Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Lee JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9057210 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar-Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Lee Jake J JJ Peterson Andrew M AM Kallogjeri Dorina D Jiramongkolchai Pawina P Kukuljan Sara S Schneider John S JS Klatt-Cromwell Cristine N CN Drescher Andrew J AJ Brunworth Joseph D JD Piccirillo Jay F JF

American journal of otolaryngology 20211203 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intranasal theophylline saline irrigation on olfactory recovery in patients with post-viral olfactory dysfunction (PVOD).<h4>Methods</h4>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 ...[more]

PMID: 34894449

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceRecent 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.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of theophylline added to SNI compared with placebo for COVID-19-related OD.Design, setting, and participantsThis 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.InterventionsSaline 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 measuresThe 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.ResultsA 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 relevanceThis 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04789499.

Project description:ImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic affected millions of people and has become a dominant etiology of olfactory dysfunction (OD). No interventions with definitive clinical utility exist. Gabapentin represents a potential therapy for COVID-19-induced OD.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of oral gabapentin on olfactory function and olfaction-related quality of life in patients with COVID-19-induced OD.Design, setting, and participantsThis pilot double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted at Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis from January 7, 2022, to February 3, 2023. Adults with at least 3 months of OD after COVID-19 infection were eligible for inclusion. Participants with a history of other causes of OD or contraindications to gabapentin were excluded.InterventionPatients were randomized 1:1 to oral gabapentin or placebo. All patients underwent titration to a maximum tolerable dose, which was maintained during an 8-week fixed-dose (FD) phase then tapered off. Participants were monitored for 4 weeks following cessation of study medication.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes were assessed following the 8-week FD phase and 4 weeks after taper completion. The primary outcome measure was the response rate determined by subjective improvement in OD on the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) after the FD phase. Other subjective and objective measures of olfactory function were also assessed as secondary outcome measures.ResultsSixty-eight participants were enrolled (34 randomized to each arm), a total of 44 participants completed the FD period and 20 (45.4%) reported response to treatment with at least slight improvement in olfaction from baseline. Of those randomized, 51 (75%) were women and 56 were White (82%) with a mean (SD) age of 43 (13.5) years. Baseline demographic features including age, sex, and race and ethnicity were not significantly different between the groups. Of the 18 participants in the gabapentin group, 8 (44%) were responders and of the 26 participants in the placebo group, 12 (46%) reported response to treatment (percent difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, -31.6% to 28.2%). Mixed-model analysis of all secondary outcome measures demonstrated no clinically meaningful or statistically significant difference between the gabapentin and placebo groups throughout the trial. There were no serious adverse events.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, gabapentin was not associated with statistically significant or clinically meaningful benefit over placebo and likely is not an efficacious therapy for COVID-19-induced OD.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05184192.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between smell loss and other aspects of disease, and evaluate dupilumab efficacy in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and moderate or severe smell loss.MethodsThis post-hoc analysis of the SINUS-24/52 studies (NCT02912468/NCT02898454) analyzed nasal polyp score (NPS, 0-8), nasal congestion/obstruction (NC, 0-3), Lund-Mackay CT-scan score (LMK-CT, 0-24), rhinosinusitis severity visual analog scale (RS-VAS, 0-10), and 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22, 0-110) according to baseline monthly average patient-reported loss of smell scores (LoS, 0-3) of >1 to 2 (moderate) or >2 to 3 (severe) in patients randomized to dupilumab 300 mg or placebo every 2 weeks.ResultsOf 724 patients randomized, baseline LoS was severe in 601 (83%) and moderate in 106 (15%). At baseline, severe versus moderate LoS was associated with 1-point greater severity of NC (odds ratio [OR] 6.01 [95% confidence interval, (CI) 3.95, 9.15]), 5-point greater severity of LMK-CT (OR 2.19 [1.69, 2.85]), and 8.9-point greater severity of SNOT-22 (OR 1.35 [1.20, 1.49]). At Week 24, least squares mean differences (95% CI) dupilumab versus placebo in change from baseline were: NPS -1.90 (-2.56, -1.25) and -1.95 (-2.20, -1.70) in the moderate and severe baseline LoS subgroups, respectively; NC -.35 (-.64, -.06) and -1.00 (-1.13, -.87); LMK-CT -6.30 (-7.88, -4.72) and -6.22 (-6.82, -5.63); RS-VAS -1.18 (-2.20, -.16) and -3.47 (-3.90, -3.03); and SNOT-22 -7.52 (-14.55, -.48) and -21.72 (-24.63, -18.82); all nominal P < .05 versus placebo. Improvements with dupilumab in NC, RS-VAS, and SNOT-22 were statistically greater in patients with severe versus moderate baseline LoS.ConclusionSignificant smell impairment in severe CRSwNP is associated with significant disease (NC, RS-VAS, LMK), health-related quality of life impairment (SNOT-22), asthma, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease. Dupilumab significantly improved NPS, NC, LMK-CT, RS-VAS, and SNOT-22 in subjects with moderate and severe baseline smell loss.

Dataset Information

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

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets