Methods: A cross-sectional study, using a validated 23-item self-administered questionnaire, was conducted among pharmacists from 11 public hospitals in the State of Selangor, Malaysia, from December 2016 to January 2017. All public hospital pharmacists (n=432) were invited to participate in the survey. A 5-point Likert scale was employed in the questionnaire; the perception section was scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) while the practice section was scored from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were used to analyse data.
Results: Of the 432 pharmacists surveyed, 199 responded, giving a response rate of 46.0%. The majority of the respondents agreed (n=190, 95.5%) that the AMS programme improves patient care at their hospitals (median=5; IQR=1). Slightly less than half of the respondents indicated that a local antibiotic guideline was established in their hospitals (median=3, IQR=2.5), and had taken part in antimicrobial awareness campaigns to promote optimal use of antimicrobials in hospitals (median=3, IQR=1).
Conclusions: Overall, the perception and practices of the surveyed hospital pharmacists towards AMS programme were positive. National antibiotic guidelines, which take into consideration local antimicrobial resistance patterns, should be used fully to improve antimicrobial usage and to reduce practice variation. Collaboration among healthcare professionals should be strengthened to minimise the unfavourable consequences of unintended use of antimicrobial agents while optimising clinical outcomes.
METHODS: The structures of all synthesized compounds were characterized by physicochemical properties and spectral means (IR and NMR). The synthesized compounds were evaluated for their in vitro antimicrobial activity against Gram-positive (B. subtilis), Gram-negative (P. aeruginosa and E. coli) bacterial and fungal (C. albicans and A. niger) strains by tube dilution method using ciprofloxacin, amoxicillin and fluconazole as standards. In-vitro antioxidant and anti-urease screening was done by DPPH assay and indophenol method, respectively. The in-vitro anticancer evaluation was carried out against MCF-7 and HCT116 cancer cell lines using 5-FU as standards.
RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The biological screening results reveal that the compounds T5 (MICBS, EC = 24.7 µM, MICPA, CA = 12.3 µM) and T17 (MICAN = 27.1 µM) exhibited potent antimicrobial activity as comparable to standards ciprofloxacin, amoxicillin (MICCipro = 18.1 µM, MICAmo = 17.1 µM) and fluconazole (MICFlu = 20.4 µM), respectively. The antioxidant evaluation showed that compounds T2 (IC50 = 34.83 µg/ml) and T3 (IC50 = 34.38 µg/ml) showed significant antioxidant activity and comparable to ascorbic acid (IC50 = 35.44 µg/ml). Compounds T3 (IC50 = 54.01 µg/ml) was the most potent urease inhibitor amongst the synthesized compounds and compared to standard thiourea (IC50 = 54.25 µg/ml). The most potent anticancer activity was shown by compounds T2 (IC50 = 3.84 μM) and T7 (IC50 = 3.25 μM) against HCT116 cell lines as compared to standard 5-FU (IC50 = 25.36 μM).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer requiring radiation to the oropharyngeal mucosal area were divided in to two groups to receive either radiation alone or radiation plus topical application of pure natural honey. Patients were treated using a 6-MV linear accelerator at a dose rate of 2 Gy per day five times a week up to a dose of 60-70 Gy. In the study arm, patients were advised to take 20 ml of pure honey 15 min before, 15 min after and 6 h post-radiation therapy. Patients were evaluated every week for the development of radiation mucositis using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grading system.
MAIN RESULTS: There was significant reduction in the symptomatic grade 3/4 mucositis among honey-treated patients compared to controls; i.e. 20% versus 75% ( p 0.00058). The compliance of honey-treated group of patients was better than controls. Fifty-five percent of patients treated with topical honey showed no change or a positive gain in body weight compared to 25% in the control arm ( p 0.053), the majority of whom lost weight.
CONCLUSIONS: Topical application of natural honey is a simple and cost-effective treatment in radiation mucositis, which warrants further multi-centre randomised trials to validate our finding.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of skin antisepsis as part of CVC care for reducing catheter-related BSIs, catheter colonisation, and patient mortality and morbidities.
SEARCH METHODS: In May 2016 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Epub Ahead of Print); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing and unpublished studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed any type of skin antiseptic agent used either alone or in combination, compared with one or more other skin antiseptic agent(s), placebo or no skin antisepsis in patients with a CVC in place.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the studies for their eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We expressed our results in terms of risk ratio (RR), absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number need to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies were eligible for inclusion, but only 12 studies contributed data, with a total of 3446 CVCs assessed. The total number of participants enrolled was unclear as some studies did not provide such information. The participants were mainly adults admitted to intensive care units, haematology oncology units or general wards. Most studies assessed skin antisepsis prior to insertion and regularly thereafter during the in-dwelling period of the CVC, ranging from every 24 h to every 72 h. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed due to wide variation in their risk of bias. Most trials did not adequately blind the participants or personnel, and four of the 12 studies had a high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data.Three studies compared different antisepsis regimens with no antisepsis. There was no clear evidence of a difference in all outcomes examined, including catheter-related BSI, septicaemia, catheter colonisation and number of patients who required systemic antibiotics for any of the three comparisons involving three different antisepsis regimens (aqueous povidone-iodine, aqueous chlorhexidine and alcohol compared with no skin antisepsis). However, there were great uncertainties in all estimates due to underpowered analyses and the overall very low quality of evidence presented.There were multiple head-to-head comparisons between different skin antiseptic agents, with different combinations of active substance and base solutions. The most frequent comparison was chlorhexidine solution versus povidone-iodine solution (any base). There was very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) that chlorhexidine may reduce catheter-related BSI compared with povidone-iodine (RR of 0.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.99; ARR 2.30%, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.70%). This evidence came from four studies involving 1436 catheters. None of the individual subgroup comparisons of aqueous chlorhexidine versus aqueous povidone-iodine, alcoholic chlorhexidine versus aqueous povidone-iodine and alcoholic chlorhexidine versus alcoholic povidone-iodine showed clear differences for catheter-related BSI or mortality (and were generally underpowered). Mortality was only reported in a single study.There was very low quality evidence that skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine may also reduce catheter colonisation relative to povidone-iodine (RR of 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.84; ARR 8%, 95% CI 3% to 12%; ; five studies, 1533 catheters, downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness and inconsistency).Evaluations of other skin antiseptic agents were generally in single, small studies, many of which did not report the primary outcome of catheter-related BSI. Trials also poorly reported other outcomes, such as skin infections and adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not clear whether cleaning the skin around CVC insertion sites with antiseptic reduces catheter related blood stream infection compared with no skin cleansing. Skin cleansing with chlorhexidine solution may reduce rates of CRBSI and catheter colonisation compared with cleaning with povidone iodine. These results are based on very low quality evidence, which means the true effects may be very different. Moreover these results may be influenced by the nature of the antiseptic solution (i.e. aqueous or alcohol-based). Further RCTs are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety of different skin antisepsis regimens in CVC care; these should measure and report critical clinical outcomes such as sepsis, catheter-related BSI and mortality.