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.

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.

Use of antimicrobial mouthwashes (gargling) and nasal sprays by healthcare workers to protect them when treating patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 infection poses a serious risk to patients and - due to its contagious nature - to those healthcare workers (HCWs) treating them. If the mouth and nose of HCWs are irrigated with antimicrobial solutions, this may help reduce the risk of active infection being passed from infected patients to HCWs through droplet transmission or direct contact. However, the use of such antimicrobial solutions may be associated with harms related to the toxicity of the solutions themselves, or alterations in the natural microbial flora of the mouth or nose. Understanding these possible side effects is particularly important when the HCWs are otherwise fit and well. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of antimicrobial mouthwashes and nasal sprays used by healthcare workers (HCWs) to protect themselves when treating patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. SEARCH METHODS: Information Specialists from Cochrane ENT and Cochrane Oral Health searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 June 2020.  SELECTION CRITERIA: This is a question that urgently requires evidence, however at the present time we did not anticipate finding many completed randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We therefore planned to include the following types of studies: RCTs; quasi-RCTs; non-randomised controlled trials; prospective cohort studies; retrospective cohort studies; cross-sectional studies; controlled before-and-after studies. We set no minimum duration for the studies.   We sought studies comparing any antimicrobial mouthwash and/or nasal spray (alone or in combination) at any concentration, delivered to HCWs, with or without the same intervention being given to the patients with COVID-19. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: 1) incidence of symptomatic or test-positive COVID-19 infection in HCWs; 2) significant adverse event: anosmia (or disturbance in sense of smell). Our secondary outcomes were: 3) viral content of aerosol, when present (if intervention administered to patients); 4) other adverse events: changes in microbiome in oral cavity, nasal cavity, oro- or nasopharynx; 5) other adverse events: allergy, irritation/burning of nasal, oral or oropharyngeal mucosa (e.g. erosions, ulcers, bleeding), long-term staining of mucous membranes or teeth, accidental ingestion. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We found no completed studies to include in this review. We identified three ongoing studies (including two RCTs), which aim to enrol nearly 700 participants. The interventions included in these trials are povidone iodine, nitric oxide and GLS-1200 oral spray (the constituent of this spray is unclear and may not be antimicrobial in nature).   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified no studies for inclusion in this review. This is not surprising given the relatively recent emergence of COVID-19 infection. It is promising that the question posed in this review is being addressed by two RCTs and a non-randomised study. We are concerned that only one of the ongoing studies specifically states that it will evaluate adverse events and it is not clear if this will include changes in the sense of smell or to the oral and nasal microbiota, and any consequences thereof. Very few interventions have large and dramatic effect sizes. If a positive treatment effect is demonstrated when studies are available for inclusion in this review, it may not be large. In these circumstances in particular, where those receiving the intervention are otherwise fit and well, it may be a challenge to weigh up the benefits against the harms if the latter are of uncertain frequency and severity.

Salivary and Nasal Detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Virus After Antiviral Mouthrinses (BBCovid): A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: - To describe the evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load of patients infected with Covid-19, performing 7 days of tri-daily mouthwashes with and without antivirals. - To compare the evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 nasal and salivary viral load according to the presence or absence of antivirals in the mouthwash. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a multi-center, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with two parallel arms (1:1 ratio). PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria - Age: 18-85 years old - Clinical diagnosis of Covid-19 infection - Clinical signs have been present for less than 8 days - Virological confirmation - Understanding and acceptance of the trial - Written agreement to participate in the trial Exclusion criteria - Pregnancy, breastfeeding, inability to comply with protocol, lack of written agreement - Patients using mouthwash on a regular basis (more than once a week) - Patient at risk of infectious endocarditis - Patients unable to answer questions - Uncooperative patient The clinical trial is being conducted with the collaboration of three French hospital centers: Hospital Center Emile Roux (Le Puy en Velay, France), Clinic of the Protestant Infirmary (Lyon, France) and Intercommunal Hospital Center (Mont de Marsan, France). INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Eligible participants will be allocated to one of the two study groups. Intervention group: patients perform a tri-daily mouthwash with mouthwash containing antivirals (ß-cyclodextrin and Citrox®) for a period of 7 days. CONTROL GROUP: patients perform a tri-daily mouthwash with a placebo mouthwash for a period of 7 days. MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary Outcome Measures: Change from Baseline amount of SARS-CoV-2 in salivary samples at 4 and 9 hours, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 days. Real-time PCR assays are performed to assess salivary SARS-CoV 2 viral load. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Change from Baseline amount of SARS-CoV-2 virus in nasal samples at 6 days. Real-time PCR assays are performed to assess nasal SARS-CoV-2 viral load. RANDOMISATION: Participants meeting all eligibility requirements are allocated to one of the two study arms (mouthwash with ß-cyclodextrin and Citrox® or mouthwash without ß-cyclodextrin and Citrox®) in a 1:1 ratio using simple randomisation with computer generated random numbers. BLINDING (MASKING): Participants, doctors and nurses caring for participants, laboratory technicians and investigators assessing the outcomes will be blinded to group assignment. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): Both the intervention and control groups will be composed of 103 participants, so the study will include a total of 206 participants. TRIAL STATUS: The current protocol version is 6, August 4th, 2020. Recruitment began on April 6, 2020 and is anticipated to be complete by April 5, 2021. As of October 2, 2020, forty-two participants have been included. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered on 20 April 2020 at www.clinicaltrials.gov with the number NCT04352959 . FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol." The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2)."

Antimicrobial mouthwashes (gargling) and nasal sprays administered to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection to improve patient outcomes and to protect healthcare workers treating them.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 infection poses a serious risk to patients and - due to its contagious nature - to those healthcare workers (HCWs) treating them. If the mouth and nose of patients with infection are irrigated with antimicrobial solutions, this may help the patients by killing any coronavirus present at those sites. It may also reduce the risk of the active infection being passed to HCWs through droplet transmission or direct contact. However, the use of such antimicrobial solutions may be associated with harms related to the toxicity of the solutions themselves or alterations in the natural microbial flora of the mouth or nose. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of antimicrobial mouthwashes and nasal sprays administered to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection to both the patients and the HCWs caring for them. SEARCH METHODS: Information Specialists from Cochrane ENT and Cochrane Oral Health searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 June 2020.  SELECTION CRITERIA: This is a question that urgently requires evidence, however at the present time we did not anticipate finding many completed RCTs. We therefore planned to include the following types of studies: randomised controlled trials (RCTs); quasi-RCTs; non-randomised controlled trials; prospective cohort studies; retrospective cohort studies; cross-sectional studies; controlled before-and-after studies. We set no minimum duration for the studies.   We sought studies comparing antimicrobial mouthwash and/or nasal spray (alone or in combination) at any concentration, delivered with any frequency or dosage to suspected/confirmed COVID-19 patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: 1) RECOVERY* (www.recoverytrial.net) outcomes in patients (mortality; hospitalisation status; use of ventilation; use of renal dialysis or haemofiltration); 2) incidence of symptomatic or test-positive COVID-19 infection in HCWs; 3) significant adverse event: anosmia (or disturbance in sense of smell). Our secondary outcomes were: 4) change in COVID-19 viral load in patients; 5) COVID-19 viral content of aerosol (when present); 6) other adverse events: changes in microbiome in oral cavity, nasal cavity, oro- or nasopharynx; 7) other adverse events: allergy, irritation/burning of nasal, oral or oropharyngeal mucosa (e.g. erosions, ulcers, bleeding), long-term staining of mucous membranes or teeth, accidental ingestion. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We found no completed studies to include in this review. We identified 16 ongoing studies (including 14 RCTs), which aim to enrol nearly 1250 participants. The interventions included in these trials are ArtemiC (artemisinin, curcumin, frankincense and vitamin C), Citrox (a bioflavonoid), cetylpyridinium chloride, chlorhexidine, chlorine dioxide, essential oils, hydrogen peroxide, hypertonic saline, Kerecis spray (omega 3 viruxide - containing neem oil and St John's wort), neem extract, nitric oxide releasing solution, povidone iodine and saline with baby shampoo.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified no studies for inclusion in this review. This is not surprising given the relatively recent emergence of COVID-19 infection. It is promising that the question posed in this review is being addressed by a number of RCTs and other studies. We are concerned that few of the ongoing studies specifically state that they will evaluate adverse events such as changes in the sense of smell or to the oral and nasal microbiota, and any consequences thereof. Very few interventions have large and dramatic effect sizes. If a positive treatment effect is demonstrated when studies are available for inclusion in this review, it may not be large. In these circumstances in particular it may be a challenge to weigh up the benefits against the harms if the latter are of uncertain frequency and severity.

Antimicrobial mouthwashes (gargling) and nasal sprays to protect healthcare workers when undertaking aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) on patients without suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 infection poses a serious risk to patients and - due to its contagious nature - to those healthcare workers (HCWs) treating them. The risks of transmission of infection are greater when a patient is undergoing an aerosol-generating procedure (AGP). Not all those with COVID-19 infection are symptomatic, or suspected of harbouring the infection. If a patient who is not known to have or suspected of having COVID-19 infection is to undergo an AGP, it would nonetheless be sensible to minimise the risk to those HCWs treating them. If the mouth and nose of an individual undergoing an AGP are irrigated with antimicrobial solutions, this may be a simple and safe method of reducing the risk of any covert infection being passed to HCWs through droplet transmission or direct contact. Alternatively, the use of antimicrobial solutions by the HCW may decrease the chance of them acquiring COVID-19 infection. However, the use of such antimicrobial solutions may be associated with harms related to the toxicity of the solutions themselves or alterations in the natural microbial flora of the mouth or nose. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of antimicrobial mouthwashes and nasal sprays administered to HCWs and/or patients when undertaking AGPs on patients without suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. SEARCH METHODS: Information Specialists from Cochrane ENT and Cochrane Oral Health searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 June 2020.  SELECTION CRITERIA: This is a question that urgently requires evidence, however at the present time we did not anticipate finding many completed RCTs. We therefore planned to include the following types of studies: randomised controlled trials (RCTs); quasi-RCTs; non-randomised controlled trials; prospective cohort studies; retrospective cohort studies; cross-sectional studies; controlled before-and-after studies. We set no minimum duration for the studies.   We sought studies comparing any antimicrobial mouthwash and/or nasal spray (alone or in combination) at any concentration, delivered to the patient or HCW before and/or after an AGP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: 1) incidence of symptomatic or test-positive COVID-19 infection in HCWs or patients; 2) significant adverse event: anosmia (or disturbance in sense of smell). Our secondary outcomes were: 3) COVID-19 viral content of aerosol (when present); 4) change in COVID-19 viral load at site(s) of irrigation; 5) other adverse events: changes in microbiome in oral cavity, nasal cavity, oro- or nasopharynx; 6) other adverse events: allergy, irritation/burning of nasal, oral or oropharyngeal mucosa (e.g. erosions, ulcers, bleeding), long-term staining of mucous membranes or teeth, accidental ingestion. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We found no completed studies to include in this review.   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified no studies for inclusion in this review, nor any ongoing studies. The absence of completed studies is not surprising given the relatively recent emergence of COVID-19 infection. However, we are disappointed that this important clinical question is not being addressed by ongoing studies.