Olfactory training for the treatment of COVID-19 related smell loss: a randomised double-blind controlled trial.

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Rhinology Pub Date : 2025-04-09 DOI:10.4193/Rhin24.081
T L I Serrano, M A Antonio, L T Giacomin, A M Morcillo, J Dirceu Ribeiro, E Sakano
{"title":"Olfactory training for the treatment of COVID-19 related smell loss: a randomised double-blind controlled trial.","authors":"T L I Serrano, M A Antonio, L T Giacomin, A M Morcillo, J Dirceu Ribeiro, E Sakano","doi":"10.4193/Rhin24.081","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Olfactory training is the most widely recommended treatment for smell loss; however, there are no randomised placebo-controlled trials evaluating its effectiveness in COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of isolated training and factors associated to olfactory recovery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a prospective randomised double-blind controlled trial, using standard olfactory training (OT) and placebo (PB) in COVID-19 patients experiencing smell loss. They were followed up for 180 days and assessed with the Connecticut olfactory test (CCCRC) and with subjective methods on a monthly basis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 123 participants completed follow-up: 68 in the OT group and 55 in the PB group. Overall, 84.5% achieved normosmia, with full recovery (FR) significantly higher in PB. At baseline, OT had lower olfactory scores and higher corticosteroid use. Multivariate analysis showed no significant differences in outcomes between groups. Baseline olfactory test scores were the strongest predictors of recovery. Exploratory analyses stratified participants by time to treatment initiation (early ≤ 30 days; late &gt; 30 days), showing a 58% higher chance of FR in the early group for similar CCCRC scores, regardless of management type.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>OT is not superior to PB for treating COVID-19-related smell loss. Better results of first evaluation indicate great chance of full recovery and the use of systemic corticosteroid, in persistent olfactory loss, has not affected outcome.</p>","PeriodicalId":21361,"journal":{"name":"Rhinology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rhinology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4193/Rhin24.081","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Olfactory training is the most widely recommended treatment for smell loss; however, there are no randomised placebo-controlled trials evaluating its effectiveness in COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of isolated training and factors associated to olfactory recovery.

Methods: This is a prospective randomised double-blind controlled trial, using standard olfactory training (OT) and placebo (PB) in COVID-19 patients experiencing smell loss. They were followed up for 180 days and assessed with the Connecticut olfactory test (CCCRC) and with subjective methods on a monthly basis.

Results: A total of 123 participants completed follow-up: 68 in the OT group and 55 in the PB group. Overall, 84.5% achieved normosmia, with full recovery (FR) significantly higher in PB. At baseline, OT had lower olfactory scores and higher corticosteroid use. Multivariate analysis showed no significant differences in outcomes between groups. Baseline olfactory test scores were the strongest predictors of recovery. Exploratory analyses stratified participants by time to treatment initiation (early ≤ 30 days; late > 30 days), showing a 58% higher chance of FR in the early group for similar CCCRC scores, regardless of management type.

Conclusions: OT is not superior to PB for treating COVID-19-related smell loss. Better results of first evaluation indicate great chance of full recovery and the use of systemic corticosteroid, in persistent olfactory loss, has not affected outcome.

嗅觉训练治疗COVID-19相关嗅觉丧失:一项随机双盲对照试验
背景:嗅觉训练是最广泛推荐的治疗嗅觉丧失的方法;然而,尚无随机安慰剂对照试验评估其在COVID-19中的有效性。我们的目的是评估孤立训练的效果和与嗅觉恢复相关的因素。方法:这是一项前瞻性随机双盲对照试验,在嗅觉丧失的COVID-19患者中使用标准嗅觉训练(OT)和安慰剂(PB)。随访180天,采用康涅狄格嗅觉测试(CCCRC)和主观方法每月进行一次评估。结果:共有123名参与者完成随访:OT组68名,PB组55名。总体而言,84.5%的患者达到了正常状态,PB的完全恢复(FR)显著提高。在基线时,OT患者的嗅觉评分较低,皮质类固醇使用较多。多变量分析显示两组结果无显著差异。嗅觉测试的基线分数是康复的最强预测指标。探索性分析根据开始治疗的时间对参与者进行分层(早期≤30天;晚比;30天),无论治疗方式如何,在CCCRC评分相似的早期组中,FR的发生率高58%。结论:OT治疗新冠肺炎相关嗅觉丧失并不优于PB。首次评估结果较好表明完全恢复的机会很大,并且在持续性嗅觉丧失中使用全身皮质类固醇不会影响预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Rhinology
Rhinology 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
15.80
自引率
9.70%
发文量
135
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Rhinology serves as the official Journal of the International Rhinologic Society and is recognized as one of the journals of the European Rhinologic Society. It offers a prominent platform for disseminating rhinologic research, reviews, position papers, task force reports, and guidelines to an international scientific audience. The journal also boasts the prestigious European Position Paper in Rhinosinusitis (EPOS), a highly influential publication first released in 2005 and subsequently updated in 2007, 2012, and most recently in 2020. Employing a double-blind peer review system, Rhinology welcomes original articles, review articles, and letters to the editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信