Salivary SARS-CoV-2 load reduction with mouthwash use: A randomized pilot clinical trial

Efficacy of regular gargling with a cetylpyridinium chloride plus zinc containing mouthwash can reduce upper respiratory symptoms

The posterior oral cavity serves as an entry point to both the digestive and respiratory systems. Optimal oral hygiene, particularly by means of gargling, has been shown to effectively reduce transmission and duration of respiratory illnesses (Clinical Trials registration: NCT06479226). Previous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of gargling with an antimicrobial mouthwash in preventing the development of respiratory symptoms. To assess the impact of using an antimicrobial mouthwash for gargling in lowering the incidence of upper respiratory symptoms. A total of 150 individuals were recruited and randomly assigned to two groups: Control group: participants were requested to brush their teeth twice daily for two minutes using a commercially available fluoride toothpaste; and the Test Group, which also brushed their teeth twice daily for two minutes with a commercially available fluoride toothpaste and additional gargling twice a day with a mouthwash containing 0.075% Cetylpyridinium chloride and 0.28% Zinc Lactate (CPC+Zn). Individuals were asked to complete the WURSS-21 Daily Symptom Report over the course of the three-month study period using a diary. Regular gargling with the mouthwash containing CPC+Zn was efficacious in decreasing both the frequency (21.5% lower) and severity (11% lower) of respiratory symptoms throughout the study. Additionally, individuals that performed consistent cleansing of the posterior oral cavity with mouthwash had greater interference in daily activities, which should be further investigated. Adding gargling with a mouthwash containing 0.075% CPC + 0.28% Zn to a normal oral hygiene routine proves beneficial in lowering the incidence of upper respiratory symptoms commonly associated with cold and the flu. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06479226.

Effectiveness of mouthwashes to reduce the SARS-COV-2 load in saliva of adults with diagnosis of COVID-19: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

COVID-19 still represents a threat to public health. In this sense, antiseptic mouthwashes have been suggested to reduce cross-contamination and community transmission.

Material and Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of povidone-iodine (PVP-I), cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) and chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthwashes in reducing SARS-COV-2 viral load in the saliva of adults diagnosed with COVID-19. After the systematic search in five electronic databases, 16 clinical trials published until June 2023 were analyzed. Of these, 6 were included in the meta-analysis.

Results

The standardized mean difference (SMD) was reported with its corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). An overall SMD of 0.51 (95%CI: -0.29 to 1.32; I² = 46.0%; p = 0.047) was found. For CPC, the combined effect found in the studies was not significant (SMD = -0.07; 95%CI: -0.42 to 0.28; I² = 0.0%; p = 0.373); the same occurred for CHX (SMD = 0.50; 95%CI: -43.32 to 44.32; I² = 0.0%; p = 1.000). However, PVP-I showed a more consistent profile with a significant combined effect (SMD = 4.15; 95%CI: 2.11 to 6.18) and negligible heterogeneity (I² = 0.0%; p = 0.908).

Conclusions

The findings indicate a non-significant effect of mouthwashes on reducing viral load when all types were evaluated together. Separately, only PVP-I showed a significant reduction in viral load with a low level of certainty of evidence, while for CPC and CHX the reduction was not significant, with a low and very low level of certainty of evidence, respectively. Key words:SARS-CoV-2, mouthwashes, povidone-iodine, cetylpyridinium, chlorhexidine.

Investigating the effectiveness of commercially available mouthwash on SARS-CoV-2 in vivo using viable virus titre as the primary outcome. A randomised controlled trial

This multi-arm, parallel group, single-blinded randomised controlled trial aimed to assess three commercially available mouthwashes effectiveness against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This manuscript has been written in accordance with the CONSORT statement. Methods. Eligible participants were SARS-CoV-2 positive with a positive test in the last 72 h. All participants had mild to moderate symptoms and could provide five saliva samples over a 60 min period. Participants delivered a baseline saliva sample and then used a mouthwash as per manufacturer's instructions. They provided further saliva samples at minute 1, 10, 30 and 60. Participants were randomised to one of four groups; OraWize+, Total Care Listerine, Cool Mint Listerine and water (control). The lab-based research team were blind to the intervention. The research question was: can SARS-CoV-2 be rendered inactive in saliva by using a mouthwash and how long does this effect last? The primary outcome was the amount of viable infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus in the sample, compared to the baseline sample. The secondary outcome measure was the amount of genetic material from the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the sample, measured via PCR testing. Results. In total 100 participants were recruited (25 per group). Eight participants did not receive the allocated intervention and did not have saliva samples collected. There were no adverse events. In total 42 of the 92 participants had viable virus which could be cultured at baseline. Statistical analysis of the primary outcome was not advised due to the reduced level of viable virus at baseline and the positive skewness present in the distribution of log10(titre) data. Observational data of the primary outcome measure is presented. Analysis of the secondary outcome PCR measure showed that there was strong evidence for a decrease in SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels compared to water for all mouthwashes after 1 min, OraWize+ -0.49 (-0.92, -0.05), p-value 0.029, Cool Mint Listerine -0.81 (-1.25, -0.38), p-value<0.001, Total Care Listerine -1.05 (-1.48, -0.62), p-value<0.001. For the remaining timepoints there was generally no evidence of virus level reduction compared to water although there is weak evidence for a decrease at ten minutes using Total Care Listerine -0.44 (-0.88, 0.01), p-value 0.053. Conclusion. The three mouthwashes included in this trial observationally demonstrated a reduction in virus titre level 1 min after use, with virus levels normalising up to 60 min compared to the control. Although an interesting observation, this result could not be statistically analysed. Using the secondary outcome PCR measure all three included mouthwashes reduced virus levels compared to water at 1 min and these results were statistically significant. Clinically this result does not support the use of the included mouthwashes to reduce SARS-CoV-2 levels in saliva.

The effect of preprocedural mouthrinses against COVID-19 before acid etching on the microleakage of a resin-based sealant in permanent molars: An in vitro experimental study

Aim

To determine whether rinsing with preprocedural mouthrinses against coronavirus disease before acid etching affects resin-based sealant microleakage.

Materials and Methods

A presented in vitro experimental study was performed on 15 extracted permanent third molars. Samples were randomly allocated into five groups: Group 1-distilled water (control); Group 2-1% hydrogen peroxide; Group 3-1.5% hydrogen peroxide; Group 4-0.5% povidone-iodine; and Group 5-1% povidone-iodine. After the teeth were immersed in the assigned mouth rinses for 60 s, they were sealed with Concise™ white sealant. Subsequently, the teeth were thermocycled for 500 cycles, immersed in 2% methylene blue solution for 24 h, and sectioned with two parallel cuts in the buccolingual direction. Sixty surfaces (12 surfaces in each group) were examined for microleakage under a 40× light microscope and scored as described by Zyskind et al. Welch's one-way analysis of variance test and the Games-Howell test were used to analyze the results at a significance level of P < 0.05 for all tests.

Results

The intergroup comparisons indicated that the 0.5% povidone-iodine group and the 1% povidone-iodine group had significantly higher microleakage compared with the control group. The 1% and 1.5% hydrogen peroxide groups demonstrated no significant difference in mean microleakage scores compared with the control group. There was no significant difference between the povidone groups and the hydrogen peroxide groups.

Conclusions

Preprocedural rinsing with 0.5% and 1% povidone-iodine before acid etching caused higher microleakage of resin-based sealant, while hydrogen peroxide rinsing gave comparable microleakage compared with the control group.

Changes in oral home care and smoking habits during COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused disruption in the health behavior in many aspects of life. While hand hygiene was promoted as one of the precautionary measures to mitigate and contain COVID-19, oral health and smoking might have received less attention in the media campaigns. The aim of this study was to examine health behavioral changes in terms of oral home care habits, smoking, and perception of dental care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An online survey was designed to assess oral home care, smoking habits, and attitude toward dental services of participants aged 18 years and older. The data were collected between September and November 2021. The strength of association between changes in oral home care habits, smoking, and attitude toward invasive/long dental procedures and each variable was measured by χ2 analysis. Estimates of relative risk were also calculated for all variables. Predictors of avoiding dental procedures were estimated by a binary logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 532 participants, based in the United Arab Emirates, took part in this online survey with a response rate of 88.7%. The age of the participants ranged between 18 and 67 with mean age of 34.9 ± 9.0 years. The majority of the participants have adopted changes in their routine oral home care habits, with 82.1% of them changing the toothbrush more frequently. Participants who changed their oral home care habits were more likely to have received sufficient information on the importance of maintaining oral health. Likewise, the changes in smoking habits were significantly associated with receiving information on the relationship between smoking and the severity of the COVID-19 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings showed that positive behavior toward oral home care and smoking was noticed during the pandemic particularly when public receives sufficient and up-to-date information.

A Comparison of the Effects of Chlorhexidine and Sodium Bicarbonate Mouthwashes on COVID-19-Related Symptoms

BACKGROUND

Some studies have reported that mouthwashes can decrease the viral load in the mouth, but there is not much information about the effectiveness of mouthwashes on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study was conducted to compare the impact of using two types of mouthwash, chlorhexidine and sodium bicarbonate, on COVID-19 symptoms and infection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present three-group, double-blind clinical trial examined 116 operating room nurses and anesthesia personnel of certain hospitals of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran. The participants were randomly assigned to three groups: intervention group 1 (chlorhexidine mouthwash), intervention group 2 (sodium bicarbonate mouthwash), and the control group (placebo). Mouthwash was used twice a day (morning and night) for 2 weeks. The participants were monitored in terms of COVID-19-related symptoms for 4 weeks, from the first day of mouthwash use.

RESULTS

Fisher's exact test indicated a significant difference between the chlorhexidine and control groups in terms of the onset of COVID-19-related symptoms (p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the symptoms of COVID-19 between the groups, but the groups were significantly different in terms of all symptoms at a 4-week interval (p = 0.04). Furthermore, headache was less observed in the chlorhexidine (p = 0.007) and sodium bicarbonate (p = 0.03) groups compared to the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash can decrease the onset of COVID-19-related symptoms in health-care workers. In addition, this mouthwash can partially reduce the symptoms of this disease in comparison to the control and sodium bicarbonate groups.

Antimicrobial oral lavage reduces the SARS-CoV-2 load in intubated patients: randomized clinical trial

Background

The oral cavity can be a reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 and may play a crucial role in the viral transmission in the hospital environment.

Objective

To investigate whether an oral hygiene protocol with chlorhexidine (CHX) used alone and in combination with hydrogen peroxide (HP) in the intensive care unit was effective in reducing the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the oral cavity.

Methods

SARS-CoV-2 viral load was measured on oral fluid samples collected from patients undergoing orotracheal intubation. The study sample was randomly in: CHX group (n = 19) - oral rinse using only 0.12% CHX solution; HP+CHX group (n = 24) - oral rinse with 1.5% HP and 0.12% CHX. The samples were collected before the interventions (T0), immediately (T1), 30 minutes (T2) and 60 minutes (T3) after the procedure.

Results

A significant viral load reduction was observed at T1 (mean ± SD:-0.57 ± 0.19 log10;-73.2%;p = 0.022) in the HP+CHX group. No statistically significant differences between any time points were observed in the CHX group.

Conclusion

The HP+CHX oral rinses significantly reduced the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the oral fluid immediately after the procedure. The CHX oral rinse alone did not result in any significant viral load reductions.

Reduction of SARS-CoV-2 viral load in saliva after rinsing with mouthwashes containing cetylpyridinium chloride: a randomized clinical study

Background

Symptomatic patients with COVID-19 typically have a high SARS-CoV-2 viral load in their saliva. Procedures to reduce the viral load in their oral cavity are important for mitigating the viral transmission.

Methods

This randomized clinical trial investigated the impact of two mouthwashes (0.075% cetylpyridinium chloride plus 0.28% zinc lactate (CPC+Zn) (n = 32), and 0.075% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) (n = 31)) on the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva when compared to the distilled water negative control (n = 32). Saliva was collected before (T0) and after (5 min, T1; 30 min, T2; and 60 min, T3) the intervention. Viral load in saliva was measured by qRT-PCR assays. The data in both groups was normalized for T0 and Negative Control, resulting in fold change values.

Results

CPC+Zn oral solution reduced the viral load in saliva by 6.34-fold at T1, 3.6-fold at T2 and 1.9-fold at T3. Rinsing with the CPC mouthwash reduced the viral load in saliva by 2.5-fold at T1, 1.9-fold at T2 and 2.0-fold at T3.

Conclusion

CPC+Zn mouthwash or with the CPC mouthwash reduced the viral load in saliva of COVID-19 patients immediately after rinsing. These reductions extended up to 60 min.

Effect of Commercial Children's Mouthrinses and Toothpastes on the Viability of Neonatal Human Melanocytes: An In Vitro Study

In this study, we examined the cytotoxic effects of six commercial children's mouthrinses (designated as #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, and #6) and four commercial children's toothpastes (designated as #1, #2, #3, and #4) on primary human neonatal melanocytes that were used as a representative model for oral melanocytes. Mouthrinses diluted directly with culture medium (1:2, 1:5, 1:10, 1:100, and 1:1000) were added to monolayers of melanocytes for 2 min, followed by 24 h recovery, after which MTS cytotoxicity assay was conducted. The extracts of each toothpaste were prepared (50% w/v), diluted in culture medium (1:2, 1:5, 1:10, 1:50, 1:100, and 1:1000), and added to cell monolayers for 2 min (standard brushing time), followed by an analysis of cell viability after 24 h. Results showed that all mouthrinses except mouthrinse #4 showed significantly greater loss of cell viability, ascribed to cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) that induced significant cytotoxicity to melanocytes (IC50 = 54.33 µM). In the case of toothpastes, the examination of cellular morphology showed that a 2 min exposure to all toothpaste extracts induced a concentration-dependent decline in cell viability, pronounced in toothpaste containing sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) detergent. Further results suggested SLS to be the critical driver of cytotoxicity (IC50 = 317.73 µM). It is noteworthy that toothpaste #1 exhibited much lower levels of cytotoxicity compared to the other three toothpastes containing SLS. Taken together, these findings suggest that the melanocytotoxicity of children's mouthrinse (#4) and toothpaste (#1) is comparatively low. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the impact of children's toothpastes and mouthrinses on neonatal primary human melanocytes. Future studies to investigate these findings in a realistic scenario replicating oral cavity conditions of the presence of microbiota, pellicle layer and saliva, and other cell types are warranted.

Protocol for a Randomized, Open-Label Clinical Trial on the Effect of Mouthwash on Salivary SARS-CoV-2 Load

Mouthwashes containing cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) or on-demand aqueous chlorine dioxide (ACD) have potential to reduce the salivary severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) load in individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study will evaluate the effect of CPC and on-demand ACD mouthwashes on salivary SARS-CoV-2 levels in individuals with acute asymptomatic or mild SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) staying in a residential recuperation facility in Osaka, Japan. This randomized, open-label clinical trial will include three equal-sized groups (CPC mouthwash, on-demand ACD mouthwash, and placebo), with 30 participants per group. A stratified replacement block method will be used to ensure balanced allocation based on symptom presence and days since symptom onset. Participants will use mouthwash at set times for 7 days or until the end of recuperation. Saliva samples will be collected at multiple time points and tested for SARS-CoV-2 using quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. The primary outcome will be changes in salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load 2 h after the first mouthwash use compared with the pre-mouthwash level. Secondary outcomes will include changes in salivary viral load and clinical parameters at different time points. This study was registered with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials on 18 October 2022 (jRCTs051220107).

Efficacy of different mouthwashes against COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

To evaluate the effectiveness of antiseptic mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 load clinically and in vitro. A systematic electronic search (MEDLINE/Scopus/Cochrane) was conducted to identify prospective clinical and in vitro studies published between 2019 included and 16 June 2023 assessing the effectiveness of mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 load in saliva or surrogates. Data were summarized in tables and a network meta-analysis was performed for clinical trials. Thirty-five studies (14 RCTs, 21 in vitro) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was judged to be high for 2 clinical and 7 in vitro studies. The most commonly test product was chlorhexidine alone or in combination with other active ingredients, followed by povidone-iodine, hydrogen peroxide and cetylpyridinium chloride. Overall, the descriptive analysis revealed the effectiveness of the mouthwashes in decreasing the salivary viral load both clinically and in vitro. Network meta-analysis demonstrated a high degree of heterogeneity. Among these studies, only chlorhexidine 0.20% was associated to a significant Ct increase in the saliva 5 min after rinsing compared to non-active control (p = 0.027). Data from clinical and in vitro studies suggested the antiviral efficacy of commonly used mouthwashes. Large well-balanced trials are needed to identify the best rinsing protocols.

In Vitro Effect of Mouthrinses on the Microhardness of Three Different Nanohybrid Composite Resins

Introduction

Daily use of different mouthrinses at home or in the dental office can alter the properties of resin hardness. The present study aimed to compare Vickers microhardness (VHN) in vitro of nanohybrid composite resins (NCRs) immersed in mouthrinses.

Materials and Methods

In total, 120 discs (10 ⨯ 2 mm) were prepared from three NCR shade A2 (n = 40/group) with FiltekTM Z350 XT (Z350XT), Tetric EvoCeram (TEC), and Polofil NHT (PNHT). The specimens were incubated in artificial saliva (37°C ⨯ 24 hr). Specimens were distributed into four mouthrinses (n = 10/group) of artificial saliva (control), chlorhexidine (CHX 0.12%, pH 5.6), cetylpyridine chloride (CPC 0.075%, pH 5.84), and CHX 0.12% + CPC 0.05% (pH 6.2) (2 times/day, 2' ⨯ 12 hr). The VHN (300 gf/10") was measured after 24 hr, 14, and 21 days. Data were analyzed by three-way analysis of variance, followed by post hoc Tukey analysis at 0.05 level of significance.

Results

The results revealed a global effect of the interaction of the mouthrinses ⨯ time between NRC evaluated (P=0.001). Baseline VHN in PNHT and Z350XT was higher than TEC. Within each group of NCR, VHN of CHX + CPC > other mouthrinses (PNHT/14 days; Z350XT/21 days), and >CPC (Z350XT/14 days). In mouthrinses-intragroups, VHN of PNHT and Z350XT decreased at 14 days (CHX, CPC) and was maintained over time in NCR (CHX + CPC). VHN-TEC was similar among groups.

Conclusion

Microhardness showed differences due to the interaction of the type of NCR, the composition of the mouthrinses, and time. VHN decreased after 14 days and was more affected in composite resins with lower filler content and in mouthrinses with a lower pH.

Efficacy of mouthwash on reducing salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load and clinical symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has been a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) for a lengthy period of time. The novel coronavirus is primarily spread via aerosols at a short distance, with infected individuals releasing large amounts of aerosols when speaking and coughing. However, there is an open question regarding whether mouthwash could effectively reduce virus transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic and support the prevention of infection among medical workers.

METHODS

Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were systematically searched from the inception of each database to January 12, 2023 for currently available randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the effect of mouthwash on novel coronavirus load in the oral cavity in COVID-19 patients. The treatment group received mouthwash for rinsing the mouth, while the control group received a placebo or distilled water for COVID-19 patients. The primary outcomes were CT value and viral load. Odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using a random-effects model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to minimize the bias and the impact of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs were included. Seven studies reported the intervention effect of mouthwash on the CT value of novel coronavirus. The analysis results showed that the mouthwash group had a positive impact on the CT value of novel coronavirus [ SMD = 0.35, 95% CI (0.21, 0.50)] compared with the control group. In addition, subgroup analysis showed a significant positive effect of mouthwash on CT values in the treatment group compared with the control group, with chlorhexidine (CHX) [SMD = 0.33, 95% CI (0.10, 0.56)], povidone-iodine (PVP-I) [SMD = 0.61, 95% CI (0.23, 0.99)], or hydrogen peroxide (HP) [SMD = 1.04, 95% CI (0.30, 1.78)] as an ingredient of the mouthwash. Six studies reported the intervention effect of mouthwash on the viral load, 263 cases in the treatment group and 164 cases in the control group. The analysis results showed that there was no statistical difference between the mouthwash group and the control group in the viral load of novel coronavirus [SMD = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.18, 0.05)]. In the subgroup analysis by measurement time, there were statistically significant differences between the mouthwash and control groups for CT values [SMD = 0.52, 95% CI (0.31, 0.72)] and viral load [SMD =  - 0.32, 95% CI (- 0.56, - 0.07)] within 30 min of gargling.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, mouthwash has some efficacy in reducing the viral load of novel coronavirus, especially within 30 min after rinsing the mouth. Mouthwash containing CHX, PVP-I and HP all had significant positive effects on CT values, and PVP-I-containing mouthwash may be a promising option to control novel coronavirus infections and relieve virus-related symptoms. However, studies on the dose and frequency of use of mouthwash for infection control are still lacking, which may limit the clinical application of mouthwash.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Protocol registration: The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023401961).

Learning from COVID-19: How drug hunters can prepare for the next pandemic

Over 3 years, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic killed nearly 7 million people and infected more than 767 million globally. During this time, our very small company was able to contribute to antiviral drug discovery efforts through global collaborations with other researchers, which enabled the identification and repurposing of multiple molecules with activity against SARS-CoV-2 including pyronaridine tetraphosphate, tilorone, quinacrine, vandetanib, lumefantrine, cetylpyridinium chloride, raloxifene, carvedilol, olmutinib, dacomitinib, crizotinib, and bosutinib. We highlight some of the key findings from this experience of using different computational and experimental strategies, and detail some of the challenges and strategies for how we might better prepare for the next pandemic so that potential antiviral treatments are available for future outbreaks.

Cytotoxic effects of different mouthwash solutions on primary human articular chondrocytes and normal human articular cartilage - an in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the cytotoxicity of octenidine dihydrochloride and chlorhexidine gluconate at different concentrations on primary human articular chondrocytes and cartilage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Primary cultures of human normal adult articular chondrocytes were exposed to octenidine dihydrochloride (0.001562%, 0.003125%, 0.00625%, 0.0125%, 0.025%, 0.05%, and 0.1%), chlorhexidine gluconate (0.003125%, 0.00625%, 0.0125%, 0.025%, 0.05%, 0.1%, and 0.2%), and control (Dulbecco's modified Eagle medium or phosphate-buffered saline) for 30 s. Normal human articular cartilage explants were exposed to octenidine dihydrochloride (0.1% versus control) and chlorhexidine gluconate (0.1% versus control) for 30 s. The viability of human articular chondrocytes was measured by Trypan blue staining, Cell Proliferation Reagent WST-1, and Live/Dead staining. The proliferation of human chondrocytes was measured using the Cell Proliferation Reagent WST-1. The viability of human articular cartilage explants was measured by using Live/Dead staining.

RESULTS

Octenidine dihydrochloride and chlorhexidine gluconate exposure decreased cell viability and proliferation in a dose-dependent manner in primary human articular chondrocytes. Octenidine dihydrochloride and chlorhexidine gluconate exposure decreased cell viability in human articular cartilage explant cultures.

CONCLUSION

The degree of toxicity varied between octenidine dihydrochloride and chlorhexidine gluconate, with chlorhexidine gluconate being less toxic than octenidine dihydrochloride at the same concentration. Additionally, both octenidine dihydrochloride and chlorhexidine gluconate evaluation had cytotoxic effects on human articular cartilage. Therefore, dosing for the antimicrobial mouthwash ingredients administration would ideally be determined to remain below IC50.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These data support the in vitro safety of antimicrobial mouthwashes on primary adult human articular chondrocytes.

Effectiveness of mouth rinses against COVID-19: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) comprehensively compared the effectiveness of different mouth rinses in reducing the viral load/infectivity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) (Part I), alleviating clinical symptoms or severity of disease (Part II), and decreasing the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Part III).

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) with restrictions were searched up to 3rd March 2023. Twenty-three studies (22 RCTs and one NRCT) met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review.

RESULTS

Five RCTs (454 patients and nine interventions) in Part I were eligible for NMA. The NMA results showed that, in comparison with no rinse, sodium chloride (NaCl) was the most effective mouth rinse for reducing the viral load, followed by povidone-iodine (PVP-I), ß-cyclodextrin + citrox (CDCM), hydrogen peroxide (HP), chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX), cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), placebo and hypochlorous acid (HClO). However, these results were not significant. Based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve scores, PVP-I was likely to be the most efficacious mouth rinse for reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral load, followed by CDCM, HP, NaCl, CHX, CPC, placebo, no rinse and HClO.

CONCLUSION

Due to heterogeneity of the primary studies, the effectiveness of different mouth rinses to reduce viral infectivity, improve clinical symptoms or prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection remains inconclusive.

Efficacy of three antimicrobial mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the saliva of hospitalized patients: a randomized controlled pilot study

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of 3 mouthwashes in reducing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load in the saliva of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients at 30 min, 1, 2 and 3 h after rinsing. This pilot study included 40 admitted COVID-19 positive patients (10 in each group). Saliva samples were collected before rinsing and at 30 min, 1, 2 and 3 h after rinsing with: Group 1-0.2% Chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX); Group 2-1.5% Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2); Group 3-Cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) or Group 4 (control group)-No rinsing. Viral load analysis of saliva samples was assessed by Reverse Transcription quantitative PCR. Mean log10 viral load at different time points was compared to that at baseline in all groups using a random effects linear regression analysis while for comparison between groups linear regression analysis was used. The results showed that all groups had a significantly reduced mean log10 viral load both at 2 (p = 0.036) and 3 (p = 0.041) hours compared to baseline. However, there was no difference in mean log10 viral load between any of the investigated mouthwashes and the control group (non-rinsing) at the evaluated time points. Although a reduction in the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the saliva of COVID-19 patients was observed after rinsing with mouthwashes containing 0.2% CHX, 1.5% H2O2, or CPC, the reduction detected was similar to that achieved by the control group at the investigated time points. The findings of this study may suggest that the mechanical action of rinsing/spitting results in reduction of SARS-CoV-2 salivary load.

Effectiveness of mouthwashes on reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral load in oral cavity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The risk of SARS-COV-2 transmission is relatively high during dental procedures. A study was conducted to investigate the effects of mouthwashes on SARS-COV-2 viral load reduction in the oral cavity.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library for relevant studies up to 20 July, 2022. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trial and quasi-experimental studies evaluating patients with Covid-19 infection (patients) who used mouthwashes (intervention) compared to the same patients before using the mouthwash (comparison) for reducing the SARS-COV-2 load or increasing the cycle threshold (Ct) value (outcome) were searched according to PICO components. Three independent reviewers conducted literature screening and data extraction. The Modified Downs and Black checklist was used for quality assessment. A meta-analysis was performed with a random effects model in the Revman 5.4.1software using the mean difference (MD) of cycle threshold (Ct) values.

RESULTS

Of 1653 articles, 9 with a high methodological quality were included. A meta-analysis indicated that 1% Povidone-iodine (PVP-I) was an effective mouthwash for reducing the SARS-COV-2 viral load [MD 3.61 (95% confidence interval 1.03, 6.19)]. Cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) [MD 0.61 (95% confidence interval -1.03, 2.25)] and Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) [MD -0.04 95% confidence interval (-1.20, 1.12)] were not effective against SARS-COV-2.

CONCLUSION

Using mouthwashes containing PVP-I may be recommended for reducing the SARS-COV-2 viral load in the oral cavity of patients before and during dental procedures, while the evidence is not sufficient for such effects for CPC and CHX-containing mouthwashes.

The anti-SARS-CoV-2 effect and mechanism of Chiehyuan herbal oral protection solution

The Chiehyuan herbal oral protection solution (GB-2) is a herbal mixture commonly utilized in Taiwan for combating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) as per traditional Chinese medicine practices. This study assessed the clinical impact of GB-2 through prospective clinical trials. With twice-daily use for a week, GB-2 was shown to diminish the expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) in oral mucosal cells. Moreover, after two weeks of use, it could reduce transmembrane protease, serine 2 (TMRPSS2) expression in these cells. Additionally, in vitro experiments demonstrated that GB-2 lessened the entry efficiency of the Omicron, L452R-D614G, T478K-D614G, and L452R-T478K-D614G variants of the SARS-CoV-2 pseudotyped lentivirus. It also impeded the interaction between ACE2 and the receptor-binding domain (RBD) presenting N501Y-K417N-E484A-G339D-Q493R-G496S-Q498R and L452R-T478K mutations. Glycyrrhizic acid, a major compound in GB-2, also hindered the entry of the Omicron variant (BA.1) of the SARS-CoV-2 pseudotyped lentivirus by obstructing the binding between ACE2 and the RBD presenting the N501Y-K417N-E484A-G339D-Q493R-G496S-Q498R mutation. To sum up, these findings suggest that GB-2 can decrease ACE2 and TMPRSS2 expression in oral mucosal cells. Both glycyrrhizic acid and GB-2 were found to reduce the entry efficiency of the Omicron variant (BA.1) of the SARS-CoV-2 pseudotyped lentivirus and block the binding between ACE2 and the RBD with the N501Y-K417N-E484A-G339D-Q493R-G496S-Q498R mutation. This evidence implies that GB-2 might be a potential candidate for further study as a preventative measure against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Effects of Chlorhexidine and Povidone-Iodine on the SARS-CoV-2 Load: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The efficacy of mouthwash for reducing the viral load in patients with the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis comprehensively examined the effects of chlorhexidine (CHX) and povidone-iodine (PVP-I) on the viral load in patients with COVID-19. We performed methodological analysis, systematic review, and meta-analysis of included studies using the Comprehensive Meta-analysis Software. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest were searched from December 1, 2019, to December 2, 2021. In total, we included 10 studies of 1,339 patients with COVID-19. Compared with the control group, both CHX and PVP-I significantly reduced the number of negative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results (p<0.001) among COVID-19 patients. The CHX and PVP-I were effective on reducing the number of negative RT-PCR results in COVID-19 patients. Additional studies using adequate randomization methods and larger samples are warned.

Discovery of PLpro and Mpro Inhibitors for SARS-CoV-2

There are very few small-molecule antivirals for SARS-CoV-2 that are either currently approved (or emergency authorized) in the US or globally, including remdesivir, molnupiravir, and paxlovid. The increasing number of SARS-CoV-2 variants that have appeared since the outbreak began over three years ago raises the need for continual development of updated vaccines and orally available antivirals in order to fully protect or treat the population. The viral main protease (Mpro) and the papain-like protease (PLpro) are key for viral replication; therefore, they represent valuable targets for antiviral therapy. We herein describe an in vitro screen performed using the 2560 compounds from the Microsource Spectrum library against Mpro and PLpro in an attempt to identify additional small-molecule hits that could be repurposed for SARS-CoV-2. We subsequently identified 2 hits for Mpro and 8 hits for PLpro. One of these hits was the quaternary ammonium compound cetylpyridinium chloride with dual activity (IC50 = 2.72 ± 0.09 μM for PLpro and IC50 = 7.25 ± 0.15 μM for Mpro). A second inhibitor of PLpro was the selective estrogen receptor modulator raloxifene (IC50 = 3.28 ± 0.29 μM for PLpro and IC50 = 42.8 ± 6.7 μM for Mpro). We additionally tested several kinase inhibitors and identified olmutinib (IC50 = 0.54 ± 0.04 μM), bosutinib (IC50 = 4.23 ± 0.28 μM), crizotinib (IC50 = 3.81 ± 0.04 μM), and dacominitinib (IC50 = IC50 3.33 ± 0.06 μM) as PLpro inhibitors for the first time. In some cases, these molecules have also been tested by others for antiviral activity for this virus, or we have used Calu-3 cells infected with SARS-CoV-2. The results suggest that approved drugs can be identified with promising activity against these proteases, and in several cases we or others have validated their antiviral activity. The additional identification of known kinase inhibitors as molecules targeting PLpro may provide new repurposing opportunities or starting points for chemical optimization.

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.

Reduction of SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load with pre-procedural mouth rinses: a randomised, controlled, clinical trial

Introduction The purpose of this study was to test the short-term efficacy of four commercial mouthwashes versus water in reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the oral cavity over clinically relevant time points.Methods In total, 32 subjects that were proven SARS-CoV-2-positive via polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based diagnostic test were recruited and randomised into five parallel arms. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were compared in saliva samples between the groups, as well as within the groups at baseline (pre-rinse), zero hours, one hour and two hours post-rinse, using SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-PCR analysis.Results We observed a significant increase in Ct values in saliva samples collected immediately after rinsing with all the four mouthwashes - 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate, 1.5% hydrogen peroxide, 1% povidone iodine, or Listerine - compared to water. A sustained increase in Ct values for up to two hours was only observed in the Listerine and chlorohexidine gluconate groups. We were not able to sufficiently power this clinical trial, so the results remain notional but encouraging and supportive of findings in other emerging mouthwash studies on COVID-19, warranting additional investigations.Conclusions Our evidence suggests that in a clinical setting, prophylactic rinses with Listerine or chlorhexidine gluconate can potentially reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the oral cavity for up to two hours. While limited in statistical power due to the difficulty in obtaining this data, we advocate for pre-procedural mouthwashing, like handwashing, as an economical and safe additional precaution to help mitigate the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from a potentially infected patient to providers.

Current SARS-CoV-2 Protective Strategies for Healthcare Professionals

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is responsible for the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). COVID-19 was first reported in China in December 2019. SARS-CoV-2 is highly contagious and spread primarily via an airborne route. Hand hygiene, surgical masks, vaccinations and boosters, air filtration, environmental sanitization, instrument sterilization, mouth rinses, and social distancing are essential infection control measures against the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. This paper aims to provide healthcare professionals with evidence-based protective strategies.

Efficacy of Cetylpyridinium Chloride mouthwash against SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 is a transmissible respiratory and multisystem disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Viral transmission occurs mainly through the spread of salivary droplets or aerosol from an infected subject. Studies suggest that salivary viral load is correlated with disease severity and probability of transmission. Cetylpyridinium chloride mouthwash has been found to be effective in reducing salivary viral load. The aim of this systematic review of randomized controlled trials is to evaluate the efficacy of the mouthwash ingredient cetylpyridinium chloride on salivary viral load in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials comparing cetylpyridinium chloride mouthwash with placebo and other mouthwash ingredients in SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals were identified and evaluated.

RESULTS

Six studies with a total of 301 patients that met the inclusion criteria were included. The studies reported the efficacy of cetylpyridinium chloride mouthwashes in reduction on SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load compared to placebo and other mouthwash ingredients.

CONCLUSION

Mouthwashes containing cetylpyridinium chloride are effective against salivary viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in vivo. There is also the possibility that the use of mouthwash containing cetylpyridinium chloride in SARS-CoV-2 positive subjects could reduce transmissibility and severity of COVID-19.

In vivo effect of mouthwashes on viable viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva: a pilot study

Current data on the efficacy of antiseptic mouthwashes to reduce viral load are contradictory. Firstly, in vitro data indicate very strong virucidal effects that are not replicated in clinical studies. Secondly, most clinical studies identify a limited effect, do not include a control/placebo group, or do not evaluate viral viability in an infection model. In the current manuscript, we perform a double-blind, randomized clinical trial where salivary viral load was measured before and after the mouthwash, and where saliva samples were also cultured in an in vitro infection model of SARS-CoV-2 to evaluate the effect of mouthwashes on viral viability. Our data show a 90-99% reduction in SARS-CoV-2 salivary copies with one of the tested mouthwashes, although we show that the remaining viruses are mostly viable. In addition, our data suggest that the active ingredient concentration and the overall excipients' formulation can play an important role; and most importantly, they indicate that the effect is not immediate, being significant at 15 min and having maximum effectiveness after 1 h. Thus, we show that some oral mouthwashes can be useful in reducing viral transmission, although their efficacy must be improved through refined formulations or revised protocols.

Early intervention with ColdZyme mouth spray after self-diagnosis of common cold: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Previous clinical and in vitro investigations have supported the efficacy of a glycerol throat spray containing cold-adapted cod trypsin (ColdZyme) against respiratory viruses causing the common cold bycreating a protective mucosal barrier shown to deactivate common cold virus in vitro and decrease pharyngeal rhinovirus load.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This was a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study conducted at 10 German sites to evaluate the efficacy of the medical device ColdZyme, a glycerol mouth spray containing cold-adapted cod trypsin for a naturally occurring common cold versus placebo spray. Adults experiencing a minimum of three common colds during the previous year, but otherwise healthy, were enrolled to begin treatment with the mouth spray or placebo six times daily at first sign of a common cold. Jackson's symptom scale and the 9-item Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey-21 (WURSS-21) quality of life (QoL) domain and a sore throat scale were recorded daily by subjects, as well as any use of allowed rescue treatment. Between January and April 2019, 701 subjects were enrolled and randomly assigned to the ColdZyme group (n = 351) or the placebo group (n = 350). Of the 701 subjects, 438 (62.5%) subjects developed symptoms typical of common cold, and all 438 started study treatment (n = 220 in the ColdZyme group and n = 218 in the placebo group). The demographic profile of the treatment groups were comparable with 68.1% female and almost all subjects being Caucasian (98.4%). The age ranged between 18 and 70 years with a mean age of 41.3 (±14.4) years. There were no differences between the groups in primary and major secondary endpoints, however, the assessment using the WURSS-21 QoL domain and Jackson score suggests a slightly faster recovery with ColdZyme as symptoms and complaints affecting the quality of life were shortened by about 1 day. The beneficial effect of ColdZyme was particularly noticeable on the fifth day of the common cold. A positive difference between treatment groups was also seen for the subjects' assessments of global efficacy of the investigational product A robust safety profile for ColdZyme was demonstrated throughout the study.

CONCLUSION

The safety and tolerability of ColdZyme have been confirmed in a large study population and further establishes evidence of a faster recovery from common cold symptoms. Early self-diagnosis and early use of ColdZyme mouth spray is a safe alternative for treatment of naturally occurring colds.

Mouth rinses efficacy on salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load: A randomized clinical trial

Considering the global trend to confine the COVID-19 pandemic by applying various preventive health measures, preprocedural mouth rinsing has been proposed to mitigate the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2 in dental clinics. The study aimed to investigate the effect of different mouth rinses on salivary viral load in COVID-19 patients. This study was a single-center, randomized, double-blind, six-parallel-group, placebo-controlled clinical trial that investigated the effect of four mouth rinses (1% povidone-iodine, 1.5% hydrogen peroxide, 0.075% cetylpyridinium chloride, and 80 ppm hypochlorous acid) on salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load relative to the distilled water and no-rinse control groups. The viral load was measured by quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) at baseline and 5, 30, and 60 min post rinsing. The viral load pattern within each mouth rinse group showed a reduction overtime; however, this reduction was only statistically significant in the hydrogen peroxide group. Further, a significant reduction in the viral load was observed between povidone-iodine, hydrogen peroxide, and cetylpyridinium chloride compared to the no-rinse group at 60 min, indicating their late antiviral potential. Interestingly, a similar statistically significant reduction was also observed in the distilled water control group compared to the no-rinse group at 60 min, proposing mechanical washing of the viral particles through the rinsing procedure. Therefore, results suggest using preprocedural mouth rinses, particularly hydrogen peroxide, as a risk-mitigation step before dental procedures, along with strict adherence to other infection control measures.

Efficacy of mouthrinses in reducing oral SARS-COV-2 load: a review

Accumulated evidence has shown that the oral cavity may be an important reservoir for SARS-CoV-2. Some authors have suggested that the use of mouthrinses could reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the saliva. Thus, the aim of this review was to synthesize evidence about the efficacy of mouthrinses in reducing the salivary viral load of SARS-CoV-2. 2. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the efficacy of different mouthrinses in reducing salivary SARS-CoV-2 loads. Various active ingredients have been tested in these trials: 0.5%,1% and 2% povidone-iodine, 0.2% and 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX), 0.075% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), 0.075% CPC with Zinc lactate, 1% and 1.5% hydrogen peroxide (HP), 1.5% HP + 0.12% CHX and ß-cyclodextrin and citrox. The studies reported an intra-group reduction in the salivary levels of the virus, when compared with the baseline. However, the majority of these trials failed to demonstrate a significant inter-group difference between active groups and the control group relative to the decrease in salivary SARS-CoV-2 loads. Although promising, these results should be confirmed by larger trials.

Efectividad de enjuagues bucales contra virus de la familia coronavirus

La aparición del virus Sars-CoV-2 y la enfermedad Covid-19 han provocado un estado de emergencia en el sistema de salud. Teniendo en cuenta el potencial de la saliva como material contaminante, la práctica odontológica fue una de las áreas que se vio afectada debido al uso de instrumentos que pueden esparcir aerosoles y salpicaduras que contienen microorganismos hacia el medio ambiente. Por esta razón, conociendo su potencial en la inactivación de patógenos, se propuso la utilización de enjuagues bucales en la práctica clínica previo a la realización de procedimientos dentales, sin embargo la evidencia no es clara respecto a su efectividad. Objetivo. Establecer el estado de evidencia actual del efecto de los enjuagues bucales sobre los coronavirus que se encuentran en cavidad. Métodos. Se realizó una revisión sistemática siguiendo todos los parámetros descritos en las DirectricesPRISMA basada en información obtenida en los buscadores Science direct, Pubmed y Dentistry and Oral Science Source. Los criterios de selección incluyeron estudios in vivo e in vitro de texto completo que evidenciaron la efectividad del enjuague bucal contra coronavirus. Resultados. Se obtuvieron 90 artículos, de los cuales sólo 12 cumplían con los criterios de inclusión,8 in vitro y 4 in vivo, que fueron sometidos a la evaluación de calidad metodológica utilizando la lista de verificación de evaluación crítica del JBI.  Conclusiones. Los resultados sugieren que la povidona yodada es efectiva para la inactivación del virus Sars-coV-2 en todas sus concentraciones.

Virucidal activity and mechanism of action of cetylpyridinium chloride against SARS-CoV-2

Objective

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the pathogen causing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic. Recent studies have shown the importance of the throat and salivary glands as sites of virus replication and transmission. The viral host receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), is broadly enriched in epithelial cells of the salivary glands and oral mucosae. Oral care products containing cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) as a bactericidal ingredient are known to exhibit antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. However, the exact mechanism of action remains unknown.

Methods

This study examined the antiviral activity of CPC against SARS-CoV-2 and its inhibitory effect on the interaction between the viral spike (S) protein and ACE2 using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

Results

CPC (0.05%, 0.1% and 0.3%) effectively inactivated SARS-CoV-2 within the contact times (20 and 60 s) in directions for use of oral care products in vitro. The binding ability of both the S protein and ACE2 were reduced by CPC.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that CPC inhibits the interaction between S protein and ACE2, and thus, reduces infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 and suppresses viral adsorption.

Virucidal activity in vitro of mouthwashes against a feline coronavirus type II

Transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can occur through saliva and aerosol droplets deriving from the upper aerodigestive tract during coughing, sneezing, talking, and even during oral inspection or dental procedures. The aim of this study was to assess in vitro virucidal activity of commercial and experimental mouthwashes against a feline coronavirus (FCoV) strain. Commercial and experimental (commercial-based products with addition of either sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) or thymus vulgaris essential oil (TEO) at different concentrations) mouthwashes were placed in contact with FCoV for different time intervals, that is, 30 s (T30), 60 s (T60), and 180 s (T180); subsequently, the virus was titrated on Crandell Reese Feline Kidney cells. An SDS-based commercial mouthwash reduced the viral load by 5 log10 tissue culture infectious dose (TCID)₅₀ /50 µl at T30 while a cetylpyridinium (CPC)-based commercial mouthwash was able to reduce the viral titer of 4.75 log10 at T60. Furthermore, five experimental mouthwashes supplemented with SDS reduced the viral titer by 4.75-5 log10 according to a dose- (up to 4 mM) and time-dependent fashion.

Evaluation of Current Evidence on the Use of Oral Antiseptics Against SARS-CoV-2: A Narrative Review

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The detection of SARS-COV-2 in the oral cavity has generated endless claims about the efficacy of using oral mouthwashes to reduce viral load. This review aims to assess the current evidence on the use of oral antiseptics against SARS-CoV-2 and to assess the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE system. The question this study focussed on was what is the efficacy of oral antiseptics against SARS-CoV-2?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A bibliographic search was performed in Medline databases through PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar (until February 2022), using search terms related to COVID-19 and oral antiseptics. Two independent researchers extracted the information from the articles included in an excel form. The identification and selection of the studies was carried out from August 2021 to February 2022.

RESULTS

It was found that oral antiseptics can have a potential beneficial effect on COVID-19, mainly in reducing viral load. However, these potential benefits are mainly based on in-vitro studies or clinical studies with various methodological limitations. At present, the certainty of the evidence is very low due to inconsistency (heterogeneity), moderate-to-high risk of bias, and imprecision of the results.

CONCLUSION

The certainty of the current evidence on the efficacy of oral antiseptics against SARS-CoV-2 is very low, mainly due to the methodological limitations of the studies. Therefore, for evidence-based decision-making about this intervention, clinical studies with greater methodological rigor are required. Oral antiseptics could present potential benefits in patients with COVID-19 mainly by reducing viral load. However, a careful and conscious evaluation of the evidence is required for decision-making in clinical practice.

Mouthwashes and the Effect on the Viral Load of SARS-CoV-2 in Saliva: A Literature Review

BACKGROUND: At present, several active ingredients have been investigated in mouthwashes having certain virucidal properties, which could reduce the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 to avoid contamination in medical or dental practice. AIM: The objective of this review is to analyze the available evidence regarding mouthwashes and their effect on the salivary viral load of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Records were retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Virtual Health Library up to June 21, 2022. Randomized or non-randomized clinical trials were included where saliva samples and laboratory or in vitro studies were used in the presence of saliva. RESULTS: After a systematic selection process, 11 clinical studies that evaluated at least one mouthwash within clinical protocols and three laboratory studies that evaluated the virucidal efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 in the presence of saliva were finally included. CONCLUSION: There are oral disinfectants with virucidal action in saliva samples, under clinical and laboratory conditions, capable of reducing the viral load of SARS-CoV-2. Cetylpyridinium chloride, chlorhexidine, and povidone-iodine present the best results so far. However, it was also possible to find active principles of recent appearance that, based on favorable exploratory results, needs further investigation on their efficacy and possible adverse events.

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.

Saliva as an alternative specimen to nasopharyngeal swabs for COVID-19 diagnosis: Review

Almost 2 years ago, the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was discovered to be the causative agent of the disease COVID-19. Subsequently, SARS-CoV-2 has spread across the world infecting millions of people, resulting in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The current 'gold standard' for COVID-19 diagnosis involves obtaining a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) from the patient and testing for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the specimen using real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR). However, obtaining a NPS specimen is an uncomfortable and invasive procedure for the patient and is limited in its applicability to mass testing. Interest in saliva as an alternative diagnostic specimen is of increasing global research interest due to its malleability to mass testing, greater patient acceptability and overall ease of specimen collection. However, the current literature surrounding the sensitivity of saliva compared to NPS is conflicting. The aim of this review was to analyse the recent literature to assess the viability of saliva in COVID-19 diagnosis. We hypothesize that the discrepancies in the current literature are likely due to the variations in the saliva collection and processing protocols used between studies. The universal adaptation of an optimised protocol could alleviate these discrepancies and see saliva specimens be as sensitive, if not more, than NPS for COVID-19 diagnosis. Whilst saliva specimens are more complimentary to mass-testing, with the possibility of samples being collected from home, the RT-qPCR diagnostic process remains to be the rate-limiting step and therefore interest in salivary rapid antigen tests, which negate the wait-times of RT-qPCR with results available within 15-30 min, may be an answer to this.

The short-term effect of different chlorhexidine forms versus povidone iodine mouth rinse in minimizing the oral SARS-CoV-2 viral load: An open label randomized controlled clinical trial study

Several investigations evaluated the possibility of different types of mouth wash rinse in minimizing the SARS-CoV-2 load. However, results still controversial. The study aim is to assess the short-term efficiency of several over-the-counter mouth rinses and lozenges in minimizing the salivary viral load for SARS-CoV-2 in patients with confirmed COVID-19 in comparison to saline. This is a randomized controlled clinical trial with 4 arms. The recruited cases were randomized using a simple randomization technique and were assigned to chlorhexidine digluconate mouth rinse (CHX mouth rinse), 2 mg of chlorhexidine digluconate lozenges (CHX lozenges), povidone iodine mouth rinse (PVP-I mouth rinse) or saline as a control group. Saliva were collected from all study subjects by passive drool technique at two time points. First, prior to intervention with mouth rinse or the lozenges, the baseline saliva sample was collected. Second saliva samples were collected immediately after the mouth rinse. Real time PCR was conducted and the value threshold cycle (Ct) for each sample was recorded. Majority of the participants had an education level of high school or less (60%), were married (68.3), males (58.3%), and non-smokers (58.5%). No statistically significant differences between groups at the two times test (P > .05). However, a significant decrease of salivary viral load in all four groups combined (P-value for E genes = .027, and for S genes = .006), and in PVP-I mouth rinse specifically (P = .003 and P = .045, respectively). Povidone iodine mouth rinse showed a potential influence on the reduction of the viral load on a short-term basis. However, longer-term studies of the effect of these products should be conducted.

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..

Cetylpyridinium Chloride Mouthwash to Reduce Shedding of Infectious SARS-CoV-2: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

The airborne transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) via respiratory fluids and droplets suggests that mouthwashes containing substances with virucidal activity can help reduce viral spread. We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial to assess the virucidal activity of cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouthwashes. Outpatients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection with or without symptoms were randomized to perform washes and gargles for 1 min with 15 mL of either colored distilled water or 0.07% CPC (Vitis CPC Protect) mouthwash. The study outcomes were the SARS-CoV-2 log₁₀ viral RNA load and the nucleocapsid protein levels, both in saliva at 1 and 3 h after the intervention. In total, 118 patients were enrolled and randomized (mean [SD], age 46 [14] y). Thirteen of 118 participants (11%) did not complete follow-up or had insufficient sample volume for testing and were excluded from the analysis. The assessment of the viral load showed no significant differences between groups at any of the investigated points. However, the levels of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein of lysed viruses were significantly higher in the CPC group compared with the control group at 1 h (adjusted difference 269.3 pg/mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], 97.1-441.5) and at 3 h postintervention (561.1 pg/mL; 95% CI, 380.0-742.2). In nonhospitalized patients with asymptomatic or mild symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, a 0.07% CPC mouthwash, compared to placebo, was associated with a significant increase of nucleocapsid protein levels in saliva, indicating enhanced disruption of viral particles.

CHX and a Face Shield Cannot Prevent Contamination of Surgical Masks

Background

Bacterial contamination on surgical masks puts a threat to medical staff and patients. The aim of the study was to investigate its contamination during dental treatments, wearing a face shield and performing a pre-procedural mouth rinsing with chlorhexidine (CHX).

Methods

In this prospective, randomized study, 306 treatments were included, 141 single-tooth (restorations) and 165 total dentition treatments (preventive or periodontal supportive ultrasonic application). A total of three groups (each: n = 102) were formed: participants rinsed for 60 s with 0.1 % CHX or with water before treatment, and, for control, a non-rinsing group was included. In view of the COVID-19 pandemic, a face shield covering the surgical mask enhanced personal protective equipment. After treatment, masks were imprinted on agar plates and incubated at 35°C for 48 h. Bacteria were classified by phenotypic characteristics, biochemical assay methods, and matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS). Colonies (CFU) were counted and mean values were compared (Kruskal–Wallis-, U test, p < 0.05).

Results

Chlorhexidine led to a statistically significant reduction of bacterial contamination of the surgical mask (mean: 24 CFU) in comparison with water (mean: 47 CFU) and non-rinsing (mean: 80 CFU). Furthermore, rinsing with water reduced CFU significantly in comparison with the non-rinsing group. There were no significant differences between single or total dentition treatments. Streptococcus spp., Staphylococcus spp., Micrococcus spp., and Bacillus spp. dominated, representing the oral and cutaneous flora.

Conclusion

A pre-procedural mouth rinse is useful to reduce the bacterial load of the surgical mask. However, contamination cannot be prevented completely, even by applying a face shield. In particular, during pandemic, it is important to consider that these additional protective measures are not able to completely avoid the transmission of pathogens bearing aerosols to the facial region. If antiseptic rinsing solutions are not available, rinsing with water is also useful.

Virucidal Activity of Over-the-Counter Oral Care Products Against SARS-CoV-2

PURPOSE

The oral cavity is an important entry point for SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study tested whether four commercially available mouthrinses and dentifrices have in vitro virucidal activity against SARS-CoV-2 (=4 log10 reduction in viral titer).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One part of stock SARS-CoV-2 virus plus one part 0.3 g/l bovine serum albumin were mixed with eight parts of test product solution. After 30 s for the rinses, or 60 s for the dentifrices, the mixture was quenched in an appropriate neutralizer, serially diluted, and inoculated onto Vero E6 cells to determine viral titer. Triplicate runs were performed for each test condition with appropriate controls for test product cytotoxicity, viral interference, and neutralizer effectiveness. Test products included: 1.5% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) rinse; 0.07% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) rinse; 0.454% stannous fluoride (SnF2) dentifrice A; and 0.454% SnF2 dentifrice B.

RESULTS

?The 1.5% H2O2 rinse, 0.07% CPC rinse, SnF2 dentifrice A, and SnF2 dentifrice B all produced > 4 log10 reduction in SARS-CoV-2 titer.

CONCLUSION

All four test products displayed potent virucidal activity in vitro. Clinical studies are warranted to determine what role, if any, these oral care products might play in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 or in the management of patients currently diagnosed with COVID-19 illness.

Efficacy of Pre-Procedural Mouthwashes against SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

The oral mucosa is one of the first sites to be affected by the SARS-CoV-2. For this reason, healthcare providers performing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in the oral cavity are at high risk of infection with COVID-19. The aim of this systematic review is to verify whether there is evidence in the literature describing a decrease in the salivary viral load of SARS-CoV-2 after using different mouthwashes. An electronic search of the MEDLINE database (via PubMed), Web of Science, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane library database was carried out. The criteria used were those described by the PRISMA® Statement. Randomized controlled trial studies that have used mouthwashes as a form of intervention to reduce the viral load in saliva were included. The risk of bias was analyzed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. Ultimately, eight articles were included that met the established criteria. Based on the evidence currently available in the literature, PVP-I, CHX and CPC present significant virucidal activity against SARS-CoV-2 in saliva and could be used as pre-procedural mouthwashes to reduce the risk of cross-infection.

Virucidal Activity of Different Mouthwashes against the Salivary Load of SARS-CoV-2: A Narrative Review

The saliva of COVID-19-confirmed patients presents a high viral load of the virus. Aerosols generated during medical and dental procedures can transport the virus and are a possible causative agent of cross-infection. Since the onset of the pandemic, numerous investigations have been attempting to mitigate the risk of transmission by reducing the viral load in saliva using preprocedural mouthwashes. This study aims to review the most up-to-date in vitro and in vivo studies investigating the efficacy of different mouthwashes on reducing the salivary viral load of SARS-CoV-2, giving particular attention to the most recent randomized control trials published.

CPC-containing oral rinses inactivate SARS-CoV-2 variants and are active in the presence of human saliva

Introduction. The importance of human saliva in aerosol-based transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is now widely recognized. However, little is known about the efficacy of virucidal mouthwash formulations against emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and in the presence of saliva.

Hypothesis. Mouthwashes containing virucidal actives will have similar inactivation effects against multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and will retain efficacy in the presence of human saliva.

Aim. To examine in vitro efficacy of mouthwash formulations to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Methodology. Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 variants by mouthwash formulations in the presence or absence of human saliva was assayed using ASTM International Standard E1052-20 methodology.

Results. Appropriately formulated mouthwashes containing 0.07 % cetylpyridinium chloride but not 0.2 % chlorhexidine completely inactivated SARS-CoV-2 (USA-WA1/2020, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta) up to the limit of detection in suspension assays. Tests using USA-WA1/2020 indicates that efficacy is maintained in the presence of human saliva.

Conclusions. Together these data suggest cetylpyridinium chloride-based mouthwashes are effective at inactivating SARS-CoV-2 variants. This indicates potential to reduce viral load in the oral cavity and mitigate transmission via salivary aerosols.

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).

Population-based virucidal phthalocyanine gargling/rinsing protocol to reduce the risk of coronavirus disease-2019: a community trial

Aim

In this community trial, the objective was to evaluate the incidence of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) cases in two similar communities in three distinct phases: 1 (before the intervention), 2 (during the intervention), and 3 (after the intervention).

Methods

The test community received the oral antiseptic intervention (experimental), while the control community did not. The official information agency ("Statewise System for Data Analysis") provided the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases. Data were analyzed according to the three phases per epidemiological week (epi) using the R Core Team (2021) program. The relative risk and 95% confidence intervals between the cumulative incidence values of the test and control communities were calculated for each period. In the test community, a total of 995 residents over 10 years of age received two bottles containing 600 ml of mouthwash containing antiviral phthalocyanine derivative (APD). The participants were asked to gargle/rinse with of 5 mL of the mouthwash containing ADP 3 to 5 times a day, for 1 min, until the bottles were empty.

Results

In phases 1 and 3, the disease risk between the two communities did not differ significantly (p>0.05), while in phase 2, the disease risk was 54% lower in the test community than in the control community.

Conclusion

The use of the APD mouthwash protocol seems to reduce the COVID-19 incidence at the population level, and further studies are needed to confirm its protective effect under more precisely controlled conditions.

Virucidal Activity of Different Mouthwashes Using a Novel Biochemical Assay

BACKGROUND

Saliva of patients with COVID-19 has a high SARS-CoV-2 viral load. The risk of spreading the virus is not insignificant, and procedures for reducing viral loads in the oral cavity have been proposed. Little research to date has been performed on the effect of mouthwashes on the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and some of their mechanisms of action remain unknown.

METHODS

SARS-CoV-2 positive nasopharyngeal swabs measured by RT-PCR were used for virucidal activity in a 1:1 ratio, with an incubation time of 1 min. The solutions used in this study were: iodopovidone (8 mg); * D-limonene, a terpene extracted from citrus peels (0.3%); † cetylpyridinium chloride (0.1%) (CPC); ‡ chlorhexidine gluconate (10%) (CHX); § a CPC (0.12%) and CHX (0.05%) containing formula; ** a formula containing essential oils; †† a CPC containing formula (0.07%); ‡‡ a D-limonene (0.2%) and CPC (0.05%) containing formula; §§ a solution containing sodium fluoride (0.05%) and CPC (0.075%); *** a solution containing CHX (0.12%) and; ††† a CHX (0.2%) containing formula. ‡‡‡ As a control reaction, saline solution or excipient solution (water, glycerin, citric acid, colorant, sodium citrate) was used.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study, we can conclude that a mouthwash containing both D-limonene and CPC reduced the virucidal activity in about 6 logs (>99.999% reduction). Hence, establishing a clinical protocol for dentists is suggested, where all patients to be treated rinse pre-operatively with a mouthwash containing both D-limonene and CPC to reduce the likelihood of infection with SARS-CoV-2 for dentists. This is a relatively inexpensive way to reduce viral transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from infected individuals within the community. It is also a simple way to decrease infections from asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic patients.