Little, Paul, Vennik, Jane and Rumsby, Kate , (2024) Nasal sprays and behavioural interventions compared with usual care for acute respiratory illness in primary care: a randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 12 (8), 619-632. (doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(24)00140-1).
Abstract
Background: a small amount of evidence suggests that nasal sprays, or physical activity and stress management, could shorten the duration of respiratory infections. This study aimed to assess the effect of nasal sprays or a behavioural intervention promoting physical activity and stress management on respiratory illnesses, compared with usual care.
Methods: this randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial was done at 332 general practitioner practices in the UK. Eligible adults (aged ≥18 years) had at least one comorbidity or risk factor increasing their risk of adverse outcomes due to respiratory illness (eg, immune compromise due to serious illness or medication; heart disease; asthma or lung disease; diabetes; mild hepatic impairment; stroke or severe neurological problem; obesity [BMI ≥30 kg/m 2]; or age ≥65 years) or at least three self-reported respiratory tract infections in a normal year (ie, any year before the COVID-19 pandemic). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) using a computerised system to: usual care (brief advice about managing illness); gel-based spray (two sprays per nostril at the first sign of an infection or after potential exposure to infection, up to 6 times per day); saline spray (two sprays per nostril at the first sign of an infection or after potential exposure to infection, up to 6 times per day); or a brief behavioural intervention in which participants were given access to a website promoting physical activity and stress management. The study was partially masked: neither investigators nor medical staff were aware of treatment allocation, and investigators who did the statistical analysis were unaware of treatment allocation. The sprays were relabelled to maintain participant masking. Outcomes were assessed using data from participants' completed monthly surveys and a survey at 6 months. The primary outcome was total number of days of illness due to self-reported respiratory tract illnesses (coughs, colds, sore throat, sinus or ear infections, influenza, or COVID-19) in the previous 6 months, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned participants who had primary outcome data available. Key secondary outcomes were possible harms, including headache or facial pain, and antibiotic use, assessed in all randomly assigned participants. This trial was registered with ISRCTN, 17936080, and is closed to recruitment.
Findings: between Dec 12, 2020, and April 7, 2023, of 19 475 individuals screened for eligibility, 13 799 participants were randomly assigned to usual care (n=3451), gel-based nasal spray (n=3448), saline nasal spray (n=3450), or the digital intervention promoting physical activity and stress management (n=3450). 11 612 participants had complete data for the primary outcome and were included in the primary outcome analysis (usual care group, n=2983; gel-based spray group, n=2935; saline spray group, n=2967; behavioural website group, n=2727). Compared with participants in the usual care group, who had a mean of 8·2 (SD 16·1) days of illness, the number of days of illness was significantly lower in the gel-based spray group (mean 6·5 days [SD 12·8]; adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·82 [99% CI 0·76–0·90]; p<0·0001) and the saline spray group (6·4 days [12·4]; 0·81 [0·74–0·88]; p<0·0001), but not in the group allocated to the behavioural website (7·4 days [14·7]; 0·97 [0·89–1·06]; p=0·46). The most common adverse event was headache or sinus pain in the gel-based group: 123 (4·8%) of 2556 participants in the usual care group; 199 (7·8%) of 2498 participants in the gel-based group (risk ratio 1·61 [95% CI 1·30–1·99]; p<0·0001); 101 (4·5%) of 2377 participants in the saline group (0·81 [0·63–1·05]; p=0·11); and 101 (4·5%) of 2091 participants in the behavioural intervention group (0·95 [0·74–1·22]; p=0·69). Compared with usual care, antibiotic use was lower for all interventions: IRR 0·65 (95% CI 0·50–0·84; p=0·001) for the gel-based spray group; 0·69 (0·45–0·88; p=0·003) for the saline spray group; and 0·74 (0·57–0·94; p=0·02) for the behavioural website group.
Interpretation: advice to use either nasal spray reduced illness duration and both sprays and the behavioural website reduced antibiotic use. Future research should aim to address the impact of the widespread implementation of these simple interventions.
Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research.
More information
Identifiers
Catalogue record
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.