A randomized trial on the regular use of potent mouthwash in COVID-19 treatment

  1. Khalid Mukhtar
  2. Suelen Qassim
  3. Shaikha Ali Al Qahtani
  4. Mohamed Ibn-Masud Danjuma
  5. Mohamed Mohamedali
  6. Housamaddeen Al Farhan
  7. Mohammed F. Khudair
  8. Abdel Rehim El Tayeh
  9. Mohammed Al-Dosari
  10. Mohamed Elhassan Babiker
  11. Ahmed Hassib
  12. Rumaisa Mohamed Elmustafa
  13. Wesal Elhadary
  14. Morwan Abdulkarim
  15. Rajvir Singh
  16. Muna Al.Maslamani

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

1.

In this work we tried to study the effect of the regular use of potent mouthwash in COVID19 cases, on the premise that it may speedup the recovery, through the repeated reduction of microbial load, of both, the 2019-nCOV and oral microbiota; thus slowing the disease progression and lowering the incidence of superinfections.

Through a randomized controlled trial, a mixed solution of Hydrogen peroxide 2% and chlorhexidine gluconate, to be used for oral rinsing and gargling three times daily, was tested in cases admitted to COVID treatment facility, versus the standard (only) COVID19-treatment protocol, starting with 46 cases in each group, matched in terms of disease severity, of symptoms, and average cycle threshold value (CT-value) for the COVID PCR test on diagnosis.

Our findings showed statistically significant improvement in terms of a higher conversion rate to “COVID19-negative PCR” by five days of treatment (6/46 Vs 0/46), improvement in “symptoms severity” after two days of treatment, and less intubation and mortality (0/46 Vs 3/46) with all P-value < 0.05. There was also a trend of improvement in other outcome variables, though with no statistically significant difference; namely “shorter hospital stays,” “less progression in Oxygen requirements”, “less rate of plasma transfusion”, and better “gross extent of improvement”.

Our findings support a beneficial role in treating active cases (Disease) and anticipates better outcome should implemented earlier in course of the disease; thus, suggest a role in limiting the spread (Pandemic), as an additional preventive method. Additionally, we think the repeated reduction in the microbial load might have been sufficient to induce a strain in a possible viral-microbial interaction, resulting in slowing down of the disease progress.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1101/2020.11.27.20234997v2 on medRxiv
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.27.20234997: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    ISRCTN10197987NANA

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.11.27.20234997v1 on medRxiv