Prophylactic and therapeutic topical povidone-iodine in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): What is the evidence?

Utility of mouth rinses with povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide in patients with COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

Povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide could be effective in against SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

A "non-interventional trial" in 88 patients (43±17 yrs., 55% men) with SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs (RT-PCR). 31 received mouth rinses/gargling with povidone-iodine (every 8h, two consecutive days), 17 with mouth rinses/gargling of hydrogen peroxide, and 40 controls. Were repeated PCR in 3, 11 and 17 days.

RESULTS

After intervention the viral load (Log10 copies/ml) remained similar in povidone-iodine (4.3±2.7 copies/ml), hydrogen peroxide (4.6±2.9 copies/ml; p=0.40) and controls (4.4±3.0 copies/ml). The percentage of patients with a negative result in the second PCR was 27% in povidone-iodine group, 23% in hydrogen peroxide and 32% in controls; in the third PCR, 62%, 54% y 58% respectively; and in the fourth PCR, 81%, 75% y 81%.

CONCLUSION

Our results do not support the clinical usefulness of mouth rinses/gargling with povidone-iodine or hydrogen peroxide in patients with COVID-19.

[Utility of mouth rinses with povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide in patients with COVID-19]

Introduction

Povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide could be effective in against SARS-CoV-2.

Methods

A "non-interventional trial" in 88 patients (43 ± 17 yrs, 55% men) with SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs (RT-PCR). 31 received mouth rinses/gargling with povidone-iodine (every 8 h, two consecutive days), 17 with mouth rinses/gargling of hydrogen peroxide, and 40 controls. PCR were repeated at 3, 11 and 17 days.

Results

After intervention the viral load (Log 10 copies/ml) remained similar in povidone-iodine (4.3 ± 2.7 copies/ml), hydrogen peroxide (4.6 ± 2.9 copies/ml; p = 0.40) and controls (4.4 ± 3.0 copies/ml). The percentage of patients with a negative result in the second PCR was 27% in povidone-iodine group, 23% in hydrogen peroxide and 32% in controls; in the third PCR, 62%, 54% and 58% respectively; and in the fourth PCR, 81%, 75% and 81%.

Conclusion

Our results do not support the clinical usefulness of mouth rinses/gargling with povidone-iodine or hydrogen peroxide in patients with COVID-19.

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.

In Vitro Evaluation of the Virucidal Activity of Different Povidone-Iodine Formulations Against Murine and Human Coronaviruses

Introduction

Polyvinylpyrrolidone–iodine (PVP-I) demonstrates broad-spectrum anti-infective activity and is available in different formulations for oral rinse and topical use in medical and personal care settings. The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has underscored the need to supplement available preventive strategies.

Methods

We assessed virucidal activity of PVP-I formulations, including 0.5% (w/v) solution, 5.0% (w/v) solution, 7.5% (w/v) scrub, and 10.0% (w/v) solution, versus placebos when challenged with coronaviruses in two in vitro studies. Murine coronavirus strain A59 (American Type Culture Collection [ATCC]^® VR-764™), human coronavirus strain OC43 (ZeptoMetrix Corp. #0810024CF), human coronavirus strain NL63 (ZeptoMetrix Corp. #0810228CF), and human coronavirus strain 229E (ATCC^® VR-740™) were used as surrogates for SARS-CoV-2. Both studies used the American Society for Testing and Materials in vitro time-kill method.

Results

All active PVP-I formulations in study 1 demonstrated virucidal activity at 15 s, with mean log₁₀ reduction of greater than 4.56 or greater than 99.99% inactivation; a cytotoxic effect against the National Collection of Type Cultures clone 1469 host cells was observed with 5.0% (w/v) solution, 7.5% (w/v) scrub, and 10.0% (w/v) solution. Active PVP-I formulations in study 2 demonstrated effective virucidal activity against coronaviruses in less than 15 s; log₁₀ reduction in viral titer for each coronavirus strain was consistently higher for 10.0% (w/v) solution and 0.5% (w/v) solution versus 7.5% (w/v) scrub.

Conclusion

Both studies demonstrated in vitro virucidal activity of PVP-I formulations when challenged with SARS-CoV-2 surrogate coronaviruses. Although promising, further investigations are needed to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 inactivation.

Inhibitory Effect of Ophthalmic Solutions against SARS-CoV-2: A Preventive Action to Block the Viral Transmission?

In 2020, a global pandemic was declared following the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen responsible for COVID-19. The risk of infection is high due to the ease of transmission, which can occur orally, through droplets, or via contact with contaminated surfaces and objects. It has also been demonstrated that the ocular surface can constitute a transmission route, especially in hospital settings, where health care workers can become a dangerous source of infection. In order to increase prevention and reduce the spread of the virus on the ocular surface, the antiviral activity of already-marketed eye drops against SARS-CoV-2 was evaluated. Iodim, Ozodrop, Septavis, and Dropsept were tested against SARS-CoV-2 in plaque-assay experiments at different stimulation times. Furthermore, the expression levels of early and late genes were evaluated through molecular assays. Results indicated that three of the four ophthalmic solutions showed a considerable dose-dependent inhibition of viral replication, highlighting their use as potential antiviral drugs against SARS-CoV-2 and preventing other ocular infections.

Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions in 100 patients hospitalized for COVID-19: sex differences and recovery time in real-life

Purpose

COVID-19 displays a variety of clinical manifestations; in pauci-symptomatic patients olfactory (OD) and gustatory dysfunctions (GD) may represent the first or only symptom. This topic is currently arousing great interest, and a growing number of papers are being published. Aim of this study is to investigate the timing of recovery from OD and GD in a real-life population hospitalized for COVID-19.

Methods

We followed up by a phone interview the first 100 patients discharged a month earlier from three Italian non-intensive care wards.

Results

All 100 patients were Caucasian, mean age was 65 years, 60% were males. Forty-two patients (mean age 63 years) experienced subjective chemosensory dysfunctions (29 OD and 41 GD): the male/female ratio was 2:1; 83% reported a complete or near complete recovery at follow-up. The recovery rate was not significantly different between males and females. The mean duration of OD and GD was 18 and 16 days, respectively. The mean recovery time from OD or GD resulted significantly longer for females than for males (26 vs 14 days, P = 0.009). Among the 42 symptomatic, the mean age of males was significantly higher than that of females (66 vs 57 years, P = 0.04), while the opposite was observed in the 58 asymptomatic patients (60 vs 73 years, P = 0.0018).

Conclusions

Recovery from OD or GD was rapid, occurring within 4 weeks in most patients. Chemosensory dysfunctions in women was less frequent, but longer lasting. The value of our study is its focus on a population of hospitalized patients significantly older than those previously described, and the additional data on gender differences.