Use of platelet-rich plasma for COVID-19-related olfactory loss: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The current study evaluated the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), an autologous blood product with supraphysiologic concentrations of growth factors, in the treatment of prolonged coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related smell loss. METHODS: This multi-institutional, randomized controlled trial recruited patients with COVID-19 who had objectively measured smell loss (University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test [UPSIT] ≤ 33) between 6 and 12 months. Patients were randomized to three intranasal injections of either PRP or sterile saline into their olfactory clefts. The primary outcome measure was change in Sniffin' Sticks score (threshold, discrimination, and identification [TDI]) from baseline. The secondary end point measures included responder rate (achievement of a clinically significant improvement, ≥5.5 points TDI), change in individual TDI olfaction scores, and change in subjective olfaction via a visual analog scale. RESULTS: A total of 35 patients were recruited and 26 completed the study. PRP treatment resulted in a 3.67-point (95% CI: 0.05-7.29, p = 0.047) greater improvement in olfaction compared with the placebo group at 3 months and a higher response rate (57.1% vs 8.3%, odds ratio 12.5 [95% exact bootstrap confidence interval, 2.2-116.7]). There was a greater improvement in smell discrimination following PRP treatment compared with placebo but no difference in smell identification or threshold. There was no difference in subjective scores between PRP and placebo. No adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSION: Olfactory function following COVID-19 can improve spontaneously after 6 months and can improve to a greater extent with PRP injection. These data build on the promise of PRP to be a safe potential treatment option for patients with COVID-19-related smell loss, and larger-powered studies will help further assess its efficacy.

Diagnosis and Treatment Strategy of Nasogenic Olfactory Dysfunction.

Since the global outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a symptom of the onset of SARS-CoV-2, olfactory dysfunction (OD), has attracted tremendous attention. OD is not only a negative factor for quality of life but also an independent hazard and early biomarker for various diseases, such as Parkinson's and Huntington's diseases. Therefore, early identification and treatment of OD in patients are critical. Many etiological factors are responsible for OD based on current opinions. Sniffin'Sticks are recommended to identify the initial position (central or peripheral) for OD when treating patients clinically. It is worth emphasizing that the olfactory region in nasal cavity is recognized as the primary and critical olfactory receptor. Many nasal diseases, such as those with traumatic, obstructive and inflammatory causes, can lead to OD. The key question is no refined diagnosis or treatment strategy for nasogenic OD currently. This study summarizes the differences in medical history, symptoms, auxiliary examination, treatment and prognosis of different types of nasogenic OD by analyzing the current studies. We propose using olfactory training after 4-6 weeks of initial treatment for nasogenic OD patients with no significant improvement in olfaction. We hope that our research can provide valuable clinical guidance by systematically summarizing the clinical characteristics of nasogenic OD.

[Interpretation of the 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology expert consensus on the treatment of postinfectious olfactory dysfunction].

Respiratory tract viruses are the second leading cause of olfactory dysfunction. Between 2019 to 2022, the world has been plagued by the problem of olfaction caused by the COVID-19. As we learn more about the impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2（SARS-CoV-2）, with the recognition that olfactory dysfunction is a key symptom of this disease process, there is a greater need than ever for evidence-based management of postinfectious olfactory dysfunction（PIOD）. The Clinical Olfactory Working Group has proposed theconsensus on the roles of PIOD. This paper is the detailed interpretation of the consensus.

Olfactory Function and Olfactory Disorders. / Riechen und Riechstörungen.

The sense of smell is important. This became especially clear to patients with infection-related olfactory loss during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We react, for example, to the body odors of other humans. The sense of smell warns us of danger, and it allows us to perceive flavors when eating and drinking. In essence, this means quality of life. Therefore, anosmia must be taken seriously. Although olfactory receptor neurons are characterized by regenerative capacity, anosmia is relatively common with about 5 % of anosmic people in the general population. Olfactory disorders are classified according to their causes (e. g., infections of the upper respiratory tract, traumatic brain injury, chronic rhinosinusitis, age) with the resulting different therapeutic options and prognoses. Thorough history taking is therefore important. A wide variety of tools are available for diagnosis, ranging from short screening tests and detailed multidimensional test procedures to electrophysiological and imaging methods. Thus, quantitative olfactory disorders are easily assessable and traceable. For qualitative olfactory disorders such as parosmia, however, no objectifying diagnostic procedures are currently available. Therapeutic options for olfactory disorders are limited. Nevertheless, there are effective options consisting of olfactory training as well as various additive drug therapies. The consultation and the competent discussion with the patients are of major importance.

Olfactory Dysfunction: Etiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Disorders of the sense of smell have received greater attention because of the frequency with which they occur as a symptom of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Olfactory dysfunction can lead to profound reduction in quality of life and may arise from many different causes. METHODS: A selective literature review was conducted with consideration of the current version of the guideline issued by the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany. RESULTS: The cornerstones of diagnosis are the relevant medical history and psychophysical testing of olfactory function using standardized validated tests. Modern treatment strategies are oriented on the cause of the dysfunction. While treatment of the underlying inflammation takes precedence in patients with sinunasal dysosmia, olfactory training is the primary treatment option for other forms of the disorder. The prognosis is determined not only by the cause of the olfactory dysfunction and the patient's age, but also by the olfactory performance as measured at the time of diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Options for the treatment of olfactory dysfunction are available but limited, depending on the cause. It is therefore important to carry out a detailed diagnostic work-up and keep the patient informed of the expected course and prognosis.

Effectiveness and safety of PRP on persistent olfactory dysfunction related to COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is a well know symptom of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), accounting for 48 to 85% of patients. In 1 to 10% of cases, patients develop a chronic olfactory dysfunction (COD), lasting more than 6 months. Recently, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) was used in patients with non-COVID-19 COD and authors reported encouraging results. METHODS: In the present study, we investigated the usefulness and safety of PRP injection in 56 patients with COVID-19 COD by the Sniffing Stick test (TDI score) and a linker-scale from 0 (none) to 3 (strong) and we compare the result to a control group. RESULTS: At 1 month post-PRP injection, the mean TDI scores significantly improved by 6.7 points in the PRP group (p < 0,001), the mean self-assessment of improvement in smell function was 1.8 (mild-to-moderate) in the PRP group, which was significantly higher than the score (0.3) in the control group (p < 0,001). CONCLUSION: Our results showed that PRP in the olfactory cleft can increase the olfactory threshold 1 month after the injection. Moreover, our results suggest that timing of treatment may be an important factor and that PRP is a safe treatment, because no adverse effects were reported throughout the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05226546.

Platelet-rich plasma injection in the olfactory clefts of COVID-19 patients with long-term olfactory dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection into the olfactory clefts of COVID-19 patients with persistent olfactory dysfunction (OD). METHODS: From March 2022 to July 2022, COVID-19 patients with persistent OD were consecutively recruited to benefit from PRP injection into the olfactory clefts. Patient pain, annoyance, time of procedure, and adverse events were evaluated. Olfactory function was evaluated at baseline and 2-month post-injection with the olfactory disorder questionnaire (ODQ) and threshold, discrimination, and identification (TDI) test. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients with anosmia (N = 30), hyposmia (N = 40), or parosmia (N = 17) with a mean OD duration of 15.7 months completed the evaluations. The PRP injection was successfully performed in all patients with a mean procedure time of 18.4 ± 3.4 min. The adverse events included transient epistaxis (N = 31), parosmia related to xylocaine spray (N = 10), and vasovagal episode (N = 2). The injection procedure was evaluated as somewhat or moderately painful by 41 (47%) and 22 (25%) patients, respectively. Thirty-seven patients were assessed after 2 months post-injection. The mean ODQ and TDI scores significantly improved from baseline to 2-month post-injection (p < 0.01). The olfactory improvement occurred after a mean of 3.6 ± 1.9 weeks. CONCLUSION: The injection of PRP into the olfactory clefts is safe and associated with adequate patient-reported outcomes. The findings of this preliminary study suggest possible efficacy on subjective and psychophysical evaluations, but future randomized controlled studies are needed to determine the superiority of PRP injection over placebo.

Olfactory training in long COVID-19 patients with lasting symptoms including olfactory dysfunction.

INTRODUCTION: Two-thirds of patients with COVID-19 developed smell and taste dysfunction, of whom half experienced improvement within the first month. After six months, 5-15% still suffered from significant olfactory dysfunction (OD). Before COVID-19, olfactory training (OT) was proved to be effective in patients with post-infectious OD. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the progress of olfactory recovery with and without OT in patients with long COVID-19. METHODS: Consecutive patients with long COVID-19 referred to the Flavour Clinic at Gødstrup Regional Hospital, Denmark, were enrolled. The diagnostic set-up at the first visit and follow-up included smell and taste tests, questionnaires, ENT examination and instructions in OT. RESULTS: From January 2021 to April 2022, 52 patients were included due to long COVID-19-related OD. The majority of patients complained of distorted sensory quality, in particular, parosmia. Two-thirds of the patients reported a subjective improvement of their sense of smell and taste along with a significant decline in the negative impact on quality of life (p = 0.0001). Retesting at follow-up demonstrated a significant increase in smell scores (p = 0.023) where a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in smell scores was found in 23% of patients. Full training compliance was significantly associated with the probability of MCID improvement (OR = 8.13; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The average effect of OT is modest; however, full training compliance was significantly associated with an increased probability of a clinically relevant olfactory improvement. FUNDING: none. TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.

Olfactory Training Impacts Olfactory Dysfunction Induced by COVID-19: A Pilot Study.

INTRODUCTION: Olfactory dysfunction is one of the main symptoms of COVID-19 and may last beyond resolution of the infection. The most promising intervention for post-viral olfactory dysfunction is olfactory training (OT), which involves exposing the olfactory system to a range of odors daily. This approach is thought of promoting the regeneration of olfactory receptor cells, but its effectiveness in patients with post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction has yet to be confirmed. METHODS: This double-blind randomized pilot study compared the effectiveness of OT versus placebo in the treatment of post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction. Twenty-five participants were recruited in each group. OT protocol consisted of sniffing 4 scents (rose, orange, clove, and eucalyptus) for 5 min twice daily for 12 weeks. Olfactory function was assessed before and after the training using (1) a validated odor identification test (UPSIT-40) and (2) a 10-point visual analog scale; we further assessed the presence of (3) parosmia. RESULTS: While we did not observe any effect of OT on olfactory test scores, we observed a significant improvement of subjective olfactory function in the intervention group, while no such effect was observed in the placebo group. Finally, the frequency of parosmia was significantly lower in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights an increase in subjective but not objective olfactory function when performing OT for 12 weeks. Further, parosmia seems to be positively affected by OT. These results may serve as a starting point for larger scale studies to assess the efficacy of OT for treatment of post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction.

Perspectives on the Pathophysiology, Management, and Relevance of Olfactory and Gustatory Dysfunction to COVID-19, Part One.

Context: Amelioration of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction (OGD) disorders has become a common requirement due to COVID-19. Although it's hardly exclusive to COVID-19, OGD's prevalence requires exploration of therapeutic and restorative modalities, on the broadest scale possible. No specific medication or treatment of any noteworthy efficacy exists for OGD. Objective: As Part 1 of a three-part article, a narrative review intended to examine the known causes of OGD, not restricted to COVID-19, and frame their relevance for development of new treatments or the repurposing of existing ones. Design: The researcher performed a narrative review by searching databases including PubMed, Sciencedirect, Google Scholar, Old Dominion University Libraries, and the websites of various medical journals. Searches included numerous combinations of keywords accompanied by the phrases, loss of sense of smell and taste, olfactory and gustatory dysfunction disorders, as well as the terms anosmia, parosmia, ageusia, and parageusia. Such keywords included viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoa, parasites, infection, COVID-19, treatments, medications, steroids, supplements, nutrients, alternative medicine, acupuncture, olfactory training, clinical trials, cranial nerves, pathogenesis, pathophysiology, and etiology. Setting: The Liebell Clinic, Virginia Beach, VA, USA. Results: Scientific investigation into mechanisms and treatment of OGD appears to be historically limited and unremarkable. Medical literature spanning decades reports a bleak clinical outlook with an abundance of speculation and hypotheses. Limited evidence of effective or reliable treatment exists, especially for chronic cases. Conclusions: With a dismal lack of medical support for a suddenly prevalent, but hardly novel set of maladies of taste and smell perception; the imperative for multifaceted and broad investigations across all medical disciplines is without question. Global urgency for the development of any treatment capable of reducing or resolving OGD triggered by COVID-19 is unprecedented. Part 2 of the current author's three-part series will address the details of current and past treatment approaches and clinical trials.

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

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

[Olfactory and gustatory disorders]. / Riech- und Schmeckstörungen.

This manuscript aims to provide an overview of the etiology and diagnosis of olfactory and gustatory disorders. Not only are they common with about 5% of the population affected, but olfactory and gustatory disorders have recently gained attention in light of the rising SARS-CoV­2 pandemic: sudden loss of smell and/or taste is regarded as one of the cardinal symptoms. Furthermore, in the early diagnostics of neurodegenerative diseases, olfactory disorders are of great importance. Patients with olfactory dysfunction often show signs of depression. The impact of olfactory/gustatory disorders is thus considerable, but therapeutic options are unfortunately still limited. Following a description of the etiology, the diagnostic and therapeutic options are discussed on the basis of current literature. Potential future treatments are also addressed, e.g. autologous mucosal grafts or olfactory implants.

Qualitative Olfactory Dysfunction and COVID-19: An Evidence-Based Review with Recommendations for the Clinician.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 40% of patients who experience smell loss during SARS-CoV-2 infection may develop qualitative olfactory dysfunction, most commonly parosmia. Our evidence-based review summarizes the evolving literature and offers recommendations for the clinician on the management of patients experiencing parosmia associated with COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a systematic search using independent queries in PubMed, Embase, Ovid, and Cochrane databases, then categorized articles according to themes that emerged regarding epidemiology, effect on quality of life, disease progression, prognosis, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of parosmia. RESULTS: We identified 123 unique references meeting eligibility and performed title and abstract review with 2 independent reviewers, with 74 articles undergoing full-text review. An inductive approach to thematic development provided 7 central themes regarding qualitative olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: While other respiratory viruses are known to cause qualitative olfactory disturbances, the incidence of parosmia following COVID-19 is notable, and correlates negatively with age. The presence of parosmia predicts persistent quantitative olfactory dysfunction. Onset can occur months after infection, and symptoms may persist for well over 7 months. Affected patients report increased anxiety and decreased quality of life. Structured olfactory training with essential oils is the preferred treatment, where parosmia predicts recovery of aspects of quantitative smell loss when undergoing training. There is limited evidence that nasal corticosteroids may accelerate recovery of olfactory function. Patients should be prepared for the possibility that symptoms may persist for years, and providers should guide them to resources for coping with their psychosocial burden.

Intensive Olfactory Training in Post-COVID-19 Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Olfactory dysfunction (OD)-including anosmia and hyposmia-is a common symptom of COVID-19. Previous studies have identified olfactory training (OT) as an important treatment for postinfectious OD; however, little is known about its benefits and optimizations after SARS-CoV-2 infection. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess whether olfactory training performance can be optimized using more fragrances over a shorter period of time in patients with persistent OD after COVID-19. In addition, we determined the presence of other variables related to OD and treatment response in this population. METHODS: This multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited 80 patients with persistent OD and prior COVID-19 infection for less than 3 months. The patients were divided into 2 groups receiving either 4 or 8 essences over 4 weeks. Subjective assessments and the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) were performed before and after the treatment. RESULTS: Significant olfactory improvement was measured subjectively and using the UPSIT in both groups; however, no significant differences between the groups were observed. Additionally, the presence of olfactory fluctuations was associated with higher UPSIT scores. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that training intensification by increasing the number of essences for 4 weeks does not show superiority over the classical method. Moreover, fluctuant olfaction seems to be related to a higher score on the UPSIT.

Treatment strategies for postviral olfactory dysfunction: A systematic review.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been associated with a dramatic increase in postviral olfactory dysfunction (PVOD) among patients who are infected. A contemporary evidence-based review of current treatment options for PVOD is both timely and relevant to improve patient care. Objective: This review seeks to impact patient care by qualitatively reviewing available evidence in support of medical and procedural treatment options for PVOD. Systematic evaluation of data quality and of the level of evidence was completed to generate current treatment recommendations. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify primary studies that evaluated treatment outcomes for PVOD. A number of medical literature data bases were queried from January 1998 to May 2020, with completion of subsequent reference searches of retrieved articles to identify all relevant studies. Validated tools for the assessment of bias among both interventional and observational studies were used to complete quality assessment. The summary level of evidence and associated outcomes were used to generate treatment recommendations. Results: Twenty-two publications were identified for qualitative review. Outcomes of alpha-lipoic acid, intranasal and systemic corticosteroids, minocycline, zinc sulfate, vitamin A, sodium citrate, caroverine, intranasal insulin, theophylline, and Gingko biloba are reported. In addition, outcomes of traditional Chinese acupuncture and olfactory training are reviewed. Conclusion: Several medical and procedural treatments may expedite the return of olfactory function after PVOD. Current evidence supports olfactory training as a first-line intervention. Additional study is required to define specific treatment recommendations and expected outcomes for PVOD in the setting of COVID-19.