Alpha-lipoic acid does not improve olfactory training results in olfactory loss due to COVID-19: a double-blind randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: Olfactory loss is a recognized long-term dysfunction after Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. This investigation aimed to assess the effect of alpha-lipoic acid as an adjuvant treatment of olfactory training on the improvement of smell loss in post-COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial included 128 adult outpatients who had persistent smell loss for more than 3-months after COVID-19 infection. The participants were randomly allocated into two groups: the intervention treatment group, which received alpha-lipoic acid associated to olfactory training, and comparison treatment group, which received placebo pills associated to olfactory training. The participants were followed-up for 12-weeks. Olfactory dysfunction was assessed in terms of Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (CCCRC) test for the Brazilian population. RESULTS: A total of 100 participants completed the follow-up period and were analyzed in this study. Both groups have improved CCCRC score (p = 0.000), olfactory threshold (p = 0.000), identification score (p = 0.000) and VAS score (p = 0.000) after 12-weeks follow-up. No significant differences were determined between the intervention and comparison treatment groups in CCCRC score (p = 0.63), olfactory threshold (p = 0.50), identification score (p = 0.96) and VAS score (p = 0.97). In all these criteria, comparison treatment group went slightly worse. At the endpoint of the study, the frequency of anosmia reduced to 2% in the intervention treatment group and to 7.8% in the comparison treatment group. Also, 16.8% of the intervention group' subjects, and 15.7% of comparison treatment group's patients reached normosmia. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there was a strongly significant difference in olfactory function between baseline and endpoint for both groups. However, based on the lack of significant difference between the intervention treatment and the comparison treatment groups in terms of olfactory changes, our study appoints that the alpha-lipoic acid is not better than olfactory training alone to treat olfactory loss after COVID-19. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for treatment of COVID-19-related parosmia: a case report.

Parosmia is a qualitative olfactory dysfunction characterized by distortion of odor perception. Traditional treatments for parosmia include olfactory training and steroids. Some patients infected with COVID-19 have developed chronic parosmia as a result of their infection. Here, we present the case of a patient who developed parosmia after a COVID-19 infection that was not improved by traditional treatments but found significant improvement after hyperbaric oxygen therapy[A1].

Efficacy of Combined Visual-Olfactory Training With Patient-Preferred Scents as Treatment for Patients With COVID-19 Resultant Olfactory Loss: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The number of olfactory dysfunction cases has increased dramatically because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Identifying therapies that aid and accelerate recovery is essential. Objective: To determine the efficacy of bimodal visual-olfactory training and patient-preferred scents vs unimodal olfactory training and physician-assigned scents in COVID-19 olfactory loss. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a randomized, single-blinded trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design (bimodal, patient preferred; unimodal, physician assigned; bimodal, physician assigned; unimodal, patient preferred) and an independent control group. Enrollment occurred from February 1 to May 27, 2021. Participants were adults 18 to 71 years old with current olfactory loss defined as University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) score less than 34 for men and less than 35 for women and duration of 3 months or longer. Olfactory loss was initially diagnosed within 2 weeks of COVID-19 infection. Interventions: Participants sniffed 4 essential oils for 15 seconds with a 30-second rest in between odors for 3 months. Participants in the physician-assigned odor arms trained with rose, lemon, eucalyptus, and clove. Participants randomized to the patient-preferred arms chose 4 of 24 available scents. If assigned to the bimodal arm, participants were shown digital images of the essential oil they were smelling. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was postintervention change in UPSIT score from baseline; measures used were the UPSIT (validated, objective psychometric test of olfaction), Clinical Global Impressions Impression-Improvement (CGI-I; self-report improvement scale), and Olfactory Dysfunction Outcomes Rating (ODOR; olfaction-related quality-of-life questionnaire). Results: Among the 275 enrolled participants, the mean (SD) age was 41 (12) years, and 236 (86%) were female. The change in UPSIT scores preintervention to postintervention was similar between the study arms. The marginal mean difference for change in UPSIT scores preintervention to postintervention between participants randomized to patient-preferred vs physician-assigned olfactory training was 0.73 (95% CI, -1.10 to 2.56), and between participants randomized to bimodal vs unimodal olfactory training was 1.10 (95% CI, -2.92 to 0.74). Five (24%) participants in the control arm had clinically important improvement on UPSIT compared with 18 (53%) in the bimodal, patient-preferred arm for a difference of 29% (95% CI, 4%-54%). Four (19%) participants in the control group self-reported improvement on CGI-I compared with 12 (35%) in the bimodal, patient-preferred arm for a difference of 16% (95% CI, -7% to 39%). The mean change in ODOR score preintervention to postintervention was 11.6 points (95% CI, 9.2-13.9), which was not deemed clinically important nor significantly different between arms. Conclusions and Relevance: Based on the change in UPSIT scores, this randomized clinical trial did not show any difference between intervention arms, but when exploring within-patient change in UPSIT as well as self-reported impression of improvement, active interventions were associated with larger improvement than controls with a potential advantage of bimodal intervention. While not definitive, these results suggest that patients with COVID-19 olfactory loss may benefit from bimodal visual-olfactory training with patient-preferred scents. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04710394.