Olfactory training with four and eight odors: comparison with clinical testing and olfactory bulb volumetrics.

PURPOSE: Post-infectious olfactory dysfunction (PIOD) is one of the most common causes of olfactory impairment but has limited treatment options. Recently, olfactory training (OT) has been considered an effective treatment method; however, several questions have arisen regarding its optimal scheme. The aim of this study was to assess whether an OT scheme with 8 odors is more effective than the classic OT scheme with 4 odors by comparing psychophysical test results and olfactory bulb (OB) volumetrics. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, 72 patients with PIOD were included. The patients followed either the classic 4-odor OT scheme (COT; n = 34 patients) or an extended 8-odor scheme (EOT; n = 38 patients) for 16 weeks. All patients underwent olfactory testing with a Sniffin'Sticks battery test at 0, 8, and 16 weeks. Of the patients, 38 underwent brain magnetic resonance imaging for OB volumetric assessment before and after treatment. RESULTS: The comparison of the olfactory test results did not show any significant difference between the two study groups, in agreement with the OB volumetrics. The convex OB showed better test results than the non-convex OB, with significantly better improvement after treatment regardless of OT type. The EOT group presented significantly better adherence than the COT group. CONCLUSION: The number of odors did not appear to play a significant role in the effect of the OT. However, the training scheme with more than four odors showed better adherence among the patients in a long-term treatment plan. The shape of the OB may have prognostic value in clinical assessment and warrants further investigation.

Postinfectious Olfactory Dysfunction: Oral Steroids and Olfactory Training versus Olfactory Training Alone: Is There any Benefit from Steroids?

INTRODUCTION: There are limited treatment options for postinfectious olfactory dysfunction (PIOD). Olfactory training has recently been used in clinical practice, but no medical treatment is widely accepted. Although there is weak evidence for their value, some physicians use oral corticosteroids as first-line treatment. The aim of this study was to compare combined oral methylprednisolone and olfactory training with olfactory training alone in the management of PIOD. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 131 patients with PIOD over a 2-year period before the COVID-19 pandemic. Seventy-eight patients who were treated with oral methylprednisolone and olfactory training (group A) were compared with 53 patients who were treated with olfactory training only (group B). Olfactory function was evaluated with "Sniffin' Sticks" at baseline and 2, 8, and 16 weeks after initial assessment. Patients who improved after steroid treatment underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the paranasal sinuses, skin prick tests, lung spirometry, and sputum eosinophil assessment. RESULTS: Oral steroids improved 19.23% of patients (n = 15) of group A. History, clinical evaluation, imaging, and laboratory tests identified an inflammatory background in half of them (n = 8). The remaining 7 had no findings of nasal inflammation, and all had a short history of olfactory dysfunction. Both groups significantly improved in olfactory testing results at the end of the olfactory training scheme without significant difference between them. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of improved patients after oral methylprednisolone was relatively low to suggest it as first-line treatment. Half of the improved patients had an underlying upper airway inflammatory condition not related to the infection that caused the acute loss of olfactory function.