Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37450460›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Determining the clinical and cost-effectiveness of nasal sprays and a physical activity and stress management intervention to reduce respiratory tract infections in primary care: A protocol for the 'Immune Defence' randomised controlled trial.

Jane Vennik, Adam W A Geraghty, Kate Martinson, Lucy Yardley, Beth Stuart, Michael Moore, Nick Francis, Alastair Hay, Theo Verheij, Katherine Bradbury and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Jane VennikPrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4602-9805
Adam W A GeraghtyPrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Kate MartinsonPrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8573-3718
Lucy YardleySchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Beth StuartPrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Michael MoorePrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Nick FrancisPrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Alastair HayCentre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Theo VerheijJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Katherine BradburySchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Kate GreenwellSchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Laura DennisonSchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Sian WilliamsonSchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
James Denison-DaySchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Ben AinsworthSchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
James RafteryPrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Shihua ZhuPrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Christopher ButlerJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Samantha Richards-HallNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7665-4268
Paul LittlePrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLUniversity of Bristol · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost adults in the UK experience at least one viral respiratory tract infection (RTI) per year. Individuals with comorbidities and those with recurrent RTIs are at higher risk of infections. This can lead to more severe illness, worse quality of life and more days off work. There is promising evidence that using common nasal sprays or improving immune function through increasing physical activity and managing stress, may reduce the incidence and severity of RTIs. METHODS AND

designImmune Defence is an open, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. Up to 15000 adults from UK general practices, with a comorbidity or risk factor for infection and/or recurrent infections (3 or more infections per year) will be randomly allocated to i) a gel-based nasal spray designed to inhibit viral respiratory infections; ii) a saline nasal spray, iii) a digital intervention promoting physical activity and stress management, or iv) usual care with brief advice for managing infections, for 12 months. Participants will complete monthly questionnaires online. The primary outcome is the total number of days of illness due to RTIs over 6 months. Key secondary outcomes include: days with symptoms moderately bad or worse; days where work/normal activities were impaired; incidence of RTI; incidence of COVID-19; health service contacts; antibiotic usage; beliefs about antibiotics; intention to consult; number of days of illness in total due to respiratory tract infections over 12 months. Economic evaluation from an NHS perspective will compare the interventions, expressed as incremental cost effectiveness ratios. A nested mixed methods process evaluation will examine uptake and engagement with the interventions and trial procedures. TRIAL STATUS: Recruitment commenced in December 2020 and the last participant is expected to complete the trial in April 2024. DISCUSSION: Common nasal sprays and digital interventions to promote physical activity and stress management are low cost, accessible interventions applicable to primary care. If effective, they have the potential to reduce the individual and societal impact of RTIs.

trial registrationProspectively registered with ISRCTN registry (17936080) on 30/10/2020. SPONSOR: This RCT is sponsored by University of Southampton. The sponsors had no role in the study design, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Indexed as

COVID-19Respiratory Tract InfectionsAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisExerciseHumansNasal SpraysPrimary Health CareQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicNasal Sprays

Identifiers

PMID37450460
PMCPMC10348543
OpenAlexW4384283022

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.