Mouthrinses against SARS-CoV-2: anti-inflammatory effectivity and a clinical pilot study

Preprocedural Viral Load Effects of Oral Antiseptics on SARS-CoV-2 in Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review

(1) There are limited clinical trials to support the effectiveness of mouth rinses when used as a preprocedural rinse against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy of antiseptic mouth rinses as a preprocedural rinse in reducing SARS-CoV-2 oral viral load in-vivo. (2) Methods: A literature search was conducted through November 2022 for the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The evaluated outcomes were quantitative changes in viral load and the statistical significance of that change after using antiseptic mouth rinses. (3) Results: 14 randomized controlled trials (RCT) were selected for risk of bias assessment and data extraction. (4) Conclusion: Within the limits of this systematic review, preprocedural mouth rinses may significantly reduce SARS-CoV-2 in the mouth, thus, reducing the viral particles available for airborne dispersion. Preprocedural mouth rinses may be an effective strategy for reducing airborne SARS-CoV-2 dispersion in the environment. Their use may be a preventive strategy to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in selected medical and healthcare facilities, including dental clinics. Potential preprocedural mouth rinses are identified for use as an integral part of safe practice for healthcare protocols. This systematic review was registered with the National Institute for Health Research, international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42022315177.

Aerosol in the oral health-care setting: a misty topic

Studies have shown that mouth and respiratory tract microorganisms can be transported in aerosol and spatter. Due to aerosol-generating procedures, there are potentially various infection risks for patients and those working in health care, especially in oral health care. Dental aerosol can contaminate not only the mucous membranes of the oral health-care professional's mouth, respiratory passages, and eyes but also exposed surfaces and materials in the environment. As such, preventing disease transmission within oral health-care offices is important issue. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, an innumerable amount of (mis)information and advice on how to stay safe and prevent the spread of coronavirus has been published. What preventive measures can and have been taken to counteract this, and what have we learned during the pandemic? This review summarizes relevant literature that has addressed the presence and dispersal of aerosol and spatter as a concern in health care. It includes the sources of dental aerosol, their potential health threats, and strategies for controlling and mitigating their impact. It shows that further research is needed to better understand the potential health risks of dental aerosol and to develop effective strategies for mitigating them. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Using personal protective equipment, high-volume evacuation systems and pre-procedural antimicrobial agents can help to reduce the potential for infection in oral health-care settings and protect the well-being of oral health-care workers and their patients.

USE OF MOUTHWASH AND DENTIFRICE CONTAINING AN ANTIMICROBIAL PHTHALOCYANINE DERIVATIVE FOR THE REDUCTION OF CLINICAL SYMPTOMS OF COVID-19: A RANDOMIZED TRIPLE-BLIND CLINICAL TRIAL

PURPOSE

This clinical trial aimed to evaluate the use of mouthwash and dentifrice containing an antimicrobial phthalocyanine derivative (APD) to reduce the clinical symptoms in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

This randomized, triple-blind clinical trial enrolled 134 patients aged 18 years or older who underwent COVID-19 testing through the use of nasopharyngeal swab RT-qPCR in a reference center for the diagnosis of COVID-19, had no clinical contraindications to mouthwash and gargle, and had access to cell phones with communication applications. According to the use of a mouthwash and dentifrice containing antimicrobial phthalocyanine derivatives (APD), patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to the APD or non-APD (control) group. All participants were instructed to floss twice a day, brush teeth for 2 minutes 3 times a day, and gargle/rinse (5 mL) for 1 min/3 times a day for 7 days. An online questionnaire was sent to collect data on the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 3 times: T0 (baseline before using the oral hygiene products), T3 (3 days after), and T7 (7 days after). The investigators, patients, and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment. The Mann-Whitney, Chi-Square, Fisher's exact, and Cochran's tests were used according to the nature of the variables studied, with the level of significance set at P < .05.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was found in the prevalence of symptoms between groups at baseline. A statistically significant reduction in clinical symptoms was found in the control group (fatigue, shortness of breath, hoarse voice, sore throat, nasal congestion, and chest pain) and APD group (cough, fatigue, shortness of breath, hyposmia/anosmia, dysgeusia, hoarse voice, sore throat, nasal congestion, chest pain, diarrhea, and irritability/confusion) during the follow-up period. There were statistically significant differences, with a higher prevalence of symptoms in the control group at T3 and T7. Dysgeusia, sore throat, and irritability/confusion were less prevalent in the APD group at T3, and shortness of breath, hyposmia/anosmia, dysgeusia, hoarse voice, sore throat, diarrhea, and irritability/confusion were more prevalent in the control group at T7.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this methodology, the results demonstrated that the regular use of mouthwash and dentifrice-containing APD had a positive impact on the clinical symptoms, as reported by patients with COVID-19.

Efficacy of Mouth Rinses and Nasal Spray in the Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro and In Vivo Studies

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a global and evolving pandemic associated with heavy health and financial burdens. Considering the oral cavity as the major reservoir for SARS-CoV-2, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the efficacy of mouth rinses and nasal sprays in reducing the salivary viral load of SARS-CoV-2. All in vivo and in vitro studies that assessed the virucidal efficacy of mouth rinses and nasal sprays against SARS-CoV-2 and were published in the English language from December 2019 to April 2022 were considered for analyses. Special Medical Subject Headings terms were used to search Pubmed, Scopus, Embase Ovid, and Web of Science databases. The toxicological data reliability assessment tool (ToxRToool) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Thirty-three studies (11 in vivo and 22 in vitro) were deemed eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Results of the pooled data showed that povidone-iodine is the most efficacious intervention in vivo in terms of reducing the SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load, followed by chlorhexidine. The mean difference in the viral load was 86% and 72%, respectively. Similarly, povidone-iodine was associated with the highest log₁₀ reduction value (LRV) in vitro, followed by cetylpyridinium chloride, (LRV = 2.938 (p < 0.0005) and LRV = 2.907 (p = 0.009), respectively). Povidone-iodine-based oral and nasal preparations showed favourable results in terms of reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral loads both in vivo and in vitro. Considering the limited number of patients in vivo, further studies among larger cohorts are recommended.

Recommendation of the German Society of Hospital Hygiene (DGKH): Prevention of COVID-19 by virucidal gargling and virucidal nasal spray - updated version April 2022

The German Society of Hospital Hygiene develops guidelines, recommendations and standard operation procedures on a voluntary basis, published on the DGKH-website (https://www.krankenhaushygiene.de/). The original German version of this recommendation was published in April 2022 and has now been made available to the international professional public in English. Evaluating the current data on the efficacy of virucidal gargle/mouthwash solutions and nasal sprays against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro and in clinical trials, conducted with preventive or therapeutic objectives, recommendations are given for the prevention of COVID-19. The following areas are considered: Protection of the community when regional clusters or high incidences of infection become knownProtection of the community at low risk of infectionPre-exposure prophylaxis for the protection of healthcare workersPost-exposure prophylaxis.

Effect of Oral Antiseptics in Reducing SARS-CoV-2 Infectivity: Evidence from a Randomized Double-blind Clinical Trial

Background: In vitro studies have shown that several oral antiseptics have virucidal activity against SARS-CoV-2. Thus, mouthwashes have been proposed as an easy to implement strategy to reduce viral transmission. However, there are no data measuring SARS-CoV-2 viability after mouthwashes in vivo. Methods: In this randomized double-blind, five-parallel-group, placebo-controlled clinical trial, SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load (by quantitative PCR) and its infectious capacity (incubating saliva in cell cultures) have been evaluated before and after four different antiseptic mouthwashes and placebo in 54 COVID-19 patients. Results: Contrary to in vitro evidence, salivary viral load was not affected by any of the four tested mouthwashes. Viral culture indicated that cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) significantly reduced viral infectivity, but only at 1-hour post-mouthwash. Conclusion: These results indicate that some of the mouthwashes currently used to reduce viral infectivity are not efficient in vivo and, furthermore, that this effect is not immediate, generating a false sense of security.

Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04707742..

Mouthrinses and SARS-CoV-2 viral load in saliva: a living systematic review

Objective To conduct a living systematic review of the clinical evidence about the effect of different mouthrinses on the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva of infected patients.Methods This study was reported using the PRISMA guidelines. An electronic search was conducted in seven databases and preprint repositories. We included human clinical trials that evaluated the effect of mouthrinses with antiseptic substances on the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva of children or adults, who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021240561.Results Five studies were included (n = 66 participants). Study participants underwent oral rinses with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) at 1%, povidone-iodine (PI) at 0.5% or 1%, chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) at 0.2% or 0.12%, cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) at 0.075%, and Linolasept. Only one study included a control group with sterile water. Three of the studies identified a reduction in viral load in saliva after the use of mouthrinses with PI (up to three hours), CHX (up to four hours), or Linolasept mouthwash (up to six hours). One study reported a statistically significant reduction after the use of mouthrinses with CPC or PI vs water (up to six hours) and one study reported a non-significant reduction in viral load after the use of H2O2 rinses.Conclusions According to the present systematic review, the effect of mouthrinses on SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the saliva of COVID-19 patients remains uncertain. Evidence from well-designed randomised clinical trials is required for further and more objective evaluation of this effect.

Antiviral activity of plant juices and green tea against SARS-CoV-2 and influenza virus

Respiratory viruses pose a significant threat to global health. They initially infect the naso- and oropharyngeal regions, where they amplify, cause symptoms, and may also be transmitted to new hosts. Preventing initial infection or reducing viral loads upon infection might soothe symptoms, prevent dissemination into the lower airways, or transmission to the next individual. Several natural products have well-described direct antiviral activity or may ameliorate symptoms of respiratory infections. We thus analyzed the potential of plant-derived products to inactivate respiratory viral pathogens and determined the antiviral activity of black chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpae [Michx.] Elliott), elderberry (Sambucus nigra L.), and pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) juice, as well as green tea (Camellia sinensis [L.] Kuntze) on the infectivity of the surrogate-modified vaccinia virus Ankara, and the respiratory viruses severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), influenza A virus (IAV), and adenovirus Type 5. Black chokeberry and pomegranate juice, and green tea reduced SARS-CoV-2 and IAV titers by ≥80% or ≥99%. This suggests that oral rinsing with these products may reduce viral loads in the oral cavity which might prevent viral transmission.

ANTIVIRAL EFFECT OF MOUTHWASHES AGAINST SARS-COV-2: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Objective

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the antiviral effect of mouthwashes against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Material and methods

An electronic search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, ProQuest, and Google Scholar, and was complemented by a manual search. Both clinical and in vitro studies that focused on the antiviral effect of mouthwashes against SARS-CoV-2 were included. Risk of bias assessment was performed only on the clinical studies using the RoB-2 and ROBINS-I tools.

Results

A total of 907 records were found; after initial selection by title and abstract, 33 full-text articles were selected to be evaluated for eligibility. Finally, a total of 27 studies were included for the qualitative synthesis, including 16 in vitro studies and 11 clinical trials. Antiviral effects were evaluated separately for the in vitro and clinical studies. In vitro studies included mouthwashes containing hydrogen peroxide, chlorhexidine digluconate, povidone-iodine, essential oils, cetylpyridinium chloride, and other compounds; in vivo studies included mouthwashes containing hydrogen peroxide, chlorhexidine digluconate, povidone-iodine, cetylpyridinium chloride, essential oils, chlorine dioxide, β-cyclodextrin-citrox, and sorbitol with xylitol. Povidone-iodine, cetylpyridinium chloride, and essential oils were effective in vitro, while hydrogen peroxide, chlorhexidine digluconate, povidone-iodine, cetylpyridinium chloride, β-cyclodextrin-citrox, and sorbitol with xylitol were effective in vivo. Unclear or high risk of bias was found for almost all clinical studies, and only one study presented with a low risk of bias. No further quantitative analysis was performed.

Conclusion

Although povidone-iodine, cetylpyridinium chloride, and essential oils may be an alternative to reduce the viral load in vitro and in vivo, more studies are needed to determine the real antiviral effect of these different mouthwashes against SARS-CoV-2.

This work was not funded. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (identification number: CRD42021236134).

The effect of mouthwashes on SARS-CoV-2 viral load: a systematic review

Background

Considering that the oral cavity is a major entryway and reservoir for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the aim of the authors was to perform a systematic review of in vivo and in vitro studies to assess the effectiveness of mouthrinses on SARS-CoV-2 viral load.

Types of Studies Reviewed

The authors searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, and bioRxiv databases, including in vitro and in vivo studies assessing the virucidal effect of mouthrinses on SARS-CoV-2 or surrogates. From a total of 1,622 articles retrieved, the authors included 39 in this systematic review.

Results

Povidone-iodine was the most studied mouthrinse (14 in vitro and 9 in vivo studies), frequently showing significant reductions in viral load in in vitro assays. Similarly, cetylpyridinium chloride also showed good results, although it was evaluated in fewer studies. Chlorhexidine gluconate and hydrogen peroxide showed conflicting results on SARS-CoV-2 load reduction in both in vitro and in vivo studies.

Practical Implications

Povidone-iodine–based mouthrinses appear to be the best option as an oral prerinse in the dental context for SARS-CoV-2 viral load reduction. Although the results of primary studies are relevant, there is a need for more in vivo studies on mouthrinses, in particular, randomized controlled clinical trials, to better understand their effect on SARS-CoV-2 viral load and infection prevention.

The effectiveness of mouthwash against SARS-CoV-2 infection: A review of scientific and clinical evidence

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection that is mainly through the airborne transmission, is a worldwide health concern. This review seeks to assess the potential effectiveness of mouthwash in reducing the oropharyngeal load of SARS-CoV-2 based on the available evidence.

METHODS

Articles related to mouthwash and COVID-19 in PubMed were electronically searched in July, 2021. After manually excluding articles lacking sufficient scientific evidence or validation processes, those with inaccessible online full text, those that did not test the effectiveness of mouthwash against SARS-CoV-2, and those not written in English, 17 original and 13 review articles were chosen for this review.

RESULTS

The eligible articles revealed that the main virucidal mechanism of mouthwash was via interactions with the viral envelope. Povidone-iodine (PVP-I), cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), and essential oils with ethanol showed virucidal effects on SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, potentially by interfering with the viral envelope. A few clinical studies demonstrated that PVP-I, CPC, hydrogen peroxide, and chlorhexidine reduced the oropharyngeal load of SARS-CoV-2.

CONCLUSION

Although the available evidence is limited, mouthwash containing PVP-I or CPC shows potential for reducing the oropharyngeal load of SARS-CoV-2 and thus may present a risk-mitigation strategy for COVID-19 patients.