MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155898306 · doi:10.1101/2021.04.13.21255409

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 A pragmatic multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (CARR-COV-02)

2021· preprint· en· W3155898306 on OpenAlexaff
Juan Manuel Figueroa, Mónica Lombardo, Ariel Dogliotti, Luis Flynn, Robert P. Giugliano, Guido Simonelli, Ricardo Valentini, A. Velasco Ramos, Pablo Romano, Marcelo Marcote, Alicia Michelini, Alejandro Salvado, Emilio Sykora, Cecilia Kniz, Marcelo Kobelinsky, David Salzberg, Diana Jerusalinsky, Osvaldo D. Uchitel

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboMedicineOdds ratioNasal sprayConfidence intervalIncidence (geometry)Adverse effectRandomized controlled trialClinical trialInternal medicineClinical endpointPlacebo-controlled studyDouble blindNasal administrationImmunologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Background Iota-Carrageenan (I-C) is a sulfate polysaccharide synthesized by red algae, with demonstrated antiviral activity and clinical efficacy as nasal spray in the treatment of common cold. In vitro, I-C inhibits SARS-CoV-2 infection in cell culture. Methods This is a pragmatic multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessing the use of a nasal spray containing I-C in the prophylaxis of COVID-19 in hospital personnel dedicated to care of COVID-19 patients. Clinically healthy physicians, nurses, kinesiologists and others medical providers were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive four daily doses of I-C spray or placebo for 21 days. The primary end point was clinical COVID-19, as confirmed by reverse-transcriptase–polymerase-chain-reaction testing, over a period of 21 days. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04521322 ). Findings A total of 394 individuals were randomly assigned to receive I-C or placebo. Both treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics. The incidence of COVID19 was significantly lower in the I-C group compared to placebo (1·0% vs 5·0%) (Odds Ratio 0·19 (95% confidence interval 0·05 to 0·77; p= 0·03). Workday loss in placebo group compared to I-Cc were 1.6% days / person (95% ci, 1.0 to 2.2); p <0.0001 There were no differences in the incidence of adverse events across the two groups (17·3% in the I-C group and 15·2% in the placebo group, p= 0·5). Interpretation I-C showed significant efficacy in preventing SARS-Cov-2 infection in hospital personnel dedicated to care patients with COVID-19 disease. Research in context Evidence before this study We searched PubMed for research articles published up to February 14, 2021, with no language restrictions, using the terms “SARS-CoV-2” or “COVID-19”, “prevention”, “clinical trial”, and “prophylaxis”. Except for studies on vaccines we only found three peer-reviewed publications available on the efficacy of Hydroxycholoquine to prevent COVID-19 disease in individuals at risk of exposure. Hydroxychloroquine did not prevent COVID-19 used as pre or postexposure prophylaxis. We also did not find results from clinical trials on the efficacy of carrageenan in the prevention or treatment of cOVID-19. Added value of this study We report the clinical efficacy of a nasal spray with Iota-Carrageenan for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study in República Argentina, including 394 participants. Implications of all the available evidence A simple intervention such as the administration of a nasal spray with Iota-Carrageenan, in addition to hand hygiene, use of personal protective equipment and social distancing, could provide additional protection until vaccines can be administered to the majority of the population.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicInfection Control and VentilationFrench-language works237,207