Olfactory loss has been identified as one of the common symptoms related to COVID-19 infection. Although olfactory loss is recognized, our understanding of both the extent of loss and time to olfactory recovery following infection is less well known. Similarly, knowledge of potential impactful patient factors and therapies that influence olfactory recovery is desirable but is not overtly clear in the literature. Our systematic review sought to fill this knowledge gap. We included studies that: involved either an observational or an interventional design that reported data on patients with olfactory dysfunction due to Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) diagnosed COVID-19 infection; and reported data regarding olfactory recovery measured by an objective olfactory test, Likert scale and/or visual analog scale (VAS). The study methods were determined a priori and registered in PROSPERO (Registration Number CRD42020204354). An information specialist searched Medline, Embase, LitCovid and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2021, and two reviewers were involved in all aspects of study selection and data collection. After screening 2788 citations, a total of 44 studies of assorted observational designs were included. Patients had undergone objective COVID-19 testing, and most were adult patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Olfactory recovery was found to occur as early as 7 days, with most patients recovering olfaction within 30 days. Few studies included prolonged follow-up to 6 months or longer duration. Poor olfaction at initial presentation was associated with poor recovery rates. Only a small number of studies assessed olfactory retraining and steroid therapy. Additional trials are underway.

BackgroundMany treatment options exist for the management of anterior epistaxis. However, little is known about treatment outcomes. The objective was to identify the currently utilised methods of management and outcomes for patients with anterior epistaxis presenting to the emergency department (ED) at a Canadian tertiary care center.MethodsA retrospective review of ED visits from January 2012-May 2014 for adult patients with a diagnosis of anterior epistaxis was performed. Patient demographic data, comorbidities, and treatment methods were documented. The effectiveness of different treatment modalities was determined.ResultsThree hundred fifty-three primary anterior epistaxis cases were included. Mean patient age was 70 years and 49 % of patients were female. Comorbidities included hypertension (56 %), diabetes (19 %), CAD (28 %), and atrial fibrillation (27 %). A large proportion of the cohort (61 %) was on at least one anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. The most common utilised treatment modalities were silver nitrate cauterization, Merocel®, petroleum gauze packing, nasal clip and 15 % were simply observed. Initial treatment success was achieved in 74 % of cases. Of patients receiving specific treatment modalities, silver nitrate cauterization had the highest success rate at 80 %. 26 % of patients returned to the ED for recurrence of epistaxis with highest rates occurring in the nasal clip (59 %), Merocel® (26 %), and petroleum gauze packing (42 %) groups.ConclusionsThe differences in recurrence rate among the different treatment modalities observed may be due to true differences in effectiveness or differences in treatment selection by the ED physicians based on severity of epistaxis. Cauterization with silver nitrate, however, offers the added benefit of no need for follow up. Further study is needed to elucidate the most efficacious treatment modality based on epistaxis severity.

Background Dupilumab is the first monoclonal antibody therapy to be approved in Canada for the treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps (CRSwNP). The goal of the study was to assess its effectiveness and efficacy in a real-world setting. This study aims to assess how clinical outcomes of biologic therapy in real-world application (effectiveness) correspond to outcomes in clinical trials (efficacy) and to look into factors that might explain an efficacy-effectiveness gap. Methods A retrospective study evaluating disease specific sinonasal outcomes routinely collected for clinical care. This study included patients who were evaluated for coverage of dupilumab at a tertiary care rhinology clinic for the treatment of CRSwNP in the first year since dupilumab was approved in Canada for this indication. Sinonasal outcomes were be evaluated by collecting data on the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT)-22 questionnaire. Results Eighty-five patients were considered for dupilumab therapy during the study period, 49% patients were able to attain coverage for the requested therapy. The mean SNOT-22 score at baseline was 60.56 (SD 21.63). After 16 weeks of treatment the mean SNOT-22 score decreased by 37 points to 23.36; at 28 weeks the mean SNOT-22 was 23.47. After 1 year, the mean SNOT-22 score was 14.37. Conclusion Patients treated with dupilumab for CRSwNP at out tertiary rhinology clinic showed substantial clinical symptom improvement that is similar to that observed in prior randomised clinical trials. No serious adverse effects related to dupilumab were reported in this cohort. Long-term follow-up is needed to inform effectiveness analyses beyond the 1 year clinical trial duration. Graphical Abstract

Positive results were seen with the use of macrolide therapy in the postoperative period in patients with nasal polyps. A firm conclusion with respect to the effectiveness of the use of macrolides for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis cannot be reached based on the available evidence. Further study using a placebo-controlled design evaluating the use of macrolides in clearly defined chronic rhinosinusitis populations is needed.