Conservative management versus tonsillectomy in adults with recurrent acute tonsillitis in the UK (NATTINA): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tonsillectomy is regularly performed in adults with acute tonsillitis, but with scarce evidence. A reduction in tonsillectomies has coincided with an increase in acute adult hospitalisation for tonsillitis complications. We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of conservative management versus tonsillectomy in patients with recurrent acute tonsillitis. METHODS: This pragmatic multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial was conducted in 27 hospitals in the UK. Participants were adults aged 16 years or older who were newly referred to secondary care otolaryngology clinics with recurrent acute tonsillitis. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive tonsillectomy or conservative management using random permuted blocks of variable length. Stratification by recruiting centre and baseline symptom severity was assessed using the Tonsil Outcome Inventory-14 score (categories defined as mild 0-35, moderate 36-48, or severe 49-70). Participants in the tonsillectomy group received elective surgery to dissect the palatine tonsils within 8 weeks after random assignment and those in the conservative management group received standard non-surgical care during 24 months. The primary outcome was the number of sore throat days collected during 24 months after random assignment, reported once per week with a text message. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 55284102. FINDINGS: Between May 11, 2015, and April 30, 2018, 4165 participants with recurrent acute tonsillitis were assessed for eligibility and 3712 were excluded. 453 eligible participants were randomly assigned (233 in the immediate tonsillectomy group vs 220 in the conservative management group). 429 (95%) patients were included in the primary ITT analysis (224 vs 205). The median age of participants was 23 years (IQR 19-30), with 355 (78%) females and 97 (21%) males. Most participants were White (407 [90%]). Participants in the immediate tonsillectomy group had fewer days of sore throat during 24 months than those in the conservative management group (median 23 days [IQR 11-46] vs 30 days [14-65]). After adjustment for site and baseline severity, the incident rate ratio of total sore throat days in the immediate tonsillectomy group (n=224) compared with the conservative management group (n=205) was 0·53 (95% CI 0·43 to 0·65; <0·0001). 191 adverse events in 90 (39%) of 231 participants were deemed related to tonsillectomy. The most common adverse event was bleeding (54 events in 44 [19%] participants). No deaths occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION: Compared with conservative management, immediate tonsillectomy is clinically effective and cost-effective in adults with recurrent acute tonsillitis. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

EUFOREA/EPOS2020 statement on the clinical considerations for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps care.

Following the European Forum for Research and Education in Allergy and Airway Diseases (EUFOREA) treatment algorithm for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), patients suffering from severe uncontrolled CRSwNP are recommended to receive oral corticosteroids, (revision) sinus surgery, systemic biologicals and/or aspirin treatment after desensitization (ATAD). Given the major differences in indications, outcomes, practical considerations, risks and costs of these key pillars of treatment, there is a growing need to define criteria for each treatment option and list the clinically relevant and major considerations for them. This EUFOREA document therefore provides an expert panel overview of the expected outcomes, specific considerations and (contra)indications of the five major treatment arms of severe uncontrolled CRSwNP: oral corticosteroids, primary and revision sinus surgery, biological treatment and ATAD. This overview of treatment considerations is needed to allow physicians and patients to consider the different options in the context of providing optimal and personalized care for severe uncontrolled CRSwNP. In conclusion, the five major treatment options for severe uncontrolled CRSwNP have intrinsic advantages, specific indications and considerations that are of importance to the patient, the physician and the society. This EUFOREA statement supports the unmet need to define criteria for the indication of every treatment pillar of CRSwNP.

Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of benralizumab in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: Phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled OSTRO trial.

AIMS: Benralizumab, a humanized, afucosylated monoclonal antibody against the interleukin 5 receptor, α subunit, causes rapid depletion of eosinophils by antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. We investigated the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of benralizumab in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) from the phase III OSTRO trial. METHODS: Patients received a placebo or 30 mg of benralizumab by subcutaneous injection every 8 weeks (first three doses every 4 weeks) to week 48; a subset of patients continued in an extended follow-up period to assess treatment durability to week 80. Serum benralizumab concentrations and blood eosinophil and basophil counts were assessed to week 80. Biomarker assessments were performed on nasal polyp tissue biopsies at week 56 and nasal lining fluid at weeks 24 and 56 to examine changes in immune cells and inflammatory mediators. RESULTS: Among 185 patients in this analysis, 93 received benralizumab. Serum benralizumab concentrations reached a steady state by week 24 (median concentration 385.52 ng mL-1); blood eosinophils were almost fully depleted and blood basophils were reduced between weeks 16 and 56. Nasal polyp tissue eosinophils decreased with benralizumab from 57.6 cells mm-2 at baseline to 0 cells mm-2 at week 56 (P < .001 vs placebo), and tissue mast cells were numerically reduced. In nasal lining fluid, eosinophil-derived neurotoxin was significantly reduced at weeks 24 and 56 (P < .001) and interleukin-17 at week 56 (P < .05) with benralizumab. CONCLUSION: Benralizumab treatment led to rapid, sustained, nearly complete depletion of eosinophils from blood and nasal polyp tissue in patients with CRSwNP.

International clinical assessment of smell: An international, cross-sectional survey of current practice in the assessment of olfaction.

OBJECTIVES: Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is common and carries significant personal and societal burden. Accurate assessment is necessary for good clinical and research practice but is highly dependent on the assessment technique used. Current practice with regards to UK/international clinical assessment is unknown. We aimed to capture current clinical practice, with reference to contemporaneously available guidelines. We further aimed to compare UK to international practice. DESIGN: Anonymous online questionnaire with cross-sectional non-probability sampling. Subgroup analysis according to subspeciality training in rhinology ('rhinologists' and 'non-rhinologists') was performed, with geographical comparisons only made according to subgroup. PARTICIPANTS: ENT surgeons who assess olfaction. RESULTS: Responses were received from 465 clinicians (217 from UK and 17 countries total). Country-specific response rate varied, with the lowest rate being obtained from Japan (1.4%) and highest from Greece (72.5%). Most UK clinicians do not perform psychophysical smell testing during any of the presented clinical scenarios-though rhinologists did so more often than non-rhinologists. The most frequent barriers to testing related to service provision (e.g., time/funding limitations). Whilst there was variability in practice, in general, international respondents performed psychophysical testing more frequently than those from the UK. Approximately 3/4 of all respondents said they would like to receive training in psychophysical smell testing. Patient reported outcome measures were infrequently used in the UK/internationally. More UK respondents performed diagnostic MRI scanning than international respondents. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive UK-based, and only international survey of clinical practice in the assessment of OD. We present recommendations to improve practice, including increased education and funding for psychophysical smell testing. We hope this will promote accurate and reliable olfactory assessment, as is the accepted standard in other sensory systems.

European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology position paper on endoscopic scoring of nasal polyposis.

Nasal endoscopy is not only used for the diagnosis of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), but also for monitoring the response to therapy playing an important role in both daily practice and research. In contrast to patient-reported outcomes, endoscopic nasal polyp scoring by independent blinded readers is an objective measurement, not influenced by the placebo effect. It is safer and cheaper compared with computed tomography imaging and therefore, better suited for regular assessments of the extent of the disease. Since the early 90s, a variety of endoscopic staging methods have been proposed and used in clinical research, making it hard to compare results from different studies. This paper resulted from a task force with experts in the field of CRSwNP, originated by the Ear, Nose and Throat section of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and aims to provide a unified endoscopic NP scoring system that can serve as a reference standard for researchers, but also as a useful tool for practitioners involved in the management of CRSwNP.

Recovery from olfactory and gustatory dysfunction following COVID-19 acquired during Omicron BA.1 wave in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Despite alterations in the sense of smell and taste have dominated the symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the prevalence and the severity of self-reporting COVID-19 associated olfactory and gustatory dysfunction has dropped significantly with the advent of the Omicron BA.1 subvariant. However, data on the evolution of Omicron-related chemosensory impairment are still lacking. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to estimate the prevalence and the recovery rate of self-reported chemosensory dysfunction 6-month after SARS-CoV-2 infection acquired during the predominance of the Omicron BA.1 subvariant in Italy. METHODS: Prospective observational study based on the sino-nasal outcome tool 22 (SNOT-22), item "sense of smell or taste" and additional outcomes conducted in University hospitals and tertiary referral centers in Italy. RESULTS: Of 338 patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 completing the baseline survey, 294 (87.0 %) responded to the 6-month follow-up interview. Among them, 101 (34.4 %) and 4 (1.4 %) reported an altered sense of smell or taste at baseline and at 6 months, respectively. Among the 101 patients with COVID-19-associated smell or taste dysfunction during the acute phase of the disease, 97 (96.0 %) reported complete resolution at 6 months. The duration of smell or taste impairment was significantly shorter in vaccinated patients (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with that observed in subjects infected during the first wave of the pandemic, the recovery rate from chemosensory dysfunctions reported in the present series of patients infected during the predominance of the Omicron BA.1 subvariant was more favorable with a shorter duration being positively influenced by vaccination.

Evaluating long-term smell or taste dysfunction in mildly symptomatic COVID-19 patients: a 3-year follow-up study.

INTRODUCTION: No studies have reported data on 3-year prevalence and recovery rates of self-reported COVID-19-related olfactory and gustatory dysfunction. The aim of the present study was to estimate the 3-year prevalence and recovery rate of self-reported COVID-19-related chemosensory dysfunction in a cohort of patients with antecedent mild COVID-19. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study, measuring the prevalence of altered sense of smell or taste at follow-up and their variation from baseline, on adult patients consecutively assessed at Treviso and Trieste University Hospitals, who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by polymerase chain reaction during March 2020. RESULTS: Overall, out of 403 respondents, 267 patients (66.3%) reported an altered sense of smell or taste (SNOT-22 > 0) at baseline, while 56 (13.9%), 29 (7.2%), and 21 (5.2%) reported such alterations at 6-24 months, 2 years, and 3 years, respectively. Among the 267 patients with COVID-19-associated smell or taste dysfunction at baseline, 246 (92.1%) reported complete resolution at 3 years. Of the patients who still experienced smell or taste dysfunction 2 years after COVID-19, 27.6% and 37.9% recovered completely and partially, respectively, at the 3-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Among subjects with antecedent mildly symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, the 3-year prevalence and recovery rate of COVID-19-related alteration in sense of smell or taste was 5% and 92%, respectively. In approximately two-thirds of patients experiencing chemosensory dysfunction still 2 years after COVID-19, it is still possible to observe a delayed complete or partial recovery after a period of 3 years, while the remaining one-third of individuals continues to have unchanged persistent chemosensory alteration.

Mepolizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: Treatment efficacy by comorbidity and blood eosinophil count.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III SYNAPSE study, mepolizumab reduced nasal polyp (NP) size and nasal obstruction in chronic rhinosinusitis with NP. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the efficacy of mepolizumab in patients from SYNAPSE grouped by comorbid asthma, aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD), and baseline blood eosinophil count (BEC). METHODS: SYNAPSE, a randomized, double-blind, 52-week study (NCT03085797), included patients with severe bilateral chronic rhinosinusitis with NP eligible for surgery despite intranasal corticosteroid treatment. Patients received 4-weekly subcutaneous mepolizumab 100 mg or placebo plus standard of care for 52 weeks. Coprimary end points were change in total endoscopic NP score (week 52) and nasal obstruction visual analog scale score (weeks 49-52). Subgroup analyses by comorbid asthma and AERD status, and post hoc by BEC, were exploratory. RESULTS: Analyses included 407 patients (289 with asthma; 108 with AERD; 371 and 278 with BEC counts ≥150 or ≥300 cells/µL, respectively). The proportion of patients with greater than or equal to 1-point improvement from baseline in NP score was higher with mepolizumab versus placebo across comorbid diseases (asthma: 52.9% vs 29.5%; AERD: 51.1% vs 20.6%) and baseline BEC subgroups (<150 cells/µL: 55.0% vs 31.3%; ≥150 cells/µL: 49.5% vs 28.1%; <300 cells/µL: 50.7% vs 29.0%; ≥300 cells/µL: 50.4% vs 28.1%). A similar trend was observed in patients without comorbid asthma or AERD. More patients had more than 3-point improvement in nasal obstruction VAS score with mepolizumab versus placebo across comorbid subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Mepolizumab reduced polyp size and nasal obstruction in chronic rhinosinusitis with NP regardless of the presence of comorbid asthma or AERD.

Efficacy and safety of benralizumab in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic inflammation has been implicated in the pathogenesis, severity, and treatment responsiveness of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of benralizumab-mediated eosinophil depletion for treating CRSwNP. METHODS: The phase 3 OSTRO study enrolled patients with severe CRSwNP who were symptomatic despite treatment with intranasal corticosteroids and who had a history of systemic corticosteroid (SCS) use and/or surgery for nasal polyps (NP). Patients were randomized 1:1 to treatment with benralizumab 30 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for the first 3 doses and every 8 weeks thereafter. Coprimary end points were change from baseline to week 40 in NP score (NPS) and patient-reported mean nasal blockage score reported once every 2 weeks. RESULTS: The study population comprised 413 randomized patients (207 in the benralizumab group and 206 in the placebo group). Benralizumab significantly improved NPS and nasal blockage score compared to placebo at week 40 (P ≤ .005). Improvements in Sinonasal Outcome Test 22 score at week 40, time to first NP surgery and/or SCS use for NP, and time to first NP surgery were not statistically significant between treatment groups. Nominal significance was obtained for improvement in difficulty in sense of smell score at week 40 (P = .003). Subgroup analyses suggested influences of comorbid asthma, number of NP surgeries, sex, body mass index, and baseline blood eosinophil count on treatment effects. Benralizumab was safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Benralizumab, when added to standard-of-care therapy, reduced NPS, decreased nasal blockage, and reduced difficulty with sense of smell compared to placebo in patients with CRSwNP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03401229.

Association between laryngopharyngeal reflux, gastroesophageal reflux and recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane Library and Scopus. REVIEW METHODS: Three investigators searched the specified databases for studies investigating the relationship between LPR, GERD and recalcitrant CRS with or without polyposis. The following outcomes were investigated with PRISMA criteria: age; gender; reflux and CRS diagnosis; association outcomes and potential treatment outcomes. The authors performed a bias analysis of papers and provided recommendations for future studies. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies investigated the association between reflux and recalcitrant CRS. According to pharyngeal pH monitoring, 54% of patients with recalcitrant CRS reported hypo or nasopharyngeal acid reflux events. The number of hypo- and nasopharyngeal acid reflux events was significantly higher in patients compared to healthy individuals in 4 and 2 studies, respectively. Only one study did not report intergroup differences. The proportion of GERD was significantly higher in CRS patients compared to controls, with a prevalence ranging from 32% to 91% of cases. No author considered nonacid reflux events. There was significant heterogeneity in the inclusion criteria; definition of reflux and association outcomes, limiting the ability to draw clear conclusions. Pepsin was found in sinonasal secretions more frequently in CRS patients than controls. CONCLUSION: Laryngopharyngeal reflux and GERD may be contributing factors of CRS therapeutic resistance, but future studies are needed to confirm the association considering nonacid reflux events.

Real-world characterisation of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps with and without surgery in England.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise the real-world burden of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) in the UK, stratified by number of surgeries. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database with Hospital Episodes Statistics linkage (2007-2019). PARTICIPANTS: Adults ≥18 years of age with a first NP diagnosis (index) and 365 days of baseline and ≥180 days of follow-up data. Follow-up continued until disenrollment, death or end of data collection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: primary care physician prescribed CRSwNP-related treatments, and all-cause healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) in 90 days post-index, stratified by surgeries during follow-up. Secondary: rate of surgery and CRSwNP point prevalence. Baseline patient demographics, clinical characteristics and comorbidities were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 33 107 patients included, 23.5% and 2.2% had ≥1 and ≥2 surgeries during follow-up, respectively (mean follow-up: 5.3 years). Patients with more surgeries (≥2/≥1/0) during follow-up were more likely to be male (67.3%/69.0%/58.0%), have asthma (37.8%/28.2%/20.2%) and have baseline blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells/µL (68.5%/66.0%/51.5%). During the first 90-days post-index as surgery number increased, the proportion of patients using oral corticosteroids (25.8%/20.7%/14.2%) and mean (SD) number of all-cause healthcare visits (5.9 [4.2]/5.4 [4.0]/4.9 [4.2]) increased. Time between surgeries was shorter among patients with more surgeries. CRSwNP prevalence on 31 December 2018 was 476 cases per 100 000 persons. CONCLUSION: A small proportion of patients in the UK required multiple surgeries for CRSwNP and this was associated with increasing comorbidity burden, baseline blood eosinophil counts, CRSwNP-related treatment and HCRU use.

Safety of day-case endoscopic sinus surgery in England: An observational study using an administrative dataset.

INTRODUCTION: As elective surgical services recover from the COVID-19 pandemic a movement towards day-case surgery may reduce waiting lists. However, evidence is needed to show that day-case surgery is safe for endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). The aim of this study was to investigate the safety of day-case ESS in England. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of administrative data. METHODS: We extracted data from the Hospital Episodes Statistics database for the 5 years from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2019. Patients undergoing elective ESS procedures aged ≥17 years were included. Exclusion criteria included malignant neoplasm, complex systemic disease and trans-sphenoidal pituitary surgery. The primary outcome was readmission within 30 days post-discharge. Multilevel, multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to compare outcomes for those operated on as day-cases and those with an overnight stay after adjusting for demographic, frailty, comorbidity and procedural covariates. RESULTS: Data were available for 49 223 patients operated on across 129 NHS hospital trusts. In trusts operating on more than 50 patients in the study period, rates of day-case surgery varied from 20.6% to 100%. Nationally, rates of day-case surgery increased from 64.0% in the financial year 2014/2015 to 78.7% in 2018/2019. Day-case patients had lower rates of 30-day emergency readmission (odds ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 0.81). Outcomes for patients operated on in trusts with ≥80% day-case rates compared with patients operated on in trusts with <50% rates of day-case surgery were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the view that ESS can safely be performed as day-case surgery in most cases, although it will not be suitable for all patients. There appears to be scope to increase rates of day-case ESS in some hospital trusts in England.

Dupilumab improves health related quality of life: Results from the phase 3 SINUS studies.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a predominantly type 2-mediated inflammatory disease with high symptom burden and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This report aimed to comprehensively understand the effects of dupilumab on domains of HRQoL, their individual elements, and health status in patients with severe CRSwNP from phase 3 SINUS-24 (NCT02912468) and SINUS-52 (NCT02898454) trials. METHODS: Patients were randomized to dupilumab (n = 438) or placebo (n = 286) for 24 weeks (SINUS-24), or 52 weeks (SINUS-52). Disease-specific HRQoL using 22-item sino-nasal outcome test (SNOT-22), and health status using EuroQoL-visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) was evaluated in the pooled intention-to-treat (ITT) population (Week 24), SINUS-52 ITT (Week 52) and in the subgroups with/without asthma; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease (NSAID-ERD); and prior sinus surgery. RESULTS: At baseline, patients had poor disease-specific HRQoL and general health status and identified "Decreased sense of smell/taste" and "Nasal blockage" as the most important symptoms. Dupilumab significantly improved SNOT-22 total, domain (Nasal, Sleep, Function, Emotion, and Ear/facial), and 22-item scores, and EQ-VAS, at Week 24 vs placebo (all p < .0001), with continued improvements to Week 52 in SINUS-52. Improvements occurred irrespective of comorbid asthma, NSAID-ERD, or prior surgery. A significantly greater proportion of dupilumab-treated patients exceeded clinically meaningful thresholds for SNOT-22 total score and EQ-VAS vs placebo (all subgroups p < .05 except patients without surgery at Week 24). CONCLUSIONS: Dupilumab treatment led to significant clinically meaningful improvements across all aspects of disease-specific HRQoL, and general health status in patients with severe CRSwNP.

Evaluating enrollment and outcome criteria in trials of biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) generally involves intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) and saline irrigation, followed by short courses of systemic corticosteroids (SCS) or surgery with postoperative medical therapy for patients who do not respond to INCS. However, both SCS use and surgery are associated with a range of adverse effects or complications, have a high recurrence rate, and are unsuitable for some patients. Biologics targeting the underlying pathophysiology are promising treatment alternatives for these patients. Dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab are approved for use in patients with severe, uncontrolled CRSwNP. However, the lack of a consistent definition of severe CRSwNP makes the decision to initiate biologic treatment particularly complex. Furthermore, the position of each biologic in the overall management of CRSwNP remains to be clarified. DATA SOURCES: Publications reporting results of phase III trials of dupilumab, omalizumab, mepolizumab, and benralizumab in the treatment of CRSwNP. STUDY SELECTIONS: Randomized, controlled phase III trials of biologics approved for CRSwNP. RESULTS: These trials all used different enrollment criteria. We discuss the complexities of assessing CRSwNP disease severity and highlight how these impact comparisons of the populations and outcomes of the phase III biologic trials. CONCLUSION: To position biologic agents appropriately within the existing CRSwNP treatment paradigm, future trials will need to include comparable patient populations and standardized outcome measures. Such trials will help to ensure that biologic treatment is targeted appropriately to support optimal clinical outcomes.

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.

Self-reported smell and taste recovery in coronavirus disease 2019 patients: a one-year prospective study.

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to estimate the 1 year prevalence and recovery rate of self-reported chemosensory dysfunction in a series of subjects with previous mild-to-moderate symptomatic COVID-19. METHODS: Prospective study based on the SNOT-22, item "sense of smell or taste" and additional outcomes. RESULTS: 268/315 patients (85.1%) completing the survey at baseline also completed the follow-up interview. The 12 months prevalence of self-reported COVID-19 associated chemosensory dysfunction was 21.3% (95% CI 16.5-26.7%). Of the 187 patients who complained of COVID-19 associated chemosensory dysfunction at baseline, 130 (69.5%; 95% CI 62.4-76.0%) reported complete resolution of smell or taste impairment, 41 (21.9%) reported a decrease in the severity, and 16 (8.6%) reported the symptom was unchanged or worse 1 year after onset. The risk of persistence was higher for patients reporting a baseline SNOT-22 score ≥ 4 (OR = 3.32; 95% CI 1.32-8.36) as well as for those requiring ≥ 22 days for a negative swab (OR = 2.18; 95% CI 1.12-4.27). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of patients with previous mild-to-moderate symptomatic COVID-19 characterized by new onset of chemosensory dysfunction still complained on altered sense of smell or taste 1 year after the onset.

Correlations between IL-6 serum level and olfactory dysfunction severity in COVID-19 patients: a preliminary study.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin 6 (IL-6) is a proinflammatory cytokine that is secreted by cells infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and it is widely recognized as a negative prognostic factor. The purpose of this study was to analyze the correlations between the olfactory scores determined by psychophysical tests and the serum levels of IL-6 in patients affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) METHODS: Patients underwent psychophysical olfactory assessment with Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center test and IL-6 plasma level determination within 10 days of the clinical onset of COVID-19. RESULTS: Seventy-four COVID-19 patients were included in this study. COVID-19 staged as mild in 34 patients, moderate in 26 and severe in 14 cases. There were no significant differences in olfactory scores across the different COVID-19 severity groups. In the patient series, the median plasma level of IL-6 was 7.7 pg/mL (IQR 3.7-18.8). The concentration of IL-6 was found to be significantly correlated with the severity of COVID-19 with a directly proportional relationship. The correlation between IL-6 plasma concentrations and olfactory scores was weak (rs = 0.182) and not significant (p = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: In COVID-19 patients, psychophysical olfactory scores did not show significant correlations with the plasma levels of a well-recognized negative prognostic factor such as IL-6. This observation casts some shadows on the positive prognostic value of olfactory dysfunctions.

Clinical evaluation and diagnosis of aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease.

Aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) is a condition composed of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis and asthma that is defined by respiratory hypersensitivity reactions to the cyclooxygenase 1-inhibitory effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. It is diagnosed in 5% to 15% of patients with asthma and is even more common in those with comorbid nasal polyposis. Diagnosis is confirmed after an aspirin challenge procedure, yet many patients present with all components and can reliably be diagnosed by history. Patients with AERD commonly experience severe uncontrolled nasal polyposis and require multispecialty evaluation to properly stage and treat this condition. The presence of nasal polyposis plays a large component in the diminished quality of life in patients with AERD. In the last decade, multiple new therapeutic areas have been approved for type 2 airway diseases, offering patients with AERD many more options for control. This makes an early and accurate diagnosis of AERD important in the care of the larger population of type 2 airway diseases.

EUFOREA expert board meeting on uncontrolled severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and biologics: Definitions and management.

Uncontrolled severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is the most bothersome phenotype of chronic rhinosinusitis; it is typically characterized by a type 2 inflammatory reaction and by comorbidities, including asthma, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease, and allergies. Here, the European Forum for Research and Education in Allergy and Airway Diseases proposes structured definitions to enable communication between clinicians and provides a practical algorithm to define type 2 inflammation in CRSwNP in daily clinical practice. A rational approach for the treatment of uncontrolled severe CRSwNP is discussed; it consists of evaluating the perspective and risks of surgery and efficacy and adverse events of biologics on the basis of currently available data. Further, possible combinations of surgery and biologics are discussed, and a rationale is provided. Here, it is of importance to adequately counsel the patient about both approaches to enable a decision-making process with an informed patient. Criteria for the selection of a biologic drug are provided, as several biologics for uncontrolled severe CRSwNP will be available in many countries within a short time. Further, suggestions for monitoring of the drug effects that support recognition of responders to the therapy and, subsequently, the decision regarding continuation or discontinuation of the biologic are proposed.