Non-pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine.

BACKGROUND: Vestibular migraine is a form of migraine where one of the main features is recurrent attacks of vertigo. These episodes are often associated with other features of migraine, including headache and sensitivity to light or sound. These unpredictable and severe attacks of vertigo can lead to a considerable reduction in quality of life. The condition is estimated to affect just under 1% of the population, although many people remain undiagnosed. A number of interventions have been used, or proposed to be used, as prophylaxis for this condition, to help reduce the frequency of the attacks. Many of these interventions include dietary, lifestyle or behavioural changes, rather than medication.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of non-pharmacological treatments used for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine. 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Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials.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 search was 23 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with definite or probable vestibular migraine comparing dietary modifications, sleep improvement techniques, vitamin and mineral supplements, herbal supplements, talking therapies, mind-body interventions or vestibular rehabilitation with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with a cross-over design, unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) improvement in headache, 6) improvement in other migrainous symptoms and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: < 3 months, 3 to < 6 months, > 6 to 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies in this review with a total of 319 participants. Each study addressed a different comparison and these are outlined below. We did not identify any evidence for the remaining comparisons of interest in this review.   Dietary interventions (probiotics) versus placebo We identified one study with 218 participants (85% female). The use of a probiotic supplement was compared to a placebo and participants were followed up for two years. Some data were reported on the change in vertigo frequency and severity over the duration of the study. However, there were no data regarding improvement of vertigo or serious adverse events. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus no intervention One study compared CBT to no treatment in 61 participants (72% female). Participants were followed up for eight weeks. Data were reported on the change in vertigo over the course of the study, but no information was reported on the proportion of people whose vertigo improved, or on the occurrence of serious adverse events.  Vestibular rehabilitation versus no intervention The third study compared the use of vestibular rehabilitation to no treatment in a group of 40 participants (90% female) and participants were followed up for six months. Again, this study reported some data on change in the frequency of vertigo during the study, but no information on the proportion of participants who experienced an improvement in vertigo or the number who experienced serious adverse events.  We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results of these studies, as the data for each comparison of interest come from single, small studies and the certainty of the evidence was low or very low.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of evidence for non-pharmacological interventions that may be used for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine. Only a limited number of interventions have been assessed by comparing them to no intervention or a placebo treatment, and the evidence from these studies is all of low or very low certainty. We are therefore unsure whether any of these interventions may be effective at reducing the symptoms of vestibular migraine and we are also unsure whether they have the potential to cause harm.

Pharmacological interventions for acute attacks of vestibular migraine.

BACKGROUND: Vestibular migraine is a form of migraine where one of the main features is recurrent attacks of vertigo. These episodes are often associated with other features of migraine, including headache and sensitivity to light or sound. The unpredictable and severe attacks of vertigo can lead to a considerable reduction in quality of life. The condition is estimated to affect just under 1% of the population, although many people remain undiagnosed. A number of pharmacological interventions have been used, or proposed to be used, at the time of a vestibular migraine attack to help reduce the severity or resolve the symptoms. These are predominantly based on treatments that are in use for headache migraine, with the belief that the underlying pathophysiology of these conditions is similar.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions used to relieve acute attacks of vestibular migraine. 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 search was 23 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with definite or probable vestibular migraine comparing triptans, ergot alkaloids, dopamine antagonists, antihistamines, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, gepants (CGRP receptor antagonists), magnesium, paracetamol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with either placebo or no treatment.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) improvement in headache, 6) improvement in other migrainous symptoms and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: < 2 hours, 2 to 12 hours, > 12 to 72 hours. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs with a total of 133 participants, both of which compared the use of triptans to placebo for an acute attack of vestibular migraine. One study was a parallel-group RCT (of 114 participants, 75% female). This compared the use of 10 mg rizatriptan to placebo. The second study was a smaller, cross-over RCT (of 19 participants, 70% female). This compared the use of 2.5 mg zolmitriptan to placebo.  Triptans may result in little or no difference in the proportion of people whose vertigo improves at up to two hours after taking the medication. However, the evidence was very uncertain (risk ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.07; 2 studies; based on 262 attacks of vestibular migraine treated in 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any evidence on the change in vertigo using a continuous scale. Only one of the studies assessed serious adverse events. No events were noted in either group, but as the sample size was small we cannot be sure if there are risks associated with taking triptans for this condition (0/75 receiving triptans, 0/39 receiving placebo; 1 study; 114 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for interventions used to treat acute attacks of vestibular migraine is very sparse. We identified only two studies, both of which assessed the use of triptans. We rated all the evidence as very low-certainty, meaning that we have little confidence in the effect estimates and cannot be sure if triptans have any effect on the symptoms of vestibular migraine. Although we identified sparse information on potential harms of treatment in this review, the use of triptans for other conditions (such as headache migraine) is known to be associated with some adverse effects.  We did not identify any placebo-controlled randomised trials for other interventions that may be used for this condition. Further research is needed to identify whether any interventions help to improve the symptoms of vestibular migraine attacks and to determine if there are side effects associated with their use.

Pharmacological interventions for persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD).

BACKGROUND: Persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD) is a chronic balance disorder, which is characterised by subjective unsteadiness or dizziness that is worse on standing and with visual stimulation. The condition was only recently defined and therefore the prevalence is currently unknown. However, it is likely to include a considerable number of people with chronic balance problems. The symptoms can be debilitating and have a profound impact on quality of life. At present, little is known about the optimal way to treat this condition. A variety of medications may be used, as well as other treatments, such as vestibular rehabilitation.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD).  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 search was 21 November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with PPPD, which compared selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies that did not use the Bárány Society criteria to diagnose PPPD and studies that followed up participants for less than three months.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vestibular symptoms (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vestibular symptoms (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) generic health-related quality of life and 6) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified no studies that met our inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, there is no evidence from placebo-controlled randomised trials regarding pharmacological treatments - specifically SSRIs and SNRIs - for PPPD. Consequently, there is great uncertainty over the use of these treatments for this condition. Further work is needed to establish whether any treatments are effective at improving the symptoms of PPPD, and whether their use is associated with any adverse effects.

Non-pharmacological interventions for persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD).

BACKGROUND: Persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD) is a chronic balance disorder, which is characterised by subjective unsteadiness or dizziness that is worse on standing and with visual stimulation. The condition was only recently defined and therefore the prevalence is currently unknown. However, it is likely to include a considerable number of people with chronic balance problems. The symptoms can be debilitating and have a profound impact on quality of life. At present, little is known about the optimal way to treat this condition. A variety of medications may be used, as well as other treatments, such as vestibular rehabilitation.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of non-pharmacological interventions for persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD).  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 search was 21 November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with PPPD, which compared any non-pharmacological intervention with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies that did not use the Bárány Society criteria to diagnose PPPD, and studies that followed up participants for less than three months.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vestibular symptoms (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vestibular symptoms (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) generic health-related quality of life and 6) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: Few randomised controlled trials have been conducted to assess the efficacy of different treatments for PPPD compared to no treatment (or placebo). Of the few studies we identified, only one followed up participants for at least three months, therefore most were not eligible for inclusion in this review.  We identified one study from South Korea that compared the use of transcranial direct current stimulation to a sham procedure in 24 people with PPPD. This is a technique that involves electrical stimulation of the brain with a weak current, through electrodes that are placed onto the scalp. This study provided some information on the occurrence of adverse effects, and also on disease-specific quality of life at three months of follow-up. The other outcomes of interest in this review were not assessed. As this is a single, small study we cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from the numeric results.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Further work is necessary to determine whether any non-pharmacological interventions may be effective for the treatment of PPPD and to assess whether they are associated with any potential harms. As this is a chronic disease, future trials should follow up participants for a sufficient period of time to assess whether there is a persisting impact on the severity of the disease, rather than only observing short-term effects.

Intratympanic gentamicin for Ménière's disease.

BACKGROUND: Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. Aminoglycosides are sometimes administered directly into the middle ear to treat this condition. The aim of this treatment is to partially or completely destroy the balance function of the affected ear. The efficacy of this intervention in preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of intratympanic aminoglycosides versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease. 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 search was 14 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with a diagnosis of Ménière's disease comparing intratympanic aminoglycosides with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with a total of 137 participants. All studies compared the use of gentamicin to either placebo or no treatment. Due to the very small numbers of participants in these trials, and concerns over the conduct and reporting of some studies, we considered all the evidence in this review to be very low-certainty.  Improvement in vertigo This outcome was assessed by only two studies, and they used different time periods for reporting. Improvement in vertigo was reported by more participants who received gentamicin at both 6 to ≤ 12 months (16/16 participants who received gentamicin, compared to 0/16 participants with no intervention; risk ratio (RR) 33.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.15 to 507; 1 study; 32 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and at > 12 months follow-up (12/12 participants receiving gentamicin, compared to 6/10 participants receiving placebo; RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.69; 1 study; 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, we were unable to conduct any meta-analysis for this outcome, the certainty of the evidence was very low and we cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from the results.  Change in vertigo Again, two studies assessed this outcome, but used different methods of measuring vertigo and assessed the outcome at different time points. We were therefore unable to carry out any meta-analysis or draw any meaningful conclusions from the results. Global scores of vertigo were lower for those who received gentamicin at both 6 to ≤ 12 months (mean difference (MD) -1 point, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.32; 1 study; 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence; four-point scale; minimally clinically important difference presumed to be one point) and at > 12 months (MD -1.8 points, 95% CI -2.49 to -1.11; 1 study; 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Vertigo frequency was also lower at > 12 months for those who received gentamicin (0 attacks per year in participants receiving gentamicin compared to 11 attacks per year for those receiving placebo; 1 study; 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Serious adverse events None of the included studies provided information on the total number of participants who experienced a serious adverse event. It is unclear whether this is because no adverse events occurred, or because they were not assessed or reported.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the use of intratympanic gentamicin in the treatment of Ménière's disease is very uncertain. This is primarily due to the fact that there are few published RCTs in this area, and all the studies we identified enrolled a very small number of participants. As the studies assessed different outcomes, using different methods, and reported at different time points, we were not able to pool the results to obtain more reliable estimates of the efficacy of this treatment. More people may report an improvement in vertigo following gentamicin treatment, and scores of vertigo symptoms may also improve. However, the limitations of the evidence mean that we cannot be sure of these effects. Although there is the potential for intratympanic gentamicin to cause harm (for example, hearing loss) we did not find any information about the risks of treatment in this review.  Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analysis of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.

Intratympanic corticosteroids for Ménière's disease.

BACKGROUND: Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. Corticosteroids are sometimes administered directly into the middle ear to treat this condition (through the tympanic membrane). The underlying cause of Ménière's disease is unknown, as is the way in which this treatment may work. The efficacy of this intervention in preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of intratympanic corticosteroids versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease. 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 search was 14 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with a diagnosis of Ménière's disease comparing intratympanic corticosteroids with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects (including tympanic membrane perforation). We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies with a total of 952 participants. All studies used the corticosteroid dexamethasone, with doses ranging from approximately 2 mg to 12 mg.  Improvement in vertigo Intratympanic corticosteroids may make little or no difference to the number of people who report an improvement in their vertigo at 6 to ≤ 12 months follow-up (intratympanic corticosteroids 96.8%, placebo 96.6%, risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.10; 2 studies; 60 participants; low-certainty evidence) or at more than 12 months follow-up (intratympanic corticosteroids 100%, placebo 96.3%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.23; 2 studies; 58 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, we note the large improvement in the placebo group for these trials, which causes challenges in interpreting these results.  Change in vertigo Assessed with a global score One study (44 participants) assessed the change in vertigo at 3 to < 6 months using a global score, which considered the frequency, duration and severity of vertigo. This is a single, small study and the certainty of the evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Assessed by frequency of vertigo Three studies (304 participants) assessed the change in frequency of vertigo episodes at 3 to < 6 months. Intratympanic corticosteroids may slightly reduce the frequency of vertigo episodes. The proportion of days affected by vertigo was 0.05 lower (absolute difference -5%) in those receiving intratympanic corticosteroids (95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; 3 studies; 472 participants; low-certainty evidence). This is equivalent to a difference of approximately 1.5 days fewer per month affected by vertigo in the corticosteroid group (with the control group having vertigo on approximately 2.5 to 3.5 days per month at the end of follow-up, and those receiving corticosteroids having vertigo on approximately 1 to 2 days per month). However, this result should be interpreted with caution - we are aware of unpublished data at this time point in which corticosteroids failed to show a benefit over placebo. One study also assessed the change in frequency of vertigo at 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months follow-up. However, this is a single, small study and the certainty of the evidence was very low. Therefore, we are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Serious adverse events Four studies reported this outcome. There may be little or no effect on the occurrence of serious adverse events with intratympanic corticosteroids, but the evidence is very uncertain (intratympanic corticosteroids 3.0%, placebo 4.4%; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.85; 4 studies; 500 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for intratympanic corticosteroids in the treatment of Ménière's disease is uncertain. There are relatively few published RCTs, which all consider the same type of corticosteroid (dexamethasone). We also have concerns about publication bias in this area, with the identification of two large RCTs that remain unpublished. The evidence comparing intratympanic corticosteroids to placebo or no treatment is therefore all low- or very low-certainty. This means that we have very low confidence that the effects reported are accurate estimates of the true effect of these interventions. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area, and enable meta-analysis of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits. Finally, we would also highlight the responsibility that trialists have to ensure results are available, regardless of the outcome of their study.

Lifestyle and dietary interventions for Ménière's disease.

BACKGROUND: Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. Lifestyle or dietary modifications (including reducing the amount of salt or caffeine in the diet) are sometimes suggested to be of benefit for this condition. The underlying cause of Ménière's disease is unknown, as is the way in which these interventions may work. The efficacy of these different interventions at preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of lifestyle and dietary interventions versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease. 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 search was 14 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with Ménière's disease comparing any lifestyle or dietary intervention with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs, one related to diet, and the other related to fluid intake and sleep. In a Swedish study, 51 participants were randomised to receive 'specially processed cereals' or standard cereals. The specially processed cereals are thought to stimulate the production of anti-secretory factor - a protein that reduces inflammation and fluid secretion. Participants received the cereals for three months. The only outcome reported by this study was disease-specific health-related quality of life.  The second study was conducted in Japan. The participants (223) were randomised to receive abundant water intake (35 mL/kg/day), or to sleep in darkness (in an unlit room for six to seven hours per night), or to receive no intervention. The duration of follow-up was two years. The outcomes assessed were 'improvement in vertigo' and hearing.  As these studies considered different interventions we were unable to carry out any meta-analysis, and for almost all outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for lifestyle or dietary interventions for Ménière's disease is very uncertain. We did not identify any placebo-controlled RCTs for interventions that are frequently recommended for those with Ménière's disease, such as salt restriction or caffeine restriction. We identified only two RCTs that compared a lifestyle or dietary intervention to placebo or no treatment, and the evidence that is currently available from these studies is of low or very low certainty. This means that we have very low confidence that the effects reported are accurate estimates of the true effect of these interventions. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analyses of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.

Surgical interventions for Ménière's disease.

BACKGROUND: Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. First-line treatments often involve dietary or lifestyle changes, medication or local (intratympanic) treatments. However, surgery may also be considered for people with persistent or severe symptoms. The efficacy of different surgical interventions at preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of surgical interventions versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease. 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 search was 14 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with definite or probable Ménière's disease comparing ventilation tubes, endolymphatic sac surgery, semi-circular canal plugging/obliteration, vestibular nerve section or labyrinthectomy with either placebo (sham surgery) or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies with a total of 178 participants. One evaluated ventilation tubes compared to no treatment, the other evaluated endolymphatic sac decompression compared to sham surgery.  Ventilation tubes We included a single RCT of 148 participants with definite Ménière's disease. It was conducted in a single centre in Japan from 2010 to 2013. Participants either received ventilation tubes with standard medical treatment, or standard medical treatment alone, and were followed up for two years. Some data were reported on the number of participants in whom vertigo resolved, and the effect of the intervention on hearing. Our other primary and secondary outcomes were not reported in this study. This is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was low or very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Endolymphatic sac decompression We also included one RCT of 30 participants that compared endolymphatic sac decompression with sham surgery. This was a single-centre study conducted in Denmark during the 1980s. Follow-up was predominantly conducted at one year, but additional follow-up continued for up to nine years in some participants. Some data were reported on hearing and vertigo (both improvement in vertigo and change in vertigo), but our other outcomes of interest were not reported. Again, this is a single, very small study and we rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for all outcomes. We are therefore unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are unable to draw clear conclusions about the efficacy of these surgical interventions for Ménière's disease. We identified evidence for only two of our five proposed comparisons, and we assessed all the evidence as low- or very low-certainty. This means that we have very low confidence that the effects reported are accurate estimates of the true effect of these interventions. Many of the outcomes that we planned to assess were not reported by the studies, such as the impact on quality of life, and adverse effects of the interventions. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analyses of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.

Systemic pharmacological interventions for Ménière's disease.

BACKGROUND: Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. A number of pharmacological interventions have been used in the management of this condition, including betahistine, diuretics, antiviral medications and corticosteroids. The underlying cause of Ménière's disease is unknown, as is the way in which these treatments may work. The efficacy of these different interventions at preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic pharmacological interventions versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease. 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 search was 14 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with definite or probable Ménière's disease comparing betahistine, diuretics, antihistamines, antivirals or systemic corticosteroids with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies with a total of 848 participants. The studies evaluated the following interventions: betahistine, diuretics, antivirals and corticosteroids. We did not identify any evidence on antihistamines.  Betahistine Seven RCTs (548 participants) addressed this comparison. However, we were unable to conduct any meta-analyses for our primary outcomes as not all outcomes were considered by every study, and studies that did report the same outcome used different time points for follow-up, or assessed the outcome using different methods. Therefore, we were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Some data were available for each of our primary outcomes, but the evidence was low- or very low-certainty throughout. One study reported on the outcome 'improvement in vertigo' at 6 to ≤ 12 months, and another study reported this outcome at > 12 months. Four studies reported on the change in vertigo, but again all used different methods of assessment (vertigo frequency, or a global score of vertigo severity) or different time points. A single study reported on serious adverse events.  Diuretics Two RCTs addressed this comparison. One considered the use of isosorbide (220 participants), and the other used a combination of amiloride hydrochloride and hydrochlorothiazide (80 participants). Again, we were unable to conduct any meta-analyses for our primary outcomes, as only one study reported on the outcome 'improvement in vertigo' (at 6 to ≤ 12 months), one study reported on change in vertigo (at 3 to < 6 months) and neither study assessed serious adverse events. Therefore, we were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. The evidence was all very low-certainty.  Other pharmacological interventions We also identified one study that assessed antivirals (24 participants), and one study that assessed corticosteroids (16 participants). The evidence for these interventions was all very low-certainty. Again, serious adverse events were not considered by either study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for systemic pharmacological interventions for Ménière's disease is very uncertain. There are few RCTs that compare these interventions to placebo or no treatment, and the evidence that is currently available from these studies is of low or very low certainty. This means that we have very low confidence that the effects reported are accurate estimates of the true effect of these interventions. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analyses of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.

Positive pressure therapy for Ménière's disease.

BACKGROUND: Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. It is often treated with medication, but different interventions are sometimes used. Positive pressure therapy is a treatment that creates small pressure pulses, generated by a pump that is attached to tubing placed in the ear canal. It is typically used for a few minutes, several times per day. The underlying cause of Ménière's disease is unknown, as is the way in which this treatment may work. The efficacy of this intervention at preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of positive pressure therapy versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with a diagnosis of Ménière's disease comparing positive pressure therapy with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies with a total of 238 participants, all of which compared positive pressure using the Meniett device to sham treatment. The duration of follow-up was a maximum of four months.  Improvement in vertigo A single study assessed whether participants had an improvement in the frequency of their vertigo whilst using positive pressure therapy, therefore we are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the results.  Change in vertigo Only one study reported on the change in vertigo symptoms using a global score (at 3 to < 6 months), so we are again unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. All three studies reported on the change in the frequency of vertigo. The summary effect showed that people receiving positive pressure therapy had, on average, 0.84 fewer days per month affected by vertigo (95% confidence interval from 2.12 days fewer to 0.45 days more; 3 studies; 202 participants). However, the evidence on the change in vertigo frequency was of very low certainty, therefore there is great uncertainty in this estimate.   Serious adverse events None of the included studies provided information on the number of people who experienced serious adverse events. It is unclear whether this is because no adverse events occurred, or whether they were not assessed and reported.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for positive pressure therapy for Ménière's disease is very uncertain. There are few RCTs that compare this intervention to placebo or no treatment, and the evidence that is currently available from these studies is of low or very low certainty. This means that we have very low confidence that the effects reported are accurate estimates of the true effect of these interventions. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analyses of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.

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.

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.

Interventions for the treatment of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction.

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.

Biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: This living systematic review is one of several Cochrane Reviews evaluating the medical management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Chronic rhinosinusitis is common. It is characterised by inflammation of the nasal and sinus linings, nasal blockage, rhinorrhoea, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. It occurs with or without nasal polyps.   'Biologics' are medicinal products produced by a biological process. Monoclonal antibodies are one type, already evaluated in other inflammatory conditions (e.g. asthma and atopic dermatitis). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of biologics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL (2020, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies. The date of the search was 28 September 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least three months follow-up comparing biologics (monoclonal antibodies) against placebo/no treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), disease severity and serious adverse events (SAEs). The secondary outcomes were avoidance of surgery, extent of disease (measured by endoscopic or computerised tomography (CT) score), generic HRQL and adverse effects (nasopharyngitis, including sore throat). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies. Of 1262 adult participants, 1260 had severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps; 43% to 100% of participants also had asthma. Three biologics, with different targets, were evaluated: dupilumab, mepolizumab and omalizumab. All of the studies were sponsored or supported by industry. For this update (2021) we have included two new studies, including 265 participants, which reported data relating to omalizumab. Anti-IL-4Rα mAb (dupilumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Three studies (784 participants) evaluated dupilumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22 (a 22-item questionnaire, with a score range of 0 to 110; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 8.9 points). At 24 weeks, dupilumab results in a large reduction (improvement) in the SNOT-22 score (mean difference (MD) -19.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) -22.54 to -16.69; 3 studies; 784 participants; high certainty). At between 16 and 52 weeks of follow-up, dupilumab probably results in a large reduction in disease severity, as measured by a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) (MD -3.00, 95% CI -3.47 to -2.53; 3 studies; 784 participants; moderate certainty). This is a global symptom score, including all aspects of chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms. At between 16 and 52 weeks of follow-up, dupilumab may result in a reduction in serious adverse events compared to placebo (5.9% versus 12.5%, risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.76; 3 studies, 782 participants; low certainty). Anti-IL-5 mAb (mepolizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Two studies (137 participants) evaluated mepolizumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22. At 25 weeks, the SNOT-22 score may be reduced (improved) in participants receiving mepolizumab (MD -13.26 points, 95% CI -22.08 to -4.44; 1 study; 105 participants; low certainty; MCID 8.9).  It is very uncertain whether there is a difference in disease severity at 25 weeks: on a 0- to 10-point VAS, disease severity was -2.03 lower in those receiving mepolizumab (95% CI -3.65 to -0.41; 1 study; 72 participants; very low certainty). It is very uncertain if there is a difference in the number of serious adverse events at between 25 and 40 weeks (1.4% versus 0%; RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.46; 2 studies; 135 participants, very low certainty). Anti-IgE mAb (omalizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Five studies (329 participants) evaluated omalizumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22. At 24 weeks omalizumab probably results in a large reduction in SNOT-22 score (MD -15.62, 95% CI -19.79 to -11.45; 2 studies; 265 participants; moderate certainty; MCID 8.9). We did not identify any evidence for overall disease severity. It is very uncertain whether omalizumab affects the number of serious adverse events, with follow-up between 20 and 26 weeks (0.8% versus 2.5%, RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.00; 5 studies; 329 participants; very low certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Almost all of the participants in the included studies had nasal polyps (99.8%) and all were using topical nasal steroids for their chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms. In these patients, dupilumab improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo. It probably also results in a reduction in disease severity, and may result in a reduction in the number of serious adverse events. Mepolizumab may improve disease-specific HRQL. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in disease severity or the number of serious adverse events. Omalizumab probably improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in the number of serious adverse events. There was no evidence regarding the effect of omalizumab on disease severity (using global scores that address all symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis).

Topical versus systemic antibiotics for chronic suppurative otitis media.

BACKGROUND: Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection (involving more than one micro-organism) of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Antibiotics are the most common treatment for CSOM, which act to kill or inhibit the growth of micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be administered both topically and systemically, and can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM such as ear cleaning (aural toileting). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of topical versus systemic antibiotics for people with CSOM. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 16 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving patients (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where the ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. The studies compared topical antibiotics against systemic (oral, injection) antibiotics. We separated studies according to whether they compared the same type of antibiotic in both treatment groups, or different types of antibiotics. For each comparison we considered whether there was background treatment for both treatment groups, for example aural toileting (ear cleaning). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not, measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks up to four weeks, and after four weeks), health-related quality of life using a validated instrument, ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity measured in several ways. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies (445 participants), all with high risk of bias, were included. All but two studies included patients with confirmed CSOM, where perforation of the ear drum was clearly documented. None of the studies reported results for resolution of ear discharge after four weeks or health-related quality of life. 1. Topical versus systemic administration of the same type of antibiotics (quinolones) Four studies (325 participants) compared topical versus systemic (oral) administration of ciprofloxacin. Three studies reported resolution of ear discharge at one to two weeks and found that the topical administration may slightly increase resolution (risk ratio (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.76; 285 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). In these studies, aural toileting was either not mentioned, or limited to the first visit. Three studies (265 participants) reported that they did not suspect ototoxicity in any participants, but it is unclear how this was measured (very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the outcomes of ear pain or serious complications. No studies reported results for hearing, despite it being measured in three studies. 2. Topical versus systemic administration of different types of antibiotics (quinolones versus aminoglycosides) One study (60 participants) compared topical ciprofloxacin versus gentamicin injected intramuscularly. No aural toileting was reported. Resolution of ear discharge was not measured at one to two weeks. The study did not report any 'side effects' from which we assumed that no ear pain, suspected ototoxicity or serious complications occurred (very low-certainty evidence). The study stated that "no worsening of the audiometric function related to local or parenteral therapy was observed". 3. Topical versus systemic administration of different types of antibiotics (quinolones versus amoxicillin-clavulanic acid) One study compared topical ofloxacin with amoxicillin-clavulanic acid with all participants receiving suction ear cleaning at the first visit. It is uncertain if there is a difference between the two groups in resolution of ear discharge at one to two weeks due to study limitations and the very small sample size (RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.50 to 5.72; 56 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear if there is a difference between topical quinolone compared with oral amoxicillin-clavulanic acid with regards to ear pain, hearing or suspected ototoxicity (very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the outcome of serious complications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was a limited amount of low-quality evidence available, from studies completed over 15 years ago, to examine whether topical or systemic antibiotics are more effective in achieving resolution of ear discharge for people with CSOM. However, amongst this uncertainty there is some evidence to suggest that the topical administration of antibiotics may be more effective than systemic administration of antibiotics in achieving resolution of ear discharge (dry ear). There is limited evidence available regarding different types of antibiotics. It is not possible to determine with any certainty whether or not topical quinolones are better or worse than systemic aminoglycosides. These two groups of compounds have different adverse effect profiles, but there is insufficient evidence from the included studies to make any comment about these. In general, adverse effects were poorly reported.

Systemic antibiotics for chronic suppurative otitis media.

BACKGROUND: Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is a chronic inflammation and infection of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Systemic antibiotics are a commonly used treatment option for CSOM, which act to kill or inhibit the growth of micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic antibiotics for people with CSOM. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 16 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing systemic antibiotics (oral, injection) against placebo/no treatment or other systemic antibiotics with at least a one-week follow-up period, involving patients with chronic (at least two weeks) ear discharge of unknown cause or due to CSOM. Other treatments were allowed if both treatment and control arms also received it. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not, measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks, and after four weeks); health-related quality of life using a validated instrument; ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity measured in several ways. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 studies (2135 participants) with unclear or high risk of bias. 1. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo It is very uncertain if there is a difference between systemic (intravenous) antibiotics and placebo in the resolution of ear discharge at between one and two weeks (risk ratio (RR) 8.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.88 to 38.21; 33 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report results for resolution of ear discharge after two weeks. Health-related quality of life was not reported. The evidence is very uncertain for hearing and serious (intracranial) complications. Ear pain and suspected ototoxicity were not reported. 2. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo (both study arms received topical antibiotics) Six studies were included of which five presented useable data. There may be little or no difference in the resolution of ear discharge at between one to two weeks for oral ciprofloxacin compared to placebo or no treatment when ciprofloxacin ear drops were used in both intervention arms (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12; 390 participants; low-certainty evidence). No results after two weeks were reported. Health-related quality of life was not reported. The evidence is very uncertain for ear pain, serious complications and suspected ototoxicity. 3. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo (both study arms received other background treatments) Two studies used topical antibiotics plus steroids as background treatment in both arms. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in resolution of ear discharge between metronidazole and placebo at four weeks (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.65; 40 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). This study did not report other outcomes. It is also very uncertain if resolution of ear discharge at six weeks was improved with co-trimoxazole compared to placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.16; 98 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Resolution of ear discharge was not reported at other time points. From the narrative report there was no evidence of a difference between groups for health-related quality of life, hearing or serious complications (very low-certainty evidence). One study (136 participants) used topical antiseptics as background treatment in both arms and found similar resolution of ear discharge between the amoxicillin and no treatment groups at three to four months (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.41; 136 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The narrative report indicated no evidence of differences in hearing or suspected ototoxicity (both very low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes were reported. 4. Different types of systemic antibiotics This is a summary of four comparisons, where different antibiotics were compared to each other. Eight studies compared different types of systemic antibiotics against each other: quinolones against beta-lactams (four studies), lincosamides against nitroimidazoles (one study) and comparisons of different types of beta-lactams (three studies). It was not possible to conclude if there was one class or type of systemic antibiotic that was better in terms of resolution of ear discharge. The studies did not report adverse events well. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was a limited amount of evidence available to examine whether systemic antibiotics are effective in achieving resolution of ear discharge for people with CSOM. When used alone (with or without aural toileting), we are very uncertain if systemic antibiotics are more effective than placebo or no treatment. When added to an effective intervention such as topical antibiotics, there seems to be little or no difference in resolution of ear discharge (low-certainty evidence). Data were only available for certain classes of antibiotics and it is very uncertain whether one class of systemic antibiotic may be more effective than another. Adverse effects of systemic antibiotics were poorly reported in the studies included. As we found very sparse evidence for their efficacy, the possibility of adverse events may detract from their use for CSOM.

Aural toilet (ear cleaning) for chronic suppurative otitis media.

BACKGROUND: Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection (involving more than one micro-organism) of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Aural toileting is a term describing a number of processes for manually cleaning the ear. Techniques used may include dry mopping (with cotton wool or tissue paper), suction clearance (typically under a microscope) or irrigation (using manual or automated syringing). Dry mopping may be effective in removing mucopurulent discharge. Compared to irrigation or microsuction it is less effective in removing epithelial debris or thick pus. Aural toileting can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM, such as antibiotics or topical antiseptics. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of aural toilet procedures for people with CSOM. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 16 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving people (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where the ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. We included any aural toileting method as the intervention, at any frequency and for any duration. The comparisons were aural toileting compared with a) placebo or no intervention, and b) any other aural toileting method. We analysed trials in which background treatments were used in both arms (e.g. topical antiseptics or topical antibiotics) separately. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not), measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks, and after four weeks; health-related quality of life using a validated instrument; and ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes were hearing, serious complications, and the adverse events of ear bleeding and dizziness/vertigo/balance problems. MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies with a total of 431 participants (465 ears), reporting on two comparisons. Two studies included only children with CSOM in the community (351 participants) and the other study (80 participants) included children and adults with chronic ear discharge for at least six weeks. None of the included studies reported the outcomes of health-related quality of life, ear pain or the adverse event of ear bleeding. Daily aural toileting (dry mopping) versus no treatment Two studies (351 children; 370 ears) compared daily dry mopping with no treatment. Neither study presented results for resolution of ear discharge at between one and up to two weeks or between two to four weeks. For resolution of ear discharge after four weeks, one study reported the results per person. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference at 16 weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.72; 1 study; 217 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. No results were reported for the adverse events of dizziness, vertigo or balance problems. Only one study reported serious complications, but it was not clear which group these patients were from, or whether the complications occurred pre- or post-treatment. One study reported hearing, but the results were presented by treatment outcome rather than by treatment group so it is not possible to determine whether there is a difference between the two groups. Daily aural toileting versus single aural toileting on top of topical ciprofloxacin One study (80 participants; 95 ears) compared daily aural toileting (suction) with administration of topical antibiotic (ciprofloxacin) ear drops in a clinic, to a single aural toileting (suction) episode followed by daily self-administered topical antibiotic drops, in participants of all ages. We are unsure whether there is a difference in resolution of ear discharge at between one and up to two weeks (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.30; 1 study; 80 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. There were no results reported for resolution of ear discharge at between two to four weeks. The results for resolution of ear discharge after four weeks were presented by ear, not person, and could not be adjusted to by person. One patient in the group with single aural toileting and self administration of topical antibiotic ear drops reported the adverse event of dizziness, which the authors attributed to the use of cold topical ciprofloxacin. It is very uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.95; 1 study; 80 participants, very low-certainty). No results were reported for the other adverse events of vertigo or balance problems, or for serious complications. The authors only reported qualitatively that there was no difference between the two groups in hearing results (very low-certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain whether or not treatment with aural toileting is effective in resolving ear discharge in people with CSOM, due to a lack of data and the poor quality of the available evidence. We also remain uncertain about other outcomes, including adverse events, as these were not well reported. Similarly, we are very uncertain whether daily suction clearance, followed by antibiotic ear drops administered at a clinic, is better than a single episode of suction clearance followed by self-administration of topical antibiotic ear drops.

Antimicrobial mouthwashes (gargling) and nasal sprays administered to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection to improve patient outcomes and to protect healthcare workers treating them.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 infection poses a serious risk to patients and - due to its contagious nature - to those healthcare workers (HCWs) treating them. If the mouth and nose of patients with infection are irrigated with antimicrobial solutions, this may help the patients by killing any coronavirus present at those sites. It may also reduce the risk of the active infection being passed to HCWs through droplet transmission or direct contact. However, the use of such antimicrobial solutions may be associated with harms related to the toxicity of the solutions themselves or alterations in the natural microbial flora of the mouth or nose. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of antimicrobial mouthwashes and nasal sprays administered to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection to both the patients and the HCWs caring for them. SEARCH METHODS: Information Specialists from Cochrane ENT and Cochrane Oral Health searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 June 2020.  SELECTION CRITERIA: This is a question that urgently requires evidence, however at the present time we did not anticipate finding many completed RCTs. We therefore planned to include the following types of studies: randomised controlled trials (RCTs); quasi-RCTs; non-randomised controlled trials; prospective cohort studies; retrospective cohort studies; cross-sectional studies; controlled before-and-after studies. We set no minimum duration for the studies.   We sought studies comparing antimicrobial mouthwash and/or nasal spray (alone or in combination) at any concentration, delivered with any frequency or dosage to suspected/confirmed COVID-19 patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: 1) RECOVERY* (www.recoverytrial.net) outcomes in patients (mortality; hospitalisation status; use of ventilation; use of renal dialysis or haemofiltration); 2) incidence of symptomatic or test-positive COVID-19 infection in HCWs; 3) significant adverse event: anosmia (or disturbance in sense of smell). Our secondary outcomes were: 4) change in COVID-19 viral load in patients; 5) COVID-19 viral content of aerosol (when present); 6) other adverse events: changes in microbiome in oral cavity, nasal cavity, oro- or nasopharynx; 7) other adverse events: allergy, irritation/burning of nasal, oral or oropharyngeal mucosa (e.g. erosions, ulcers, bleeding), long-term staining of mucous membranes or teeth, accidental ingestion. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We found no completed studies to include in this review. We identified 16 ongoing studies (including 14 RCTs), which aim to enrol nearly 1250 participants. The interventions included in these trials are ArtemiC (artemisinin, curcumin, frankincense and vitamin C), Citrox (a bioflavonoid), cetylpyridinium chloride, chlorhexidine, chlorine dioxide, essential oils, hydrogen peroxide, hypertonic saline, Kerecis spray (omega 3 viruxide - containing neem oil and St John's wort), neem extract, nitric oxide releasing solution, povidone iodine and saline with baby shampoo.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified no studies for inclusion in this review. This is not surprising given the relatively recent emergence of COVID-19 infection. It is promising that the question posed in this review is being addressed by a number of RCTs and other studies. We are concerned that few of the ongoing studies specifically state that they will evaluate adverse events such as changes in the sense of smell or to the oral and nasal microbiota, and any consequences thereof. Very few interventions have large and dramatic effect sizes. If a positive treatment effect is demonstrated when studies are available for inclusion in this review, it may not be large. In these circumstances in particular it may be a challenge to weigh up the benefits against the harms if the latter are of uncertain frequency and severity.

Antimicrobial mouthwashes (gargling) and nasal sprays to protect healthcare workers when undertaking aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) on patients without suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 infection poses a serious risk to patients and - due to its contagious nature - to those healthcare workers (HCWs) treating them. The risks of transmission of infection are greater when a patient is undergoing an aerosol-generating procedure (AGP). Not all those with COVID-19 infection are symptomatic, or suspected of harbouring the infection. If a patient who is not known to have or suspected of having COVID-19 infection is to undergo an AGP, it would nonetheless be sensible to minimise the risk to those HCWs treating them. If the mouth and nose of an individual undergoing an AGP are irrigated with antimicrobial solutions, this may be a simple and safe method of reducing the risk of any covert infection being passed to HCWs through droplet transmission or direct contact. Alternatively, the use of antimicrobial solutions by the HCW may decrease the chance of them acquiring COVID-19 infection. However, the use of such antimicrobial solutions may be associated with harms related to the toxicity of the solutions themselves or alterations in the natural microbial flora of the mouth or nose. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of antimicrobial mouthwashes and nasal sprays administered to HCWs and/or patients when undertaking AGPs on patients without suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. SEARCH METHODS: Information Specialists from Cochrane ENT and Cochrane Oral Health searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 June 2020.  SELECTION CRITERIA: This is a question that urgently requires evidence, however at the present time we did not anticipate finding many completed RCTs. We therefore planned to include the following types of studies: randomised controlled trials (RCTs); quasi-RCTs; non-randomised controlled trials; prospective cohort studies; retrospective cohort studies; cross-sectional studies; controlled before-and-after studies. We set no minimum duration for the studies.   We sought studies comparing any antimicrobial mouthwash and/or nasal spray (alone or in combination) at any concentration, delivered to the patient or HCW before and/or after an AGP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: 1) incidence of symptomatic or test-positive COVID-19 infection in HCWs or patients; 2) significant adverse event: anosmia (or disturbance in sense of smell). Our secondary outcomes were: 3) COVID-19 viral content of aerosol (when present); 4) change in COVID-19 viral load at site(s) of irrigation; 5) other adverse events: changes in microbiome in oral cavity, nasal cavity, oro- or nasopharynx; 6) other adverse events: allergy, irritation/burning of nasal, oral or oropharyngeal mucosa (e.g. erosions, ulcers, bleeding), long-term staining of mucous membranes or teeth, accidental ingestion. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We found no completed studies to include in this review.   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified no studies for inclusion in this review, nor any ongoing studies. The absence of completed studies is not surprising given the relatively recent emergence of COVID-19 infection. However, we are disappointed that this important clinical question is not being addressed by ongoing studies.