Neuromodulators for Atypical Facial Pain and Neuralgias: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of neuromodulating agents for the management of atypical facial pain and primary facial neuralgias. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for original research articles that examine the effectiveness and adverse reactions of pharmacologic therapy for the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia and atypical facial pain. Studies that included surgical interventions for atypical facial pain or facial pain secondary to other causes were excluded. Meta-analysis was conducted for reductions in symptom scores and adverse effects. Results: Of 3,409 articles screened, 73 full-text articles were included, consisting of 45 observational studies and 29 randomized controlled trials. Twenty-four different pharmacological agents were assessed; carbamazepine was the most frequently studied while botulinum toxin A demonstrated the highest consistency in reduction of symptom scores. Pooled estimate of three randomized controlled trials revealed that patients with trigeminal neuralgia who received botulinum toxin A had higher odds (odds ratio 7.46; 95% CI 3.53–15.78) of achieving a ≥50% reduction in visual analogue scale scores compared to controls. Pooled estimate of 15 observational studies showed that three-fourths of patients with trigeminal neuralgia who received carbamazepine experienced clinically significant pain reduction (prevalence proportion 0.75; 95% CI 0.66–0.83). Conclusions: Patients receiving botulinum toxin A for trigeminal neuralgia had higher odds of achieving ≥50% reduction in pain scores. A significant proportion of patients with trigeminal neuralgia experienced positive response to carbamazepine. There was moderate evidence for amitriptyline in patients with atypical facial pain. Standardization of outcome reporting would facilitate future quantitative comparisons of therapeutic effectiveness. Laryngoscope, 2020

Olfactory Training for Postviral Olfactory Dysfunction: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective: Olfactory dysfunction is a common problem that is most frequently attributed to upper respiratory infection. Postviral olfactory dysfunction (PVOD) can be prolonged and clinically challenging to treat. Olfactory training (OT) has demonstrated potential benefit for patients with nonspecific olfactory dysfunction. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of OT specifically for PVOD by pooled analysis of the existing evidence. Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Review Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were queried and abstracts screened independently by 2 investigators. We included studies evaluating the efficacy of OT for PVOD and excluded studies evaluating pharmacologic interventions or olfactory loss from other causes. Results: Of the initial 1981 abstracts reviewed, 16 full-text articles were included. Sniffin’ Sticks olfactory testing results were reported in 15 (93%) studies as threshold (T), discrimination (D), and identification (I) subscores and TDI total scores. All studies reported clinically significant results after OT, defined as a score improvement of TDI >5.5. Four studies were included in the meta-analysis, in which pooled estimates revealed that patients with PVOD who received OT had a 2.77 (95% confidence interval, 1.67-4.58) higher odds of achieving a clinically important difference in TDI scores compared to controls. Conclusion: Meta-analysis of existing data demonstrates clinically significant improvements in PVOD associated with OT. Variability exists among OT protocols and may benefit from further optimization. Existing data supports the use of OT for the treatment of existing and newly emerging cases of PVOD