1
|
O'Byrne L, Webster KE, MacKeith S, Philpott C, Hopkins C, Burton MJ. Interventions for the treatment of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 9:CD013876. [PMID: 36062970 PMCID: PMC9443431 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013876.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
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Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials.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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa O'Byrne
- Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin 4, Ireland
| | - Katie E Webster
- Cochrane ENT, Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Samuel MacKeith
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Carl Philpott
- Department of Medicine, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Webster KE, O'Byrne L, MacKeith S, Philpott C, Hopkins C, Burton MJ. Interventions for the prevention of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 9:CD013877. [PMID: 36063364 PMCID: PMC9443936 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013877.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katie E Webster
- Cochrane ENT, Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Lisa O'Byrne
- Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin 4, Ireland
| | - Samuel MacKeith
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Carl Philpott
- Department of Medicine, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kostyusheva A, Brezgin S, Babin Y, Vasilyeva I, Glebe D, Kostyushev D, Chulanov V. CRISPR-Cas systems for diagnosing infectious diseases. Methods 2022; 203:431-446. [PMID: 33839288 PMCID: PMC8032595 DOI: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2021.04.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2020] [Revised: 03/15/2021] [Accepted: 04/06/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Infectious diseases are a global health problem affecting billions of people. Developing rapid and sensitive diagnostic tools is key for successful patient management and curbing disease spread. Currently available diagnostics are very specific and sensitive but time-consuming and require expensive laboratory settings and well-trained personnel; thus, they are not available in resource-limited areas, for the purposes of large-scale screenings and in case of outbreaks and epidemics. Developing new, rapid, and affordable point-of-care diagnostic assays is urgently needed. This review focuses on CRISPR-based technologies and their perspectives to become platforms for point-of-care nucleic acid detection methods and as deployable diagnostic platforms that could help to identify and curb outbreaks and emerging epidemics. We describe the mechanisms and function of different classes and types of CRISPR-Cas systems, including pros and cons for developing molecular diagnostic tests and applications of each type to detect a wide range of infectious agents. Many Cas proteins (Cas3, Cas9, Cas12, Cas13, Cas14 etc.) have been leveraged to create highly accurate and sensitive diagnostic tools combined with technologies of signal amplification and fluorescent, potentiometric, colorimetric, lateral flow assay detection and other. In particular, the most advanced platforms -- SHERLOCK/v2, DETECTR, CARMEN or CRISPR-Chip -- enable detection of attomolar amounts of pathogenic nucleic acids with specificity comparable to that of PCR but with minimal technical settings. Further developing CRISPR-based diagnostic tools promises to dramatically transform molecular diagnostics, making them easily affordable and accessible virtually anywhere in the world. The burden of socially significant diseases, frequent outbreaks, recent epidemics (MERS, SARS and the ongoing COVID-19) and outbreaks of zoonotic viruses (African Swine Fever Virus etc.) urgently need the developing and distribution of express-diagnostic tools. Recently devised CRISPR-technologies represent the unprecedented opportunity to reshape epidemiological surveillance and molecular diagnostics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anastasiya Kostyusheva
- National Medical Research Center of Tuberculosis and Infectious Diseases, Ministry of Health, Moscow, Russia.
| | - Sergey Brezgin
- National Medical Research Center of Tuberculosis and Infectious Diseases, Ministry of Health, Moscow, Russia,Institute of Immunology, Moscow, Russia
| | - Yurii Babin
- National Medical Research Center of Tuberculosis and Infectious Diseases, Ministry of Health, Moscow, Russia
| | - Irina Vasilyeva
- National Medical Research Center of Tuberculosis and Infectious Diseases, Ministry of Health, Moscow, Russia
| | - Dieter Glebe
- Institute of Medical Virology, University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany
| | - Dmitry Kostyushev
- National Medical Research Center of Tuberculosis and Infectious Diseases, Ministry of Health, Moscow, Russia,Sirius University of Science and Technology, Sochi, Russia
| | - Vladimir Chulanov
- National Medical Research Center of Tuberculosis and Infectious Diseases, Ministry of Health, Moscow, Russia,Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Pang KW, Tham SL, Ng LS. Exploring the Clinical Utility of Gustatory Dysfunction (GD) as a Triage Symptom Prior to Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) in the Diagnosis of COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Life (Basel) 2021; 11:1315. [PMID: 34947846 PMCID: PMC8706269 DOI: 10.3390/life11121315] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/24/2021] [Revised: 11/25/2021] [Accepted: 11/25/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The diagnosis of COVID-19 is made using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) but its sensitivity varies from 20 to 100%. The presence of gustatory dysfunction (GD) in a patient with upper respiratory tract symptoms might increase the clinical suspicion of COVID-19. AIMS To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR-) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of using GD as a triage symptom prior to RT-PCR. METHODS PubMed and Embase were searched up to 20 June 2021. Studies published in English were included if they compared the frequency of GD in COVID-19 adult patients (proven by RT-PCR) to COVID-19 negative controls in case control or cross-sectional studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. RESULTS 21,272 COVID-19 patients and 52,298 COVID-19 negative patients were included across 44 studies from 21 countries. All studies were of moderate to high risk of bias. Patients with GD were more likely to test positive for COVID-19: DOR 6.39 (4.86-8.40), LR+ 3.84 (3.04-4.84), LR- 0.67 (0.64-0.70), pooled sensitivity 0.37 (0.29-0.47) and pooled specificity 0.92 (0.89-0.94). While history/questionnaire-based assessments were predictive of RT-PCR positivity (DOR 6.62 (4.95-8.85)), gustatory testing was not (DOR 3.53 (0.98-12.7)). There was significant heterogeneity among the 44 studies (I2 = 92%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS GD is useful as a symptom to determine if a patient should undergo further testing, especially in resource-poor regions where COVID-19 testing is scarce. Patients with GD may be advised to quarantine while repeated testing is performed if the initial RT-PCR is negative. FUNDING None.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Khang Wen Pang
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore 119228, Singapore; (S.-L.T.); (L.S.N.)
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Torices S, Cabrera R, Stangis M, Naranjo O, Fattakhov N, Teglas T, Adesse D, Toborek M. Expression of SARS-CoV-2-related receptors in cells of the neurovascular unit: implications for HIV-1 infection. J Neuroinflammation 2021; 18:167. [PMID: 34325716 PMCID: PMC8319595 DOI: 10.1186/s12974-021-02210-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2021] [Accepted: 07/04/2021] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Neurological complications are common in patients affected by COVID-19 due to the ability of SARS-CoV-2 to infect brains. While the mechanisms of this process are not fully understood, it has been proposed that SARS-CoV-2 can infect the cells of the neurovascular unit (NVU), which form the blood-brain barrier (BBB). The aim of the current study was to analyze the expression pattern of the main SARS-CoV-2 receptors in naïve and HIV-1-infected cells of the NVU in order to elucidate a possible pathway of the virus entry into the brain and a potential modulatory impact of HIV-1 in this process. METHODS The gene and protein expression profile of ACE2, TMPRSS2, ADAM17, BSG, DPP4, AGTR2, ANPEP, cathepsin B, and cathepsin L was assessed by qPCR, immunoblotting, and immunostaining, respectively. In addition, we investigated if brain endothelial cells can be affected by the exposure to the S1 subunit of the S protein, the domain responsible for the direct binding of SARS-CoV-2 to the ACE2 receptors. RESULTS The receptors involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection are co-expressed in the cells of the NVU, especially in astrocytes and microglial cells. These receptors are functionally active as exposure of endothelial cells to the SARS CoV-2 S1 protein subunit altered the expression pattern of tight junction proteins, such as claudin-5 and ZO-1. Additionally, HIV-1 infection upregulated ACE2 and TMPRSS2 expression in brain astrocytes and microglia cells. CONCLUSIONS These findings provide key insight into SARS-CoV-2 recognition by cells of the NVU and may help to develop possible treatment of CNS complications of COVID-19.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Silvia Torices
- Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 528E Gautier Bldg. 1011 NW 15th Street, Miami, FL, 33136, USA.
| | - Rosalba Cabrera
- Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 528E Gautier Bldg. 1011 NW 15th Street, Miami, FL, 33136, USA
| | - Michael Stangis
- Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 528E Gautier Bldg. 1011 NW 15th Street, Miami, FL, 33136, USA
| | - Oandy Naranjo
- Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 528E Gautier Bldg. 1011 NW 15th Street, Miami, FL, 33136, USA
| | - Nikolai Fattakhov
- Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 528E Gautier Bldg. 1011 NW 15th Street, Miami, FL, 33136, USA
| | - Timea Teglas
- Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 528E Gautier Bldg. 1011 NW 15th Street, Miami, FL, 33136, USA
| | - Daniel Adesse
- Laboratory of Structural Biology, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Fiocruz, CEP, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 21045-900, Brazil
| | - Michal Toborek
- Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 528E Gautier Bldg. 1011 NW 15th Street, Miami, FL, 33136, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Webster KE, O'Byrne L, MacKeith S, Philpott C, Hopkins C, Burton MJ. Interventions for the prevention of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 7:CD013877. [PMID: 34291812 PMCID: PMC8406518 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013877.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katie E Webster
- Cochrane ENT, Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Lisa O'Byrne
- Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin 4, Ireland
| | - Samuel MacKeith
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Carl Philpott
- Department of Medicine, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
O'Byrne L, Webster KE, MacKeith S, Philpott C, Hopkins C, Burton MJ. Interventions for the treatment of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 7:CD013876. [PMID: 34291813 PMCID: PMC8406942 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013876.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Olfactory dysfunction is an early and sensitive marker of COVID-19 infection. Although self-limiting in the majority of cases, when hyposmia or anosmia persists it can have a profound effect on quality of life. Little guidance exists on the treatment of post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction, however several strategies have been proposed from the evidence relating to the treatment of post-viral anosmia (such as medication or olfactory training). OBJECTIVES To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions that have been used, or proposed, to treat 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. Only individuals who had symptoms for at least 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. 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 one study with 18 participants, which compared the use of a 15-day course of oral steroids combined with nasal irrigation (consisting of an intranasal steroid/mucolytic/decongestant solution) with no intervention. Psychophysical testing was used to assess olfactory function at baseline, 20 and 40 days. Systemic corticosteroids plus intranasal steroid/mucolytic/decongestant compared to no intervention Recovery of sense of smell was assessed after 40 days (25 days after cessation of treatment) using the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (CCCRC) score. This tool has a range of 0 to 100, and a score of ≥ 90 represents normal olfactory function. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this intervention on recovery of the sense of smell at one to three months (5/9 participants in the intervention group scored ≥ 90 compared to 0/9 in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 11.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 173.66; 1 study; 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Change in sense of smell was assessed using the CCCRC score at 40 days. This study reported an improvement in sense of smell in the intervention group from baseline (median improvement in CCCRC score 60, interquartile range (IQR) 40) compared to the control group (median improvement in CCCRC score 30, IQR 25) (1 study; 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events andother adverse events were not identified in any participants of this study; however, it is unclear how these outcomes were assessed and recorded (1 study; 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). 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 other ongoing trials in this area. As this is a living systematic review we will update the data regularly, as new results become available. For this (first) version of the living review we identified only one study with a small sample size, which assessed systemic steroids and nasal irrigation (intranasal steroid/mucolytic/decongestant). However, the evidence regarding the benefits and harms from this intervention to treat persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction is very uncertain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa O'Byrne
- Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin 4, Ireland
| | - Katie E Webster
- Cochrane ENT, Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Samuel MacKeith
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Carl Philpott
- Department of Medicine, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Torices S, Cabrera R, Stangis M, Naranjo O, Adesse D, Toborek M. Expression of SARS-CoV-2-related Receptors in Cells of the Neurovascular Unit: Implications for HIV-1 Infection. RESEARCH SQUARE 2021:rs.3.rs-228960. [PMID: 33655239 PMCID: PMC7924273 DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-228960/v1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
Background. Neurological complications are common in patients affected by COVID-19 due to the ability of SARS-CoV-2 to infect brains. While the mechanisms of this process are not fully understood, it has been proposed that SARS-CoV-2 can infect the cells of the neurovascular units (NVU), which form the blood-brain barrier (BBB). The aim of the current study was to analyze the expression pattern of the main SARS-CoV-2 receptors in naïve and HIV-1-infected cells of the NVU in order to elucidate a possible pathway of the virus entry into the brain and a potential modulatory impact of HIV-1 in this process. Methods. The gene and protein expression profile of ACE2, TMPRSS2, ADAM17, BSG, DPP4, AGTR2, ANPEP, cathepsin B and cathepsin L was assessed by qPCR and immunoblotting, respectively. In addition, we investigated if brain endothelial cells can be affected by the exposure to the S1 subunit of the S protein, the domain responsible for the direct binding of SARS-CoV-2 to the ACE2 receptors. Results. The receptors involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection are coexpressed in the cells of the NVU, especially in astrocytes and microglial cells. These receptors are functionally active as exposure of endothelial cells to the SARS CoV-2 S1 protein subunit altered the expression pattern of tight junction proteins, such as claudin-5 and ZO-1. Additionally, HIV-1 infection upregulated ACE2 and TMPRSS2 expression in brain astrocytes and microglia cells. Conclusions. These findings provide key insight into SARS-CoV-2 recognition by cells of the NVU and may help to develop possible treatment of CNS complications of COVID-19.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Silvia Torices
- University of Miami Miller School of Medicine: University of Miami School of Medicine
| | - Rosalba Cabrera
- University of Miami Miller School of Medicine: University of Miami School of Medicine
| | - Michael Stangis
- University of Miami Miller School of Medicine: University of Miami School of Medicine
| | - Oandy Naranjo
- University of Miami Miller School of Medicine: University of Miami School of Medicine
| | | | | |
Collapse
|