3.8 Article

Local and systemic administration of corticosteroids in the treatment of olfactory loss

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RHINOLOGY
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 29-33

出版社

OCEAN SIDE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/194589240401800107

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefit of patients with olfactory dysfunction front local (group A) or systemic (group B) administration of corticosteroids. Methods: This unblinded study was conducted at a smell and taste outpatient clinic of an institutional referral center. Patients with olfactory loss after infections of the upper respiratory tract, patients with apparent sinonasal disease, and patients suffering from idiopathic smell loss were included. Effects of mometasone nasal spray, administered for 1-3 months, were studied in 3 7 patients. In addition, effects of oral prednisolone were analyzed in 55 patients who received decreasing doses over 21 days, starting with a dose of 40 mg. Olfactory function before and after treatment was measured. Results: Although odor identification scores tended to increase (p = 0.05), mometasone nasal spray did not significantly improve olfactory function, when looking at the entire group of patients or when analyzing the three diagnostic categories separately. In contrast, after systemic administration of corticosteroids, improvement of olfactory function was seen over all diagnostic categories (p < 0.001). Interestingly, olfactory function also improved in patients diagnosed with olfactory loss after upper respiratory tract infection (p = 0.05) and in patients initially diagnosed with. idiopathic olfactory dysfunction (p = 0.008). Conclusion: In many patients, local application of corticosteroids appears to have little or no positive effect on olfactory dysfunction, especially when considering long-term changes. Duration of disease, the patient's age/sex, or the presence of parosmia does not appear to predict the response to therapy with corticosteroids.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据