Search

COVID-19 has affected all aspects of human life so far. From the outset of the pandemic, preventing the spread of COVID-19 through the observance of health protocols, especially the use of sanitizers and disinfectants was given more attention. Despite the effectiveness of disinfection chemicals in controlling and preventing COVID-19, there are critical concerns about their adverse effects on human health. This study aims to assess the health effects of sanitizers and disinfectants on a global scale. A total of 91,056 participants from 154 countries participated in this cross-sectional study. Information on the use of sanitizers and disinfectants and health was collected using an electronic questionnaire, which was translated into 26 languages via web-based platforms. The findings of this study suggest that detergents, alcohol-based substances, and chlorinated compounds emerged as the most prevalent chemical agents compared to other sanitizers and disinfectants examined. Most frequently reported health issues include skin effects and respiratory effects. The Chi-square test showed a significant association between chlorinated compounds (sodium hypochlorite and per-chlorine) with all possible health effects under investigation (p-value <0.001). Examination of risk factors based on multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that alcohols and alcohols-based materials were associated with skin effects (OR, 1.98; 95%CI, 1.87-2.09), per-chlorine was associated with eye effects (OR, 1.83; 95%CI, 1.74-1.93), and highly likely with itching and throat irritation (OR, 2.00; 95%CI, 1.90-2.11). Furthermore, formaldehyde was associated with a higher prevalence of neurological effects (OR, 2.17; 95%CI, 1.92-2.44). Furthermore, formaldehyde was associated with a higher prevalence of neurological effects (OR, 2.17; 95%CI, 1.92-2.44). The use of sodium hypochlorite and per-chlorine also had a high chance of having respiratory effects. The findings of the current study suggest that health authorities need to implement more awareness programs about the side effects of using sanitizers and disinfectants during viral epidemics especially when they are used or overused., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

HPV testing is a better alternative for cervical cancer screening, but additional procedures are required for triage of HPV positive women. HPV encoded oncoproteins E6 and E7, as the main effectors of HPV carcinogenicity represent promising triage alternatives. To evaluate performance of the test, we included 155 women from a screening study and 59 from the same referral population attending colposcopy and with precancerous lesions. All were HPV-tested with HC2 and genotyped with LiPA, and cervical swabs were tested for HPV16/18 E6 oncoproteins. Histologic specimens were reviewed and adjudicated using p16 immunohistochemistry and 55 women had confirmed histologic HSIL, 31 (56.3%) associated with HPV 16/18, 23 with other HPV types and one HPV negative. Sensitivity and specificity were estimated with histologic HSIL/cancer as gold standard. E6 oncoprotein was detectable in all but one HSIL and in all cancers where HPV16/18 DNA was detected, but in none of the cases associated with other HPV types or HPV negatives. Among the few HPV16/18 DNA positive subjects initially without HSIL (n = 4) who were E6 oncoprotein positive, precancer was detected during follow-up in 2 out of 3 with available information. Estimated sensitivity for HPV16/18-related HSIL+ was 96.8% (95%CI = 83.8-99.8) and for all HSIL+ regardless of HPV type it was 56.4% (95%CI = 43.3-68.6). Specificity was 97.5% (95%CI = 93.7-99.0). E6 oncoprotein proved as a highly sensitive and specific marker for detection of HPV16/18-related HSIL lesions in this Honduran population with limited previous screening and may be useful as a triage method in screening programs, particularly in low income countries., (© 2019 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO); licensed by UICC.)