↓ Skip to main content

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to assess the safety and effectiveness of a novel dual-action oral topical formulation against upper respiratory infections

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
224 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to assess the safety and effectiveness of a novel dual-action oral topical formulation against upper respiratory infections
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-016-2177-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pranab K. Mukherjee, Frank Esper, Ken Buchheit, Karen Arters, Ina Adkins, Mahmoud A. Ghannoum, Robert A. Salata

Abstract

Current prevention options for upper respiratory infections (URIs) are not optimal. We conducted a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled pilot clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ARMS-I™ (currently marketed as Halo™) in the prevention of URIs. ARMS-I is patented novel formulation for the prevention and treatment of influenza, comprising a broad-spectrum antimicrobial agent (cetylpyridinium chloride, CPC) and components (glycerin and xanthan gum) that form a barrier on the host mucosa, thus preventing viral contact and invasion. Healthy adults (18-45 years of age) were randomized into ARMS-I or placebo group (50 subjects each). The drug was sprayed intra-orally (3× daily) for 75 days. The primary objectives were to establish whether ARMS-I decreased the frequency, severity or duration of URIs. Secondary objectives were to evaluate safety, tolerability, rate of virus detection, acceptability and adherence; effect on URI-associated absenteeism and medical visits; and effect of prior influenza vaccination on study outcomes. Of the 94 individuals who completed the study (placebo: n = 44, ARMS-I: n = 50), six presented with confirmed URI (placebo: 4, ARMS-I: 2), representing a 55% relative reduction, albeit this was statistically not significant). Influenza, coronavirus or rhinovirus were detected in three participants; all in the placebo group. Moreover, frequency of post-treatment exit visits was reduced by 55% in ARMS-I compared to the placebo group (N = 4 and 2, respectively). Fever was reported only in the placebo group. ARMS-I significantly reduced the frequency and severity of cough and sore throat, and duration of cough (P ≤ .019 for all comparisons). ARMS-I was safe, well tolerated, had high acceptability and high adherence to medication use. Medical visits occurred only in the placebo group while absenteeism did not differ between the two arms. Prior influenza vaccination had no effect on study outcome. This randomized proof-of-concept clinical trial demonstrated that ARMS-I tended to provide protection against URIs in the enrolled study participants, while reducing severity and duration of cough and sore throat. A clinical trial with a larger number of study participants is warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02644135 (retrospectively registered).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 224 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 224 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 38 17%
Student > Master 21 9%
Researcher 16 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Student > Postgraduate 12 5%
Other 46 21%
Unknown 77 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 24 11%
Unknown 91 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 January 2022.
All research outputs
#2,310,451
of 25,307,332 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#665
of 8,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,101
of 434,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#17
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,307,332 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,539 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 434,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.