Cetylpyridinium chloride 1.28mg/g / Menthol 330micrograms/g pastilles sugar free
Official documents, adverse reaction reporting, and safety monitoring
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Official medicine documents
Safety monitoring data
Yellow Card reports
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme collects reports of suspected side effects from healthcare professionals and patients. View the Drug Analysis Profile (iDAP) for real-world adverse reaction data.
View Drug Analysis Profile
Browse all Drug Analysis Profiles A–Z
Browse all iDAP reports
Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles for all medicines
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Data from the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. A reported reaction does not necessarily mean the medicine caused it. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
EudraVigilance
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) collects suspected adverse reaction reports from across the EU/EEA through the EudraVigilance system. Search for safety data on this medicine.
Search EudraVigilance database
Browse substances A–Z in the European adverse reaction database
About EudraVigilance
Learn about EU pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring
EudraVigilance data is published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A suspected adverse reaction is not necessarily caused by the medicine.
2 branded products available
Therapeutically similar medicines
Similarity is based on WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and on a factual NHS dm+d therapeutic-grouping code prefix. Source data: NHS dm+d via TRUD (OGL v3.0), WHO ATC/DDD Index.
NHS prescribing volume and spending trends
Check stock at pharmacies and supply information
Pharmacy stock checkers
Search for this medicine at major UK pharmacy chains. These links open the retailer's own website — results depend on their current online catalogue.
Supply & safety information
Official UK regulator monitoring and safety alerts
Pharmacy links redirect to the retailer's own search and do not represent real-time stock levels. Shortage and safety information sourced from MHRA drug safety updates (gov.uk, Crown Copyright under OGL v3.0).
Codes for healthcare professionals and prescribing systems
These codes are used by healthcare IT systems and prescribers to identify this medicine.
NHS UK identifiers
Browse tools
SNOMED CT and dm+d codes from NHS TRUD (Technology Reference data Update Distribution), licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. BNF code shown is the factual mapping value distributed by NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) in the dm+d supplementary file under OGL v3.0; it is not affiliated with, nor licensed from, the publishers of the British National Formulary. ATC codes from the WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology (whocc.no).
Active and completed clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data accessed via ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Trial information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Academic studies and reviews for this medicine's active substance
Showing the 50 most relevant studies.
Reviews & meta-analyses: 29 · Randomised trials: 2 · 2002–2025
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
Andrea C. Villanti, Lauren K. Collins, R. Niaura, et al.
BMC Public Health, 2017
Clare Meernik, H. Baker, S. Kowitt, et al.
BMJ Open, 2019
Sarah D. Mills, Snigdha R Peddireddy, Rachel Kurtzman, et al.
Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2024
S. Kowitt, Clare Meernik, H. Baker, et al.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2017
D'Amico Filippo, M. Matteo, Saracino Marco, et al.
Molecular oral microbiology, 2023
Sbricoli L, Schiavon L, Brunello G, et al.
2023
To evaluate the effectiveness of antiseptic mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 load clinically and in vitro. A systematic electronic search (MEDLINE/Scopus/Cochrane) was conducted to identify prospective clinical and in vitro studies published between 2019 included and 16 June 2023 assessing the effectiveness of mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 load in saliva or surrogates. Data were summarized in tables and a network meta-analysis was performed for clinical trials. Thirty-five studies (14 RCTs, 21 in vitro) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was judged to be high for 2 clinical and 7 in vitro studies. The most commonly test product was chlorhexidine alone or in combination with other active ingredients, followed by povidone-iodine, hydrogen peroxide and cetylpyridinium chloride. Overall, the descriptive analysis revealed the effectiveness of the mouthwashes in decreasing the salivary viral load both clinically and in vitro. Network meta-analysis demonstrated a high degree of heterogeneity. Among these studies, only chlorhexidine 0.20% was associated to a significant Ct increase in the saliva 5 min after rinsing compared to non-active control (p = 0.027). Data from clinical and in vitro studies suggested the antiviral efficacy of commonly used mouthwashes. Large well-balanced trials are needed to identify the best rinsing protocols.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND
Ebrahimi T, Shamshiri AR, Alebouyeh M, et al.
2023
- Mouthwashes
- COVID-19
- Mouth
BackgroundThe risk of SARS-COV-2 transmission is relatively high during dental procedures. A study was conducted to investigate the effects of mouthwashes on SARS-COV-2 viral load reduction in the oral cavity.MethodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library for relevant studies up to 20 July, 2022. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trial and quasi-experimental studies evaluating patients with Covid-19 infection (patients) who used mouthwashes (intervention) compared to the same patients before using the mouthwash (comparison) for reducing the SARS-COV-2 load or increasing the cycle threshold (Ct) value (outcome) were searched according to PICO components. Three independent reviewers conducted literature screening and data extraction. The Modified Downs and Black checklist was used for quality assessment. A meta-analysis was performed with a random effects model in the Revman 5.4.1software using the mean difference (MD) of cycle threshold (Ct) values.ResultsOf 1653 articles, 9 with a high methodological quality were included. A meta-analysis indicated that 1% Povidone-iodine (PVP-I) was an effective mouthwash for reducing the SARS-COV-2 viral load [MD 3.61 (95% confidence interval 1.03, 6.19)]. Cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) [MD 0.61 (95% confidence interval -1.03, 2.25)] and Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) [MD -0.04 95% confidence interval (-1.20, 1.12)] were not effective against SARS-COV-2.ConclusionUsing mouthwashes containing PVP-I may be recommended for reducing the SARS-COV-2 viral load in the oral cavity of patients before and during dental procedures, while the evidence is not sufficient for such effects for CPC and CHX-containing mouthwashes.
Abstract licence: CC BY
Owen Jeffries, M. Waldron
Journal of science and medicine in sport, 2019
Sources: aggregated from Europe PMC (EMBL-EBI), OpenAlex, Crossref, PubMed and other open scholarly databases. Retracted articles are excluded. Study information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Structured knowledge from the free knowledge base
Linked open data from Wikidata (Q27115152), a free and open knowledge base operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. Data is available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication.
Scientific data (pharmacology, interactions, ADME) is not yet available for this medicine. Clinical sections are sourced from the NHS dm+d database.