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

Álvaro Sánchez Barrueco, María Victoria Mateos-Moreno, Yolanda Martínez-Beneyto, Elisa García-Vázquez, Alfonso Campos González, Javier Zapardiel Ferrero, Abel Bogoya Castaño, Ignacio Alcalá Rueda, José Miguel Villacampa Aubá, Carlos Cenjor Español, Laura Moreno-Parrado, Verónica Ausina-Márquez, Sandra García-Esteban, Alejandro Artacho, F Xavier López-Labrador, Alex Mira, María D Ferrer, Álvaro Sánchez Barrueco, María Victoria Mateos-Moreno, Yolanda Martínez-Beneyto, Elisa García-Vázquez, Alfonso Campos González, Javier Zapardiel Ferrero, Abel Bogoya Castaño, Ignacio Alcalá Rueda, José Miguel Villacampa Aubá, Carlos Cenjor Español, Laura Moreno-Parrado, Verónica Ausina-Márquez, Sandra García-Esteban, Alejandro Artacho, F Xavier López-Labrador, Alex Mira, María D Ferrer

Abstract

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..

Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; infectivity; mouthwash; saliva.

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Trial profile. Diagram showing the number of patients enrolled and randomized, excluded for not having sufficient saliva volume or negative to RT-qPCR in the baseline samples, and the total evaluated patients in which total viral load (orange square) and viable (infective) viral load (blue square) were determined. The numbers of inpatients assigned to each of the different treatment groups are represented inside boxes of different colours. PVP-I (povidone-iodine) in blue, Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) in red, CPC (cetylpyridinium chloride) in purple, CHX (chlorhexidine) in orange, and Placebo (distilled water) in green. t1: basal time point. a Number of patients excluded from the cell culture assays for low salivary viral load (Ct value > 35 in the RT-qPCRs in the baseline saliva sample). b Number of patients without detectable viral load after cell culture in the baseline saliva sample.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Positive viral culture as a function of salivary viral load. Bars represent the percentage of SARS-CoV-2 positive viral culture of in saliva samples from COVID-19 inpatients. Saliva samples were incubated in Vero-E6 cells for 1 h to allow viral adsorption and then replaced by fresh culture medium. At day 5 post-infection, viral replication was measured by CPE reading and SARS-CoV-2 RNA quantitation in the culture supernatant. A culture was considered positive by RT-qPCR Ct values 3 SARS-CoV-2 copies per mL). The number of patients in each Ct range was: n = 3 in Ct range 15-19, n = 10 in Ct ranges 20–24 and 29–31, n = 9 in Ct range 25–28 and n = 8 in Ct range 32–34.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Salivary viral loads. Box plots represent the median values of viral loads in log copies per mL of saliva measured by RT-qPCR for basal saliva (t1), 30 min (t2) and one hour (t3) after the oral rinse for each treatment group: PVP-I (povidone-iodine), Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), CPC (cetylpyridinium chloride), CHX (chlorhexidine) and PLACEBO (distilled water). The dotted lines join the values for the same patient through time. Different y-axis scales are used, for clarity. * Wilcoxon paired test (p value = .048).
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
SARS-CoV-2 genome copies/mL in supernatants from day 5 virus culture in Vero-E6 cells (median values in log copies per mL of culture supernatant measured by RT-qPCR). Box plots are represented for each treatment group (PVP-I (povidone-iodine), Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), CPC (cetylpyridinium chloride), CHX (chlorhexidine) and PLACEBO (distilled water)) at each time point (t1 for basal and t2 and t3 for 30 and 60 min after the mouthwash, respectively). The values for each patient are linked over time by dotted lines. Different y-axis scales are used, for clarity. * Wilcoxon paired test (p value = .015).
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Outline of the clinical trial protocol. From top to bottom, the upper left box represents: the number of hospitals involved in this multicenter study, the number of enrolled and randomized inpatients and the registry of their clinical variables. On the right, the timeline protocol for collecting the three non-stimulated saliva samples is illustrated, before (1) and 30 min and one hour after (2 and 3, respectively) the one-minute oral rinse with the respective mouthwash. All samples were taken to the laboratory where each saliva sample was divided into two aliquots, one to determine the viral load per mL of saliva, by means of its RNA extraction and subsequent RT-qPCR (reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction), and the other to assess viral infectivity in Vero-E6 cell culture, by detection of cytopathic effect (CPE) and viral replication (RNA extraction and RT-qPCR of the virus culture supernatant).

References

    1. Worldometer . Coronavirus Cases. 2022; [cited May 27 2022]. Available from: .
    1. Whitworth J. COVID-19: a fast evolving pandemic. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2020;114(4):241–248.
    1. Chan JF, Yuan S, Kok KH, et al. . A familial cluster of pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus indicating person-to-person transmission: a study of a family cluster. Lancet. 2020;395(10223):514–523.
    1. To KK, Tsang OT, Yip CC, et al. . Consistent detection of 2019 novel coronavirus in saliva. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(15):841–843.
    1. Biber A, Lev D, Mandelboim M, et al. . The role of mouthwash sampling in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021;40(10):2199–2206.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – CDC . (2020). Guidance for dental settings: interim infection prevention and control guidance for dental settings during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic; [Cited 2022 Jan 18]. Available from: .
    1. Mateos-Moreno MV, Mira A, Ausina-Marquez V, et al. . Oral antiseptics against coronavirus: in-vitro and clinical evidence. J Hosp Infect. 2021;113:30–43.
    1. Xu C, Wang A, Hoskin ER, et al. . Differential effects of antiseptic mouth rinses on SARS-CoV-2 infectivity in vitro. Pathogens. 2021. Mar 1;10(3):272.
    1. Munoz-Basagoiti J, Perez-Zsolt D, Leon R, et al. . Mouthwashes with CPC reduce the infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 variants in vitro. J Dent Res. 2021;100(11):1265–1272.
    1. Koch-Heier J, Hoffmann H, Schindler M, et al. . Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 through treatment with the mouth rinsing solutions ViruProX® and BacterX® Pro. Microorganisms. 2021. Mar 3;9(3):521.
    1. Davies K, Buczkowski H, Welch SR, et al. . Effective in vitro inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 by commercially available mouthwashes. J Gen Virol. 2021. Apr;102(4):001578.
    1. Tadakamadla J, Boccalari E, Rathore V, et al. . In vitro studies evaluating the efficacy of mouth rinses on sars-Cov-2: A systematic review. J Infect Public Health. 2021;14(9):1179–1185.
    1. Komine A, Yamaguchi E, Okamoto N, et al. . Virucidal activity of oral care products against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Med Pathol. 2021;33(4):475–477.
    1. Wang Y, Wu Y, Wang Q, et al. . Virucidal effect of povidone-iodine against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. J Int Med Res. 2021. Dec;49(12):3000605211063695.
    1. Seneviratne CJ, Balan P, Ko KKK, et al. . Efficacy of commercial mouth-rinses on SARS-CoV-2 viral load in saliva: randomized control trial in Singapore. Infection. 2021;49(2):305–311.
    1. Martínez Lamas L, Diz Dios P, Pérez Rodríguez MT, et al. . Is povidone iodine mouthwash effective against SARS-CoV-2? First in vivo tests. Oral Dis. 2022. Apr;28(Suppl 1):908–911.
    1. Gottsauner MJ, Michaelides I, Schmidt B, et al. . A prospective clinical pilot study on the effects of a hydrogen peroxide mouthrinse on the intraoral viral load of SARS-CoV-2. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(10):3707–3713.
    1. Yoon JG, Yoon J, Song JY, et al. . Clinical significance of a high SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the saliva. J Korean Med Sci. 2020. May 25;35(20):e195.
    1. Ferrer MD, Barrueco ÁS, Martinez-Beneyto Y, et al. . Clinical evaluation of antiseptic mouth rinses to reduce salivary load of SARS-CoV-2. Sci Rep. 2021. Dec 22;11(1):24392.
    1. La Scola B, Le Bideau M, Andreani J, et al. . Viral RNA load as determined by cell culture as a management tool for discharge of SARS-CoV-2 patients from infectious disease wards. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020;39(6):1059–1061.
    1. Pelletier JS, Tessema B, Frank S, et al. . Efficacy of povidone-iodine nasal and oral antiseptic preparations against severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Ear Nose Throat J. 2021;100(2_suppl):192S–196S.
    1. To KK, Tsang OT, Leung WS, et al. . Temporal profiles of viral load in posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples and serum antibody responses during infection by SARS-CoV-2: an observational cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(5):565–574.
    1. Deana NF, Seiffert A, Aravena-Rivas Y, et al. . Recommendations for safe dental care: A Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021. Sep 24;18(19):10059.
    1. Kariwa H, Fujii N, Takashima I.. Inactivation of SARS coronavirus by means of povidone-iodine, physical conditions and chemical reagents. Dermatology. 2006;212(Suppl 1):119–123.
    1. Meyers C, Robison R, Milici J, et al. . Lowering the transmission and spread of human coronavirus. J Med Virol. 2021;93(3):1605–1612.
    1. Steinhauer K, Meister TL, Todt D, et al. . Comparison of the in-vitro efficacy of different mouthwash solutions targeting SARS-CoV-2 based on the European standard EN 14476. J Hosp Infect. 2021;111:180–183.
    1. Sreebny LM. Saliva in health and disease: an appraisal and update. Int Dent J. 2000;50(3):140–161.
    1. Schurmann M, Aljubeh M, Tiemann C, et al. . Mouthrinses against SARS-CoV-2: anti-inflammatory effectivity and a clinical pilot study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;278(12):5059–5067.
    1. Huang YH, Huang JT.. Use of chlorhexidine to eradicate oropharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 patients. J Med Virol. 2021;93(7):4370–4373.
    1. Costa DD, Brites C, Vaz SN, et al. . Chlorhexidine mouthwash reduces the salivary viral load of SARS-CoV-2: A randomized clinical trial. Oral Dis. 2021. Nov 26. DOI:10.1111/odi.14086
    1. Eduardo FP, Corrêa L, Heller D, et al. . Salivary SARS-CoV-2 load reduction with mouthwash use: A randomized pilot clinical trial. Heliyon. 2021. Jun;7(6):e07346.
    1. Elzein R, Abdel-Sater F, Fakhreddine S, et al. . In vivo evaluation of the virucidal efficacy of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine mouthwashes against salivary SARS-CoV-2. A randomized-controlled clinical trial. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2021. Sep;21(3):101584.
    1. Peng X, Xu X, Li Y, et al. . Transmission routes of 2019-nCoV and controls in dental practice. Int J Oral Sci. 2020 Mar 3;12(1):9.
    1. Kowalski LP, Sanabria A, Ridge JA, et al. . COVID-19 pandemic: effects and evidence-based recommendations for otolaryngology and head and neck surgery practice. Head Neck. 2020;42(6):1259–1267.
    1. Mendoza JPI M, Ubillus BP T, Bolivar GT S, et al. . Antiviral effect of mouthwashes against SARS-COV-2: A systematic review. Saudi Dent J. 2022;34(3):167–193.
    1. Schutz D, Conzelmann C, Fois G, et al. . Carrageenan-containing over-the-counter nasal and oral sprays inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection of airway epithelial cultures. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2021;320(5):L750–L7L6.
    1. R Core Team . R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa