Mouthrinses against SARS-CoV-2 – high antiviral effectivity by membrane disruption in vitro translates to mild effects in a randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial

A MULTICENTER, RANDOMIZED, OPEN-LABEL, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL OF THE EFFECT OF CETYLPYRIDINIUM CHLORIDE (CPC) MOUTHWASH AND ON-DEMAND AQUEOUS CHLORINE DIOXIDE MOUTHWASH ON SARS-COV-2 VIRAL TITER IN PATIENTS WITH MILD COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

The established effect of cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouthwash on SARS-CoV-2 viral titers is unclear. No clinical trial has examined the impact of on-demand aqueous chlorine dioxide mouthwash on SARS-CoV-2 viral titer.

METHODS

In this multicenter, 3-armed, randomized, open-label, placebo-controlled clinical trial involving mildly symptomatic COVID-19 patients, we randomly assigned them to receive 20 mL of 0.05% CPC, 10 mL of 0.01% on-demand aqueous chlorine dioxide, or 20 mL of purified water as a placebo mouthwash in a 1:1:1 ratio. The primary measurement was the SARS-CoV-2 viral titer in saliva, evaluated by a mixed-effects linear regression model.

RESULTS

49 patients received CPC mouthwash (n=16), on-demand aqueous chlorine dioxide mouthwash (n=16), and placebo (n=17) between January 14, 2024, and February 20, 2024. 0.05% CPC mouthwash significantly reduced salivary viral titer at 10 minutes postuse (-0.97 log10 PFU/mL; 95% CI, -1.64 to -0.30; P = .004), while no such effect was observed at 30 minutes (difference vs placebo, -0.26 log10 PFU/mL; 95% CI, -0.92 to 0.40; P = .435) or 60 minutes (difference vs. placebo, -0.05 log10 PFU/mL; 95% CI, -0.68 to 0.58; P = .877). 0.01% on-demand chlorine dioxide mouthwash did not reduce salivary viral titer at 10 minutes, 30 minutes, or 60 minutes compared to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

10 minutes after using a 0.05% CPC mouthwash, the salivary viral titer of SARS-CoV-2 decreased compared to placebo. 0.01% on-demand aqueous chlorine dioxide mouthwash and placebo had no significant difference in SARS-CoV-2 viral titers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT): jRCTs031230566.

Virucidal activity of a plant-oil-based oral rinse against respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Respiratory viruses have been reported to infect the salivary glands and the throat, which are potential reservoirs for virus replication and transmission. Therefore, strategies to reduce the amount of infective virus particles in the oral mucous membranes could lower the risk of transmission.

METHODS

The viral inactivation capacity of a plant-oil-based oral rinse (Salviathymol®) was evaluated in comparison with chlorhexidine (Chlorhexamed® FORTE) using a quantitative suspension test according to EN 14476.

FINDINGS

Salviathymol efficiently inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and two influenza strains to undetectable levels.

CONCLUSION

Salviathymol has potential as preventive measure to lower transmission of respiratory viruses.

Oral mouthwashes for asymptomatic to mildly symptomatic adults with COVID-19 and salivary viral load: a randomized, placebo-controlled, open-label clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Recent randomized clinical trials suggest that the effect of using cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouthwashes on the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load in COVID-19 patients has been inconsistent. Additionally, no clinical study has investigated the effectiveness of on-demand aqueous chlorine dioxide mouthwash against COVID-19.

METHODS

We performed a randomized, placebo-controlled, open-label clinical trial to assess for any effects of using mouthwash on the salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load among asymptomatic to mildly symptomatic adult COVID-19-positive patients. Patients were randomized to receive either 20 mL of 0.05% CPC, 10 mL of 0.01% on-demand aqueous chlorine dioxide, or 20 mL of placebo mouthwash (purified water) in a 1:1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was the cycle threshold (Ct) values employed for SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load estimation. We used linear mixed-effects models to assess for any effect of the mouthwashes on SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load.

RESULTS

Of a total of 96 eligible participants enrolled from November 7, 2022, to January 19, 2023, 90 were accepted for the primary analysis. The use of 0.05% CPC mouthwash was not shown to be superior to placebo in change from baseline salivary Ct value at 30 min (difference vs. placebo, 0.640; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.425 to 2.706; P = 0.543); 2 h (difference vs. placebo, 1.158; 95% CI, -0.797 to 3.112; P = 0.246); 4 h (difference vs. placebo, 1.283; 95% CI, -0.719 to 3.285; P = 0.209); 10 h (difference vs. placebo, 0.304; 95% CI, -1.777 to 2.385; P = 0.775); or 24 h (difference vs. placebo, 0.782; 95% CI, -1.195 to 2.759; P = 0.438). The use of 0.01% on-demand aqueous chlorine dioxide mouthwash was also not shown to be superior to placebo in change from baseline salivary Ct value at 30 min (difference vs. placebo, 0.905; 95% CI, -1.079 to 2.888; P = 0.371); 2 h (difference vs. placebo, 0.709; 95% CI, -1.275 to 2.693; P = 0.483); 4 h (difference vs. placebo, 0.220; 95% CI, -1.787 to 2.226; P = 0.830); 10 h (difference vs. placebo, 0.198; 95% CI, -1.901 to 2.296; P = 0.854); or 24 h (difference vs. placebo, 0.784; 95% CI, -1.236 to 2.804; P = 0.447).

CONCLUSIONS

In asymptomatic to mildly symptomatic adults with COVID-19, compared to placebo, the use of 0.05% CPC and 0.01% on-demand aqueous chlorine dioxide mouthwash did not lead to a significant reduction in SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load. Future studies of the efficacy of CPC and on-demand aqueous chlorine dioxide mouthwash on the viral viability of SARS-CoV-2 should be conducted using different specimen types and in multiple populations and settings.

Eligibility and efficacy of a CPC- and CHX-based antiviral mouthwash for the elimination of SARS-CoV-2 from the saliva: A randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial

AIM

This study aimed at investigating the efficacy of a 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride-0.05% chlorhexidine (CPC-CHX) mouthwash in reducing viral load in the saliva as compared with sterile water.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were asked to dispense 4 mL of saliva. Half the patients rinsed for 60 s with 15 mL CPC-CHX, and the remaining patients rinsed with sterile water (control). Four millilitres of saliva were collected after 15, 30 and 60 min after rinsing. Quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) specific for SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein were performed. For ELISA, the intact (representing the active virus) to total virus load (I/T) was calculated.

RESULTS

SARS-CoV-2 copy numbers/mL from RT-qPCR tended to decrease in the control group, whereas in the CPC-CHX group, an increase was observed after T30. However, mixed linear model analysis revealed no statistical differences between groups (p = .124), time points (p = .616) and vaccinated or non-vaccinated patients (p = .953). Similarly, no impact of group (p = .880), time points (p = .306) and vaccination (p = .711) was observed for I/T ratio values.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitation of this study, there was no evidence that the intervention reduced salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load during the course of 60 min. Therefore, commonly used pre-procedural rinsing might not be clinically relevant.

Optimal effective concentration combinations (OPECCs) for binary application of membrane-targeting antiseptics and TMPyP-mediated antimicrobial photodynamic therapy

The widespread occurrence of multi-resistant bacteria is a health problem of global dimension. Infections caused by multi-resistant pathogens are difficult to treat and often associated with high mortality. Therefore, new treatment strategies are of interest, such as the use of differently acting antibacterial concepts. One of these new concepts is the use of antiseptics in combination with the antibacterial photodynamic therapy (aPDT). Currently, no method has yet been established as a standard procedure for investigating combined effects and evaluating them in a generally valid and unambiguous manner. The focus of this study was on how cationic antiseptics benzalkonium chloride (BAC) and chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) behave in a combined application with aPDT using the photosensitizer TMPyP. For this purpose, BAC and CHX were applied in combination with the aPDT using TMPyP in non-lethal concentrations to the three bacteria Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and Enterococcus faecalis. The results of the combination experiments with sublethal concentrations of BAC or CHX with the aPDT showed that the binary application had a lethal effect. Irrespective of the bacteria, the reduction in concentrations in OPECC, compared to individual concentrations, was more than 50% for TMPyP, 23-40% for BAC, and 18-43% for CHX. Furthermore, the optimal effective concentration combinations (OPECCs) could be determined. The latter showed that the combined application allowed the reduction of both concentrations compared to the single application.

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.

Mouthwash Effects on the Oral Microbiome: Are They Good, Bad, or Balanced?

This narrative review describes the oral microbiome, and its role in oral health and disease, before considering the impact of commonly used over-the-counter (OTC) mouthwashes on oral bacteria, viruses, bacteriophages, and fungi that make up these microbial communities in different niches of the mouth. Whilst certain mouthwashes have proven antimicrobial actions and clinical effectiveness supported by robust evidence, this review reports more recent metagenomics evidence, suggesting that mouthwashes such as chlorhexidine may cause "dysbiosis," whereby certain species of bacteria are killed, leaving others, sometimes unwanted, to predominate. There is little known about the effects of mouthwashes on fungi and viruses in the context of the oral microbiome (virome) in vivo, despite evidence that they "kill" certain viral pathogens ex vivo. Evidence for mouthwashes, much like antibiotics, is also emerging with regards to antimicrobial resistance, and this should further be considered in the context of their widespread use by clinicians and patients. Therefore, considering the potential of currently available OTC mouthwashes to alter the oral microbiome, this article finally proposes that the ideal mouthwash, whilst combatting oral disease, should "balance" antimicrobial communities, especially those associated with health. Which antimicrobial mouthwash best fits this ideal remains uncertain.

Virucidal activity of oral, hand, and surface disinfectants against respiratory syncytial virus

BACKGROUND

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is known as a major cause of respiratory tract infection in adults and children. Human-to-human transmission occurs via droplets as well as direct and indirect contact (e.g. contaminated surfaces or hands of medical staff). Therefore, applicable hygiene measures and knowledge about viral inactivation are of utmost importance.

AIM

To elucidate the disinfection profile of RSV.

METHODS

The study evaluated the virucidal efficacy of oral rinses specifically designed for children, World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended hand-rub formulations, and ethanol, as well as 2-propanol against RSV in a quantitative suspension test (EN14476). The stability of RSV on stainless steel discs was assessed and its inactivation by different surface disinfectants (EN16777) investigated.

FINDINGS

All tested oral rinses except one reduced infectious viral titres to the lower limit of quantification. The two WHO-recommended hand-rub formulations as well as 30% ethanol and 2-propanol completely abolished the detection of infectious virus. Infectious RSV was recovered after several days on stainless steel discs. However, RSV was efficiently inactivated by all tested surface disinfectants based on alcohol, aldehyde, or hydrogen peroxide.

CONCLUSION

Oral rinses, all tested hand-rub formulations as well as surface inactivation reagents were sufficient for RSV inactivation in vitro.

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).

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.

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.

Preprocedural mouthwashes for infection control in dentistry-an update

OBJECTIVES

Aerosols and splatter are routinely generated in dental practice and can be contaminated by potentially harmful bacteria or viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, preprocedural mouthwashes containing antiseptic agents have been proposed as a potential measure for infection control in dental practice. This review article aims to summarize the clinical (and, if insufficient, preclinical) evidence on preprocedural mouthwashes containing antiseptic agents and to draw conclusions for dental practitioners.

METHODS

Literature on preprocedural mouthwashes for reduction of bacterial or viral load in dental aerosols was searched and summarized.

RESULTS

Preprocedural mouthwashes, particularly those containing chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX), cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), or essential oils (EO), can significantly reduce the bacterial load in dental aerosols. With respect to viruses such as HSV-1, there are too little clinical data to draw any clear recommendations. On the other hand, clinical data is consolidating that CPC-containing mouthwashes can temporarily reduce the intraoral viral load and infectivity in SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals. Nevertheless, potential risks and side effects due to regular antiseptic use such as ecological effects or adaptation of bacteria need to be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of preprocedural mouthwashes containing antiseptics can be recommended according to currently available data, but further studies are needed, particularly on the effects on other viruses besides SARS-CoV-2. When selecting a specific antiseptic, the biggest data basis currently exists for CHX, CPC, EO, or combinations thereof.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Preprocedural mouthwashes containing antiseptics can serve as part of a bundle of measures for protection of dental personnel despite some remaining ambiguities and in view of potential risks and side effects.

Efficacy of a Mouthwash Containing CHX and CPC in SARS-CoV-2-Positive Patients: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Soon after the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, preprocedural mouthwashes were recommended for temporarily reducing intraoral viral load and infectivity of individuals potentially infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in order to protect medical personnel. Particularly, the antiseptic cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) has shown virucidal effects against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. Therefore, the aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to investigate the efficacy of a commercially available mouthwash containing CPC and chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) at 0.05% each in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients as compared to a placebo mouthwash. Sixty-one patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with onset of symptoms within the last 72 h were included in this study. Oropharyngeal specimens were taken at baseline, whereupon patients had to gargle mouth and throat with 20 mL test or placebo (0.9% NaCl) mouthwash for 60 s. After 30 min, further oropharyngeal specimens were collected. Viral load was analyzed by quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, and infectivity of oropharyngeal specimens was analyzed by virus rescue in cell culture and quantified via determination of tissue culture infectious doses 50% (TCID₅₀). Data were analyzed nonparametrically (α = 0.05). Viral load slightly but significantly decreased upon gargling in the test group (P = 0.0435) but not in the placebo group. Viral infectivity as measured by TCID₅₀ also significantly decreased in the test group (P = 0.0313), whereas there was no significant effect but a trend in the placebo group. Furthermore, it was found that the specimens from patients with a vaccine booster exhibited significantly lower infectivity at baseline as compared to those without vaccine booster (P = 0.0231). This study indicates that a preprocedural mouthwash containing CPC and CHX could slightly but significantly reduce the viral load and infectivity in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. Further studies are needed to corroborate these results and investigate whether the observed reductions in viral load and infectivity could translate into clinically useful effects in reducing COVID-19 transmission (German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00027812).

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020. We include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers in October 2022, with backwards and forwards citation analysis on the new studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, glasses, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included 12 trials (10 cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low-certainty evidence).  One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.  Hand hygiene compared to control Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta-analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low-certainty evidence), and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low-certainty evidence). We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

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.

Disinfection and decontamination in the context of SARS-CoV-2-specific data

Given the high transmissibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) as witnessed early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, concerns arose with the existing methods for virus disinfection and decontamination. The need for SARS-CoV-2-specific data stimulated considerable research in this regard. Overall, SARS-CoV-2 is practically and equally susceptible to approaches for disinfection and decontamination that have been previously found for other human or animal coronaviruses. The latter have included techniques utilizing temperature modulation, pH extremes, irradiation, and chemical treatments. These physicochemical methods are a necessary adjunct to other prevention strategies, given the environmental and patient surface ubiquity of the virus. Classic studies of disinfection have also allowed for extrapolation to the eradication of the virus on human mucosal surfaces by some chemical means. Despite considerable laboratory study, practical field assessments are generally lacking and need to be encouraged to confirm the correlation of interventions with viral eradication and infection prevention. Transparency in the constitution and use of any method or chemical is also essential to furthering practical applications.

Ecological Effects of Daily Antiseptic Treatment on Microbial Composition of Saliva-Grown Microcosm Biofilms and Selection of Resistant Phenotypes

Antiseptics are widely used in dental practice and included in numerous over-the-counter oral care products. However, the effects of routine antiseptic use on microbial composition of oral biofilms and on the emergence of resistant phenotypes remain unclear. Microcosm biofilms were inoculated from saliva samples of four donors and cultured in the Amsterdam Active Attachment biofilm model for 3 days. Then, they were treated two times daily with chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) or cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) for a period of 7 days. Ecological changes upon these multiple antiseptic treatments were evaluated by semiconductor-based sequencing of bacterial 16S rRNA genes and identification of amplicon sequence variants (ASVs). Furthermore, culture-based approaches were used for colony-forming units (CFU) assay, identification of antiseptic-resistant phenotypes using an agar dilution method, and evaluation of their antibiotic susceptibilities. Both CHX and CPC showed only slight effects on CFU and could not inhibit biofilm growth despite the two times daily treatment for 7 days. Both antiseptics showed significant ecological effects on the microbial compositions of the surviving microbiota, whereby CHX led to enrichment of rather caries-associated saccharolytic taxa and CPC led to enrichment of rather gingivitis-associated proteolytic taxa. Antiseptic-resistant phenotypes were isolated on antiseptic-containing agar plates, which also exhibited phenotypic resistance to various antibiotics. Our results highlight the need for further research into potential detrimental effects of antiseptics on the microbial composition of oral biofilms and on the spread of antimicrobial resistance in the context of their frequent use in oral healthcare.

Phenotypic Adaptation to Antiseptics and Effects on Biofilm Formation Capacity and Antibiotic Resistance in Clinical Isolates of Early Colonizers in Dental Plaque

Despite the wide-spread use of antiseptics in dental practice and oral care products, there is little public awareness of potential risks associated with antiseptic resistance and potentially concomitant cross-resistance. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate potential phenotypic adaptation in 177 clinical isolates of early colonizers of dental plaque (Streptococcus, Actinomyces, Rothia and Veillonella spp.) upon repeated exposure to subinhibitory concentrations of chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) or cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) over 10 passages using a modified microdilution method. Stability of phenotypic adaptation was re-evaluated after culture in antiseptic-free nutrient broth for 24 or 72 h. Strains showing 8-fold minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC)-increase were further examined regarding their biofilm formation capacity, phenotypic antibiotic resistance and presence of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs). Eight-fold MIC-increases to CHX were detected in four Streptococcus isolates. These strains mostly exhibited significantly increased biofilm formation capacity compared to their respective wild-type strains. Phenotypic antibiotic resistance was detected to tetracycline and erythromycin, consistent with the detected ARGs. In conclusion, this study shows that clinical isolates of early colonizers of dental plaque can phenotypically adapt toward antiseptics such as CHX upon repeated exposure. The underlying mechanisms at genomic and transcriptomic levels need to be investigated in future studies.