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CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies.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.

Home-based narrowband UVB, topical corticosteroid or combination for children and adults with vitiligo: HI-Light Vitiligo three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews suggest that narrowband ultraviolet B light combined with treatments such as topical corticosteroids may be more effective than monotherapy for vitiligo. OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topical corticosteroid monotherapy compared with (1) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light monotherapy and (2) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light/topical corticosteroid combination treatment for localised vitiligo. DESIGN: Pragmatic, three-arm, randomised controlled trial with 9 months of treatment and a 12-month follow-up. SETTING: Sixteen UK hospitals - participants were recruited from primary and secondary care and the community. PARTICIPANTS: Adults and children (aged ≥ 5 years) with active non-segmental vitiligo affecting ≤ 10% of their body area. INTERVENTIONS: Topical corticosteroids [mometasone furoate 0.1% (Elocon®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA) plus dummy narrowband ultraviolet B light]; narrowband ultraviolet B light (narrowband ultraviolet B light plus placebo topical corticosteroids); or combination (topical corticosteroids plus narrowband ultraviolet B light). Topical corticosteroids were applied once daily on alternate weeks and narrowband ultraviolet B light was administered every other day in escalating doses, with a dose adjustment for erythema. All treatments were home based. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-assessed treatment success for a chosen target patch after 9 months of treatment ('a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable' on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale). Secondary outcomes included blinded assessment of primary outcome and percentage repigmentation, onset and maintenance of treatment response, quality of life, side effects, treatment burden and cost-effectiveness (cost per additional successful treatment). RESULTS: In total, 517 participants were randomised (adults, n = 398; and children, n = 119; 52% male; 57% paler skin types I-III, 43% darker skin types IV-VI). At the end of 9 months of treatment, 370 (72%) participants provided primary outcome data. The median percentage of narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment-days (actual/allocated) was 81% for topical corticosteroids, 77% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 74% for combination groups; and for ointment was 79% for topical corticosteroids, 83% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 77% for combination. Target patch location was head and neck (31%), hands and feet (32%), and rest of the body (37%). Target patch treatment 'success' was 20 out of 119 (17%) for topical corticosteroids, 27 out of 123 (22%) for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 34 out of 128 (27%) for combination. Combination treatment was superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 10.9%, 95% confidence interval 1.0% to 20.9%; p = 0.032; number needed to treat = 10). Narrowband ultraviolet B light was not superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 5.2%, 95% confidence interval -4.4% to 14.9%; p = 0.290; number needed to treat = 19). The secondary outcomes supported the primary analysis. Quality of life did not differ between the groups. Participants who adhered to the interventions for > 75% of the expected treatment protocol were more likely to achieve treatment success. Over 40% of participants had lost treatment response after 1 year with no treatment. Grade 3 or 4 erythema was experienced by 62 participants (12%) (three of whom were using the dummy) and transient skin thinning by 13 participants (2.5%) (two of whom were using the placebo). We observed no serious adverse treatment effects. For combination treatment compared with topical corticosteroids, the unadjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £2328.56 (adjusted £1932) per additional successful treatment (from an NHS perspective). LIMITATIONS: Relatively high loss to follow-up limits the interpretation of the trial findings, especially during the post-intervention follow-up phase. CONCLUSION: Hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light plus topical corticosteroid combination treatment is superior to topical corticosteroids alone for treatment of localised vitiligo. Combination treatment was relatively safe and well tolerated, but was effective in around one-quarter of participants only. Whether or not combination treatment is cost-effective depends on how much decision-makers are willing to pay for the benefits observed. FUTURE WORK: Development and testing of new vitiligo treatments with a greater treatment response and longer-lasting effects are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17160087. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Home Interventions and Light therapy for the treatment of vitiligo (HI-Light Vitiligo) trial aimed to find out whether or not treating vitiligo at home with a narrowband ultraviolet B light, either by itself or with a steroid ointment, is better than treatment using a steroid ointment only. We enrolled 517 children (aged ≥ 5 years) and adults who had small, active (i.e. recently changing) patches of vitiligo into the study. Participants received one of three possible treatment options: steroid ointment (plus dummy light), hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light therapy (plus placebo ointment) or both treatments used together. We asked participants to judge how noticeable their target vitiligo patch was after 9 months of treatment. We considered the treatment to be successful if the participants' responses were either 'a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable'. The results showed that using both treatments together was better than using a steroid ointment on its own. Around one-quarter of participants (27%) who used both treatments together said that their vitiligo was either 'no longer noticeable' or 'a lot less noticeable' after 9 months of treatment. This was compared with 17% of those using steroid ointment on its own and 22% of those using narrowband ultraviolet B light on its own. All treatments were able to stop the vitiligo from spreading. Patches on the hands and feet were less likely to respond to treatment than patches on other parts of the body. The trial found that the vitiligo tended to return once treatments were stopped, so ongoing intermittent treatment may be needed to maintain the treatment response. The treatments were found to be relatively safe and easy to use, but light treatment required a considerable time commitment (approximately 20 minutes per session, two or three times per week). This trial showed that using steroid ointment and narrowband ultraviolet B light together is likely to be better than steroid ointment alone for people with small patches of vitiligo. Steroid ointment alone can still be effective for some people and remains a useful treatment that is able to stop vitiligo from spreading. The challenge is to make hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment available as normal care in the NHS for people with vitiligo.

Ciliary beat frequency of in vitro human nasal epithelium measured with the simple high-speed microscopy is applicable for safety studies of nasal drug formulations.

Nasal drug formulations can be effective for local delivery of therapeutic drugs to the sinonasal mucosa or for systemic drug delivery by absorption directly into the bloodstream. The growing field of potential nasal therapies includes nasal vaccination and even treatment of neurodegenerative diseases. However, it is important that nasal drug formulations don't have a disruptive effect on the cilia and mucosa of nasal epithelium. Mucociliary clearance represents the first host defence of the respiratory tract that requires the coordinated beating of cilia. A key parameter to determine mucociliary clearance is ciliary beat frequency (CBF). The objective of this study was to validate the high-speed digital imaging for CBF measurements in nasal MucilAir™ in vitro model and to test its potential for ciliotoxicity studies to evaluate the safety of investigational nasal drug formulations. Our CBF measuring setup was first validated by benzalkonium chloride, a common-practice preservative with cilio-inhibiting effect. Next, MucilAir™ model was treated with mometasone nasal spray (Mommox®/Mometasone Sandoz®). Short term cilio-stimulatory effect and dose dependent effect of mometasone nasal spray were demonstrated. Post-treatment analysis showed un-altered ultrastructure of MucilAir™ model. In conclusion, characterization of the ciliary activity of nasal MucilAir™ in vitro model and its response to relevant agents with herein developed efficient and reproducible set up for CBF analysis show great potential of this model for airway ciliotoxicity studies.

Scientific Considerations for the Review and Approval of First Generic Mometasone Furoate Nasal Suspension Spray in the United States from the Bioequivalence Perspective.

In 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first Abbreviated New Drug Application for Mometasone Furoate Nasal Suspension Spray. To establish the bioequivalence of this generic nasal suspension spray with the reference listed drug product (RLD), Nasonex®, a "weight-of-evidence" approach was utilized by the applicant that included formulation and device similarities, equivalent in vitro performance, equivalent systemic exposure, and equivalent local delivery. In addition to these testing for comprehensive evaluation of the drug product, FDA also considered supportive data generated by a novel in vitro method, Morphologically-Directed Raman Spectroscopy (MDRS), to characterize the particle size distribution (PSD) of active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) in the drug product. In this case, MDRS data eliminated the need for a comparative clinical endpoint bioequivalence study. The approval of the first generic Mometasone Furoate Nasal Suspension Spray is precedent-setting and paves a new pathway to establish bioequivalence for generic nasal suspension sprays. This approval also exemplifies FDA's commitment to advance regulatory science for evaluation of generic drug products.

Combining topical tretinoin with mometasone furoate in the treatment of vulvar lichen sclerosus: Results of dermoscopic assessment.

The main purpose of the present study was to compare the dermoscopic changes on vulvar lichen sclerosus (VLS) induced by two different 12-week treatment protocols, namely mometasone furoate 0.1% ointment plus tretinoin 0.05% cream in short-contact therapy (group A) versus the same corticosteroid plus emollient (group B). All dermoscopic images captured before and after treatment were assessed. Each dermoscopic variable selected for the study purpose was arbitrarily graded according to a 4-point scale by dermatologists blinded to both the time at which the images were captured and treatment allocation. Seventeen patients in group A and 15 in group B were included. The vessel mean dermoscopic scores increased significantly after treatment, whereas the scores of (a) patchy, structure-less, whitish areas, (b) whitish background, (c) comedo-like openings, and (d) purpuric blotches decreased. At the control visit, the two protocols did not differ significantly for any of the dermoscopic parameters, both in terms of mean score change and in the number of patients showing changes. Although the complementary action of the two molecules may suggest a therapeutic benefit, the association of tretinoin in short contact therapy with a potent corticosteroid did not induce significant changes in the dermoscopic features of VLS compared with the same corticosteroid alone.

Topical therapy for refractory rhinosinusitis caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: First report in a prospective series.

OBJECTIVE: The incidence of refractory chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) associated with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is rising and remains a therapeutic challenge. The goal of this study is to demonstrate the efficacy of a non-invasive topical therapy against MRSA in these patients. METHODS: Seventeen patients with refractory CRS caused by MRSA were treated with a topical therapy protocol. Treatment consisted of weekly endoscopic sinus debridement followed by intra-sinus installation of a hydroxyl-ethylcellulose gel that releases mometasone and a culture-directed antibiotic for a period of 6 weeks, along with daily nasal nebulization of mometasone with the same antibiotic and saline rinses. Clinical outcome was assessed using the Lund-Kennedy (LK) symptom and endoscopic appearance scores. Sinus mucosal tissue was homogenized and cultured, and microbial biofilm burden was assessed based on colony forming units (CFUs) counts. RESULTS: Rhinotopic therapy resulted in clearance of MRSA in 13 of 16 patients (81.2%). Treated patients also demonstrated significant improvement clinically as measured by the LK scores. In addition, a significant decrease in mucosal CFUs was observed post-therapy. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that topical therapy is an effective method for treating MRSA-associated refractory CRS.

Topical Treatment of Facial Seborrheic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Facial seborrheic dermatitis (SD), a chronic inflammatory skin condition, can impact quality of life, and relapses can be frequent. Three broad categories of agents are used to treat SD: antifungal agents, keratolytics, and corticosteroids. Topical therapies are the first line of defense in treating this condition. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to critically review the published literature on topical treatments for facial SD. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane library databases for original clinical studies evaluating topical treatments for SD. We then conducted both a critical analysis of the selected studies by grading the evidence and a qualitative comparison of results among and within studies. RESULTS: A total of 32 studies were eligible for inclusion, encompassing 18 topical treatments for facial SD. Pimecrolimus, the focus of seven of the 32 eligible studies, was the most commonly studied topical treatment. CONCLUSION: Promiseb®, desonide, mometasone furoate, and pimecrolimus were found to be effective topical treatments for facial SD, as they had the lowest recurrence rate, highest clearance rate, and the lowest severity scores (e.g., erythema, scaling, and pruritus), respectively. Ciclopirox olamine, ketoconazole, lithium (gluconate and succinate), and tacrolimus are also strongly recommended (level A recommendations) topical treatments for facial SD, as they are consistently effective across high-quality trials (randomized controlled trials).

Grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy and paediatric allergic rhinitis: A patient-oriented decision.

Guidelines and systematic review report that allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is, in general, effective in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. However, experts suggest not generalising the results of different clinical studies: for example, it would not be advisable to translate the results found in an adult population to a paediatric population or the results on the efficacy of AIT against a specific allergen to the AIT against a different allergen. Moreover, according to Evidence Based Medicine (EBM), clinical decisions are individualised and should derive from the "integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values". Taking into account the high specificity of the AIT and EBM principles, we tried to answer the question on how advisable it is to prescribe the AIT for the management of grass allergic rhinitis in children. To do this, we revised the scientific literature in order to solve a specific case scenario.