidone-Iodine 5% for Ocular Antisepsis.

Purpose: An alternative ocular antiseptic is needed for patients who do not tolerate povidone-iodine (PI). The purpose of this study is to compare the antimicrobial effect of hypochlorous acid (HA) 0.01% with PI 5% applied topically to the ocular surface. Methods: Swabs of the inferior conjunctiva and posterior lower eyelid margin of 40 patients were taken from both eyes and plated onto blood agar plates. One eye was treated with HA and the other with PI, and swabs were taken after 1-minute exposure. The eye treated with PI was rinsed with sterile saline and another swab was taken. Colony-forming units (CFUs) were recorded after 2 days. Patients rated the level of irritation after treatment in each eye. Results: HA and PI both gave significant reduction in CFUs from baseline (P < .001 for HA and P = .002 for PI). The mean reduction in logCFU ± 95% CI was 0.850 ± 0.387 or greater for HA and 0.749 ± 0.385 or greater for PI; this was equivalent to a mean reduction of 7.1-fold or greater or 86% or greater (95% CI, 66%-94%) for HA and 5.6-fold or greater or 82% or greater (95% CI, 57%-93%) for PI. CFUs increased in 17 eyes after saline rinse. PI caused substantial irritation in 31 of the 40 participants, whereas no individuals had any irritation from topical HA. Conclusions: Both HA and PI were effective in reducing ocular bacterial load. Unlike PI, HA was not irritating to the eye. Saline rinse after topical PI may increase bacterial counts in some individuals.

A Midwestern Academic HIV Clinic Operation during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Implementation Strategy and Preliminary Outcomes.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, HIV clinics had to transform care delivery for people with HIV (PWH). We developed a multifaceted telehealth implementation strategy and monitored number of out of care patients (OOC), medical visit frequency (MVF), gap in care (GiC) and viral suppression (VS), and compared measures to baseline data. Between April and October 2020, 1559 visits were scheduled; 328 (21%) were missed, and 63 (4%) were new to care. Of the remaining 1168 follow-up visits, 412 (35%) were telehealth visits. As of October 2020, there were 53 patients OOC, MVF was 55% and GiC was 24% compared to 34, 69% and 14% at baseline, respectively. Overall VS rate remained high at 93% (97% for telehealth and 91% for in-person visits, p = 0.0001). Our implementation strategy facilitated quick provision of telehealth to a third of PWH receiving care in our clinic. While MVF decreased and GiC increased, VS rates remained high.