Rapid initiation of nasal saline irrigation to reduce severity in high-risk COVID+ outpatients: a randomized clinical trial compared to a national dataset observational arm

Background and Objectives

Pharmacologic and immunologic COVID-19 therapeutics seek to inhibit mechanical binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-receptor to the ACE2 receptor, and spike segment furin cleavage necessary for cell entry. Sungnak et al. localized the necessary co-expression of ACE2 and protease TMPRSS2 primarily in the ciliated nasal epithelia,¹ supporting the clinical correlation of nasal viral load and severity and suggesting a location for early intervention. The increased infectiousness resulting from physical changes with viral spike protein mutations support a mechanical opportunity to interrupt viral particle receptor binding and entry.² The observation that saline can inhibit furin cleavage³ suggests a mechanical therapeutic option – nasal irrigation – may be particularly effective against this pathogen.

Nasal irrigation under pressure, or “nasal lavage”, has been demonstrated to safely reduce the duration and severity of both Coronaviridae and illnesses like flu with shorter incubation periods.^4-7 Repeated irrigation should be most effective for pathogens with prolonged incubation, local non-hematogenous spread, and variolation where viral load impacts severity.

Given research supporting the virucidal activity of povidone-iodine against MERS and SARS-CoV-2^8-10 and the possible impact of alkalinization to reduce SARS-CoV-1 viral cell fusion and entry,¹¹ patients were randomized to add alkalinization or povidone-iodine to pressurized nasal lavage. We hypothesized rapid initiation of nasal irrigation after testing positive would reduce the severity of COVID-19. Our primary outcome was COVID-19 hospitalization or death, with secondary outcomes of symptom duration, severity, and household spread.^12,13 If clinically effective, irrigation could be an inexpensive option rapidly available worldwide.

Methods

Results

During the study period, 826 unique patients aged 55 and older who tested positive for COIVD-19 were screened for study eligibility. Of the 694 eligible, 321 were unable to be reached, 294 refused participation, and 79 participants were able to be enrolled and receive irrigation materials on the day of contact (Figure 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

CONSORT diagram

Admissions occurred for 1/37 assigned to povidone-iodine and 0/42 patients in the alkalinization group (1.27%). One patient in the alkalinization group reported a COVID-19 related ED visit without admission (pre-monoclonal antibody availability), one patient reported an ED visit for a minor trauma, and one patient was admitted for a syncopal episode after resolution of COVID symptoms. These events were verified in the EHR database, confirmed with the day 28 phone call, and there were no additional ED visits or hospitalizations found in consented patients.

Between September 23, 2020 and December 21, 2020, for patients 50 years and older, of 2,962,541 laboratory-confirmed cases, 280533 (9.47%) were reported hospitalized. Complete hospitalization information was available for 45%. Where hospitalization status was unknown/missing, 44,773 deaths were reported, or 1.5%. Thus, hospitalization (or death when admission status was unknown/missing) occurred in 11%, 8.57 times the hospital admission rate of nasal irrigation participants (SE=2.74; P=.006), (Figure 2). The relative risk for nasal irrigation subjects was .119 (95%CI .0169 to .833, P=.032). Using only the 1,328,778 cases where hospitalization status was reported, the relative risk of hospitalization was .0594 (95%CI .0085 to 0.416, P=.0045) when using nasal irrigation, with a number needed to treat of 5. For the 1,002,050 CDC cases for whom both hospitalization and death were reported, 9.18% of patients expired.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Percent Severe Outcomes in Nasal Irrigation Group Compared to CDC Dataset

Percent of patients ≥55 in the prospective nasal irrigation group who were hospitalized compared to the number of patients age ≥50 in the CDC National Dataset reported hospitalized, or with death reported if hospitalization information was not reported or missing.

The CDC dataset only reported race for 65% of confirmed cases; those reported had a lower proportion of minority patients than enrolled irrigation patients (Table 1). There was no difference in age or sex from our population. Of the 79 enrolled, 53 patients completed the initial symptom and history questionnaire. (Table 2) An online daily symptom and irrigation data collection survey was completed by 62 participants (median 12 of 14 days [IQR 5,13.75]). Of enrolled patients, 68% had a pre-existing condition, 45% had multiple conditions, and the average BMI was 30.27. Patients reported a median of 3.3 days [IQR 2,5] of symptoms prior to enrollment.

Twelve patients received their materials but didn’t record their first irrigation until the following day. Of 631 daily online surveys, patients reported irrigating once per day (7.29%), twice daily (88.43%), or none (4.25%), averaging 1.79 irrigations per day. (Table 3) Patients were asked to take pictures of used irrigation materials to corroborate irrigation, but the number of used packets over time became difficult to assess for confirmation. Five participant provided compliance information at phone calls due to difficulty interfacing online. After enrollment, 11 patients complained of discomfort or spotty epistaxis, with four discontinuing irrigation. (Table 3)

Presenting symptoms present in over 50% of patients included fever, muscle aches, congestion, and headache. There were no statistical differences in symptomatic outcomes by irrigation unit used or irrigant additive, however symptoms resolved for all but 8 patients (12.9%) over the 14 day assessment period.

Ten participants (12.7% by intention to treat) had household contacts who tested positive at least one day after enrollment, compared to 18.8% in a published meta-analysis.¹² There was no difference in risk of household spread by additive or irrigation unit. (Table 3)

Discussion

Our results support that pressurized nasal irrigation reduces the likelihood of hospitalization in high-risk COVID-19 + patients, suggesting a safe and over the counter measure with potentially vital public health impact. Nationally, the reduction from 11% to 1.3% as of November 2021 would have corresponded in absolute terms to over 1,000,000 fewer older patients requiring admission. While one study found 47% of those 50 and older had continued symptoms 14 – 21 days after diagnoses,^16,17 only 13% in our study had symptoms at day 14. If confirmed in other studies, the potential reduction in morbidity and mortality worldwide could be profound.

Clinically COVID-19 differs notably from previous Coronaviridae: children are less impacted; obesity, diabetes, African American race and hypertension are independent risk factors; the relatively pathognomonic symptom of anosmia is present in up to 80% of patients,^18,19 and the duration from infection to severe symptoms is prolonged.

The clinical differences in presentation reflect SARS-CoV-2’s primarily nasal entry and nasopharyngeal replication. Olfactory neuroepithelium ACE2 is expressed at 700 times the expression in lungs.^19,20 Conditions increasing nasal ACE2 expression (obesity, hypertension, pollution) or sinus size (age, male sex) correlate with increased severity, further supporting targeting viral fusion in the nasopharynx.^21-25 In contrast, populations lacking fully developed sinus area (children), with a high baseline practice of nasal irrigation (Laos, Vietnam), or higher mask compliance have decreased severity.^26,27 Together, the nasal cavity size, ACE2 expression and variolation explanation could account for lower pediatric severity and spread.²⁸ The degree of methylation of the ACE2 receptors (and thus stiffness and ease of viral attachment) is related to both race and epigenetic stress.^29,30 Thus, increased virulence correlating with increased area, quantity and stability of the spike proteins supports the mechanical target hypothesis. Given the local cell-to-cell rather than hematogenous spread and delay in activation of lung TMPRRS2,³¹ mechanically debriding viral particles lodged in the ACE2 receptor, but not yet fused, could reduce severity. Furthermore, the variation in severity with methylation implies that not all particles become securely attached. The size variations in the entire nasal cavity, rather than just anterior nares, support the concept that full nasal cavity irrigation may be superior to nasal spray. Finally, the number of asymptomatic cases and the correlation of illness severity with viral load implied that even after PCR positivity, a window exists wherein lowering the viral load through irrigation could be clinically advantageous.

Ignaz Semmelweis pioneered handwashing to remove bacteria in 1847. In emergency medicine and surgery, debriding infectious material with copious high-powered irrigation is standard practice. While nasal irrigation reduced symptoms of other Coronaviridae, flu,⁴ and bacterial carriage in otolaryngology^32,33, pathology from local spread and aspiration and the continued production of viral load locally suggest a potentially greater impact on COVID-19. Association of viral load with severity ^27,34,35 suggests a different kind of cumulative pathology related to immune response, as well as the potential for reducing severity after the fact by debridement. Multiple studies have demonstrated immediate viral load reductions in vitro and in vivo with direct oral or nasal application of antivirals,^8-10 or the theoretical benefit of lavaging and gargling.^36-38 One study of povidone-iodine gargles and sprays in 24 patients did not show a significant reduction in viral load, but the age difference of 23 years between control and intervention groups calls randomization into question.³⁹ An interim analysis of a twice daily nasal irrigation trial in 45 young adults showed initial clinical improvement,¹⁷ but was ultimately underpowered.

To our knowledge this is the largest prospective clinical trial using both twice daily large volume irrigation with a virucidal arm, and with documented adherence to irrigation. Moreover, the older and higher risk population in this study may be most relevant to reducing morbidity and mortality.

Limitations

The primary limitations to our study are generalizability and risk of bias in the comparison dataset. Without a matched control group, our sample may differ from the CDC database. Sex and age were not significantly different, but too many patients were missing race/ethnicity and pre-existing conditions to meaningfully evaluate. However, where there were differences our sample was historically more at risk: obesity prevalence exceeded the national average, and over 25% of our patients were Black or did not want to report race, almost double the national average.

The greatest risk of bias comes from preferential reporting of cases with hospitalization or death to the CDC dataset, artificially raising the appearance of severity.⁴⁰ However, our conservatively calculated CDC admission rate of 9.47% reflects the outcomes in other prospective randomized controlled trials: in a younger, thinner group of patients (average age 50, BMI 29), fluvoxamine reduced hospitalization or death from 16% to 11%.⁴¹ In a healthier cohort evaluating monoclonal antibodies, Chen et al found a 15% admission rate in patients 65+ or with BMI > 35, similar to our population with average age 64 and BMI >30.⁴² Socioeconomic challenges and larger minority populations have higher admission rates. In a similar health system to ours, Price-Haywood et al found a 39.7% admission rate; a Cochran database of minority patients’ admission rates in similar time periods and demographic location to our enrollment period consistently found admission rates as high as 60%.^43,44

While irrigation could be an effective mechanical protection against variants in vaccinated people, adoption of a new hygiene intervention – or any intervention – is a barrier. Of the 537 patients contacted, 28 (5.2%) did not want to perform nasal irrigation. Of those who initiated irrigation, most continued twice daily use, but eleven had concerns about irrigating that were communicated to our staff. While only four discontinued irrigation, without the frequent calls and coaching adherence in the general population could be lower. The need for boiled, distilled or filtered water could also be ignored, introducing a new risk.

Our study was underpowered to detect improvement by additive. While low povidone-iodine concentrations are safe up to five months,⁷ studies using tenfold higher concentrations for gargling noted transient thyroid stimulating hormone changes.³⁹ For prolonged use, thyroid function testing may be warranted. Studies of alkalinity have not supported efficacy in reducing viral fusion, however recent evaluation of the Omicron variant suggest hypertonic saline may add benefit to irrigation.³

Conclusion

As an intervention, pressurized nasal irrigation showed promise to reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection in high-risk patients when initiated within 24 hours of a positive test. As large unvaccinated populations pressure evolution of variants, an effective mechanical outpatient intervention to reduce viral entry and hospitalizations can save lives and reduce the stress on hospital staff. Further research into the frequency and adjuvants of irrigation will be important not just for this pandemic, but for future viruses to come.