Effect of nasal corticosteroid in the treatment of anosmia due to COVID-19: A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study

Prevalence and association of oral manifestations with disease severity in patients diagnosed with COVID‑19: A cross‑sectional study

Systemic disorders may exhibit early signs when conducting an oral examination. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, several studies have been published detailing the direct impact of the virus on the oral cavity. The present study aimed to determine whether indeed there are any significant disparities in oropharyngeal manifestations between individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and a control group, and whether the virus has the ability to invade and reproduce inside oral keratinocytes and fibroblasts, resulting in the development of oral ulcerations and superficial lesions. The present study provides an overview of the symptoms that occur at an early stage of the illness, and the most commonly affected regions of the oral cavity, including the tongue, lips, palate and oropharynx are examined. In the present retrospective study, 52 patients infected with COVID-19 were recruited between April, 2021 and October, 2022. In addition, 52 individuals who tested negative for the virus were recruited as the control group. The study was conducted through a thorough examination and questionnaire provided to all participants. The results revealed that among the cohort of patients from the COVID-19 group examined (n=52), a proportion (mean, 16.15) displayed oral manifestations. Specifically, 75% of the patients in the COVID-19 group described oral cavity pain, and 69% of these patients had changes in teeth color or dental caries. In summary, in relation to the control group, the prevalence of oropharyngeal symptoms was generally lower compared to the COVID-19 group, apart from oral cavity pain (30.8%), tonsillitis (17.3%), bleeding (34.6%), teeth color changes (36.5%), recurrence (15.4%) and abscesses (7.7%). Thus, on the whole, the patients without COVID-19 had fewer oral manifestations.

Early corticosteroid treatment enhances recovery from SARS-CoV-2 induced loss of smell in hamster

Among the numerous long COVID symptoms, olfactory dysfunction persists in ∼10 % of patients suffering from SARS-CoV-2 induced anosmia. Among the few potential therapies, corticoid treatment has been used for its anti-inflammatory effect with mixed success in patients. In this study, we explored its impact using hamster as an animal model. SARS-CoV-2 infected hamsters lose their smell abilities and this loss is correlated with damage of the olfactory epithelium and persistent presence of innate immunity cells. We started a dexamethasone treatment 2 days post infection, when olfaction was already impacted, until 11 days post infection when it started to recover. We observed an improvement of olfactory capacities in the animals treated with corticoid compared to those treated with vehicle. This recovery was not related to differences in the remaining damage to the olfactory epithelium, which was similar in both groups. This improvement was however correlated with a reduced inflammation in the olfactory epithelium with a local increase of the mature olfactory neuron population. Surprisingly, at 11 days post infection, we observed an increased and disorganized presence of immature olfactory neurons, especially in persistent inflammatory zones of the epithelium. This unusual population of immature olfactory neurons coincided with a strong increase of olfactory epithelium proliferation in both groups. Our results indicate that persistent inflammation of the olfactory epithelium following SARS-CoV-2 infection may alter the extent and speed of regeneration of the olfactory neuron population, and that corticoid treatment is effective to limit inflammation and improve olfaction recovery following SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Therapeutic Efficacy of Nasal Corticosteroids in COVID-19-Related Olfactory Dysfunction: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Olfactory disturbance is one of the main symptoms of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Various olfactory disorders caused by viral infections are treated with nasal corticosteroids. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of nasal corticosteroids in the treatment of olfactory disorders caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

DATA SOURCES

We searched the Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases for clinical trials of nasal corticosteroids for treating COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction.

REVIEW METHODS

We assessed the effect of nasal corticosteroids on olfactory function in COVID-19-affected individuals using a Meta-analysis of published studies, considering the number of patients who fully recovered from olfactory dysfunction, olfactory scores following treatment, and olfactory recovery time.

RESULTS

Seven studies involving 930 patients were analyzed. The Meta-analysis results revealed that the olfactory score of the experimental group was 1.40 points higher than that of the control group (standardized mean difference [MD]: 1.40, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.34-2.47, P < .00001). However, the differences in the outcomes of cure rate (risk ratio: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.89-1.69, P = .21) and recovery time (MD: -1.78, 95% CI: -7.36 to 3.81, P = .53) were not statistically significant. Only 1 study reported adverse effects of nasal steroid treatment, namely tension, anger, and stomach irritation.

CONCLUSION

Although nasal steroid therapy does not result in significant adverse effects, it proves ineffective in the treatment of COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction.

Corticosteroids for COVID-19-induced olfactory dysfunction: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Olfactory dysfunction is a common manifestation in COVID-19 patients and can significantly impact their quality of life. Corticosteroids have been proposed as a potential treatment, but their efficacy remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to comprehensively analyze the efficacy of corticosteroid therapy for treating COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases up to March 1, 2023. Randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of corticosteroids on olfactory dysfunction in patients with COVID-19 were included. The primary outcome was the olfactory score at the end of follow-up, and the secondary outcomes were the duration and the rate of recovery from olfactory dysfunction.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled trials with 999 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with the control group, corticosteroid treatment resulted in a statistically significant improvement in olfactory score with a standardized mean difference of 0.55 (95% CI: 0.15 to 0.95). Topical corticosteroids were found to be effective, but systemic corticosteroids were not. In addition, longer durations and higher dosages of corticosteroids treatment may also be associated with significant improvements in olfactory scores. No significant effect was observed on the duration or recovery rate of olfactory dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that topical corticosteroid treatment is a viable option for improving COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction, but further research is needed to investigate optimal treatment protocols and safety profiles.

Local budesonide therapy in the management of persistent hyposmia in suspected non-severe COVID-19 patients: Results of a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Consequences of COVID-19 on olfactory functions remained unclear during the pandemic. We assessed the efficacy of local budesonide in addition to olfactory rehabilitation when managing non-severe COVID-19 patients with persistent hyposmia.

METHODS

A multicentric, randomized, superiority trial was conducted (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04361474). The experimental group (EG) received budesonide and physiological saline nasal irrigations administered via three syringes of 20 ml in each nasal cavity in the morning and evening for 30 days. The control group (CG) received a similar protocol without budesonide. Patients were included if they were >18 years old, with a SARS-CoV-2 infection and presenting an isolated hyposmia persisting 30 days after symptom onset. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with improvement of more than two points on the ODORATEST score after 30 days of treatment.

RESULTS

In total, 123 patients were included and randomized (EG: 62 vs CG: 61). Two patients from the EG met the primary endpoint with no statistical difference between the two groups (P = 0.5).

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating local budesonide for COVID-19 related hyposmia treatment even though previous trials were performed with other local corticosteroids. Local budesonide efficacy was not demonstrated for persistent hyposmia related to COVID-19.

Inhaled corticosteroids' effect on COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

More than six million people died due to COVID-19, and 10-15% of infected individuals suffer from post-covid syndrome. Corticosteroids are widely used in the management of severe COVID-19 and post-acute COVID-19 symptoms. This study synthesizes current evidence of the effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on mortality, hospital length-of-stay (LOS), and improvement of smell scores in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

We searched Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus until Aug 2022. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of studies. We evaluated the effectiveness of ICS in COVID-19 patients through measures of mortality, LOS, alleviation of post-acute COVID-19 symptoms, time to sustained self-reported cure, and sense of smell (visual analog scale (VAS)).

Results

Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis. Our study showed a significant decrease in the LOS in ICS patients over placebo (MD = -1.52, 95% CI [-2.77 to -0.28], p-value = 0.02). Patients treated with intranasal corticosteroids (INC) showed a significant improvement in VAS smell scores from week three to week four (MD =1.52, 95% CI [0.27 to 2.78], p-value = 0.02), and alleviation of COVID-related symptoms after 14 days (RR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.09 to 1.26], p-value < 0.0001). No significant differences were detected in mortality (RR= 0.69, 95% CI [0.36 to 1.35], p-value = 0.28) and time to sustained self-reported cure (MD = -1.28, 95% CI [-6.77 to 4.20], p-value = 0.65).

Conclusion

We concluded that the use of ICS decreased patient LOS and improved COVID-19-related symptoms. INC may have a role in improving the smell score. Therefore, using INC and ICS for two weeks or more may prove beneficial. Current data do not demonstrate an effect on mortality or time to sustained self-reported cure. However, the evidence is inconclusive, and more studies are needed for more precise data.

A Pilot Study of Short-Course Oral Vitamin A and Aerosolised Diffuser Olfactory Training for the Treatment of Smell Loss in Long COVID

Background: Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is a common neurosensory manifestation in long COVID. An effective and safe treatment against COVID-19-related OD is needed. Methods: This pilot trial recruited long COVID patients with persistent OD. Participants were randomly assigned to receive short-course (14 days) oral vitamin A (VitA; 25,000 IU per day) and aerosolised diffuser olfactory training (OT) thrice daily (combination), OT alone (standard care), or observation (control) for 4 weeks. The primary outcome was differences in olfactory function by butanol threshold tests (BTT) between baseline and end-of-treatment. Secondary outcomes included smell identification tests (SIT), structural MRI brain, and serial seed-based functional connectivity (FC) analyses in the olfactory cortical network by resting-state functional MRI (rs-fMRI). Results: A total of 24 participants were randomly assigned to receive either combination treatment (n = 10), standard care (n = 9), or control (n = 5). Median OD duration was 157 days (IQR 127-175). Mean baseline BTT score was 2.3 (SD 1.1). At end-of-treatment, mean BTT scores were significantly higher for the combination group than control (p < 0.001, MD = 4.4, 95% CI 1.7 to 7.2) and standard care (p = 0.009) groups. Interval SIT scores increased significantly (p = 0.009) in the combination group. rs-fMRI showed significantly higher FC in the combination group when compared to other groups. At end-of-treatment, positive correlations were found in the increased FC at left inferior frontal gyrus and clinically significant improvements in measured BTT (r = 0.858, p < 0.001) and SIT (r = 0.548, p = 0.042) scores for the combination group. Conclusions: Short-course oral VitA and aerosolised diffuser OT was effective as a combination treatment for persistent OD in long COVID.

Saline nasal irrigation and gargling in COVID-19: a multidisciplinary review of effects on viral load, mucosal dynamics, and patient outcomes

With unrelenting SARS-CoV-2 variants, additional COVID-19 mitigation strategies are needed. Oral and nasal saline irrigation (SI) is a traditional approach for respiratory infections/diseases. As a multidisciplinary network with expertise/experience with saline, we conducted a narrative review to examine mechanisms of action and clinical outcomes associated with nasal SI, gargling, spray, or nebulization in COVID-19. SI was found to reduce SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal loads and hasten viral clearance. Other mechanisms may involve inhibition of viral replication, bioaerosol reduction, improved mucociliary clearance, modulation of ENaC, and neutrophil responses. Prophylaxis was documented adjunctive to personal protective equipment. COVID-19 patients experienced significant symptom relief, while overall data suggest lower hospitalization risk. We found no harm and hence recommend SI use, as safe, inexpensive, and easy-to-use hygiene measure, complementary to hand washing or mask-wearing. In view of mainly small studies, large well-controlled or surveillance studies can help to further validate the outcomes and to implement its use.

Transient Anosmia and Dysgeusia in COVID-19 Disease: A Cross Sectional Study

Objective

This study aims to explore the prevalence of anosmia and dysgeusia and their impact on COVID-19 patients.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional study. Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between 1st October 2020 and 30th June 2021 were randomly selected from a national COVID-19 registry. COVID-19 cases were diagnosed using molecular testing method which measured the viral E gene. The Anosmia Reporting Tool, and a brief version of the questionnaire on olfactory disorders were used to measure the outcomes via telephone interviews. Data were analysed using SPSS 27 statistics software.

Results

A total of 405 COVID-19 adults were included in this study, 220 (54.3%) were males and 185 (45.8%) were females. The mean±SD age of participants was 38.2 ± 11.3 years. Alterations in the sense of smell and taste were reported by 206 (50.9%), and 195 (48.1%) of the patients, respectively. Sex and nationality of participants were significantly associated with anosmia and dysgeusia (p < 0.001) and (p-value=0.001) respectively. Among patients who experienced anosmia and dysgeusia, alterations in eating habits (64.2%), impact on mental wellbeing (38.9%), concerns that the alterations were permanent (35.4%), and physical implications and difficulty performing activities of daily living (34%) were reported.

Conclusion

Anosmia and dysgeusia are prevalent symptoms of COVID-19 disease, especially among females. Although transient, anosmia and dysgeusia had considerable impact on patient's life. Neuropsychological implications of COVID-19 in acute infection phase and prognosis of anosmia and dysgeusia in COVID-19 are areas for further exploration.

Post-COVID-19 Anosmia and Therapies: Stay Tuned for New Drugs to Sniff Out

Background: Anosmia is defined as the complete absence of olfactory function, which can be caused by a variety of causes, with upper respiratory tract infections being among the most frequent causes. Anosmia due to SARS-CoV-2 infection has attracted attention given its main role in symptomatology and the social impact of the pandemic. Methods: We conducted systematic research in a clinicaltrials.gov database to evaluate all active clinical trials worldwide regarding drug therapies in adult patients for anosmia following SARS-CoV-2 infection with the intention of identifying the nearby prospects to treat Anosmia. We use the following search terms: "Anosmia" AND "COVID-19" OR "SARS-CoV-2" OR "2019 novel coronavirus". Results: We found 18 active clinical trials that met our criteria: one phase 1, one phase 1-2, five phases 2, two phases 2-3, three phases 3, and six phases 4 studies were identified. The drug therapies that appear more effective and promising are PEA-LUT and Cerebrolysin. The other interesting drugs are 13-cis-retinoic acid plus aerosolized Vitamin D, dexamethasone, and corticosteroid nasal irrigation. Conclusions: COVID-19 has allowed us to highlight how much anosmia is an important and debilitating symptom for patients and, above all, to direct research to find a therapy aimed at curing the symptom, whether it derives from SARS-CoV-2 infection or other infections of the upper airways. Some of these therapies are very promising and are almost at the end of experimentation. They also provide hope in this field, which not addressed until recently.

In reference to Intranasal Corticosteroid Treatment on Recovery of Long-Term Olfactory Dysfunction Due to COVID-19

This is a commentary on the article by Hosseinpoor et al. Laryngoscope, 2022

Therapeutic options of post-COVID-19 related olfactory dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Olfactory dysfunction is a typical post-COVID-19 presentation, affecting patients' quality of life. There are currently multiple treatment options in this group of patients such as oral and intranasal corticosteroids, olfactory training, oral vitamin-mineral supplementation, amongst others. This meta-analysis aims to consolidate existing evidence for current therapies in patients with persistent olfactory dysfunction related to COVID-19 infection and evaluate the possible role of corticosteroid add-on therapy in olfactory training.

METHODOLOGY

A systematic review and meta-analysis to study current treatments/interventions for olfactory dysfunction in post-COVID-19 infection were conducted. Data were pooled for the meta-analysis. The outcomes include subjective or objective olfactory assessment major and minor adverse reactions.

RESULTS

Eleven studies (1414 participants) were included in this review, with six studies (916 participants) then assessed for the meta-analysis. Combined treatment of intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) with olfactory training (OT) has no benefit over OT monotherapy from both a VAS score improvement and identification component of Sniffin' Sticks test standpoint. In addition, there were no differences in improvement of TDI score between combined oral corticosteroid (OCS) with OT therapy compared to OT alone. Olfactory function was, however, significantly improved after OT.

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences in the improvement of olfactory scores in combination INCS+OT or OCS+OT therapies compared to OT monotherapy. However, there is improvement in olfactory function after OT.

Therapies for COVID-19-Related Persistent Olfactory Disorders: One of the Good Fruits of the Pandemic

At the beginning of 2021, the scientific community realized the burden of COVID-19-related persistent olfactory disorders (ODs). The percentage of those infected with COVID-19 who developed severe and persistent ODs [1-3] with devastating effects on their quality of life was 5 to 40% [4,5].

A multicenter real-life study to determine the efficacy of corticosteroids and olfactory training in improving persistent COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction

Background

No definitive treatment exists to effectively restore function in patients with persistent post-infectious olfactory dysfunction (OD). Corticosteroids have been considered as a therapeutic option in post-infectious OD but their benefit in COVID-19-related OD remains unexplored. We aim to determine the role of the combination of corticosteroids plus olfactory training (OT) in improving persistent COVID-19-related OD.

Methods

A multicenter real-life cohort study was conducted between December 2020 and April 2022 on patients with reported COVID-19-related OD. Only patients with confirmed OD at Sniffin' Sticks (S'S) and those who attended their 6-month follow-up were included. Patients were started on a combined treatment of corticosteroids and OT. Patients refusing corticosteroids or not doing any treatment formed the control groups. Visual analogue scale (VAS) for sense of smell and SNOT-22 were used to assess patients reported symptoms.

Results

Sixty-seven subjects with reported COVID-19-related OD were initially seen. Normosmic patients at S'S (n = 14) and those not attending their follow-up (n = 9) were excluded. Of the 44 patients included in the analysis, 19 patients had the combined treatment (group A), 16 patients refused to take corticosteroids and did the OT alone (group B) whereas 9 patients did not do any treatment (group C). An improvement of threshold + discrimination + identification (TDI) score (p = .01) and VAS for smell (p = .01) was found in group A whereas only the TDI score improved in group B (p = .04). Presence of comorbidities, age, sex (male), and length of OD negatively influenced olfactory recovery.

Conclusions

Our study confirms the importance of OT in long-term OD suggesting that the addition of corticosteroids may give a benefit in terms of patient's perceived olfaction.

Level of Evidence

2b.

Prednisolone does not improve olfactory function after COVID-19: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Prednisolone has been suggested as a treatment for olfactory disorders after COVID-19, but evidence is scarce. Hence, we aimed to determine the efficacy of a short oral prednisolone treatment on patients with persistent olfactory disorders after COVID-19.

METHODS

We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-centered trial in the Netherlands. Patients were included if they were > 18 years old and if they had persistent (> 4 weeks) olfactory disorders within 12 weeks after a confirmed COVID-19 test. The treatment group received oral prednisolone 40 mg once daily for 10 days and the placebo group received matching placebo. In addition, all patients performed olfactory training. The primary outcome was the objective olfactory function on Sniffin' Sticks Test (SST) 12 weeks after the start of treatment, measured in Threshold-Discrimination-Identification (TDI) score. Secondary outcomes were objective gustatory function assessed by the Taste Strip Test (TST) and subjective self-reported outcomes on questionnaires about olfactory, gustatory and trigeminal function, quality of life, and nasal symptoms. The CONSORT 2010 guideline was performed.

RESULTS

Between November 2021 and February 2022, we included 115 eligible patients, randomly assigned to the treatment (n = 58) or placebo group (n = 57). No difference in olfactory function between groups was obtained after 12 weeks. Median TDI score on SST was 26.8 (IQR 23.6-29.3) in the placebo group and 28.8 (IQR 24.0-30.9) in the prednisolone group, with a median difference of 2.0 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.5). There was similar improvement on olfactory function in both groups after 12 weeks. Furthermore, on secondary outcomes, we obtained no differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial shows that prednisolone does not improve olfactory function after COVID-19. Therefore, we recommend not prescribing prednisolone for patients with persistent olfactory disorders after COVID-19.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered on the ISRCTN registry with trial ID ISRCTN70794078.

Corticosteroid nasal irrigation as early treatment of olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19: A prospective randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of corticosteroid irrigation compared to saline to no nasal irrigation in COVID-19 patients with olfactory loss.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A randomised controlled study was conducted at the Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery Department, Ramathibodi Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mahidol University.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred thirty-seven COVID-19 participants with a new-onset smell loss were recruited into the study. Two hundred twenty-two participants met the inclusion criteria and were randomised into three groups: corticosteroid irrigation, saline irrigation and no treatment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the mean difference in the smell sensation score among the groups after treatment at 1, 2 and 6 weeks. The secondary outcomes measurements included (1) a self-rating quality of life (QOL)-related smell dysfunction score, (2) the change over time in smell sensation score and self-rating QOL-related smell dysfunction score and (3) the median time to complete recovery of smell loss.

RESULTS

The mean differences in smell sensation scores among the three groups were not statistically significant at any follow-up period. The mean score of self-rating QOL-related smell dysfunction in the corticosteroid group was significantly better than the other groups at 1 week. The change of outcome scores showed significant improvement over time, regardless of the treatments. The median time to complete smell recovery was similar: 3 weeks.

CONCLUSION

This study emphasised that corticosteroid nasal irrigation is not superior to saline or no nasal irrigation in restoring the sense of smell in COVID-19-associated olfactory loss.

Prevalence, Patterns, Prognosis, and Psychosocial Impact of Olfactory and Gustative Dysfunctions Among Saudi COVID-19 Patients

Objective The objective of this study is to estimate the prevalence of olfactory and gustative dysfunctions (OGD) and analyze their pattern and psychosocial impact among COVID-19 patients. Method A cross-sectional study was conducted among 194 confirmed COVID-19 cases at Al-Noor Specialist Hospital between 1 September 2020 and 30 September 2021. A questionnaire was translated and modified from another study to collect the baseline demographic data and medical history; characterization of smell and taste loss separately, including timing, level, practices or treatment used to restore, recovery, and symptom duration; and the psychological impact of OGD using six items to explore the multidimensional impact, such as daily activity, job performance, and social life. A four-point Likert-type agreement scale was used, and an impact score was calculated. Result As high as 97.4% and 94.8% of the participants declared having experienced a certain level of olfactory and gustative dysfunction, respectively. In the majority of these cases, the dysfunction occurred after the acute phase of the disease and persisted less than one month after onset. Social life (78.4%), job performance (64.4%), and daily life activities (42.8%) were the most frequently impacted dimensions, and 32% of the participants were deemed to have experienced a high psychosocial impact. Younger participants, females, and certain job categories were significantly more impacted than their counterparts. Conclusion OGDs are highly frequent in COVID-19 patients. They are described to be relatively severe and have frequent psychosocial impacts, notably in females and the younger age category. Further research is warranted to determine efficacious preventive and management strategies in order to prevent their long-term impact on wellbeing.

Management of Anosmia in COVID-19: A Comprehensive Review

With the evolving understanding of COVID-19, a thorough analysis of the effects of this unique coronavirus on the affected people's olfactory abilities could highlight the disease's specific course of treatment. Researchers have discovered that the neurological side effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection include acute anosmia and ageusia. This work aims to review the relevant mechanisms, provide information on COVID-19-related anosmia, and suggest a novel approach to treating long-term anosmia brought on by coronavirus disease. For that, we did a thorough literature assessment of the subject from various online resources, including PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. We evaluated the publications that described anosmia in COVID-19 and its management. In patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections, the angiotensin-converting enzyme two receptor plays a crucial role in the anosmia process. Olfactory systems are directly harmed by new coronaviruses when they connect with sustentacular cells' ACE-2 (Angiotensin converting enzyme-2) receptors. Other suggested processes include the virus's infiltration of the olfactory nerve and the ensuing local inflammation. Therefore, neuroprotective, anti-inflammatory, or depolarizing medications may be helpful for COVID-19 individuals who have lost their sense of smell. According to the available data, we found out olfactory training, topical or oral corticosteroids, caffeine, insulin, or minocycline may effectively treat COVID-19 odor loss. A novel method of treating long-term COVID-19 with persistent anosmia can be suggested based on recent investigations. The path to effective anosmia management is still somewhat hazy, but there is hope that we can find the right treatment plan with the right clinical trials and additional research. People who lost their sense of smell during COVID-19 can be reassured that recovery is typically possible.

Molecular mechanisms involved in anosmia induced by SARS-CoV-2, with a focus on the transmembrane serine protease TMPRSS2

Since 2020, SARS-CoV-2 has caused a pandemic virus that has posed many challenges worldwide. Infection with this virus can result in a number of symptoms, one of which is anosmia. Olfactory dysfunction can be a temporary or long-term viral complication caused by a disorder of the olfactory neuroepithelium. Processes such as inflammation, apoptosis, and neuronal damage are involved in the development of SARS-CoV-2-induced anosmia. One of the receptors that play a key role in the entry of SARS-CoV-2 into the host cell is the transmembrane serine protease TMPRSS2, which facilitates this process by cleaving the viral S protein. The gene encoding TMPRSS2 is located on chromosome 21. It contains 15 exons and has many genetic variations, some of which increase the risk of disease. Delta strains have been shown to be more dependent on TMPRSS2 for cell entry than Omicron strains. Blockade of this receptor by serine protease inhibitors such as camostat and nafamostat can be helpful for treating SARS-CoV-2 symptoms, including anosmia. Proper understanding of the different functional aspects of this serine protease can help to overcome the therapeutic challenges of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms, including anosmia. In this review, we describe the cellular and molecular events involved in anosmia induced by SARS-CoV-2 with a focus on the function of the TMPRSS2 receptor.

Interventions for the treatment of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Olfactory dysfunction is a common consequence of COVID-19 infection and persistent symptoms can have a profound impact on quality of life. At present there is little guidance on how best to treat this condition. A variety of interventions have been suggested to promote recovery, including medication and olfactory training. However, it is uncertain whether any intervention is of benefit. This is an update of the 2021 review with one additional study added.  OBJECTIVES: 1) To evaluate the benefits and harms of any intervention versus no treatment for people with persisting olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection.  2) To keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach.  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the latest search was 20 October 2021.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with COVID-19 related olfactory disturbance that had persisted for at least four weeks. We included any intervention compared to no treatment or placebo.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were the recovery of sense of smell, disease-related quality of life and serious adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were the change in sense of smell, general quality of life, prevalence of parosmia and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies with 30 participants. The studies evaluated the following interventions: systemic corticosteroids plus intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant and palmitoylethanolamide plus luteolin.  Systemic corticosteroids plus intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant compared to no intervention We included a single RCT with 18 participants who had anosmia for at least 30 days following COVID-19 infection. Participants received a 15-day course of oral corticosteroids combined with nasal irrigation (consisting of an intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant solution) or no intervention. Psychophysical testing was used to assess olfactory function at 40 days. This is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Palmitoylethanolamide plus luteolin compared to no intervention We included a single RCT with 12 participants who had anosmia or hyposmia for at least 90 days following COVID-19 infection. Participants received a 30-day course of palmitoylethanolamide and luteolin or no intervention. Psychophysical testing was used to assess olfactory function at 30 days. This is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very limited evidence available on the efficacy and harms of treatments for persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified a number of ongoing trials in this area. As this is a living systematic review we will update the data regularly, as new results become available.

Interventions for the prevention of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Loss of olfactory function is well recognised as a symptom of COVID-19 infection, and the pandemic has resulted in a large number of individuals with abnormalities in their sense of smell. For many, the condition is temporary and resolves within two to four weeks. However, in a significant minority the symptoms persist. At present, it is not known whether early intervention with any form of treatment (such as medication or olfactory training) can promote recovery and prevent persisting olfactory disturbance. This is an update of the 2021 review with four studies added.

OBJECTIVES

1) To evaluate the benefits and harms of any intervention versus no treatment for people with acute olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection.  2) To keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach.  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the latest search was 20 October 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with COVID-19 related olfactory disturbance, which had been present for less than four weeks. We included any intervention compared to no treatment or placebo.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were the presence of normal olfactory function, serious adverse effects and change in sense of smell. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of parosmia, change in sense of taste, disease-related quality of life and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies with 691 participants. The studies evaluated the following interventions: intranasal corticosteroid sprays, intranasal corticosteroid drops, intranasal hypertonic saline and zinc sulphate.  Intranasal corticosteroid spray compared to no intervention/placebo We included three studies with 288 participants who had olfactory dysfunction for less than four weeks following COVID-19. Presence of normal olfactory function The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of intranasal corticosteroid spray on both self-rated recovery of olfactory function and recovery of olfactory function using psychophysical tests at up to four weeks follow-up (self-rated: risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.68; 1 study; 100 participants; psychophysical testing: RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.63; 1 study; 77 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Change in sense of smell The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of intranasal corticosteroid spray on self-rated change in the sense of smell (at less than 4 weeks: mean difference (MD) 0.5 points lower, 95% CI 1.38 lower to 0.38 higher; 1 study; 77 participants; at > 4 weeks to 3 months: MD 2.4 points higher, 95% CI 1.32 higher to 3.48 higher; 1 study; 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence, rated on a scale of 1 to 10, higher scores mean better olfactory function). Intranasal corticosteroids may make little or no difference to the change in sense of smell when assessed with psychophysical testing (MD 0.2 points, 95% CI 2.06 points lower to 2.06 points higher; 1 study; 77 participants; low-certainty evidence, 0- to 24-point scale, higher scores mean better olfactory function).  Serious adverse effects The authors of one study reported no adverse effects, but their intention to collect these data was not pre-specified so we are uncertain if these were systematically sought and identified. The remaining two studies did not report on adverse effects.  Intranasal corticosteroid drops compared to no intervention/placebo We included one study with 248 participants who had olfactory dysfunction for ≤ 15 days following COVID-19. Presence of normal olfactory function Intranasal corticosteroid drops may make little or no difference to self-rated recovery at > 4 weeks to 3 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.11; 1 study; 248 participants; low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes were assessed by this study.  Data on the use of hypertonic saline nasal irrigation and the use of zinc sulphate to prevent persistent olfactory dysfunction are included in the full text of the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very limited evidence available on the efficacy and harms of treatments for preventing persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified a number of ongoing trials in this area. As this is a living systematic review we will update the data regularly, as new results become available.

Prognosis and persistence of smell and taste dysfunction in patients with covid-19: meta-analysis with parametric cure modelling of recovery curves

OBJECTIVE

To clarify in patients with covid-19 the recovery rate of smell and taste, proportion with persistent dysfunction of smell and taste, and prognostic factors associated with recovery of smell and taste.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and medRxiv from inception to 3 October 2021.

REVIEW METHODS

Two blinded reviewers selected observational studies of adults (≥18 years) with covid-19 related dysfunction of smell or taste. Descriptive prognosis studies with time-to-event curves and prognostic association studies of any prognostic factor were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers extracted data, evaluated study bias using QUIPS, and appraised evidence quality using GRADE, following PRISMA and MOOSE reporting guidelines. Using iterative numerical algorithms, time-to-event individual patient data (IPD) were reconstructed and pooled to retrieve distribution-free summary survival curves, with recovery rates reported at 30 day intervals for participants who remained alive. To estimate the proportion with persistent smell and taste dysfunction, cure fractions from Weibull non-mixture cure models of plateaued survival curves were logit transformed and pooled in a two stage meta-analysis. Conventional aggregate data meta-analysis was performed to explore unadjusted associations of prognostic factors with recovery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were the proportions of patients remaining with smell or taste dysfunction. Secondary outcomes were the odds ratios of prognostic variables associated with recovery of smell and taste.

RESULTS

18 studies (3699 patients) from 4180 records were included in reconstructed IPD meta-analyses. Risk of bias was low to moderate; conclusions remained unaltered after exclusion of four high risk studies. Evidence quality was moderate to high. Based on parametric cure modelling, persistent self-reported smell and taste dysfunction could develop in an estimated 5.6% (95% confidence interval 2.7% to 11.0%, I2=70%, τ2=0.756, 95% prediction interval 0.7% to 33.5%) and 4.4% (1.2% to 14.6%, I2=67%, τ2=0.684, 95% prediction interval 0.0% to 49.0%) of patients, respectively. Sensitivity analyses suggest these could be underestimates. At 30, 60, 90, and 180 days, respectively, 74.1% (95% confidence interval 64.0% to 81.3%), 85.8% (77.6% to 90.9%), 90.0% (83.3% to 94.0%), and 95.7% (89.5% to 98.3%) of patients recovered their sense of smell (I2=0.0-77.2%, τ2=0.006-0.050) and 78.8% (70.5% to 84.7%), 87.7% (82.0% to 91.6%), 90.3% (83.5% to 94.3%), and 98.0% (92.2% to 95.5%) recovered their sense of taste (range of I2=0.0-72.1%, τ2=0.000-0.015). Women were less likely to recover their sense of smell (odds ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.72, seven studies, I2=20%, τ2=0.0224) and taste (0.31, 0.13 to 0.72, seven studies, I2=78%, τ2=0.5121) than men, and patients with greater initial severity of dysfunction (0.48, 0.31 to 0.73, five studies, I2=10%, τ2<0.001) or nasal congestion (0.42, 0.18 to 0.97, three studies, I2=0%, τ2<0.001) were less likely to recover their sense of smell.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of patients with covid-19 might develop long lasting change in their sense of smell or taste. This could contribute to the growing burden of long covid.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021283922.

Do the Successive Waves of SARS-CoV-2, Vaccination Status and Place of Infection Influence the Clinical Picture and COVID-19 Severity among Patients with Persistent Clinical Symptoms? The Retrospective Study of Patients from the STOP-COVID Registry of the PoLoCOV-Study

The severity of ailments caused by SARS-CoV-2 varies and the clinical picture has already evolved during the pandemic, complicating diagnostics. In Poland, no study has been performed to assess the clinical picture of patients across the successive pandemic waves. The aim of the study was to present the characteristics of patients who present to medical center because of persistent symptoms after COVID-19, and to study differences between hospitalized/non-hospitalized, vaccinated/non-vaccinated individuals and between different waves in Poland. This is a retrospective study evaluating the clinical presentation of COVID-19 patients from the STOP-COVID registry of the PoLoCOV-Study. This registry includes patients who present to the medical center because of persistent clinical symptoms after the isolation. The patients' data were obtained from individuals who suffered from COVID-19 between September 2020 and December 2021.The patients were divided into groups according to the infection rate increase pattern (II/III/IV pandemic wave), status of vaccination and place of isolation. Regardless of the pandemic wave, the patients' most commonly reported weaknesses were a cough and a headache. The arterial hypertension and hyperlipidemia were the most frequent concomitant chronic conditions. Hospitalized patients more often reported weakness or a cough while home-isolated patients were more likely to have rhinitis or a headache. Patients who completed the vaccination course showed a shorter duration of clinical symptoms and a lower mean number of symptoms. Additionally, vaccinated individuals reported less taste and/or olfactory dysfunction than unvaccinated individuals. To conclude, the persistence of the pandemic has resulted in significant changes observed in the clinical picture. Successive waves caused deterioration in the subjective assessment of the disease severity. A cough seemed to occur more frequently in the later pandemic waves.

Efficacy of topical steroids for the treatment of olfactory disorders caused by COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of topical steroids on acute‐onset olfactory dysfunction in patients infected with COVID‐19.

Design and Setting

Systematic review and meta‐analysis of cohort studies.

Participants

Patients infected with COVID‐19.

Main outcome measures

PubMed, Embase, the Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane database and Google Scholar were searched for articles up to September 2021. We analysed studies comparing the improvement of olfactory dysfunction between topical steroid treatment and control groups (placebo or no treatment). In addition, we performed a subgroup analysis by study type.

Results

The improvement of olfactory score at 2 (standardised mean difference [SMD] = 0.7272, 95% confidence interval = [0.3851, 1.0692], p < .0001, I² = 62.1%) and 4 weeks post‐treatment (SMD = 1.0440 [0.6777, 1.4102], p < .0001, I² = 61.2%) was statistically greater in the treatment than control group. However, there was no significant difference (odds ratio [OR] = 1.4345 [0.9525, 2.1604], p = .0842, I² = 45.4%) in the incidence of fully recovery from anosmia/hyposmia between the treatment and control groups. In subgroup analysis, there were no significant differences in the improvement of olfactory score at 4 weeks post‐treatment (OR = 0.6177 [0.1309, 1.1045] vs. 0.1720 [0.8002, 1.5438], p = .0761) or the incidence of full recovery from anosmia/hyposmia (OR = 1.8478 [0.6092, 5.6053] vs. 1.3784 [0.8872, 2.1414], p = .8038) between randomised and non‐randomised controlled trials.

Conclusions

Although this meta‐analysis found that topical steroids improved the acute‐onset olfactory dysfunction caused by COVID‐19, there was no difference in the rate of full olfactory recovery between treated and control patients.

Factors associated with anosmia recovery rate in COVID-19 patients

Objectives

The present study aimed to assess the 4- and 8-week recovery rate of anosmia and determine the factors associated with recovery in COVID-19 patients.

Method

This retrospective study was conducted from December 2020 to March 2021. RT-PCR-proven COVID-19 adult patients (over 18 years of age) with a positive history of anosmia were included in this study. Anosmia was assessed based on the COVID-19 Anosmia Reporting Tool. The recovery rate of anosmia after 4 and 8 weeks were evaluated, and the relationship between the patients' recovery and their clinical and demographic data was assessed.

Results

A total of 235 patients were included. Their mean age (±SD) was 43.95 ± 15.27 years. Anosmia recovery was reported in 207(88.51%) and 219 (93.19%) participants till 4 and 8 weeks. The mean recovery time was 19.42 ± 8.81 days. The result of logistic regression showed that smoking (P = .031; OR = 10.813), ageusia (P = .002; OR = 5.340), headache (P = .006; OR = 0.243), and nasal discharge (P < .001; OR = 0.080) were significantly associated with 4 weeks anosmia recovery. The only risk factor which was associated with a lower rate of 8 weeks anosmia recovery was presence of nasal discharge (OR = 0.106, P = .002).

Conclusion

The only risk factor which was associated with a lower rate of 8 weeks anosmia recovery was presence of nasal discharge. Our result demonstrated that although smoking was associated with higher recovery rate till 4 weeks, it could not be considered as a protective factor after 8 weeks. More studies are recommended to investigate the relationship between anosmia and the associated factors by consideration of both short- and long-term recovery rates and assess the possible mechanisms that could justify this association.

Levels of Evidence

3b.

Mechanism of Anosmia Caused by Symptoms of COVID-19 and Emerging Treatments

The occurrence of anosmia, the loss or change in sense of smell, is one of the most common symptoms of COVID-19 experienced by almost 53% of those affected. Several hypotheses explain the mechanism of anosmia in patients suffering from COVID-19. This study aims to review the related mechanisms and answer the questions regarding COVID-19-related anosmia as well as propose a new strategy for treatment of long-term anosmia as a result of COVID-19 infection. This paper covers all of the studies investigating olfactory disorders following COVID-19 infection and explains the possible reasons for the correlated anosmia, including olfactory cleft syndrome, local inflammation in the nasal epithelium, early apoptosis of olfactory cells, changes in olfactory cilia and odor transmission, damage to microglial cells, effect on olfactory bulbs, epithelial olfactory injury, and impairment of olfactory neurons and stem cells. The key questions that arise in this field have been discussed, such as why prevalent anosmia is varied among the age categories and among sexes and the correlation of anosmia with mild or severe COVID-19 infection. The angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor is a significant player in the mechanism of anosmia in COVID-19 patients. Based on current studies, a novel approach to treat long-COVID-19 with ongoing anosmia has been proposed. The fields of smart drug delivery, tissue engineering, and cell therapy provide a hypothesized strategy that can minimize the side effects of current treatments and support efficient recovery of the olfactory system.

Treatment and Prognosis of COVID-19 Associated Olfactory and Gustatory Dysfunctions

Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions are important initial symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the treatment modality for these conditions has yet to be clearly established. Therefore, most physicians have been administering empirical treatments for COVID-19-associated olfactory dysfunction, including topical or systemic steroid supplementation and olfactory training. In this literature review, we summarize the clinical course and effects of various treatments currently being conducted in patients with COVID-19-associated olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions.

Neurological sequelae of COVID-19: a review

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has produced a myriad of challenges, including identifying and treating neurological sequelae.

Main body

COVID-19 can cause olfactory and respiratory dysfunction with average recovery within 1 month and a minority of patients experiencing symptoms at 8-month follow-up. Headaches are also very common (up to 93%) amongst patients with persistent COVID-19 symptoms. COVID-19 illness may also affect cognition, although results are mixed.

Conclusion

While many studies have focused on acute COVID-19 symptoms, more longitudinal studies will need to assess the neurological sequelae of the disease. Furthermore, care must be taken when attributing sequelae to COVID-19 illness and not an unrelated cause. Finally, there is concern that COVID-19 may be associated with secondary illnesses, such as Guillain–Barre, and may even contribute to the development of diseases, such as Alzheimer’s.

Prevalence of dysphonia due to COVID-19 at Salahaddin General Hospital, Tikrit City, Iraq

Background

Dysphonia is a feature of the COVID-19 disease with different prevalence rates of occurrence among various nations.

Objectives

To determine the prevalence of dysphonia in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 disease.

Materials and methods

The study was conducted at Salahaddin General Hospital during the period from January to March 2021. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with or without dysphonia were enrolled in the study. Demographic and clinical data were recorded. The severity, duration, laryngoscopic finding, and fate of the dysphonia were registered too.

Results

Out of 94 subjects, there were 21 (22.3%) with dysphonia. The age was ranged from 23 to 101 years, with nearly equal gender distribution. Non-smokers were found in 52.1% of the cases. Dyspnea (100%), fever (100%), and cough (98.9%) were the most common presenting symptoms. There was a statistically significant difference between the dysphonic and non-dysphonic groups regarding fatigue, nasal obstruction, and diarrhea (P-value<0.05). Mild dysphonia was found in 10 (47.6%) of the dysphonic cases. The most common laryngoscopic finding was the bowing of the vocal cords (5/18). Most of the patients (11/18) were with dysphonia for more than a month duration. Similar numbers were not recovered for a one-month follow-up.

Conclusion

The prevalence of dysphonia was 22.3%. Dyspnea, fever, and cough were the commonest symptoms. Fatigue, nasal obstruction, and diarrhea affected dysphonia. Bowing of the vocal cords was the most common abnormality. Most of the cases were with mild dysphonia, persisting for more than a month, and were not resolved during the follow-up period of one month.

Interventions for the prevention of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Loss of olfactory function is well recognised as a cardinal symptom of COVID-19 infection, and the ongoing pandemic has resulted in a large number of affected individuals with abnormalities in their sense of smell. For many, the condition is temporary and resolves within two to four weeks. However, in a significant minority the symptoms persist. At present, it is not known whether early intervention with any form of treatment (such as medication or olfactory training) can promote recovery and prevent persisting olfactory disturbance.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions that have been used, or proposed, to prevent persisting olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection. A secondary objective is to keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach.  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register; Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies. The date of the search was 16 December 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials including participants who had symptoms of olfactory disturbance following COVID-19 infection. Individuals who had symptoms for less than four weeks were included in this review. Studies compared any intervention with no treatment or placebo.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were the presence of normal olfactory function, serious adverse effects and change in sense of smell. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of parosmia, change in sense of taste, disease-related quality of life and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included one study of 100 participants, which compared an intranasal steroid spray to no intervention. Participants in both groups were also advised to undertake olfactory training for the duration of the trial. Data were identified for only two of the prespecified outcomes for this review, and no data were available for the primary outcome of serious adverse effects. Intranasal corticosteroids compared to no intervention (all using olfactory training) Presence of normal olfactory function after three weeks of treatment was self-assessed by the participants, using a visual analogue scale (range 0 to 10, higher scores = better). A score of 10 represented "completely normal smell sensation". The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of intranasal corticosteroids on self-rated recovery of sense of smell (estimated absolute effect 619 per 1000 compared to 520 per 1000, risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.68; 1 study; 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Change in sense of smell was not reported, but the self-rated score for sense of smell was reported at the endpoint of the study with the same visual analogue scale (after three weeks of treatment). The median scores at endpoint were 10 (interquartile range (IQR) 9 to 10) for the group receiving intranasal corticosteroids, and 10 (IQR 5 to 10) for the group receiving no intervention (1 study; 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very limited evidence regarding the efficacy of different interventions at preventing persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified a small number of additional ongoing studies in this area. As this is a living systematic review, the evidence will be updated regularly to incorporate new data from these, and other relevant studies, as they become available.  For this (first) version of the living review, we identified a single study of intranasal corticosteroids to include in this review, which provided data for only two of our prespecified outcomes. The evidence was of very low certainty, therefore we were unable to determine whether intranasal corticosteroids may have a beneficial or harmful effect.

Short-Term Efficacy and Safety of Oral and Nasal Corticosteroids in COVID-19 Patients with Olfactory Dysfunction: A European Multicenter Study

Background: The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of early administration of oral corticosteroids (OC) or nasal corticosteroids (NC) as an add-on to olfactory training (OT) versus OT alone in patients with olfactory dysfunction (OD) related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Patients with a positive diagnosis of COVID-19 and OD were prospectively recruited from March 22 to December 15, 2020 from 4 European hospitals. Patients had confirmed OD on psychophysical testing. All patients undertook OT, with add-on 10 days of OC (group 1: OC + OT), or 1 month of NC (group 2: NC + OT) or olfactory training alone (group 3: OT). Olfactory evaluations (Sniffin'Sticks tests) were carried out at the time of inclusion, 1 and 2 months after the start of the therapeutic course. Results: A total of 152 hyposmic or anosmic patients completed the study. Group 1, 2 and 3 included 59, 22 and 71 patients, respectively and all patient groups were comparable regarding baseline Sniffin'Sticks tests. The median Sniffin'Sticks test values significantly improved from pre- to post-intervention in all groups. The increase of Sniffin'Sticks test values was higher in group 1 (OC + OT) compared with groups 2 and 3 (p < 0.001) at one month after treatment but did not remain so at 2 months. Groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively, presented parosmia in 20/71 (28.2%), 9/22 (40.9%) and 42/71 (59.2%) patients. This difference was statistically significant between group 1 and 3 (p < 0.001). There were no patients with a worsening of the disease or an increase of the severity of the COVID-19 symptoms. Conclusions: The use of OCs in patients with OD related to mild COVID-19 is generally well-tolerated without any case of deterioration of symptoms. OC is associated with greater improvement in psychophysical olfactory evaluations at 1-month post-treatment but there was no difference at 2 months. Parosmia may be reduced following treatment with OC and NC. On the basis of these preliminary results, it is possible to state that considering the 2 months efficacy of OC and NC with respect to the OT alone and the risk-benefit ratio, the benefit to start a specific treatment of COVID-19 related OD cannot be demonstrated and there is a need for a randomised controlled trial to assess this further.