Safety of High-Dose Nasal Theophylline Irrigation in the Treatment of Postviral Olfactory Dysfunction: a Dose-Escalation Study

Traditional Chinese medicine for post-viral olfactory dysfunction: A systematic review

Background

Post-viral olfactory dysfunction (PVOD) is the common symptoms of long COVID, lacking of effective treatments. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is claimed to be effective in treating olfactory dysfunction, but the evidence has not yet been critically appraised. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TCM for PVOD.

Methods

We searched eight databases to identified clinical controlled studies about TCM for PVOD. The Cochrane risk of bias tools and GRADE were used to evaluate the quality of evidence. Risk ratio (RR), mean differences (MD), and 95 % confidence interval (CI), were used for effect estimation and RevMan 5.4.1 was used for data analysis.

Results

Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (545 participants), two non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) (112 participants), and one retrospective cohort study (30 participants) were included. The overall quality of included studies was low. Acupuncture (n = 8) and acupoint injection (n = 3) were the mainly used TCM therapies. Five RCTs showed a better effect in TCM group. Four trials used acupuncture, and three trials used acupoint injection. The results of two non-RCTs and one cohort study were not statistically significant. Two trials reported mild to moderate adverse events (pain and brief syncope caused by acupuncture or acupoint injection).

Conclusions

Limited evidence focus on acupuncture and acupoint injection for PVOD and suggests that acupuncture and acupoint injection may be effective in improving PVOD. More well-designed trials should focus on acupuncture to confirm the benefit.

Protocol registration

The protocol of this review was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42022366776.

Clinical studies in COVID-related olfactory disorders: Review of an institutional experience

Objective

To share a single institutional experience with clinical research on COVID-related olfactory dysfunction (OD).

Data Source/Method

Narrative review of published original data and ongoing clinical trials on COVID-related OD at Washington University from 2020 to 2023.

Results

There were three new diagnostic-/patient-reported outcome measures developed and tested. We report five clinical trials of interventions for COVID-related olfactory disorders: combined Visual-Olfactory Training (VOLT) with patient-preferred scents versus standard olfactory training (VOLT trial), oral gabapentin versus placebo (Gabapentin for the Relief of Acquired Chemosensory Experience trial), nasal theophylline irrigations versus placebo (Smell Changes and Efficacy of Nasal Theophylline trial), stellate ganglion block (single-arm), and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) versus lifestyle intervention (MBSR trial).

Conclusions

Initial intervention trials for COVID-related OD have shown potential for improving subjective and objective olfactory outcomes. However, there remains no gold standard treatment that definitively outperforms placebo in controlled trials. Therefore, continued investigation of novel therapeutic strategies for COVID-related OD is necessary to maximize olfactory outcomes for affected patients.

Treatment of COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction with olfactory training, palmitoylethanolamide with luteolin, or combined therapy: a blinded controlled multicenter randomized trial

PURPOSE

Few evidence-based therapies are available for chronic olfactory dysfunction after COVID-19. This study investigated the relative efficacy of olfactory training alone, co-ultramicronized palmitoylethanolamide with luteolin (um-PEA-LUT, an anti-neuroinflammatory supplement) alone, or combined therapy for treating chronic olfactory dysfunction from COVID-19.

METHODS

This double-blinded controlled, placebo-controlled multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted in 202 patients with persistent COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction of > 6 month duration. After a screening nasal endoscopy, patients were randomized to: (1) olfactory training and placebo; (2) once daily um-PEA-LUT alone; (3) twice daily um-PEA-LUT alone; or (4) combination of once daily um-PEA-LUT with olfactory training. Olfactory testing (Sniffin' Sticks odor identification test) was performed at baseline and at 1, 2, and 3 months. The primary outcome was recovery of over three points on olfactory testing, with outcomes compared at T0, T1, T2 and T3 across groups. Statistical analyses included one-way ANOVA for numeric data and chi-square for nominal data.

RESULTS

All patients completed the study, and there were no adverse events. At 90 days, odor identification scores improved by > 3 points in 89.2% of patients receiving combined therapy vs. 36.8% receiving olfactory training with placebo, 40% receiving twice daily um-PEA-LUT alone, and 41.6% receiving once daily um-PEA-LUT alone (p < 0.00001). Patients receiving treatment with um-PEA-LUT alone demonstrated subclinical improvement (< 3 point odor identification improvement) more often than patients receiving olfactory training with placebo (p < 0.0001.) CONCLUSIONS: Olfactory training plus once daily um-PEA-LUT resulted in greater olfactory recovery than either therapy alone in patients with long-term olfactory function due to COVID-19.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

20112020PGFN on clinicaltrials.gov.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1b (Individual Randomized Clinical Trial).

Development and Psychometric Validation of the Olfactory Dysfunction Outcomes Rating

Importance

Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is an increasingly common and morbid condition, especially given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the ability to reproducibly measure smell loss-associated quality of life (QOL) and its response to treatment is paramount.

Objective

To develop and validate a concise and visually appealing smell loss-associated QOL patient-reported outcome measure for OD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A secondary analysis of comments to an online survey by 1000 patients with olfactory dysfunction published in 2013 was used as the primary source to generate items of the Olfactory Dysfunction Outcomes Rating (ODOR). In addition, 30 patients with OD enrolled in 2 clinical studies at a tertiary care medical center (Washington University) were asked to identify their main concerns associated with smell loss. And finally, 4 otolaryngologists reviewed the items generated from the online survey and the patients' interviews to identify any additional items. Prospective study design was used for data collection from the 30 patients and 4 otolaryngologists. Prospective study design was used for survey validation. Validation of the ODOR was performed with 283 patients enrolled in several prospective studies at a single institution that completed the ODOR as an outcome measure.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Item generation and selection were the outcomes of ODOR development. The psychometric and clinimetric measures evaluated for validation were internal consistency, test-retest reliability, face and content validity, concurrent validity, and discriminant validity. Minimal clinically important difference was also determined.

Results

The ODOR is a 28-item instrument with each item scored as either no difficulty or very rarely bothered (0) to complete difficulty or very frequently bothered (4) with a total instrument score range of 0 to 112 points. Higher scores indicate higher degree of dysfunction and limitation. Validation in the cohort of 283 patients (mean [SD] age, 47.0 [14.4] years; 198 female participants [73%]; 179 White participants [80%]) revealed that the instrument has high internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.968), test-retest reliability (r = 0.90 [95% CI, 0.81-0.95]), face validity, content validity, concurrent validity (r = 0.87 [95% CI, 0.80-0.91] compared with the Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders-Negative Statements; ρ = -0.76 [95% CI, -0.81 to -0.71] compared with a patient-reported symptom severity scale), and divergent validity (mean score difference, -33.9 [95% CI, -38.3 to -29.6] between normosmic patients and hyposmic/anosmic patients). The minimal clinically important difference was 15 points. The estimated time for survey completion was approximately 5 minutes.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this survey creation and validation study, the ODOR was shown to be a novel, concise, reliable, and valid patient-reported outcome measure of OD-associated QOL. It can be used to measure physical problems, functional limitations, and emotional consequences associated with OD and how they change after a given intervention, which is clinically applicable and particularly pertinent given the growing burden of OD associated with COVID-19.

Efficacy and Safety of Saline Nasal Irrigation Plus Theophylline for Treatment of COVID-19-Related Olfactory Dysfunction: The SCENT2 Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Recent studies suggest that theophylline added to saline nasal irrigation (SNI) can be an effective treatment for postviral olfactory dysfunction (OD), a growing public health concern during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of theophylline added to SNI compared with placebo for COVID-19-related OD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This triple-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2 randomized clinical trial was conducted virtually between March 15 and August 31, 2021. Adults residing in Missouri or Illinois were recruited during this time period if they had OD persisting for 3 to 12 months following suspected COVID-19 infection. Data analysis was conducted from October to December 2021.

Interventions

Saline sinus rinse kits and bottles of identical-appearing capsules with either 400 mg of theophylline (treatment) or 500 mg of lactose powder (control) were mailed to consenting study participants. Participants were instructed to dissolve the capsule contents into the saline rinse and use the solution to irrigate their nasal cavities in the morning and at night for 6 weeks.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the difference in the rate of responders between the treatment and the control arms, defined as a response of at least slightly better improvement in the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale posttreatment. Secondary outcome measures included changes in the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), the Questionnaire for Olfactory Disorders, the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey on general health, and COVID-19-related questions.

Results

A total of 51 participants were enrolled in the study; the mean (SD) age was 46.0 (13.1) years, and 36 (71%) participants were women. Participants were randomized to SNI with theophylline (n = 26) or to SNI with placebo (n = 25). Forty-five participants completed the study. At the end of treatment, 13 (59%) participants in the theophylline arm reported at least slight improvement in the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (responders) compared with 10 (43%) in the placebo arm (absolute difference, 15.6%; 95% CI, -13.2% to 44.5%). The median difference for the UPSIT change between baseline and 6 weeks was 3.0 (95% CI, -1.0 to 7.0) for participants in the theophylline arm and 0.0 (95% CI, -2.0 to 6.0) for participants in the placebo arm. Mixed-model analysis revealed that the change in UPSIT scores through study assessments was not statistically significantly different between the 2 study arms. Eleven (50%) participants in the theophylline arm and 6 (26%) in the placebo arm had a change of 4 or more points in UPSIT scores from baseline to 6 weeks. The difference in the rate of responders as measured by the UPSIT was 24% (95% CI, -4% to 52%) in favor of theophylline.

Conclusions and Relevance

This randomized clinical trial suggests that the clinical benefit of theophylline nasal irrigations on olfaction in participants with COVID-19-related OD is inconclusive, though suggested by subjective assessments. Larger studies are warranted to investigate the efficacy of this treatment more fully.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04789499.