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.

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.

Cell death and barrier disruption by clinically used iodine concentrations.

Povidone-iodine (PVP-I) inactivates a broad range of pathogens. Despite its widespread use over decades, the safety of PVP-I remains controversial. Its extended use in the current SARS-CoV-2 virus pandemic urges the need to clarify safety features of PVP-I on a cellular level. Our investigation in epithelial, mesothelial, endothelial, and innate immune cells revealed that the toxicity of PVP-I is caused by diatomic iodine (I2), which is rapidly released from PVP-I to fuel organic halogenation with fast first-order kinetics. Eukaryotic toxicity manifests at below clinically used concentrations with a threshold of 0.1% PVP-I (wt/vol), equalling 1 mM of total available I2 Above this threshold, membrane disruption, loss of mitochondrial membrane potential, and abolition of oxidative phosphorylation induce a rapid form of cell death we propose to term iodoptosis. Furthermore, PVP-I attacks lipid rafts, leading to the failure of tight junctions and thereby compromising the barrier functions of surface-lining cells. Thus, the therapeutic window of PVP-I is considerably narrower than commonly believed. Our findings urge the reappraisal of PVP-I in clinical practice to avert unwarranted toxicity whilst safeguarding its benefits.

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.

Efficacy of antiseptic mouthrinses against SARS-CoV-2: A prospective randomized placebo-controlled pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus-disease-19 (COVID-19) continues to affect millions of individuals worldwide. Antiviral activity of mouthrinses remains an important research area as the oral cavity is a site of SARS-CoV-2 initial replication. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of three different mouthrinses in reducing the oral/oropharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 viral load. METHODS: Adult patients, hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 were recruited for the study. Oral/oropharyngeal baseline SARS-CoV-2 samples were collected and analyzed by Real-Time-PCR. Subsequently, patients were instructed to rinse with 1 % hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), 0.12 % chlorhexidine (CHX), 1 % povidone­iodine (PVP-I) or Sodium Chloride 0.9 % (placebo). Viral loads were measured right after (T1), and at 45 min (T2) from the rinse. RESULTS: In the PVP-I 1 % group, 5/8 (62.5 %) patients at T1, and 3/8 (37.5 %) patients at T2, SARS-CoV-2 was not detectable in the swab specimens. In the H2O2 1 % group, 2/11 (18.2 %) patients at T1, and 2/11 (18.2 %) other patients at T2 showed no SARS-CoV-2 loads. One (12.5 %) patient in the CHX 0.12 % group showed SARS-CoV-2 negativity at T2. One (9.1 %) patient at T1, and another (9.1 %) patient at T2 showed no SARS-CoV-2 loads in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Oral SARS-CoV-2 loads were reduced at T1 in the PVP-I 1 % and H2O2 1 % groups. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: PVP-I 1 % was the most effective rinse especially in patients with low viral copy numbers at baseline.

Effect of oral antiseptics in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infectivity: evidence from a randomized double-blind clinical trial.

ABSTRACTBackground: 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..

Efficacy of Combining an Extraoral High-Volume Evacuator with Preprocedural Mouth Rinsing in Reducing Aerosol Contamination Produced by Ultrasonic Scaling.

The coronavirus disease pandemic has afforded dental professionals an opportunity to reconsider infection control during treatment. We investigated the efficacy of combining extraoral high-volume evacuators (eHVEs) with preprocedural mouth rinsing in reducing aerosol contamination by ultrasonic scalers. A double-masked, two-group, crossover randomized clinical trial was conducted over eight weeks. A total of 10 healthy subjects were divided into two groups; they received 0.5% povidone-iodine (PI), essential oil (EO), or water as preprocedural rinse. Aerosols produced during ultrasonic scaling were collected from the chest area (PC), dentist's mask, dentist's chest area (DC), bracket table, and assistant's area. Bacterial contamination was assessed using colony counting and adenosine triphosphate assays. With the eHVE 10 cm away from the mouth, bacterial contamination by aerosols was negligible. With the eHVE 20 cm away, more dental aerosols containing bacteria were detected at the DC and PC. Mouth rinsing decreased viable bacterial count by 31-38% (PI) and 22-33% (EO), compared with no rinsing. The eHVE prevents bacterial contamination when close to the patient's mouth. Preprocedural mouth rinsing can reduce bacterial contamination where the eHVE is positioned away from the mouth, depending on the procedure. Combining an eHVE with preprocedural mouth rinsing can reduce bacterial contamination in dental offices.

Low-concentration povidone-iodine for the prevention of intraocular infections in ophthalmic surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Endophthamitis following intraocular surgery is rare using current antiseptic techniques, such as single application of 5% povidone-iodine to the ocular surface and adjuvant topical or intracameral antibiotics. Challenges remain, however, including increased multidrug-resistant bacterial endophthalmitis, increased fungal endophthalmitis, and the low but nonzero endophthalmitis rate attributable to the typical bacteria that colonize the ocular surface. RECENT FINDINGS: Povidone-iodine has a wide spectrum of activity, including activity against novel pathogens, such as SARS-CoV-2. Povidone-iodine alternatives, such as hypochlorous acid can have significantly less efficacy in vitro against endophthalmitis isolates. Repetitive application of dilute povidone-iodine has an excellent safety profile and strong evidence base for efficacy. SUMMARY: Povidone-iodine is widely available, inexpensive, and commonly used by ophthalmologists. The repetitive application of dilute povidone-iodine is a well studied, well tolerated, and efficacious way to transiently sterilize the ocular surface during intraocular surgery. Additional benefits include activity against multidrug-resistant bacteria, fungi, and lack of inducible resistance.

Tea tree oil for Demodex blepharitis.

BACKGROUND: Demodex blepharitis is a chronic condition commonly associated with recalcitrant dry eye symptoms though many people with Demodex mites are asymptomatic. The primary cause of this condition in humans is two types of Demodex mites: Demodex folliculorum and Demodex brevis. There are varying reports of the prevalence of Demodex blepharitis among adults, and it affects both men and women equally. While Demodex mites are commonly treated with tea tree oil, the effectiveness of tea tree oil for treating Demodex blepharitis is not well documented. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of tea tree oil on ocular Demodex infestation in people with Demodex blepharitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; LILACS; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the databases on 18 June 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment with tea tree oil (or its components) versus another treatment or no treatment for people with Demodex blepharitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts and then full text of records to determine their eligibility. The review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using Covidence. A third review author resolved any conflicts at all stages. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (1124 eyes of 562 participants; 17 to 281 participants per study) from the US, Korea, China, Australia, Ireland, and Turkey. The RCTs compared some formulation of tea tree oil to another treatment or no treatment. Included participants were both men and women, ranging from 39 to 55 years of age. All RCTs were assessed at unclear or high risk of bias in one or more domains. We also identified two RCTs that are ongoing or awaiting publications. Data from three RCTs that reported a short-term mean change in the number of Demodex mites per eight eyelashes contributed to a meta-analysis. We are uncertain about the mean reduction for the groups that received the tea tree oil intervention (mean difference [MD] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24 to 1.16) at four to six weeks as compared to other interventions. Only one RCT reported data for long-term changes, which found that the group that received intense pulse light as the treatment had complete eradication of Demodex mites at three months. We graded the certainty of the evidence for this outcome as very low. Three RCTs reported no evidence of a difference for participant reported symptoms measured on the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) between the tea tree oil group and the group receiving other forms of intervention. Mean differences in these studies ranged from -10.54 (95% CI - 24.19, 3.11) to 3.40 (95% CI -0.70 7.50). We did not conduct a meta-analysis for this outcome given substantial statistical heterogeneity and graded the certainty of the evidence as low. One RCT provided information concerning visual acuity but did not provide sufficient data for between-group comparisons. The authors noted that mean habitual LogMAR visual acuity for all study participants improved post-treatment (mean LogMAR 1.16, standard deviation 0.26 at 4 weeks). We graded the certainty of evidence for this outcome as low. No RCTs provided data on mean change in number of cylindrical dandruff or the proportion of participants experiencing conjunctival injection or experiencing meibomian gland dysfunction. Three RCTs provided information on adverse events. One reported no adverse events. The other two described a total of six participants randomized to treatment with tea tree oil who experienced ocular irritation or discomfort that resolved with re-educating the patient on application techniques and continuing use of the tea tree oil. We graded the certainty of the evidence for this outcome as very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review suggests that there is uncertainty related to the effectiveness of 5% to 50% tea tree oil for the short-term treatment of Demodex blepharitis; however, if used, lower concentrations may be preferable in the eye care arena to avoid induced ocular irritation. Future studies should be better controlled, assess outcomes at long term (e.g. 10 to 12 weeks or beyond), account for patient compliance, and study the effects of different tea tree oil concentrations.

What COVID-19 taught us: New opportunities and pathways from telemedicine and novel antiseptics in wound healing.

The COVID-19 pandemic deeply impacted the capacity of the health systems to maintain preventive and curative services, especially for the most vulnerable populations. During the pandemic, the wound healing centres in Italy assisted a significant reduction of the frequency of their hospital admission, since only urgencies, such as severe infections or wound haemorrhagic complications, were allowed to the hospital. The aim of this multidisciplinary work is to highlight the importance of a new pathway of wound care with patient-based therapeutic approach, tailored treatments based on the characteristics of the wound and fast tracks focused on the outpatient management, reserving hospital assessment only for patients with complicated or complex wounds. This analysis highlights the point that patients with chronic wounds need to be critically evaluated in order to find the best and most appropriate care pathway, which should vary according to the patient and, especially, to the characteristics of the wound. Moreover, the most adequate topic antiseptic should be started as soon as possible. An appropriate and correct management of the wound care will allow to link the knowledge based on years of clinical practice with the new challenges and the need to visit patients remotely, when possible.

Review of the use of nasal and oral antiseptics during a global pandemic.

A review of nasal sprays and gargles with antiviral properties suggests that a number of commonly used antiseptics including povidone-iodine, Listerine®, iota-carrageenan and chlorhexidine should be studied in clinical trials to mitigate both the progression and transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Several of these antiseptics have demonstrated the ability to cut the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 by 3-4 log10 in 15-30 s in vitro. In addition, hypertonic saline targets viral replication by increasing hypochlorous acid inside the cell. A number of clinical trials are in process to study these interventions both for prevention of transmission, prophylaxis after exposure, and to diminish progression by reduction of viral load in the early stages of infection.

Topical Ocular Povidone-Iodine as an Adjunctive Preventative Practice in the Era of COVID-19.

ABSTRACT: Ophthalmologists and patients have an inherent increased risk for transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The human ocular surface expresses receptors and enzymes facilitating transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Personal protective equipment alone provides incomplete protection. Adjunctive topical ocular, nasal, and oral antisepsis with povidone iodine bolsters personal protective equipment in prevention of provider-patient transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in ophthalmology.

Could antiseptic gargling prevent COVID-19?

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected more than 8 million people globally since its discovery in December 2019. For COVID-19 prevention, the World Health Organization recommended regular handwashing with soap, cough etiquette, mask wearing and social distancing. However, COVID-19 is rather difficult to contain because of its high transmissibility property. Gargling is effective for reducing infection in the respiratory tract. Most antiseptic gargles have antimicrobial properties against common respiratory pathogens. No published study on the effectiveness of antiseptic gargling among COVID-19 patients has been available to date. This article reviewed available literature on methods and solutions available for gargling and their effect on respiratory tract infections.

Efficacy of commercial mouth-rinses on SARS-CoV-2 viral load in saliva: randomized control trial in Singapore.

PURPOSE: One of the key approaches to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission would be to reduce the titres of SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva of infected COVID-19 patients. This is particularly important in high-risk procedures like dental treatment. The present randomized control trial evaluated the efficacy of three commercial mouth-rinse viz. povidone-iodine (PI), chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) and cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), in reducing the salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load in COVID-19 patients compared with water. METHODS: A total of 36 SARS-CoV-2-positive patients were recruited, of which 16 patients were randomly assigned to four groups-PI group (n = 4), CHX group (n = 6), CPC group (n = 4) and water as control group (n = 2). Saliva samples were collected from all patients at baseline and at 5 min, 3 h and 6 h post-application of mouth-rinses/water. The samples were subjected to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR analysis. RESULTS: Comparison of salivary Ct values of patients within each group of PI, CHX, CPC and water at 5 min, 3 h and 6 h time points did not show any significant differences. However, when the Ct value fold change of each of the mouth-rinse group patients were compared with the fold change of water group patients at the respective time points, a significant increase was observed in the CPC group patients at 5 min and 6 h and in the PI group patients at 6 h. CONCLUSION: The effect of decreasing salivary load with CPC and PI mouth-rinsing was observed to be sustained at 6 h time point. Within the limitation of the current study, as number of the samples analyzed, the use of CPC and PI formulated that commercial mouth-rinses may be useful as a pre-procedural rinse to help reduce the transmission of COVID-19. ISRCTN (ISRCTN95933274), 09/09/20, retrospectively registered.