Nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal treatment for COVID-19: real-time meta-analysis of 42 studies

SARS-CoV-2 infection typically starts in the upper respiratory tract, and specifically the nasal respiratory epithelium. Entry via the eyes and gastrointestinal tract is possible, but less common, and entry via other routes is rare. Infection may progress to the lower respiratory tract, other tissues, and the nervous and cardiovascular systems. The primary initial route for entry into the central nervous system is thought to be the olfactory nerve in the nasal cavity2. Progression may lead to cytokine storm, pneumonia, ARDS, neurological injury3-18 and cognitive deficits6,11, cardiovascular complications19-25, DNA damage26-28, organ failure, and death. Even mild untreated infections may result in persistent cognitive deficits29—the spike protein binds to fibrin leading to fibrinolysis-resistant blood clots, thromboinflammation, and neuropathology. Systemic treatments may be insufficient to prevent neurological damage10. Minimizing replication as early as possible is recommended.

Logically, stopping replication in the upper respiratory tract should be simpler and more effective. Wu et al., using an airway organoid model incorporating many in vivo aspects, show that SARS-CoV-2 initially attaches to cilia—hair-like structures responsible for moving the mucus layer and where ACE2 is localized in nasal epithelial cells32. The mucus layer and the need for ciliary transport slow down infection, providing more time for localized treatments30,31. Early or prophylactic nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal treatment may avoid the consequences of viral replication in other tissues, and avoid the requirement for systemic treatments with greater potential for side effects.

SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication involves the complex interplay of 400+ host and viral proteins and other factorsA,33-40, providing many therapeutic targets for which many existing compounds have known activity. Scientists have predicted that over 10,000 compounds may reduce COVID-19 risk41, either by directly minimizing infection or replication, by supporting immune system function, or by minimizing secondary complications.

We analyze all COVID-19 early treatment and prophylaxis studies using direct administration to the upper respiratory tract via nasal or oral sprays, rinses, or drops with one of the treatments we cover. This analysis is intended to show an overview of studies using respiratory tract administration, to compare nasal vs. oral administration, and to compare mono vs. polytherapy. Other papers analyze each treatment individually. Search methods, inclusion criteria, effect extraction criteria (more serious outcomes have priority), all individual study data, PRISMA details, and statistical methods are detailed in Appendix 1.

Fig. 4 shows stages of possible treatment for COVID-19. Prophylaxis refers to regularly taking medication before becoming sick, in order to prevent or minimize infection. Early treatment refers to treatment immediately or soon after symptoms appear, while late treatment refers to more delayed treatment.

RCTs help to make study groups more similar and can provide a higher level of evidence, however they are subject to many biases45, and analysis of double-blind RCTs has identified extreme levels of bias46. For COVID-19, the overhead may delay treatment, dramatically compromising efficacy; they may encourage monotherapy for simplicity at the cost of efficacy which may rely on combined or synergistic effects; the participants that sign up may not reflect real world usage or the population that benefits most in terms of age, comorbidities, severity of illness, or other factors; standard of care may be compromised and unable to evolve quickly based on emerging research for new diseases; errors may be made in randomization and medication delivery; and investigators may have hidden agendas or vested interests influencing design, operation, analysis, reporting, and the potential for fraud. All of these biases have been observed with COVID-19 RCTs. There is no guarantee that a specific RCT provides a higher level of evidence.

RCTs are expensive and many RCTs are funded by pharmaceutical companies or other organizations with conflicts of interest, for example governments that previously denied treatment with the study drug. For COVID-19, this creates an incentive to show efficacy for patented commercial products, and an incentive to show a lack of efficacy for inexpensive treatments. The bias is expected to be significant, for example Als-Nielsen et al. analyzed 370 RCTs from Cochrane reviews, showing that trials funded by for-profit organizations were 5 times more likely to recommend the experimental drug compared with those funded by nonprofit organizations. Bekelman et al. and Lundh et al. show that industry-sponsored studies are more likely to be favorable. For COVID-19, some major philanthropic organizations are largely funded by investments with extreme conflicts of interest for and against specific COVID-19 interventions.

High quality RCTs for novel acute diseases are more challenging, with increased ethical issues due to the urgency of treatment, increased risk due to enrollment delays, and more difficult design with a rapidly evolving evidence base. For COVID-19, the most common site of initial infection is the upper respiratory tract. Immediate treatment is likely to be most successful and may prevent or slow progression to other parts of the body. For a non-prophylaxis RCT, it makes sense to provide treatment in advance and instruct patients to use it immediately on symptoms, just as some governments have done by providing medication kits in advance. Unfortunately, no RCTs have been done in this way. Every treatment RCT to date involves delayed treatment. Among the 214 treatments we have analyzed, 67% of RCTs involve very late treatment 5+ days after onset. No non-prophylaxis COVID-19 RCTs match the potential real-world use of early treatments. They may more accurately represent results for treatments that require visiting a medical facility, e.g., those requiring intravenous administration.

Evidence shows that observational studies can also provide reliable results. Concato et al. found that well-designed observational studies do not systematically overestimate the magnitude of the effects of treatment compared to RCTs. Anglemyer et al. analyzed reviews comparing RCTs to observational studies and found little evidence for significant differences in effect estimates.

We performed a similar analysis across the 214 treatments we cover, showing no significant difference in the results of RCTs compared to observational studies, RR 0.97 [0.92‑1.04]43. Similar results are found for all low-cost treatments, RR 0.98 [0.90‑1.07]. High-cost treatments show a non-significant trend towards RCTs showing greater efficacy, RR 0.93 [0.85‑1.03]. Details can be found in the supplementary data.

Lee (B) et al. showed that only 14% of the guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America were based on RCTs. Evaluation of studies relies on an understanding of the study and potential biases. Limitations in an RCT can outweigh the benefits, for example excessive dosages, excessive treatment delays, or remote survey bias may have a greater effect on results. Ethical issues may also prevent running RCTs for known effective treatments. For more on issues with RCTs see54,55.

Concato et al. report a paradoxical finding—RCT results had higher variability, and only RCTs were found to sometimes report significant results the opposite of the overall result. The same trend is seen for the most popular (most politicized) COVID-19 treatments—considering all statistically significant results reported in studies, RCTs are slightly more likely to report a result in the opposite direction. In other words, for these COVID-19 treatments and for the topics covered by Concato et al., assuming causality from a single study is more likely to result in an incorrect conclusion for RCTs.

Increased risk of inconsistent results for RCTs suggests higher prevalence of bias, which may arise due to many issues including design bias, conflicts of interest, treatment differences by physicians aware of allocation, attrition bias, ascertainment bias, randomization failures, errors, or fraud.

Currently, 59 of the treatments we analyze show statistically significant efficacy or harm, defined as ≥10% decreased risk or >0% increased risk from ≥3 studies. Of these, 58% have been confirmed in RCTs, with a mean delay of 7.6 months (64% with 8.7 months delay for low-cost treatments). The remaining treatments either have no RCTs, or the point estimate is consistent.

Neither observational studies nor RCTs prove causation—any study can be flawed or fraudulent. We need much more, for example a combination of results from many independent teams, detailed understanding of each study, knowledge of conflicts/team reliability, dose-response relationships, delay-response relationships, logical results across outcomes, or details consistent with preclinical expectations.

All studies must be evaluated individually. RCTs for a given medication and disease may be more reliable, however they may also be less reliable. For off-patent medications, very high conflict of interest trials may be more likely to be RCTs, and more likely to be large trials that dominate meta-analyses.

The time between infection or the onset of symptoms and treatment may critically affect how well a treatment works. For example an antiviral may be very effective when used early but may not be effective in late stage disease, and may even be harmful. Oseltamivir, for example, is generally only considered effective for influenza when used within 0-36 or 0-48 hours64,65. Baloxavir marboxil studies for influenza also show that treatment delay is critical — Ikematsu et al. report an 86% reduction in cases for post-exposure prophylaxis, Hayden et al. show a 33 hour reduction in the time to alleviation of symptoms for treatment within 24 hours and a reduction of 13 hours for treatment within 24-48 hours, and Kumar et al. report only 2.5 hours improvement for inpatient treatment.

Fig. 24 shows a mixed-effects meta-regression for efficacy as a function of treatment delay in COVID-19 studies from 214 treatments, showing that efficacy declines rapidly with treatment delay. Early treatment is critical for COVID-19.

Details of the patient population including age and comorbidities may critically affect how well a treatment works. For example, many COVID-19 studies with relatively young low-comorbidity patients show all patients recovering quickly with or without treatment. In such cases, there is little room for an effective treatment to improve results, for example as in López-Medina et al.

Efficacy may depend critically on the distribution of SARS-CoV-2 variants encountered by patients. Risk varies significantly across variants70, for example the Gamma variant shows significantly different characteristics71-74. Different mechanisms of action may be more or less effective depending on variants, for example the degree to which TMPRSS2 contributes to viral entry can differ across variants75,76.

Effectiveness may depend strongly on the dosage and treatment regimen.

The quality of medications may vary significantly between manufacturers and production batches, which may significantly affect efficacy and safety. Williams et al. analyze ivermectin from 11 different sources, showing highly variable antiparasitic efficacy across different manufacturers. Xu et al. analyze a treatment from two different manufacturers, showing 9 different impurities, with significantly different concentrations for each manufacturer.

The use of other treatments may significantly affect outcomes, including supplements, other medications, or other interventions such as prone positioning. Treatments may be synergistic79-95, therefore efficacy may depend strongly on combined treatments.

Across all studies there is a strong association between different outcomes, for example improved recovery is strongly associated with lower mortality. However, efficacy may differ depending on the effect measured, for example a treatment may be more effective against secondary complications and have minimal effect on viral clearance.

The distribution of studies will alter the outcome of a meta-analysis. Consider a simplified example where everything is equal except for the treatment delay, and effectiveness decreases to zero or below with increasing delay. If there are many studies using very late treatment, the outcome may be negative, even though early treatment is very effective. All meta-analyses combine heterogeneous studies, varying in population, variants, and potentially all factors above, and therefore may obscure efficacy by including studies where treatment is less effective. Generally, we expect the estimated effect size from meta-analysis to be less than that for the optimal case. Looking at all studies is valuable for providing an overview of all research, important to avoid cherry-picking, and informative when a positive result is found despite combining less-optimal situations. However, the resulting estimate does not apply to specific cases such as early treatment in high-risk populations. While we present results for all studies, we also present treatment time and individual outcome analyses, which may be more informative for specific use cases.

This section validates the use of pooled effects for COVID-19, which enables earlier detection of efficacy, however pooled effects are no longer required for nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal treatment as of April 2021. Efficacy is now known based on specific outcomes.

For COVID-19, delay in clinical results translates into additional death and morbidity, as well as additional economic and societal damage. Combining the results of studies reporting different outcomes is required. There may be no mortality in a trial with low-risk patients, however a reduction in severity or improved viral clearance may translate into lower mortality in a high-risk population. Different studies may report lower severity, improved recovery, and lower mortality, and the significance may be very high when combining the results. "The studies reported different outcomes" is not a good reason for disregarding results. Pooling the results of studies reporting different outcomes allows us to use more of the available information. Logically we should, and do, use additional information when evaluating treatments—for example dose-response and treatment delay-response relationships provide additional evidence of efficacy that is considered when reviewing the evidence for a treatment.

We present both specific outcome and pooled analyses. In order to combine the results of studies reporting different outcomes we use the most serious outcome reported in each study, based on the thesis that improvement in the most serious outcome provides comparable measures of efficacy for a treatment. A critical advantage of this approach is simplicity and transparency. There are many other ways to combine evidence for different outcomes, along with additional evidence such as dose-response relationships, however these increase complexity.

Trials with high-risk patients may be restricted due to ethics for treatments that are known or expected to be effective, and they increase difficulty for recruiting. Using less severe outcomes as a proxy for more serious outcomes allows faster and safer collection of evidence.

Currently, 59 of the treatments we analyze show statistically significant efficacy or harm, defined as ≥10% decreased risk or >0% increased risk from ≥3 studies. 85% of these have been confirmed with one or more specific outcomes, with a mean delay of 4.6 months. When restricting to RCTs only, 51% of treatments showing statistically significant efficacy/harm with pooled effects have been confirmed with one or more specific outcomes, with a mean delay of 6.8 months. Fig. 28 shows when treatments were found effective during the pandemic. Pooled outcomes often resulted in earlier detection of efficacy.

Pooled analysis could hide efficacy, for example a treatment that is beneficial for late stage patients but has no effect on viral clearance may show no efficacy if most studies only examine viral clearance. In practice, it is rare for a non-antiviral treatment to report viral clearance and to not report clinical outcomes; and in practice other sources of heterogeneity such as differences in treatment delay are more likely to hide efficacy.

Analysis validates the use of pooled effects and shows significantly faster detection of efficacy on average. However, as with all meta-analyses, it is important to review the different studies included. We also present individual outcome analyses, which may be more informative for specific use cases.

Analysis of short-term changes in viral load using PCR may not detect effective treatments because PCR is unable to differentiate between intact infectious virus and non-infectious or destroyed virus particles. For example Tarragó-Gil, Alemany perform RCTs with cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouthwash that show no difference in PCR viral load, however there was significantly increased detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein, indicating viral lysis. CPC inactivates SARS-CoV-2 by degrading its membrane, exposing the nucleocapsid of the virus. To better estimate changes in viral load and infectivity, methods like viral culture that can differentiate intact vs. degraded virus are preferred.

Studies to date use a variety of administration methods to the respiratory tract, including nasal and oral sprays, nasal irrigation, oral rinses, and inhalation. Table 4 shows the relative efficacy for nasal, oral, and combined administration. Combined administration shows the best results, and nasal administration is more effective than oral. Precise efficacy depends on the details of administration, e.g., mucoadhesion and sprayability for sprays.

Nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal treatments work via different methods. Some are drugs with other primary uses and have a greater potential for side effects and drug interactions, for example azelastine and chlorpheniramine are antihistamines. Table 5 summarizes the primary classes of mechanisms of action, and Table 6 shows mechanisms of action for specific treatments.

Nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal treatments may not be highly selective. In addition to inhibiting or disabling SARS-CoV-2, they may also be harmful to beneficial microbes, disrupting the natural microbiome in the oral cavity and nasal passages that have important protective and metabolic roles111. This may be especially important for prolonged use or overuse. Table 7 summarizes the potential for common nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal treatments to affect the natural microbiome.

Publishing is often biased towards positive results, however evidence suggests that there may be a negative bias for inexpensive treatments for COVID-19. Both negative and positive results are very important for COVID-19, media in many countries prioritizes negative results for inexpensive treatments (inverting the typical incentive for scientists that value media recognition), and there are many reports of difficulty publishing positive results113-116. For nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal treatment, there is currently not enough data to evaluate publication bias with high confidence.

Funnel plots have traditionally been used for analyzing publication bias. This is invalid for COVID-19 acute treatment trials — the underlying assumptions are invalid, which we can demonstrate with a simple example. Consider a set of hypothetical perfect trials with no bias. Fig. 29 plot A shows a funnel plot for a simulation of 80 perfect trials, with random group sizes, and each patient's outcome randomly sampled (10% control event probability, and a 30% effect size for treatment). Analysis shows no asymmetry (p > 0.05). In plot B, we add a single typical variation in COVID-19 treatment trials — treatment delay. Consider that efficacy varies from 90% for treatment within 24 hours, reducing to 10% when treatment is delayed 3 days. In plot B, each trial's treatment delay is randomly selected. Analysis now shows highly significant asymmetry, p < 0.0001, with six variants of Egger's test all showing p < 0.05117-124. Note that these tests fail even though treatment delay is uniformly distributed. In reality treatment delay is more complex — each trial has a different distribution of delays across patients, and the distribution across trials may be biased (e.g., late treatment trials may be more common). Similarly, many other variations in trials may produce asymmetry, including dose, administration, duration of treatment, differences in SOC, comorbidities, age, variants, and bias in design, implementation, analysis, and reporting.

Summary statistics from meta-analysis necessarily lose information. As with all meta-analyses, studies are heterogeneous, with differences in treatment delay, treatment regimen, patient demographics, variants, conflicts of interest, standard of care, and other factors. We provide analyses for specific outcomes and by treatment delay, and we aim to identify key characteristics in the forest plots and summaries. Results should be viewed in the context of study characteristics.

Some analyses classify treatment based on early or late administration, as done here, while others distinguish between mild, moderate, and severe cases. Viral load does not indicate degree of symptoms — for example patients may have a high viral load while being asymptomatic. With regard to treatments that have antiviral properties, timing of treatment is critical — late administration may be less helpful regardless of severity.

Details of treatment delay per patient is often not available. For example, a study may treat 90% of patients relatively early, but the events driving the outcome may come from 10% of patients treated very late. Our 5 day cutoff for early treatment may be too conservative, 5 days may be too late in many cases.

Comparison across treatments is confounded by differences in the studies performed, for example dose, variants, and conflicts of interest. Trials with conflicts of interest may use designs better suited to the preferred outcome.

In some cases, the most serious outcome has very few events, resulting in lower confidence results being used in pooled analysis, however the method is simpler and more transparent. This is less critical as the number of studies increases. Restriction to outcomes with sufficient power may be beneficial in pooled analysis and improve accuracy when there are few studies, however we maintain our pre-specified method to avoid any retrospective changes.

Studies show that combinations of treatments can be highly synergistic and may result in many times greater efficacy than individual treatments alone79-95. Therefore standard of care may be critical and benefits may diminish or disappear if standard of care does not include certain treatments.

This real-time analysis is constantly updated based on submissions. Accuracy benefits from widespread review and submission of updates and corrections from reviewers. Less popular treatments may receive fewer reviews.

No treatment or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. Efficacy may vary significantly with different variants and within different populations. All treatments have potential side effects. Propensity to experience side effects may be predicted in advance by qualified physicians. We do not provide medical advice. Before taking any medication, consult a qualified physician who can compare all options, provide personalized advice, and provide details of risks and benefits based on individual medical history and situations.

SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication involves a complex interplay of 400+ host and viral proteins and other factors33-40, providing many therapeutic targets. Over 10,000 compounds have been predicted to reduce COVID-19 risk41, either by directly minimizing infection or replication, by supporting immune system function, or by minimizing secondary complications. Fig. 30 shows an overview of the results for nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal treatment in the context of multiple COVID-19 treatments, and Fig. 31 shows a plot of efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19 treatments.