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 > 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.
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.