Efficacy and Safety of Nebulized Ethanol Inhalation in COVID-19 Treatment. A Randomized, Clinical Trial

Study Design and Oversight

This study is a randomized triple-blind clinical trial with a control group and a parallel design that was conducted at the Isabn-e-Maryam hospital of the Medical University of Isfahan, Iran, in September and October 2021. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio. The study was originally intended for patients admitted to the hospital, but due to amending the country’s policy of setting up respiratory clinics in hospitals and prescribing Remdesivir and dexamethasone to patients with moderate COVID-19, the study was conducted at this center in Isabn-e-Maryam Hospital. The protocol was approved by the Isfahan University of Medical Science Ethics Committee. (Code: IR.MUI.MED.REC.1400.506).

Patients

The study population consisted of positive SARS-CoV-2 detected by RT-PCR test. They had moderate COVID-19 pneumonia and were referred to the Respiratory Clinic of the Hospital. Inclusion criteria were: agreeing to implement the plan of informed consent, age over 12 years, not pregnant, no history of asthma, alcoholism or epilepsy, no contraindications to ethanol.

Exclusion criteria were: intolerance to inhaled ethanol, hypersensitivity or allergies to ethanol, use of drugs that interact with ethanol, and partial or incomplete treatment. Ethanol patch skin test was used to detect possible allergy to alcohol. In this experiment, a drop of ethanol was placed on a gauze pad and taped it to the patient’s arm. After about seven minutes, signs such as redness, swelling or itching of the skin were sought. These signs indicated the possibility of allergy or intolerance to alcohol.

Intervention

Both control and intervention groups were enrolled among patients addressed to the standard treatments indicated in the national clinical guidelines of Iran. The standard treatment was intramuscular dexamethasone, 8mg/day (5 days) and 200 mg of Remdesivir intravenously on day 1, followed by 100 mg of Remdesivir once daily for 4 subsequent days, infused over 30 to 60 minutes. Informed consent was obtained from all patients. In addition to the standard treatment distilled water spray (placebo) was added in the control group and 35% ethanol spray was added in the intervention group. Two sets of 100 ml spray were provided. All of them were instructed to spray three times every 6 hours from a distance of 20-30 cm from their face, while wearing a mask and closing their eyes, and to take a deep breath when they feel nebulized liquid droplets in their nose, mouth, throat, larynx and lungs. We emphasized them that this protocol must have been repeated daily, every six hours, up to 7 days. This procedure was first taught by nurses and, after health workers had verified the patient’s mastery, it was prescribed to the patient to be continued at home. Compliance with spray use was checked at every visit and patients who did not use it or used it irregularly were excluded from the study.

Clinical and Laboratory Monitoring

The data collection sheet had two sections. In the first part, demographic and underlying diseases information were reported. In the second part, clinical information of research cases was recorded. Data collection checklists were completed by a trained nurse and included clinical symptoms, para-clinical results, clinical examinations and patient record contents. Data related to research variables including blood oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry, level of inflammatory factor (CRP), need for adjunctive treatment or readmission in hospital and clinical symptoms were collected for both groups until hospital discharge. The Global Symptomatic Score (GSS) was obtained by calculation of cumulative scores of clinical signs and symptoms including fever, headache, body aches, sore throat, nasal discharge, chills, cough, shortness of breath, anorexia, loss of smell and loss of taste. Any possible side effects were treated in both groups and reported if present. Patients’ oxygenation status was monitored and recorded daily with a pulse oximeter. The pulse oximeter was fixed, and at the time of measurement, the patient was breathing room air without receiving supplemental oxygen.

A modified 7-point ordinal scale was used to assess the clinical condition on day 14 of treatment period (19). This scale (CSS) has 7 indexes:

1. Death

2. Hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation

3. Hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices

4. Hospitalizations for any reason and need oxygen

5. Requiring ongoing medical care or supplemental oxygen at home

6. Continue signs or symptoms of COVID-19 without requiring supplemental oxygen - no longer requires ongoing medical care

7. Complete recovery

The need for hospitalization in the intensive care unit, drug side effects, clinical symptoms and mortality of the research samples were monitored in both groups. Side effects were recorded after the informed consent was signed and were graded based on version 5.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event.

The final follow-up was performed on the 14th day of the disease through telephone calls and review of patients’ records and hospital information system documents. The outcome comparisons were performed at 0, 3, 7 and 14 days after the intervention.

Sampling

Sampling was performed by an easy random method. Computerized Random number table was used for random assignment. One researcher determined the sequence of random allocations without coordination with others. This person was different from the nurses who assigned participants to the interventions. This person filled the sprays (nebulizer) one by one with 100ml of diluted distilled water or ethanol-35% and labeled them with the numbers coming out of the number container. She assigned a questionnaire and consent form for each spray and wrote the number on the spray in the questionnaire. Each spray was delivered to one of the participants in the study and his / her family or companion was instructed on how to use it. Blinding was performed at the level of patients, clinicians, care provider and analyst.

Statistical Analysis

Based on the “treatment-on” or “protocol per” strategy, analysis was limited to participants who, according to the study protocol and inclusion criteria, received full interventions. Quantitative and qualitative variables were reported in the form of descriptive statistics including mean and standard deviation and number (%), respectively. Quantitative variables with normal and abnormal distributions were compared between groups using independent t-test and Mann-Whitney test, respectively. In addition, qualitative variables were compared between the two groups using Chi-square test.

Patient Characteristics

In this study, 150 COVID-19 patients were evaluated for inclusion based on the positive result of RT-PCR test. Two patients did not meet the inclusion criteria and 24 patients did not agree with the study. One-hundred-twenty-four patients were divided into two groups (Intervention and Control). Twenty-five patients were excluded from the study: 6 patients due to intolerance to ethanol inhalation. Hiccups, eye irritation, cough, shortness of breath, sneezing and the unpleasant smell of alcohol were the main reasons for their intolerance. Nine-teen of these patients (10 in the intervention group and 9 in the control group) were excluded from the study due to irregularity or no compliance with the recommended method. Finally, a total of 99 patients were included in the study: 44 in the treatment group and 55 in the control group, respectively. Figure 1 shows the characteristics of the studied patients in the intervention and control groups.

Ninety-nine patients of Covid-19 Respiratory Outpatient Clinic of Isabn-e-Maryam Hospital of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences were randomly assigned to intervention (44 patients) and control (55 patients) groups from September to November 2021. 56 patients (56.6%) were female. The mean age of patients was 46.4+12.8. Table 1 shows demographic and baseline characteristics of patients in the two groups.

38 patients suffered from underlying diseases. The most common underlying disease in both groups was diabetes mellitus. 4 patients (7%) from the control group and 6 patients (14.3%) from the intervention group were diabetic patients. 7 patients had cardiovascular problems and 7 patients had hypertension.

Clinical signs and symptoms at the time of admission

Patients also did not differ significantly in the time distance between the onset of symptoms and admission, pulmonary involvement, and early clinical signs and symptoms at baseline. The basic characteristics of patients’ clinical signs and symptoms are given in Table 2.

The most primary clinical symptoms in the intervention group were cough, body aches, chills and headache. Cough, olfactory disturbance and anorexia were more common in the control group. No significant difference was observed in symptoms.

Evaluation of Global Symptomatic Score of the two groups after entering the research and intervention

Global Symptomatic Score (GSS) is considered as an indicator of symptoms and signs of the patients. GSS was assessed in both groups, at the beginning of treatment and after 3, 7, 14 days of treatment. The results are shown in Figure 2. Statistical analysis showed that the clinical status of the two groups was the same at the beginning of the study, but in the intervention group (ethanol therapy) the clinical symptoms decreased rapidly more than in the control group. This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.016).

Evaluation of blood oxygen saturation of patients in two groups

There was no significant difference in blood oxygen saturation between the two groups at the beginning of the study (92.07 + 4.6 in the control group vs 91.56 + 3.39 in the intervention group). As can be seen in Figure 3, blood oxygenation improved in both groups and the slope of oxygenation was higher in the ethanol group. Although, this difference is not statistically significant (P = 0.097).

The effect of intervention on inflammatory factor (CRP)

CRP had a decreasing trend in both groups, significant difference was not seen (P = 0.276).

Clinical Status

Clinical status based on the modified 7-point ordinal scale was compared in two groups on day 14 of the study, the results of which were based on Table 3.

The odds of intervention group have different clinical status was 5.715 (95% CI, 2.47 to 13.19) times that of standard group, a statistically significant effect, Wald χ2 (1) = 16.67, p <.001. After end of the treatment period in the control group, 6 patients (10.9%) were readmitted to receive additional treatment or hospitalization. In the ethanol group, none of the patients was readmitted, P=0.02.

Adverse events and safety

Six out of 50 patients in the ethanol group (12%) interrupted the treatment because of adverse events at the onset of inhalation and, thus, were excluded from the statistical analysis No more than one case was observed for every side effect and that side effect disappeared after stopping ethanol use. Adverse events included: hiccups, eye irritation, cough, shortness of breath, sneezing and unpleasant odor of alcohol.