Efficacy and Safety of Saline Nasal Irrigation Plus Theophylline for Treatment of COVID-19-Related Olfactory Dysfunction: The SCENT2 Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Recent studies suggest that theophylline added to saline nasal irrigation (SNI) can be an effective treatment for postviral olfactory dysfunction (OD), a growing public health concern during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of theophylline added to SNI compared with placebo for COVID-19-related OD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This triple-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2 randomized clinical trial was conducted virtually between March 15 and August 31, 2021. Adults residing in Missouri or Illinois were recruited during this time period if they had OD persisting for 3 to 12 months following suspected COVID-19 infection. Data analysis was conducted from October to December 2021. Interventions: Saline sinus rinse kits and bottles of identical-appearing capsules with either 400 mg of theophylline (treatment) or 500 mg of lactose powder (control) were mailed to consenting study participants. Participants were instructed to dissolve the capsule contents into the saline rinse and use the solution to irrigate their nasal cavities in the morning and at night for 6 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the difference in the rate of responders between the treatment and the control arms, defined as a response of at least slightly better improvement in the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale posttreatment. Secondary outcome measures included changes in the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), the Questionnaire for Olfactory Disorders, the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey on general health, and COVID-19-related questions. Results: A total of 51 participants were enrolled in the study; the mean (SD) age was 46.0 (13.1) years, and 36 (71%) participants were women. Participants were randomized to SNI with theophylline (n = 26) or to SNI with placebo (n = 25). Forty-five participants completed the study. At the end of treatment, 13 (59%) participants in the theophylline arm reported at least slight improvement in the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (responders) compared with 10 (43%) in the placebo arm (absolute difference, 15.6%; 95% CI, -13.2% to 44.5%). The median difference for the UPSIT change between baseline and 6 weeks was 3.0 (95% CI, -1.0 to 7.0) for participants in the theophylline arm and 0.0 (95% CI, -2.0 to 6.0) for participants in the placebo arm. Mixed-model analysis revealed that the change in UPSIT scores through study assessments was not statistically significantly different between the 2 study arms. Eleven (50%) participants in the theophylline arm and 6 (26%) in the placebo arm had a change of 4 or more points in UPSIT scores from baseline to 6 weeks. The difference in the rate of responders as measured by the UPSIT was 24% (95% CI, -4% to 52%) in favor of theophylline. Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial suggests that the clinical benefit of theophylline nasal irrigations on olfaction in participants with COVID-19-related OD is inconclusive, though suggested by subjective assessments. Larger studies are warranted to investigate the efficacy of this treatment more fully. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04789499.

Theophylline: Old Drug in a New Light, Application in COVID-19 through Computational Studies.

Theophylline (3-methyxanthine) is a historically prominent drug used to treat respiratory diseases, alone or in combination with other drugs. The rapid onset of the COVID-19 pandemic urged the development of effective pharmacological treatments to directly attack the development of new variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and possess a therapeutical battery of compounds that could improve the current management of the disease worldwide. In this context, theophylline, through bronchodilatory, immunomodulatory, and potentially antiviral mechanisms, is an interesting proposal as an adjuvant in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Nevertheless, it is essential to understand how this compound could behave against such a disease, not only at a pharmacodynamic but also at a pharmacokinetic level. In this sense, the quickest approach in drug discovery is through different computational methods, either from network pharmacology or from quantitative systems pharmacology approaches. In the present review, we explore the possibility of using theophylline in the treatment of COVID-19 patients since it seems to be a relevant candidate by aiming at several immunological targets involved in the pathophysiology of the disease. Theophylline down-regulates the inflammatory processes activated by SARS-CoV-2 through various mechanisms, and herein, they are discussed by reviewing computational simulation studies and their different applications and effects.

Smell Changes and Efficacy of Nasal Theophylline (SCENT) irrigation: A randomized controlled trial for treatment of post-viral olfactory dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intranasal theophylline saline irrigation on olfactory recovery in patients with post-viral olfactory dysfunction (PVOD). METHODS: Between May 2019 and April 2020, we conducted a double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of adults with 6-36 months of PVOD. Patients were randomized to nasal theophylline saline irrigation or placebo saline irrigation twice a day for 6 weeks. The primary outcome was the Global Rating of Smell Change. Secondary outcomes were changes in the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) and Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders-Negative Statements (QOD-NS). RESULTS: Twenty-two patients (n = 12, theophylline; n = 10, placebo) completed the study. Slightly more patients in the theophylline group (33%) reported improved smell compared to the placebo group (30%, difference 3.3%, 95% CI -35.6% to 42.3%). The median differences in pre- and post-treatment UPSIT and QOD-NS change between the two groups were 1 (95% CI -3 to 5) and -10 (95% CI -15 to -4), respectively in favor of theophylline. Three patients receiving theophylline and 2 receiving placebo had clinically meaningful improvements on the UPSIT (difference 5%, 95% CI -30% to 40%). There were no adverse events, and serum theophylline levels were undetectable in 10/10 patients. CONCLUSIONS: While safe, there were no clinically meaningful differences in olfactory change between the two groups except for olfaction-related quality of life, which was better with theophylline. The imprecise estimates suggest future trials will need substantially larger sample sizes or treatment modifications, such as increasing the theophylline dose, to observe larger treatment effects.