Chlorhexidine digluconate

Chlorhexidine is an antiseptic effective against a wide variety of gram-negative and gram-positive organisms. Target: Antibacterial Chlorhexidine is a chemical antiseptic.It is effective on both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, although it is less effective with some Gram-negative bacteria.It has both bactericidal and bacteriostatic mechanisms of action, the mechanism of action being membrane disruption, not ATPase inactivation as previously thought.It is also useful against fungi and enveloped viruses, though this has not been extensively investigated. Chlorhexidine is harmful in high concentrations, but is used safely in low concentrations in many products, such as mouthwash and contact lens solutions [1, 2].

References:
[1]. Jenkins, S., M. Addy, and W. Wade, The mechanism of action of chlorhexidine. A study of plaque growth on enamel inserts in vivo. J Clin Periodontol, 1988. 15(7): p. 415-24. [2]. Maki, D.G., M. Ringer, and C.J. Alvarado, Prospective randomised trial of povidone-iodine, alcohol, and chlorhexidine for prevention of infection associated with central venous and arterial catheters. Lancet, 1991. 338(8763): p. 339-43.

Measurements of chlorhexidine, p-chloroaniline, and p-chloronitrobenzene in saliva after mouth wash before and after operation with 0.2% chlorhexidine digluconate in maxillofacial surgery: a randomised controlled trial.[Pubmed:27789177]

Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Feb;55(2):150-155.

Chlorhexidine gluconate is used to prevent the accumulation of dental plaque and gingivitis, infection of the surgical site, and ventilator-associated pneumonia in maxillofacial surgery, but it is not clear whether the metabolites of chlorhexidine are detectable in the patient's saliva at clinically relevant concentrations. Forty-three patients who had orofacial operations were randomised to use a 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate (n=23), or an octenidine-based, chlorhexidine-free (n=20), mouthwash once preoperatively and three times daily for five postoperative days. After the first, 8.7 (23.3) mg/L chlorhexidine (0.7%-2.5% of the total amount used) was measured in saliva. The concentration increased to 15.2 (6.2) mg/L after the second rinse (first postoperative day), and peaked at 29.4 (11.2) mg/L on the fourth postoperative day. It remained detectable for up to 12hours after the last one, but was not detectable in serum or urine at any time. The potentially carcinogenic metabolite p-chloroaniline was detectable in saliva at higher concentrations in the chlorhexidine group (0.55mg/L) than the octenidine group (0.21mg/L), and p-chloronitrobenzene was detected in both groups in only minimal concentrations (0.001-0.21mg/L). Chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwashes do increase the concentration of p-chloroaniline, but a single use seems to be safe. Whether prolonged exposure over many years may have carcinogenic potential is still not clear. Based on the hitherto unknown kinetics of p-chloroaniline in saliva, the recent recommendation of the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) in the USA to limit the use of a chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash to a maximum of six months seems to be justified.

Antimicrobial efficacy of the combination of chlorhexidine digluconate and dexpanthenol.[Pubmed:27999767]

GMS Hyg Infect Control. 2016 Dec 14;11:Doc24.

Objective: The objective of this standardised experimental study was to investigate the antimicrobial efficacy of the combination of Chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) and the anti-inflammatory pro-vitamin dexpanthenol, which stimulates wound-healing, in the form of Bepanthen((R)) Antiseptic Wound Cream, in order to rule out possible antagonistic combination effects of CHX and the alcohol analogue of pantothenic acid (vitamin B5) dexpanthenol. Method: Testing was carried out using the quantitative suspension test at conditions simulating wound bio-burden. Test strains included Enterococcus hirae (ATCC 10541) and Candida albicans (ATCC 10231) in accordance with the standard methods of the German Hygiene and Microbiology Society with the following three organic challenges: i) cell culture medium MEM with Earle's salts, L-glutamine and 10% foetal calf serum (CCM); ii) 10% sheep's blood; iii) or a mixture of 4.5% albumin, 4.5% sheep's blood and 1% mucin. For methodological reasons, the wound cream was tested as a 55% dilution, prepared with 1% Tween 80 (equivalent to a content of 0.275% CHX instead of 0.5% as in the original preparation). CHX 0.275% was tested as control in an aqueous solution and in 1% Tween 80. Additionally, 1% Tween 80 was tested in order to rule out an interfering effect of the dilution medium. A combination of 3% Tween 80, 3% saponin, 0.1% histidine, 0.3% lecithin, 0.5% Na-thiosulphate and 1% ether sulphate was identified as the most appropriate neutraliser during the experiments. Results: Exposed to CCM or 10% sheep's blood, the tested wound cream fulfilled the requirements for a wound antiseptic against both test species with >/=3 log reduction at 10 minutes. Even at the the worst-case challenge test with 4.5% albumin, 4.5% sheep's blood and 1% mucin, the requirement for a >/=3 log reduction was met after 24 hours of exposure. Interestingly, the aqueous solution of 0.275% CHX tested as control did not achieve the antimicrobial efficacy of the combination of CHX and 5% dexpanthenol. 1% Tween 80 was ineffective against both test species. Conclusion: Bepanthen((R)) Antiseptic Wound Cream achieves the in vitro bactericidal and fungicidal efficacy required for a wound antiseptic under three different challenges, despite dilution to 55% of the original preparation. So far, the addition of dexpanthenol was intended to support wound healing. However, our results indicate that the antiseptic efficacy of CHX is synergistically increased by adding 5% dexpanthenol. Acknowledging the antimicrobial and residual efficacy of CHX, and bearing in the mind the contraindications to CHX (allergy and anaphylaxis), the tested wound cream should be regarded as better suitable to be used as wound antiseptic than preparations on basis of CHX alone.

Proposed phase 2/ step 2 in-vitro test on basis of EN 14561 for standardised testing of the wound antiseptics PVP-iodine, chlorhexidine digluconate, polihexanide and octenidine dihydrochloride.[Pubmed:28193164]

BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Feb 13;17(1):143.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is no agreed standard for exploring the antimicrobial activity of wound antiseptics in a phase 2/ step 2 test protocol. In the present study, a standardised in-vitro test is proposed, which allows to test potential antiseptics in a more realistically simulation of conditions found in wounds as in a suspension test. Furthermore, factors potentially influencing test results such as type of materials used as test carrier or various compositions of organic soil challenge were investigated in detail. METHODS: This proposed phase 2/ step 2 test method was modified on basis of the EN 14561 by drying the microbial test suspension on a metal carrier for 1 h, overlaying the test wound antiseptic, washing-off, neutralization, and dispersion at serial dilutions at the end of the required exposure time yielded reproducible, consistent test results. RESULTS: The difference between the rapid onset of the antiseptic effect of PVP-I and the delayed onset especially of polihexanide was apparent. Among surface-active antimicrobial compounds, octenidine was more effective than Chlorhexidine digluconate and polihexanide, with some differences depending on the test organisms. However, octenidine and PVP-I were approximately equivalent in efficiency and microbial spectrum, while polihexanide required longer exposure times or higher concentrations for a comparable antimicrobial efficacy. CONCLUSION: Overall, this method allowed testing and comparing differ liquid and gel based antimicrobial compounds in a standardised setting.

Dendrimer pre-treatment enhances the skin permeation of chlorhexidine digluconate: Characterisation by in vitro percutaneous absorption studies and Time-of-Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry.[Pubmed:28363491]

Eur J Pharm Sci. 2017 Jun 15;104:90-101.

Skin penetration and localisation of Chlorhexidine digluconate (CHG) within the skin have been investigated in order to better understand and optimise the delivery using a nano polymeric delivery system of this topically-applied antimicrobial drug. Franz-type diffusion cell studies using in vitro porcine skin and tape stripping procedures were coupled with Time-of-Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (ToF-SIMS) to visualise the skin during various treatments with CHG and polyamidoamine dendrimers (PAMAM). Pre-treatment of the skin with PAMAM dendrimers significantly increased the amount and depth of permeation of CHG into the skin in vitro. The effect observed was not concentration dependant in the range 0.5-10mM PAMAM. This could be important in terms of the efficiency of treatment of bacterial infection in the skin. It appears that the mechanism of enhancement is due to the PAMAM dendrimer disrupting skin barrier lipid conformation or by occluding the skin surface. Franz-type diffusion cell experiments are complimented by the detailed visualisation offered by the semi-quantitative ToF-SIMS method which provides excellent benefits in terms of sensitivity and fragment ion specificity. This allows a more accurate depth profile of chlorhexidine permeation within the skin to be obtained and potentially affords the opportunity to map the co-localisation of permeants with skin structures, thus providing a greater ability to characterise skin absorption and to understand the mechanism of permeation, providing opportunities for new and more effective therapies.