Local Delivery of Interferon-β1a for Respiratory Viral Infections: A Systematic Review.
Mahsa Nayebhashemi, Mandana Akhavan, Aryan Foroohari et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This PRISMA-guided systematic review assessed locally delivered intranasal or inhaled interferon-β1a for respiratory viral infections, covering clinical trials and experimental evidence. Twenty-four records met inclusion criteria: 12 randomised controlled trials, seven in vitro studies, one in vivo study, and four patent reports. Because of substantial heterogeneity, results were synthesised narratively rather than pooled. Studies showed antiviral activity and immune modulation, but clinical benefit varied by population; it was most consistent in asthma, COPD, and hospitalised COVID-19. Prophylactic benefit against community-acquired upper respiratory infections remained limited and inconsistent.
Key findings
- The review included 24 records: 12 randomised controlled trials, seven in vitro studies, one in vivo study, and four patent reports.
- Clinical studies reported antiviral activity and immune modulation, including interferon-stimulated gene upregulation and viral-load reduction.
- Clinical benefit was most consistent in asthma, COPD, and hospitalised COVID-19; other trials did not improve primary clinical outcomes significantly.
- Early rhinovirus prophylaxis studies showed limited and inconsistent clinical prevention despite detectable antiviral activity; tolerability was generally favourable, with mostly mild, transient adverse events.
Why it matters
Local interferon delivery may augment antiviral responses in respiratory conditions where those responses are impaired, and the review identifies populations in which clinical benefit appeared more consistent. However, biological activity does not necessarily translate into meaningful clinical outcomes, and evidence for preventing community-acquired upper respiratory infections remains uncertain. The findings highlight the need to distinguish promising immune effects from established clinical benefit.
What to keep in mind
Substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity precluded quantitative pooling. The evidence base included only one in vivo study, and patent records were not evidence of clinical efficacy or safety.