The role of the oral cavity in SARS-CoV-2- and other viral infections.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to review the role of the oral cavity in SARS-CoV-2- and other viral upper respiratory tract infections. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data reviewed in the text have been researched online and also reflect personal expertise. RESULTS: Numerous respiratory and other viruses replicate in the oral cavity and are transmitted via aerosols (< 5 µm) and droplets (> 5 µm). SARS-CoV-2 replication has been documented in the upper airways as well as in oral mucosa and salivary glands. These sites are also virus reservoirs that can infect other organs, e.g., the lungs and gastrointestinal tract, as well as other individuals. Laboratory diagnosis of viruses in the oral cavity and upper airways focuses on real-time PCR; antigen tests are less sensitive. For screening and monitoring infections, nasopharyngeal and oral swabs are tested; saliva is a good and more comfortable alternative. Physical means like social distancing or masks have been proven successful to reduce the risk of infection. Both wet-lab and clinical studies confirm that mouth rinses are effective against SARS-CoV-2 and other viruses. Antiviral mouth rinses can inactivate all viruses that replicate in the oral cavity. CONCLUSIONS: The oral cavity plays an important role in viral infections of the upper respiratory tract: it serves as a portal of entry, a site of replication, and a source of infection by droplets and aerosols. Physical means but also antiviral mouth rinses can help reduce the spread of viruses and contribute to infection control.

Evaluating the effect of gargling with hydrogen peroxide and povidone-iodine on salivary viral load of SARS-CoV-2: A pilot randomized clinical trial.

Background and Aim: This study evaluates the salivary viral load of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in hospitalized patients and outpatients before and after gargling with 1% hydrogen peroxide and 0.25% povidone-iodine in comparison with normal saline. Patients and Methods: This clinical trial was conducted on 120 participants with laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in two groups: outpatients (n = 60) and hospitalized patients (n = 60). In each group, the patients were randomly divided into three subgroups of 20 based on their given mouthwash for gargling (hydrogen peroxide, povidone-iodine, or normal saline). Two saliva samples were taken from each patient: the first one before gargling and the second one 10 minutes after gargling 10 ml of the respected mouthwashes for 30 seconds. The TaqMan real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of SARS-CoV-2 was used to measure the viral load. Results: Saliva samples from 46% of patients were positive for coronavirus before gargling the mouthwashes. The percentage of patients with an initial positive saliva sample was significantly higher in the outpatient group (83.3%) than in the hospitalized group (5.4%) (P = 0.01). According to the findings, gargling any mouthwash similar to saline did not reduce the viral load (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The saliva of COVID-19 patients in the initial stage of the disease was more likely to contain SARS-CoV-2 than the saliva of the hospitalized patients. Gargling hydrogen peroxide or povidone-iodine did not reduce the salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load.

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.

Development of a novel, entirely herbal-based mouthwash effective against common oral bacteria and SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Parallel to the growth of the oral healthcare market, there is a constantly increasing demand for natural products as well. Many customers prefer products that contain fewer toxic agents, therefore providing an environmentally friendly solution with the benefit of smaller risk to the user. Medieval and early modern medicinal knowledge might be useful when looking for natural, herbal-based components to develop modern products. Along with these considerations we created, tested, and compared an entirely natural mouthwash, named Herba Dei. METHODS: The manufacturing procedure was standardized, and the created tincture was evaluated by GC/MS analysis for active compounds, experimentally tested in cell-based cytotoxicity, salivary protein integrity, cell-free antioxidant activity, anti-bacterial and anti-viral assays, and compared with three market-leading mouthwashes. RESULTS: Our tincture did not show significant damage in the cytotoxicity assays to keratinocyte and Vero E6 cells and did not disrupt the low molecular weight salivary proteins. Its radical scavenging capacity surpassed that of two tested, partly natural, and synthetic mouthwashes, while its antibacterial activity was comparable to the tested products, or higher in the bacterial aerobic respiratory assay. The active compounds responsible for the effects include naturally occurring phenylpropanoids, terpenes, and terpenoids. Our mouthwash proved to be effective in vitro in lowering the copy number of SARS-CoV-2 in circumstances mimicking the salivary environment. CONCLUSIONS: The developed product might be a useful tool to impede the transmission and spread of SARS-CoV-2 in interpersonal contact and aerosol-generating conditions. Our mouthwash can help reduce the oral bacterial flora and has an antioxidant activity that facilitates wound healing and prevents adverse effects of smoke in the oral cavity.

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.

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.

The impact of gingivitis reduction on lung function: a randomized trial under intensified oral hygiene.

BACKGROUND: Periodontal disease and lung function impairment were found to be associated with low-grade systemic or local inflammation, and it might be that gingival/periodontal inflammation triggers lung function due to systemic inflammation or the transfer of oral bacteria or its components to the lung. A recent observational study in non-smoking subjects showed that lung volumes and flow rates were significantly reduced by 71-185 ml for severe gingivitis regardless of the adjustment for potential confounders. The result did not show any confounding by smoking, and the association between gingivitis and lower lung function was not modified by systemic inflammation. The designed interventional trial primarily aims to test the hypothesis that gingivitis reduction by optimized daily oral hygiene, professional tooth cleaning and antibacterial chlorhexidine (CHX)-containing mouth rinse improves lung function in terms of forced vital capacity (FVC) by at least 2%. The secondary objective will test the hypothesis that gingivitis reduction improves forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and forced expiratory flow at 25-75% of the pulmonary volume (FEF25-75) by at least 2%. Furthermore, the influence of the oral microbiome will be taken into account. METHODS: The study has to include 120 non-smoking subjects aged between 18 and 30 years with biofilm-induced gingivitis. The chosen "waiting control group design" will compare the immediate intervention group with the delayed intervention group, which serves as a control group. Dental and gingival status, lung function and oral microbiome will be recorded. The intensified preventive intervention-professional tooth cleaning, one-stage full-mouth disinfection with CHX and safeguarding an optimal daily oral hygiene by each subject-cannot be blinded, but the outcome measurement in terms of lung function tests is blind. DISCUSSION: This proposed multidisciplinary study has several strengths. Only one previous intervention study with patients with severe periodontitis (mostly smokers) has been performed. It is novel to include non-smoking subjects with mild and potentially reversible oral inflammation. Furthermore, this research is innovative, because it includes evidence-based interventions for gingivitis reduction, standardized measures of the outcome on lung function and oral microbiome and combines expertise from dentistry, lung physiology, oral microbiology and epidemiology/statistical modelling. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00028176. Registered on February 2022.

Hypochlorous acid inactivates oral pathogens and a SARS-CoV-2-surrogate.

BACKGROUND: Droplets and aerosols produced during dental procedures are a risk factor for microbial and viral transmission. Unlike sodium hypochlorite, hypochlorous acid (HOCl) is nontoxic to tissues but still exhibits broad microbicidal effect. HOCl solution may be applicable as a supplement to water and/or mouthwash. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of HOCl solution on common human oral pathogens and a SARS-CoV-2 surrogate MHV A59 virus, considering the dental practice environment. METHODS: HOCl was generated by electrolysis of 3% hydrochloric acid. The effect of HOCl on human oral pathogens, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Prevotella intermedia, Streptococcus intermedius, Parvimonas micra, and MHV A59 virus was studied from four perspectives: concentration; volume; presence of saliva; and storage. HOCl solution in different conditions was utilized in bactericidal and virucidal assays, and the minimum inhibitory volume ratio that is required to completely inhibit the pathogens was determined. RESULTS: In the absence of saliva, the minimum inhibitory volume ratio of freshly prepared HOCl solution (45-60 ppm) was 4:1 for bacterial suspensions and 6:1 for viral suspensions. The presence of saliva increased the minimum inhibitory volume ratio to 8:1 and 7:1 for bacteria and viruses, respectively. Applying a higher concentration of HOCl solution (220 or 330 ppm) did not lead to a significant decrease in the minimum inhibitory volume ratio against S. intermedius and P. micra. The minimum inhibitory volume ratio increases in applications of HOCl solution via the dental unit water line. One week of storage of HOCl solution degraded HOCl and increased the minimum growth inhibition volume ratio. CONCLUSIONS: HOCl solution (45-60 ppm) is still effective against oral pathogens and SAR-CoV-2 surrogate viruses even in the presence of saliva and after passing through the dental unit water line. This study indicates that the HOCl solution can be used as therapeutic water or mouthwash and may ultimately reduce the risk of airborne infection in dental practice.

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).

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.

Is chlorhexidine mouthwash effective in lowering COVID-19 viral load? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This review aims to determine whether there is considerable evidence that mouthwashes containing chlorhexidine (CHX) lower the COVID-19 virus load in saliva. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was carried out in PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Open Gray, and ProQuest electronic databases using the keywords: "coronavirus infections" or "coronavirus" or "covid 2019" or "sars 2" or "sars-cov-2" or "sars-cov-19" or "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" or "coronavirus infection" or "severe acute respiratory pneumonia outbreak" and "CHX" or "CHX Hydrochloride" or "CHX Digluconate." A manual search of the articles was also conducted utilizing the reference lists of articles. The in vitro experimental and clinical studies that tested CHX mouthwash were included. Study selection was not restricted or limited to a specific gender, age, ethnicity of individuals, or time of publication. A mix of keywords and proper truncations were used to search for databases. RESULTS: Twelve studies (7 clinical and 5 in vitro) published between 2020 and 2021 were included in this systemic review. Five randomized controlled trials and one clinical case series demonstrated the effectiveness of CHX in reducing the oral viral load; one was inconclusive. Of the five in vitro studies, three showed that CHX is effective against SARS-CoV-2, and two studies denied the effectiveness of CHX. All in vitro studies tested CHX activity concentrations of 0.2, 0.12, and 0.1%. One study reported more than a 99.9% reduction in SARS-CoV-2 viral load in a minimal contact time of 30 seconds. CHX exhibited potent antiviral activity at higher concentrations without cytotoxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in the published research, CHX at different concentrations may be effective in lowering the SARS-COV-2 viral load in saliva.

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.

Enjuagues antisépticos bucales como medida de control frente a la trasmisión de SARS-CoV-2 en la atención odontológica.

No disponible.

Comparison of the 1 and 2% pilocarpine mouthwash in a xerostomic population: a randomized clinical trial.

AIMS & BACKGROUND: Pilocarpine is an accepted treatment for xerostomia, but limited research has been conducted on the oral, topical form. The present study aimed to compare the effects of 1 and 2% pilocarpine mouthwash on xerostomic participants. METHODS: In this double-blind clinical trial study, 48 subjects with xerostomia were randomly divided into three groups to measure the effects of 1 and 2% pilocarpine and placebo mouthwashes on saliva levels. The amount of saliva in the 1st and 14th days was measured at 0, 45, 60, and 75 mins, while participants used their mouthwash three times a day for 14 days. On the 1st and 14th days, they filled out the information forms on xerostomia and the medicine's side effects before and after the intervention. RESULTS: On the 1st day, the mean salivary flow at 45, 60, and 75 mins in the 2 and 1% pilocarpine mouthwash were significantly higher than in the placebo mouthwash group (p < 0.05). On the 14th day, the mean salivary flow time at 45 mins in the 2% pilocarpine mouthwash group was significantly higher than in the placebo mouthwash group (p = 0.007). Furthermore, the mean salivary flow at 60 and 75 mins in the 2% (p < 0.001) and 1% pilocarpine mouthwash (p = 0.028) was significantly higher than in the placebo group. Moreover, the salivary flow in the 2% pilocarpine mouthwash group was significantly higher than the 1% pilocarpine mouthwash (p < 0.05) during these two times. No side effects were observed in any of the subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that 5 ml of 2 and 1% pilocarpine mouthwash for 2 weeks increased salivary flow in xerostomic participants compared to placebo without any side effects.

Strong anti-viral nano biocide based on Ag/ZnO modified by amodiaquine as an antibacterial and antiviral composite.

In this paper, we synthesized Ag/ZnO composite colloidal nanoparticles and the surface of nanoparticles was improved by amodiaquine ligand. The synthesized nanoparticles were characterized using the XRD diffraction pattern, FT-IR Spectroscopy, TEM image, and UV-Vis spectroscopy. The antibacterial, antifungal, and antiviral effects of the synthesized colloid were examined on E.coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterococcus hirae bacteria, and Candida Albicans and form spore aspergillus fungi, also influenza, herpes simplex, and covid 19 viruses. The results indicate more than 7 log removal of the bacteria, fungi, and viruses by synthesized colloid with a concentration of 15 µg/L (Ag)/50 µg/ml (ZnO). This removal for covid 19 virus is from 3.2 × 108 numbers to 21 viruses within 30 s. Also, irritation and toxicity tests of the synthesized colloid show harmless effects on human cells and tissues. These colloidal nanoparticles were used as mouthwash solution and their clinical tests were done on 500 people infected by the coronavirus. The results indicate that by washing their mouth and nose three times on day all patients got healthy at different times depending on the depth of the disease. Almost all people with no signs of infection and using this solution as a mouthwash didn't infect by the virus during the study.

SARS-CoV-2-positive patients display considerable differences in proteome diversity in urine, nasopharyngeal, gargle solution and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples.

Proteome profile changes post-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (post-SARS-CoV-2) infection in different body sites of humans remains an active scientific investigation whose solutions stand a chance of providing more information on what constitutes SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis. While proteomics has been used to understand SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis, there are limited data about the status of proteome profile in different human body sites infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. To bridge this gap, our study aims to characterize the proteins secreted in urine, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), gargle solution, and nasopharyngeal samples and assess the proteome differences in these body samples collected from SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. We downloaded publicly available proteomic data from (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/pride/). The data we downloaded had the following identifiers: (i) PXD019423, n = 3 from Charles Tanford Protein Center in Germany. (ii) IPX0002166000, n = 15 from Beijing Proteome Research Centre, China. (iii) IPX0002429000, n = 5 from Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China, and (iv) PXD022889, n = 18 from Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905 USA. MaxQuant was used for the human peptide spectral matching using human and SARS-CoV-2 proteome database which we downloaded from the UniProt database (access date 13th October 2021). The individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 viruses displayed a different proteome diversity from the different body sites we investigated. Overally, we identified 1809 proteins across the four sample types we compared. Urine and BALF samples had significantly more abundant SARS-CoV-2 proteins than the other body sites we compared. Urine samples had 257(33.7%) unique proteins, followed by nasopharyngeal with 250(32.8%) unique proteins. Gargle solution and BALF had 38(5%) and 73(9.6%) unique proteins respectively. Urine, gargle solution, nasopharyngeal, and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples have different protein diversity in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, our data also demonstrated that a given body site is characterized by a unique set of proteins in SARS-CoV-2 seropositive individuals.

Conservative treatment with mouthwashes followed by tongue photo biomodulation therapy in Covid-19: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Oral manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including ulcers, herpetiform lesions, macules, and petechiae, among others, are becoming increasingly recognized, but there is little guidance on their treatment. Reported cases have described treatment with various mouthwashes containing antivirals, antifungals, antibiotics, anesthetics, or steroids. Our case report is unique in that we provide guidance on the judicious use of these medications, followed by photobiomodulation therapy if the manifestations are treatment resistant. CASE PRESENTATION: We describe a 30-year-old Caucasian woman who tested positive for COVID-19 after developing nasal congestion and cough. Ten days after testing positive, she developed a systemic rash on her extremities and torso. At the same time, she developed swelling of the tongue lasting 1 hour, with subsequent appearance of oral lesions that resembled geographic tongue. She also had an irritable sensation on her tongue and some mild loss of sense of taste. We opted for conservative therapy, including mouth rinses containing lidocaine to be used every 6 hours. The patient used the mouth rinse therapy for 1 month and experienced a 90% improvement in her oral lesions and tongue sensitivity. However, she had repeated flares every 3 weeks over a 6-month period, and the steroid mouthwash achieved incomplete resolution. After three sessions of photobiomodulation therapy, she had no further flares or tongue sensitivity and the lesions healed. CONCLUSIONS: The implication of our report is that we promote the judicious use of topical antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, and steroids for when they are indicated. We propose lidocaine-containing mouth rinses and steroid mouthwash as an initial, symptomatic treatment regimen for 'COVID-19 tongue.' If there is failure of resolution, we recommend photobiomodulation therapy.

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.