Azelastine Nasal Spray for Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 Infections

Lehr T. Meiser P. Selzer D. Rixecker T. Holzer F. Mösges R. Smola S. Bals R. CONTAIN Study Group. Alberg V. Bub F. Biwank N. Dette C. Dastgir L. Kuntz A. Hale C. Kapp J. Litzenburger K. Morr H. Wagner J. Sahin H. Schröder N. Seibert M. Thieser K. Werthner Q (2025). Azelastine Nasal Spray for Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 Infections. JAMA Internal Medicine, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.4283

A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial

Overall rating
(4.0) 1 review
Authors
Thorsten Lehr, Peter Meiser, Dominik Selzer, Torben Rixecker, Frank Holzer, Ralph Mösges, Sigrun Smola, Robert Bals, Veronika Alberg, Florian Bub, Nicholas Biwank, Charlotte Dette, Lale Dastgir, Alina Kuntz, Christopher Hale, Johanna Sophie Kapp, Kathrin Litzenburger, Henning Morr, Johanna Wagner, Hacer Sahin, Nelli Schröder, Martina Seibert, Katrin Thieser, Quirin Werthner
Journal
JAMA Internal Medicine
First published
2025
Type
Journal Article
DOI
10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.4283

Abstract

ImportanceLimited pharmaceutical options exist for preexposure prophylaxis of COVID-19 beyond vaccination. Azelastine, an antihistamine nasal spray used for decades to treat allergic rhinitis, has in vitro antiviral activity against respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2.ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy and safety of azelastine nasal spray for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infections in healthy adults.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-center trial was conducted from March 2023 to July 2024. Healthy adults from the general population were enrolled at the Saarland University Hospital in Germany.InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive azelastine, 0.1%, nasal spray or placebo 3 times daily for 56 days. SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing (RAT) was conducted twice weekly, with positive results confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Symptomatic participants with negative RAT results underwent multiplex PCR testing for respiratory viruses.Main OutcomeThe primary end point was the number of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections during the study.ResultsA total of 450 participants were randomized, with 227 assigned to azelastine and 223 to placebo; 299 (66.4%) were female, 151 (33.6%) male, with a mean (SD) age of 33.0 (13.3) years. Most were White (417 [92.7%]), with 4 (0.9%) African, 22 (4.9%) Asian, and 7 (1.6%) of other ethnicity. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the incidence of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly lower in the azelastine group (n = 5 [2.2%]) compared with the placebo group (n = 15 [6.7%]) (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.87). As secondary end points, azelastine demonstrated an increase in mean (SD) time to SARS-CoV-2 infection among infected participants (31.2 [9.3] vs 19.5 [14.8] days), a reduction of the overall number of PCR-confirmed symptomatic infections (21 of 227 participants vs 49 of 223 participants), and a lower incidence of PCR-confirmed rhinovirus infections (1.8% vs 6.3%). Adverse events were comparable between the groups.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this single-center trial, azelastine nasal spray was associated with reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections. These findings support the potential of azelastine as a safe prophylactic approach warranting confirmation in larger, multicentric trials.Trial registrationEudraCT number: 2022-003756-13

Reviews

Informative Title

100%
Appropriate
Slightly Misleading
Exaggerated

Methods

100%
Sound
Questionable
Inadequate

Statistical Analysis

100%
Appropriate
Some Issues
Major concerns

Data Presentation

100%
Complete and Transparent
Minor Omissions
Misrepresented

Discussion

100%
Appropriate
Slightly Misleading
Exaggerated

Limitations

100%
Appropriately acknowledged
Minor Omissions
Inadequate

Data Available

100%
Completely Available
Partial data available
Not Open Access

Sign in to add a review. Help the research community by sharing your assessment of this journal-article.

BlueCryostat Sep 05, 2025

Very strong paper. I especially appreciated the detailed descriptions of the statistical analysis, including power analysis. The wealth of information further found in the supplemental content answered the remaining questions that were left open for me. For example, the "200% underreporting (based on internal data from hospitals from the Saarland region Nov 16th, 2022 that indicated an approximately 300% underreporting)..". In addition, reading the honest, well grounded and clear limitations of the study added to quality of the work.