RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Mouth-rinses and SARS-CoV-2 viral load in saliva: A living systematic review JF medRxiv FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press SP 2021.03.23.21254214 DO 10.1101/2021.03.23.21254214 A1 Hernández-Vásquez, Akram A1 Barrenechea-Pulache, Antonio A1 Comandé, Daniel A1 Azañedo, Diego YR 2021 UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/26/2021.03.23.21254214.abstract AB Objective To conduct a living systematic review of the clinical evidence regarding the effect of different mouth-rinses on the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva of infected patients. The viral load in aerosols, the duration of the reduction in viral load, viral clearance, SARS-CoV-2 cellular infectivity, and salivary cytokine profiles were also evaluated.Materials and methods This study was reported using the PRISMA guidelines. An electronic search was conducted in seven databases and in preprint repositories. We included human clinical trials that evaluated the effect of mouth-rinses with antiseptic substances on the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva of children or adults that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021240561.Results Four studies matching eligibility criteria were selected for evaluation (n=32 participants). Study participants underwent oral rinses with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) at 1 %, povidone–iodine (PI) at 0.5% or 1%, chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) at 0.2% or 0.12% or cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) at 0.075%. Only one study included a control group with sterile water. Three of the studies identified a significant reduction in viral load up to 3, 4, and 6 hours after the use of mouthwashes with PI, CHX, and CPC or PI vs. sterile water, respectively, while one study did not identify a significant reduction in viral load after the use of H2O2 rinses.Conclusions According to the present systematic review, the effect of the use of mouth-rinses on SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the saliva of COVID-19 patients remains uncertain. This is mainly due to the limited number of patients included and a high risk of bias present in the studies analyzed. Evidence from well-designed randomized clinical trials is required for further and more objective evaluation of this effect.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=240561 Funding StatementNone.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:We did not solicit the approval of the study by an Institutional Review Board because this is a revision of bibliographic databases.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesA systematic electronic search of articles published until February 26th, 2021 was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source, and LILACS databases. Preprint repositories including medRxiv and bioRxiv were also searched.