ABSTRACT
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(CENTRAL);Ovid MEDLINE;Ovid Embase;Web of Science;ClinicalTrials.gov;ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials.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 intra nasal 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 Linable 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.
ABSTRACT
Background and Aim: Multi-system inflammatory syndrome in chil-dren (MIS-C) causes widespread systemic inflammation including a pancarditis in the weeks following a COVID infection. Further coronavirus surges appear inevitable and with vaccination rates lower in young people an understanding of the medium-term car-diac impacts of this condition is important for planning further treatment and understanding the impacts on their health. Method(s): A retrospective single-center study of 67 consecutive patients with MIS-C was performed. Three time points were determined as the point of worst cardiac dysfunction during the acute admission, then at intervals of 6-8 weeks and 6-8 months. Echocardiographic findings were used to evaluate both 2D and 3D measures of cardiac function. Coronary artery measurements were recorded. Corresponding serial ECG findings were evaluated. Result(s): The worst cardiac function arose 6.8 +/- 2.4 days after the onset of fever. The mean M mode-derived FS was 30.9 +/- 8.1% during the acute phase. The mean 3D left ventricle (LV) ejection fraction (EF) was borderline at 50.5 +/- 9.8%. A pancarditis was typ-ically present: 46.3% showed cardiac impairment;31.3% had some pericardial effusion;26.8% had moderate (or worse) valvar regur-gitation and;26.8% had coronary dilatation. Cardiac function returned to normal in all patients by 6-8 weeks (mean 3D LV EF 61.3 +/- 4.4%, plt;0.001 compared to admission). Coronary dila-tation normalized in all but one patient who initially developed large aneurysms at presentation;these continued 6 months later. ECG findings mainly featured T-wave changes resolving at fol-low-up. There were a small number of adverse events: need for ECMO (2), death as an ECMO-related complication (1), suben-docardial infarction (1), LV thrombus formation (1). Conclusion(s): MIS-C causes a pancarditis with decreased cardiac function and almost a quarter of patients showing coronary changes. In most, discharge from long-term follow-up can be con-sidered as full cardiac recovery is expected by 8 weeks. The excep-tion includes patients with medium sized aneurysms or greater or those with more of a Kawasaki disease phenotype as these require on-going surveillance for persistence of coronary changes.
ABSTRACT
The Covid-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented pressure to healthcare systems worldwide, resulting in significant and precipitous changes in demand, burden and method of delivery. The psychosocial impact of this crisis is likely to increase over the course of the pandemic, peak later than medical cases and endure for longer thereby significantly exceeding medical morbidity. It will have far reaching impact on the individual, their family and their care providers. Frontline healthcare workers and those with pre-existing mental health difficulties are recognised at increased risk. Now that the initial surge has been expertly curtailed, it is essential that urgent consideration is now directed towards the mental health implications of the current outbreak and ensure that we are as ready for the increased MH needs of the community as we were for the intensive medical care.