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.

Coronavirus outbreaks and infection prevention in dentistry: a narrative review.

Objective: This narrative review aims to compile and analyse infection prevention and control (IPAC) practices followed by dental clinics during 3 coronavirus outbreaks: SARS (2002-2004), MERS (2012-2014), and COVID-19 (2019-); and to draw parallels from them for future epidemics. Methods: Data were collected from 3 databases: Google Scholar, PubMed, and Embase using search terms "SARS," "MERS," "COVID-19," "infection control," "disinfection," and "sterilization". Results: Careful examination of 108 peer-reviewed articles on the 3 outbreaks revealed the following commonalities in the IPAC practices of dental clinics: use of sodium hypochlorite (surface disinfectant), ethanol and 1-propanol (hand hygiene), povidone-iodine (oral rinse), high-volume evacuation (HVE), rubber dam isolation, anti-retraction handpieces, and fogging. Discussion & Conclusion: Ethanol, 1-propanol, sodium hypochlorite, povidone-iodine, photocatalysis, and fogging have been shown to be effective against various coronaviruses. However, more studies are required to validate the effectiveness of anti-retraction handpieces, rubber dam isolation, HVE, and cold atmospheric plasma specifically in infection control of the current coronavirus strain, SARS-CoV-2.

Objectif : La présente revue narrative vise à compiler et à analyser les pratiques de prévention et de contrôle des infections (PECI) que les cliniques dentaires ont suivies pendant 3 éclosions du coronavirus : le SRAS (2002­2004), le SRMO (2012­2014) et la COVID-19 (2019­), et à en établir des parallèles pour les épidémies futures. Méthodologie : Les termes de recherche : « SRAS ¼, « SRMO ¼, « COVID-19 ¼, « contrôle des infections ¼, « désinfection ¼ et « stérilisation ¼ ont été utilisés pour recueillir des données dans les 3 bases de données qui suivent : Google Scholar, PubMed et Embase. Résultats : Un examen minutieux de 108 articles évalués par des pairs sur les 3 éclosions a révélé les éléments communs suivants en matière de pratiques de PECI dans les cliniques dentaires : utilisation d'hypochlorite de sodium (désinfectant de surface), d'éthanol et d'éthylcarbinol (hygiène des mains), de povidone iode (rince-bouche), d'aspiration à haute vélocité, d'isolation par digue en caoutchouc, de pièces à main anti-rétraction et de buée. Discussion et conclusion : L'éthanol, l'éthylcarbinol, l'hypochlorite de sodium, la povidone iode, la photocatalyse et la buée se sont avérés efficaces contre divers coronavirus. Cependant, d'autres études sont nécessaires pour valider l'efficacité des pièces à main anti-rétraction, de l'isolation par digue en caoutchouc, de l'aspiration à haute vélocité et du plasma atmosphérique froid, en particulier dans la lutte contre l'infection par la souche actuelle du coronavirus, le SRAS-CoV-2.

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.

Effect of oral antiseptics on the viral load of SARS-CoV-2: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the oral cavity, which plays an important role in the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), it is possible to reduce the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 with antiseptics, thereby minimizing the transmission of the virus during dental procedures. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to clinically evaluate the effect of the hypochlorous acid (HClO) and povidone-iodine (PVP-I) solutions on the oral viral load of SARS-CoV-2. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This randomized controlled trial was conducted on 75 patients hospitalized in the COVID-19 ward of a local hospital. All the patients included in the study were within the first 24 h of hospitalization and the first 5 days of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms. The viral load of mouthwash samples was measured with the cycle threshold (Ct) value of SARS-CoV-2 through a realtime reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The patients were divided into 3 groups. The effect on the patient's SARS-CoV-2 viral load was investigated after gargling the mouths and throats for 30 s with HClO, PVP-I and isotonic saline. First, a sample was taken after gargling with isotonic saline, then another sample was taken after gargling for 30 s with a particular antiseptic to determine the viral load of SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Comparing the before and after mouthwash samples from all 3 groups, there were no statistically significant differences in the Ct values before and after gargling (p > 0.05). However, there were statistically significant differences in the number of negative samples after the use of HClO and PVP-I, which were positive before gargling (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In the light of the data obtained in this study, there is insufficient evidence that gargling with HClO or PVP-I reduces viral load. Taken together, these findings imply no role for antiseptics in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by the aerosol generated during dental procedures, or more generally, SARS-CoV-2 infection control.

Repurposing povidone-iodine to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Accumulating data suggest antiviral effects of povidone-iodine against the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. This narrative review aims to examine the antiviral mechanisms of povidone-iodine, efficacy of povidone-iodine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and safety of povidone-iodine to human epithelial cells and thyroid function. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for articles containing the keywords "povidone-iodine", "SARS-CoV-2" and "COVID-19" from database inception till 3 June 2021. RESULTS: Despite in vitro data supporting the anti-SARS-CoV-2 effects of povidone-iodine, findings from clinical studies revealed differences in treatment response depending on study settings (healthy vs. hospitalized individuals), treatment target (nasal vs. oral vs. pharynx), method of administration (oral rinse vs. gargle vs. throat spray) and choice of samples used to measure study endpoints (nasopharyngeal vs. saliva). One large-scale clinical trial demonstrated reduction in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among participants who administered povidone-iodine 3 times daily during an active outbreak. Povidone-iodine is also used to disinfect the oro-pharyngeal space prior to dental or otolaryngology procedures. Although existing data suggest minimal impact of povidone-iodine on thyroid function, high-quality safety data are presently lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Povidone-iodine application to the oropharyngeal space could complement existing non-pharmacological interventions to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection especially in high exposure settings.Key messagesAccumulating data suggest antiviral effects of povidone-iodine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.Findings from clinical studies reveal differences in treatment response depending on study settings, treatment target, method of administration and choice of samples used to measure study endpoints. One large-scale clinical trial observed reduction in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among participants who administered povidone-iodine 3 times daily during an active outbreak.Povidone-iodine application to the oropharyngeal space could complement existing non-pharmacological interventions to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection especially in high exposure settings.

The effect of mouthrinses on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 viral load: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Considering that the oral cavity is a major entryway and reservoir for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the aim of the authors was to perform a systematic review of in vivo and in vitro studies to assess the effectiveness of mouthrinses on SARS-CoV-2 viral load. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, and bioRxiv databases, including in vitro and in vivo studies assessing the virucidal effect of mouthrinses on SARS-CoV-2 or surrogates. From a total of 1,622 articles retrieved, the authors included 39 in this systematic review. RESULTS: Povidone-iodine was the most studied mouthrinse (14 in vitro and 9 in vivo studies), frequently showing significant reductions in viral load in in vitro assays. Similarly, cetylpyridinium chloride also showed good results, although it was evaluated in fewer studies. Chlorhexidine gluconate and hydrogen peroxide showed conflicting results on SARS-CoV-2 load reduction in both in vitro and in vivo studies. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Povidone-iodine-based mouthrinses appear to be the best option as an oral prerinse in the dental context for SARS-CoV-2 viral load reduction. Although the results of primary studies are relevant, there is a need for more in vivo studies on mouthrinses, in particular, randomized controlled clinical trials, to better understand their effect on SARS-CoV-2 viral load and infection prevention.

In vitro inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 using a povidone-iodine oral rinse.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals, especially dentists and dental hygienists, are at increased risk for contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) through air-borne particles and splatter. This study assessed the in vitro virucidal activity of 0.5% (w/v) povidone-iodine (PVP-I) oral rinse against SARS-CoV-2 to demonstrate its utility as a professional oral rinse. METHODS: A 0.5% (w/v) PVP-I oral rinse formulation, placebo oral rinse, and positive (70% [v/v] ethanol and water) and negative (water) controls were assessed using the time-kill method. SARS-CoV-2 was propagated in Vero 76 host cells. Following neutralization validation, triplicate tests were performed for each test formulation and virucidal activity measured at 15, 30, and 60 s and 5 min. RESULTS: The 0.5% (w/v) PVP-I oral rinse demonstrated effective in vitro virucidal activity against SARS-CoV-2 as early as 15 s after exposure; viral titer was reduced to < 0.67 log10 50% cell culture infectious dose (CCID50)/0.1 mL (log10 reduction of > 4.0) at 30 s, whereas the placebo oral rinse reduced the SARS-CoV-2 viral titer to 4.67 and 4.5 log10 CCID50/0.1 mL at the 15- and 30-s time points, with a log10 reduction of 0.63 and 0.17, respectively. No toxicity or cytotoxic effects against Vero 76 host cells were observed with the 0.5% (w/v) PVP-I oral rinse; positive and negative controls performed as expected. CONCLUSIONS: In vitro virucidal activity of 0.5% (w/v) PVP-I oral rinse against SARS-CoV-2 was demonstrated. Rapid inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 was observed with 0.5% (w/v) formulation with a contact duration of 15 s. Clinical investigations are needed to assess the effectiveness of PVP-I oral rinse against SARS-CoV-2 in dental practice.

Virucidal effect of povidone-iodine against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the antiviral activity of the oral disinfectant povidone-iodine (PVP-I) against severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV2) in vitro. METHODS: The cytotoxic effects of PVP-I were determined in Vero and Calu-3 cell lines using that by Cell Counting Kit-8 assay. Viral load in the cell culture medium above infected cells was quantitated using real-time polymerase chain reaction. The cytopathic effect (CPE) and viral infective rate were observed by immunofluorescence microscopy. RESULTS: PVP-I at a concentration >0.5 mg/ml in contact with SARS-CoV-2 for 30 s, 1 min, 2 min and 5 min showed up to 99% viral inhibition. For in vitro testing, upon exposure for 1 min, PVP-I showed a virucidal effect. PVP-I had no cytotoxic effects at the range of concentrations tested (0.125-1 mg/ml; CC50 > 2.75 mM) in Vero and Calu-3 cells. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that the ideal contact time was 1 min and the optimal concentration was 1 mg/ml, which provides an experimental basis for the use of oral disinfectants in dental hospitals.

Viral Inactivation with Emphasis on SARS-CoV-2 Using Physical and Chemical Disinfectants.

BACKGROUND: Recently, an outbreak of a novel human coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has become a world health concern leading to severe respiratory tract infections in humans. Virus transmission occurs through person-to-person contact, respiratory droplets, and contaminated hands or surfaces. Accordingly, we aim at reviewing the literature on all information available about the persistence of coronaviruses, including human and animal coronaviruses, on inanimate surfaces and inactivation strategies with biocides employed for chemical and physical disinfection. METHOD: A comprehensive search was systematically conducted in main databases from 1998 to 2020 to identify various viral disinfectants associated with HCoV and methods for control and prevention of this newly emerged virus. RESULTS: The analysis of 62 studies shows that human coronaviruses such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus or endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV), canine coronavirus (CCV), transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV), and mouse hepatitis virus (MHV) can be efficiently inactivated by physical and chemical disinfectants at different concentrations (70, 80, 85, and 95%) of 2-propanol (70 and 80%) in less than or equal to 60 s and 0.5% hydrogen peroxide or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite within 1 minute. Additionally, glutaraldehyde (0.5-2%), formaldehyde (0.7-1%), and povidone-iodine (0.1-0.75%) could readily inactivate coronaviruses. Moreover, dry heat at 56°C, ultraviolet light dose of 0.2 to 140 J/cm2, and gamma irradiation could effectively inactivate coronavirus. The WHO recommends the use of 0.1% sodium hypochlorite solution or an ethanol-based disinfectant with an ethanol concentration between 62% and 71%. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study can help researchers, policymakers, health decision makers, and people perceive and take the correct measures to control and prevent further transmission of COVID-19. Prevention and decontamination will be the main ways to stop the ongoing outbreak of COVID-19.

In vitro comparison of the tensile strength of elastomeric ligatures exposed to Povidone Iodine 1%, Chlorhexidine 0.02%, and hydrogen peroxide 5.

OBJECTIVE: In orthodontic patients using any chemical substances in oral environment could change the elastomeric properties of their appliances. Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, efforts have been devoted to explore methods of prevention including the use of antiviral mouthwashes. This study aimed to investigate the effects of Povidone Iodine (PVP-I) and two other disinfecting solutions on the mechanical properties of orthodontic elastomeric ligatures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, 130 elastomeric ligatures in five groups (three test groups and two control groups) were examined in laboratory conditions for a period of 28 days. In the control group, specimens were kept dry in a dark environment while all other ligatures were stored in artificial saliva. Elastomeric ligatures were immersed into PVP-I solution (1%) Chlorhexidine (0.02%), and hydrogen peroxide (5%) for one minute each day in three time intervals of one day, 7 days and 28 days. Next, the maximum tensile strength of elastomeric ligatures was tested by a universal testing machine (CN 1174, Germany). RESULTS: The results showed that the tensile strength of elastomeric ligatures was significantly decreased in all three test groups after 28 days (p-value<0.05). However, the difference between groups was not statistically significant. Between-subject ANOVA test showed that there were significant correlations between the time of exposure and type of disinfecting solutions. CONCLUSIONS: PVP-I has comparable effects on elastomeric ligatures as artificial saliva, chlorhexidine, and hydrogen peroxide.

The effectiveness of mouthwash against SARS-CoV-2 infection: A review of scientific and clinical evidence.

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection that is mainly through the airborne transmission, is a worldwide health concern. This review seeks to assess the potential effectiveness of mouthwash in reducing the oropharyngeal load of SARS-CoV-2 based on the available evidence. Articles related to mouthwash and COVID-19 in PubMed were electronically searched in July, 2021. After manually excluding articles lacking sufficient scientific evidence or validation processes, those with inaccessible online full text, those that did not test the effectiveness of mouthwash against SARS-CoV-2, and those not written in English, 17 original and 13 review articles were chosen for this review. The eligible articles revealed that the main virucidal mechanism of mouthwash was via interactions with the viral envelope. Povidone-iodine (PVP-I), cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), and essential oils with ethanol showed virucidal effects on SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, potentially by interfering with the viral envelope. A few clinical studies demonstrated that PVP-I, CPC, hydrogen peroxide, and chlorhexidine reduced the oropharyngeal load of SARS-CoV-2. Although the available evidence is limited, mouthwash containing PVP-I or CPC shows potential for reducing the oropharyngeal load of SARS-CoV-2 and thus may present a risk-mitigation strategy for COVID-19 patients.

Safety alert for hospital environments and health professional: chlorhexidine is ineffective for coronavirus.

An alarming fact was revealed by recent publications concerning disinfectants: chlorhexidine digluconate is ineffective for disinfecting surfaces contaminated by the new coronavirus. This is a finding that requires immediate disclosure since this substance is widely used for the disinfection of hands and forearms of surgeons and auxiliaries and in the antisepsis of patients in minimally invasive procedures commonly performed in hospital environments. The objective of this study is to compare the different disinfectants used for disinfection on several surfaces, in a review of worldwide works. Scientific studies were researched in the BVS (Virtual Health Library), PubMed, Medline, and ANVISA (National Health Surveillance Agency) databases. The following agents were studied: alcohol 62-71%, hydrogen peroxide 0.5%, sodium hypochlorite 0.1%, benzalkonium chloride 0.05-0.2%, povidone-iodine 10%, and chlorhexidine digluconate 0.02%, on metal, aluminum, wood, paper, glass, plastic, PVC, silicone, latex (gloves), disposable gowns, ceramic, and Teflon surfaces. Studies have shown that chlorhexidine digluconate is ineffective for inactivating some coronavirus subtypes, suggesting that it is also ineffective to the new coronavirus.

Povidone-Iodine Attenuates Viral Replication in Ocular Cells: Implications for Ocular Transmission of RNA Viruses.

Several RNA viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, can infect or use the eye as an entry portal to cause ocular or systemic diseases. Povidone-Iodine (PVP-I) is routinely used during ocular surgeries and eye banking as a cost-effective disinfectant due to its broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity, including against viruses. However, whether PVP-I can exert antiviral activities in virus-infected cells remains elusive. In this study, using Zika (ZIKV) and Chikungunya (CHIKV) virus infection of human corneal and retinal pigment epithelial cells, we report antiviral mechanisms of PVP-I. Our data showed that PVP-I, even at the lowest concentration (0.01%), drastically reduced viral replication in corneal and retinal cells without causing cellular toxicity. Antiviral effects of PVP-I against ZIKV and CHIKV were mediated by direct viral inactivation, thus attenuating the ability of the virus to infect host cells. Moreover, one-minute PVP-I exposure of infected ocular cells drastically reduced viral replication and the production of infectious progeny virions. Furthermore, viral-induced (CHIKV) expression of inflammatory genes (TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, and IL1ß) were markedly reduced in PVP-I treated corneal epithelial cells. Together, our results demonstrate potent antiviral effects of PVP-I against ZIKV and CHIKV infection of ocular cells. Thus, a low dose of PVP-I can be used during tissue harvesting for corneal transplants to prevent potential transmission of RNA viruses via infected cells.

Antiviral effect of multipurpose contact lens disinfecting solutions against coronavirus.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the antiviral potential of five multipurpose disinfecting solutions against coronavirus (mouse hepatitis virus, a surrogate for SARS-CoV-2 human corona virus). METHODS: Test solutions (Biotrue, renu Advanced [Bausch and Lomb], ACUVUE RevitaLens [Johnson and Johnson Vision], cleadew [Ophtecs corp.] or AOSept Plus [Alcon]) were mixed with the coronavirus mouse hepatitis virus at 104 plaque forming units (PFU)/mL as the final concentration and incubated at room temperature for the specified disinfection time. Surviving virus from each sample was then quantified by standard plaque forming unit assay and the reduction of PFU for each disinfectant was compared to the phosphate buffer saline (PBS) treated negative control. A regimen test was also conducted using Biotrue. RESULTS: The three multipurpose disinfecting solutions Biotrue (containing PHMB and polyquaternium-1), renu Advanced (PHMB, polyquaternium-1 and alexidine) and ACUVUE RevitaLens (polyquaternium-1 and alexidine) did not kill the coronavirus at the manufacturers recommended disinfection time in the stand alone test. After treatment, the virus's titer (3.8 ± 0.2 log10 for Biotrue, 3.7 ± 0.1 log10 for renu and 3.7 ± 0.2 log10 for RevitaLens) was similar to the negative control (3.7 ± 0.1 log10; p ≥ 0.996). AOSept Plus (hydrogen peroxide) and cleadew (povidone iodine) significantly (p < 0.001) reduced the numbers of coronaviruses to below the detection limit (i.e. killed 3.7 ± 0.1 log10 viruses compared to control). However, there was a significant reduction (p = 0.028) in numbers of coronaviruses attached to lenses when using the regimen test with Biotrue. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that oxidative contact lens disinfecting solutions (i.e. those containing povidone-iodine or hydrogen peroxide) provide superior antiviral activity against a coronavirus surrogate of SARS-CoV-2, unless the full regimen test (rub, rinse, disinfect) is used.

In vivo evaluation of the virucidal efficacy of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine mouthwashes against salivary SARS-CoV-2. A randomized-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The oral cavity is potentially high-risk transmitter of COVID-19. Antimicrobial mouthrinses are used in many clinical preprocedural situations for decreasing the risk of cross-contamination in the dental setting. It is important to investigate the efficacy of mouthwash solutions against salivary SARS-CoV-2 in order to reduce the exposure of the dental team during dental procedures. AIMS: The aim of this in vivo study was to evaluate the efficacy of 2 preprocedural mouthrinses in the reduction of salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load and to compare the results of the mouthwashes to a control group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized-controlled clinical trial, studied group comprised laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 positive patients through nasopharyngeal swabs. Participants were divided into 3 groups. For 30 s, the control group mouthrinsed with distilled water, the Chlorhexidine group mouthrinsed with 0.2% Chlorhexidine and the Povidone-iodine group gargled with 1% Povidone-iodine. Saliva samples were collected before and 5 min after mouthwash. SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR was then performed for each sample. Evaluation of the efficacy was based on difference in cycle threshold (Ct) value. The analysis of data was carried out using GraphPad Prism version 5 for Windows. Kristal wullis and Paired t-test were used. A probability value of less than 0.05 was regarded as statistically significant. RESULTS: Sixty-one compliant participants (36 female and 25 male) with a mean age 45.3 ± 16.7 years-old were enrolled. A significant difference was noted between the delta Ct of distilled water wash and each of the 2 solutions Chlorhexidine 0.2% (P = .0024) and 1% Povidone-iodine (P = .012). No significant difference was found between the delta Ct of patients using Chlorhexidine 0.2% and 1% Povidone-iodine solutions (P = .24). A significant mean Ct value difference (P < .0001) between the paired samples in Chlorhexidine group (n = 27) and also in Povidone-iodine group (n = 25) (P < .0001) was found. In contrast, no significant difference (P = .566) existed before and after the experiment in the control group (n = 9). CONCLUSION: Chlorhexidine 0.2% and 1% Povidone-iodine oral solutions are effective preprocedural mouthwashes against salivary SARS-CoV-2 in dental treatments. Their use as a preventive strategy to reduce the spread of COVID-19 during dental practice should be considered.

Positive impact of oral hydroxychloroquine and povidone-iodine throat spray for COVID-19 prophylaxis: An open-label randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: We examined whether existing licensed pharmacotherapies could reduce the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: An open-label parallel randomized controlled trial was performed among healthy migrant workers quarantined in a large multi-storey dormitory in Singapore. Forty clusters (each defined as individual floors of the dormitory) were randomly assigned to receive a 42-day prophylaxis regimen of either oral hydroxychloroquine (400 mg once, followed by 200 mg/day), oral ivermectin (12 mg once), povidone-iodine throat spray (3 times/day, 270 µg/day), oral zinc (80 mg/day)/vitamin C (500 mg/day) combination, or oral vitamin C, 500 mg/day. The primary outcome was laboratory evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection as shown by either: (1) a positive serologic test for SARS-CoV-2 antibody on day 42, or (2) a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 at any time between baseline and day 42. RESULTS: A total of 3037 asymptomatic participants (mean age, 33.0 years; all men) who were seronegative to SARS-CoV-2 at baseline were included in the primary analysis. Follow-up was nearly complete (99.6%). Compared with vitamin C, significant absolute risk reductions (%, 98.75% confidence interval) were observed for oral hydroxychloroquine (21%, 2-42%) and povidone-iodine throat spray (24%, 7-39%). No statistically significant differences were observed with oral zinc/vitamin C combination (23%, -5 to +41%) and ivermectin (5%, -10 to +22%). Interruptions due to side effects were highest among participants who received zinc/vitamin C combination (6.9%), followed by vitamin C (4.7%), povidone-iodine (2.0%), and hydroxychloroquine (0.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Chemoprophylaxis with either oral hydroxychloroquine or povidone-iodine throat spray was superior to oral vitamin C in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection in young and healthy men.

Oral antiseptics against coronavirus: in-vitro and clinical evidence.

Angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is the cellular receptor for SARS-CoV-2, so ACE2-expressing cells can act as target cells and are susceptible to infection. ACE2 receptors are highly expressed in the oral cavity, so this may be a potential high-risk route for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, the virus can be detected in saliva, even before COVID-19 symptoms appear, with the consequent high risk of virus transmission in asymptomatic/presymptomatic patients. Reducing oral viral load could lead to a lower risk of transmission via salivary droplets or aerosols and therefore contribute to the control of the pandemic. Our aim was to evaluate the available evidence testing the in-vitro and in-vivo effects of oral antiseptics to inactivate or eradicate coronaviruses. The criteria used were those described in the PRISMA declaration for performing systematic reviews. An electronic search was conducted in Medline (via PubMed) and in Web of Sciences, using the MeSH terms: 'mouthwash' OR 'oral rinse' OR 'mouth rinse' OR 'povidone iodine' OR 'hydrogen peroxide' OR 'cetylpyridinium chloride' AND 'COVID-19' OR 'SARS-CoV-2' OR 'coronavirus' OR 'SARS' OR 'MERS'. The initial search strategy identified 619 articles on two electronic databases. Seventeen articles were included assessing the virucidal efficacy of oral antiseptics against coronaviruses. In conclusion, there is sufficient in-vitro evidence to support the use of antiseptics to potentially reduce the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses. However, in-vivo evidence for most oral antiseptics is limited. Randomized clinical trials with a control group are needed to demonstrate its clinical efficacy.

Efficacy of Povidone-Iodine Nasal and Oral Antiseptic Preparations Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

INTRODUCTION: Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the pathogen responsible for the global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). From the first reported cases in December 2019, the virus has spread to over 4 million people worldwide. Human-to-human transmission occurs mainly through the aerosolization of respiratory droplets. Transmission also occurs through contact with contaminated surfaces and other fomites. Improved antisepsis of human and nonhuman surfaces has been identified as a key feature of transmission reduction. There are no previous studies of povidone iodine (PVP-I) against SARS-CoV-2. This study evaluated nasal and oral antiseptic formulations of PVP-I for virucidal activity against SARS-CoV-2. This is the first report on the efficacy of PVP-I against the virus that causes COVID-19. METHODS: Povidone iodine nasal antiseptic formulations and PVP-I oral rinse antiseptic formulations from 1% to 5% concentrations as well as controls were studied for virucidal efficacy against the SARS-CoV-2. Test compounds were evaluated for ability to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 as measured in a virucidal assay. SARS-CoV-2 was exposed directly to the test compound for 60 seconds, compounds were then neutralized, and surviving virus was quantified. RESULTS: All concentrations of nasal antiseptics and oral rinse antiseptics evaluated completely inactivated the SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: Nasal and oral PVP-I antiseptic solutions are effective at inactivating the SARS-CoV-2 at a variety of concentrations after 60-second exposure times. The formulations tested may help to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 if used for nasal decontamination, oral decontamination, or surface decontamination in known or suspected cases of COVID-19.