A pre-print Efficacy of a nasal spray containing Iota-Carrageenan in the prophylaxis of COVID-19 in hospital personnel dedicated to patients care with COVID-19 disease appeared at medrxiv.org way back in April, but I missed it!
The incidence of COVID-19 differs significantly between those receiving the nasal spray with Iota-Carrageenan (2 of 196 [1·0 %]) and those receiving placebo (10 of 198 [5·0 %]) (Odds Ratio 0.19 (95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.77; p=0.03). Business day losses censored at day 21 were lower in I-C group (0.5% and 2.0%; p< 0.0001). In sensitivity analysis in which we removed from our analyses individuals who presented symptoms before 7 days after randomization, the risk reduction was 95% (95% CI, 6.0% to 99.7%), p= 0.04. OR: 0.05 (95% CI, 0.003 to 0.9), p=0.04.
Update I should also mention the nasal spray antibody potential treatment Russel alerted me to. It’s reported in Nature!
Antibody-laden nasal spray could provide COVID protection — and treatment
Carrageenan has to be a lot cheaper than antibodies. If carrageenan is effective against covid-19, might it also be generally effective against airborne viruses?
SteveF,
It ought to be effective against a broad class given the mechanism, which is sort of a blocking film and electrostatic attraction. I’m sort of surprised this turned out this well since previous studies were promising but not statistically significant. But yeah: cheap.
.
It would seem to mostly be preventative, but not treatment. But that’s seriously cheap and this would be easy. The stuff is innocuous
.
If the carrageenan really does work as well as that article found, it ought to be announced because that would be a big enough effect to seriously protect individuals. It would presumably cut Reff in 1/5th if you got everyone to use it! That pre-print was April. So, we’ll see.
.
The antibodies seem to be intended as treatment in addition to possibly a preventative. The antibodies looks totally invitro though. It’s just sort of more of a breakthrough for them to have made the things at all. It’ll be great if that pans out too though.
.
Lucia, I was impressed with the Carrageenan results. As you know I use saline/ baking soda rinse for the same purpose. Although saline rinse has been used as a virus prophylactic since Roman times, I have not found any clinical studies on the effectiveness on Covid. This study uses a 0.9% saline as a placebo. That doesn’t apply though because my saline rinse is 5-10% NaCl plus NaHCO₃.
A year ago I saw a number of articles, that I assumed were just disguised ads, that claimed XLear nasal spray was effective at prevention.
MikeN,
Yes. This doesn’t apply to the Xylitol which also shows some efficacy in vitro where they spray stuff on cells. There are supposedly on going studies registered for that too. I don’t expect we’ll hear until at least Dec 2021, and depending on where and who they got as test candidates they may find nothing even if it works. (I knew I’d get vaccinated as soon as I could no matter what. I wasn’t going to put that off “for science”.)
.
The recommended concentrations of Xylitol are higher and it’s more expensive to make as home-brew.
.
Notice the ads on Xlear don’t say it stops covid. It’s definitely unproven in people. Might help, or not.
.
I did mix both up and try. Assuming both worked equally, the XLear would be “nicer” because it is just sort of watery. The Carrageenan sort of makes coating on your nose. It feels a little like a very thin layer of dried snot. That would be so worth it if it works and it’s “the” way to prevent Covid. But obviously, it’s nicer to feel like your nose isn’t slightly coated with dried snot.
.
OTOH: the thin layer of dried snot might be precisely what helps it work. 🙂
.
I’m interested in seeing what all these things report.
.
I admit that I am tempted to use Carrageenan going into cold seasons. It might or might not work for colds but I have the ingredients and it’s not too unappealing.
lucia (Comment #202770): “I’m sort of surprised this turned out this well since previous studies were promising but not statistically significant.”
.
A 3% probability of the result being chance is not overwhelming. Given the prior results, it seems likely that this result was at least partly chance; that is, although there may have been some effect it was likely much less than a factor of five.
Mike M,
OK, but even if something really cheap and non-invasive cut the rate of symptomatic illness by a factor of 2 to 4, how is this a bad thing? (even if there is a 3% chance it is due to random noise; 3% chance is pretty small)
SteveF (Comment #202789): “but even if something really cheap and non-invasive cut the rate of symptomatic illness by a factor of 2 to 4, how is this a bad thing?”
.
It depends on the long term consequences of squirting the stuff into your nose several times a day every day for decades.
.
On the time scales used in clinical trials, smoking is safe.
MikeM
Agreed.
That’s one of the reasons I prefer the vaccine. 🙂