Search

ABSTRACTCurrent 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.

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..

Abstract Most public health measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic are based on preventing the pathogen spread, and the use of oral antiseptics has been proposed as a strategy to reduce transmission risk. The aim of this manuscript is to test the efficacy of mouthwashes to reduce salivary viral load in vivo. This is a multi-centre, blinded, parallel-group, placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial that tests the effect of four mouthwashes (cetylpyridinium chloride, chlorhexidine, povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide) in SARS-CoV-2 salivary load measured by qPCR at baseline and 30, 60 and 120 min after the mouthrinse. A fifth group of patients used distilled water mouthrinse as a control. Eighty-four participants were recruited and divided into 12–15 per group. There were no statistically significant changes in salivary viral load after the use of the different mouthwashes. Although oral antiseptics have shown virucidal effects in vitro, our data show that salivary viral load in COVID-19 patients was not affected by the tested treatments. This could reflect that those mouthwashes are not effective in vivo, or that viral particles are not infective but viral RNA is still detected by PCR. Viral infectivity studies after the use of mouthwashes are therefore required. ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04707742 ; Identifier: NCT04707742)