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Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials.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

The Quality of Otology and Neurotology Research in Otology Journals.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the level of evidence and publishing trends in otology-specific journals over a 20-year period. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. METHODS: The three O/N specific journals with the highest Eigenfactor scores were identified. All articles published in the years 1998, 2008, and 2018 were reviewed and level of evidence (LoE) based on standards set by the Oxford Centres for Evidence Based Medicine was assigned by two independent reviewers. One way analysis of variance and 95% bootstrap sensitivity analysis were performed. RESULTS: A total of 1,062 studies were published over 20 years, of these 809 (76.2%) were eligible for inclusion in the present study. The average number of publications per year increased over time. The average LoE improved significantly over the total interval (-0.235, p = 0.027, [CI -0.45, -0.019]), however did not between 1998 and 2008 (p = 0.111) or between 2008 and 2018 (p = 1). When looking at just LoE 1 or 2, the number and percentage of higher quality papers improves over time-48/158 (30.4%) in 1998, rising to 94/250 (37.6%) in 2008, and 158/401 (39.4%) in 2008. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past two decades there has been an overall increase in the quantity and quality (as measured by LoE) of publications in O/N-specific journals. In general, quality of O/N studies is slightly better in O/N-specific journals compared with general OHNS journals. However, there are still improvements to be had in the proportion of high-evidence publications, as they still number less than half of all total publications in the subspecialty.

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.

"No drain, no gain": Validation of novel quinsy simulation model.

OBJECTIVES: To test a novel, low-cost, home-made model for needle aspiration of PTA.To ascertain whether simulation-based teaching using this model was superior to lecture-based teaching in increasing confidence and reducing anxiety relating to PTA aspiration.To assess whether there was an improvement in outcomes for PTA patients at one hospital following the delivery of a simulation-based training session using our model. METHODS: We designed two teaching sessions for junior doctors starting work in ENT: a simulation-based teaching session using a low-cost home-made simulation model and a lecture-based teaching session covering the same content. We asked the participants to complete pre- and post-session surveys regarding confidence and anxiety levels and analyzed this data. We also retrospectively collected data over 3 months for patients referred to ENT with suspected PTA and assessed their outcomes. We assessed patient outcomes before and after the delivery of a simulation-based training course using our model. RESULTS: Simulation-based teaching using our model was shown to be associated with a statistically significant increase in junior doctors' confidence levels. Reaccumulation and reattendance rates for PTA following aspiration were 16.67% and 22.7% respectively preintervention and 0% and 7.14% respectively postintervention. CONCLUSION: A regular simulation-based teaching session should be introduced using a PTA aspiration model for junior doctors as it leads to increased confidence levels, and reduced reaccumulation and recurrence rates of PTA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.

A meta-analysis of marsupialisation versus none in the treatment of simple fistula-in-ano.

INTRODUCTION: Marsupialisation of post-fistulotomy wounds results in a smaller raw surface area and may improve postoperative outcomes. However, it remains a variable practice. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of marsupialisation in the treatment of simple fistula-in-ano. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant articles from inception until April 2020. All trials that reported on marsupialisation in anal fistula treatment were included. The primary outcome measure was time to complete healing, while secondary outcomes included recurrence, pain scores and incontinence. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled effect size estimates. A sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: Six randomised controlled trials were included capturing 461 patients. The mean (SD) age of the cohort was 39.31 (± 8.71) years. There were 395 males (85.7%). All fistulae were of the cryptoglandular aetiology. On random effects analysis, marsupialisation was associated with a significantly shorter time to healing compared with no marsupialisation (SMD - 0.97 weeks, 95% CI = - 1.36 to - 0.58, p < 0.00001). However, there was no difference in recurrence (RD = - 0.00, 95% CI = - 0.02 to 0.02, p = 0.72), pain scores at 24 h (SMD - 0.03, 95% CI = - 0.56 to 0.50, p = 0.91) or incontinence (RD = - 0.01, 95% CI = - 0.05 to 0.02, p = 0.42). On sensitivity analysis, focusing exclusively on fistulotomy for simple fistula-in-ano, the results for time to healing, recurrence and incontinence remained similar. CONCLUSIONS: Marsupialisation of fistulotomy wounds for simple fistula-in-ano is associated with a significantly shorter healing time, but similar recurrence, pain scores at 24 h and incontinence rates, compared with omitting marsupialisation.

Barrett's Registry Collaboration of academic centers in Ireland reveals high progression rate of low-grade dysplasia and low risk from nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus: report of the RIBBON network.

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the main pathological precursor of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Progression to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or EAC from nondysplastic BE (NDBE), low-grade dysplasia (LGD) and indefinite for dysplasia (IND) varies widely between population-based studies and specialized centers for many reasons, principally the rigor of the biopsy protocol and the accuracy of pathologic definition. In the Republic of Ireland, a multicenter prospective registry and bioresource (RIBBON) was established in 2011 involving six academic medical centers, and this paper represents the first report from this network. A detailed clinical, endoscopic and pathologic database registered 3,557 patients. BE was defined strictly by both endoscopic evidence of Barrett's epithelium and the presence of specialized intestinal metaplasia (SIM). A prospective web-based database was used to gather information with initial and follow-up data abstracted by a data manager at each site. A total of 2,244 patients, 1,925 with no dysplasia, were included with complete follow-up. The median age at diagnosis was 60.5 with a 2.1:1 male to female ratio and a median follow-up time of 2.7 years (IQR 1.19-4.04), and 6609.25 person years. In this time period, 125 (5.57%) progressed to HGD/EAC, with 74 (3.3%) after 1 year of follow-up and 38 (1.69%) developed EAC, with 20 (0.89%) beyond 1 year. The overall incidence of HGD/EAC was 1.89% per year; 1.16% if the first year is excluded. The risk of progression to EAC alone overall was 0.57% per year, 0.31% excluding the first year, and 0.21% in the 1,925 patients who had SIM alone at diagnosis. Low-grade dysplasia (LGD) progressed to HGD/EAC in 31% of patients, a progression rate of 12.96% per year, 6.71% with the first year excluded. In a national collaboration of academic centers in Ireland, the progression rate for NDBE was similar to recent population studies. Almost one in two who progressed was evident within 1 year. Crucially, LGD diagnosed and confirmed by specialist gastrointestinal pathologists represents truly high-risk disease, highlighting the importance of expertise in diagnosis and management, and providing indirect support for ablative therapies in this context.