CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT05947643Updated Aug 20, 2025Results posted

Smell in COVID-19 and Efficacy of Nasal Theophylline (SCENT 3)

A Phase 2 interventional study of theophylline and Placebo in COVID-19, sponsored by Washington University School of Medicine. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 75 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-08-20.

Sponsored by Washington University School of Medicine · Phase 2, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
77
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 75 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The purpose of this Phase II trial is to test the effectiveness of intranasal theophylline irrigations for the treatment of COVID-19 related smell dysfunction. The investigators will compare the effect of theophylline nasal rinses versus placebo nasal rinses on smell symptoms. Participants will be asked to rinse their nose with a medication or placebo capsule dissolved in saltwater twice daily for 12 weeks and fill out surveys about smell before, during, and at the end of treatment.

This study will also be used to describe adverse effects related to intranasal theophylline irrigation.

Read the detailed description

COVID-related olfactory dysfunction (OD) is a major symptom of infection with SARS-COV-2, affecting up to 80% of those with COVID-19. While research on the pathogenesis is ongoing, a significant subset is expected to suffer from long-term OD. The investigators seek to test intranasal theophylline nasal irrigation as a potential therapeutic option for treatment of COVID-related OD lasting over 3 months.

Theophylline has been shown to improve outcomes in post-viral OD in pilot studies, and initial data suggests therapeutic benefit in patients with post-COVID OD with minimal systemic absorption.

The primary hypothesis is that theophylline irrigation will be more effective than placebo saline irrigation for COVID-19 related OD symptoms. The use of intranasal theophylline will have minimal adverse effects.

02

Conditions studied

  • COVID-19

Keywords

  • Nasal Theophylline
  • Olfactory disfunction
  • Anosmia
  • Gustatory disorders
  • Dysgeusia
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 75 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Participants will be recruited based on the following inclusion criteria:

    1. males and females ages 18 to 75 years
    2. located within or willing to travel to the state of Missouri or Illinois
    3. Olfactory dysfunction that has persisted for >3 months following suspected COVID-19 infection
    4. Baseline University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) consistent with decreased olfactory function (\<= 34 in women, \<=33 in men). This test is a clinically validated 40-question forced-choice odor identification test where microencapsulated odorants on a strip are released by scratching.70 This will determine that patients have both subjectively and objectively diagnosed OD prior to undergoing treatment.
    5. Ability to read, write, and understand English and have access to email.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Individuals will not be allowed to participate in this study if they meet one or more of the following exclusion criteria:

    1. History of olfactory dysfunction prior to COVID-19 infection
    2. Any use of concomitant therapies specifically for the treatment of olfactory dysfunction
    3. Use of or participation in previous trials of intranasal theophylline.
    4. Known existence of nasal polyps, prior sinonasal, or anterior skull-based surgery
    5. Dependence on theophylline for comorbid conditions such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
    6. History of an allergic reaction to theophylline or other methylxanthines
    7. History of neurodegenerative disease (ie. Alzheimer's dementia, Parkinson's disease, Lewy body dementia, frontotemporal dementia)
    8. Pregnant or breastfeeding mothers.
    9. Current use of medications with significant (≥40%) interactions with theophylline, which include cimetidine, ciprofloxacin, disulfiram, enoxacin, fluvoxamine, interferon- alpha, lithium, mexiletine, phenytoin, propafenone, propranolol, tacrine, thiabendazole, ticlopidine, and troleandomycin.
04

Study design

Phase
Phase 2
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
Double (Participant, Investigator)
Enrollment
77 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Theophylline

    Participants will dissolve the contents of the 400 mg theophylline capsules (experimental) into the sinus rinse bottle containing nasal saline.

    Drug: theophylline

  • Placebo comparator
    Placebo

    Participant will dissolve the contents of the identical-appearing lactose capsules (control) into the sinus rinse bottle containing nasal saline.

    Drug: Placebo

Interventions

  • Drugtheophylline

    capsules dissolved in intranasal irrigation

  • DrugPlacebo

    identical-appearing lactose capsules dissolved in intranasal irrigation

    Also known as: inactive medicine

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Clinical Global Impression - Improvement Scale

    The Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (CGI-I) is a subjective rating scale used to measure changes in a patient's condition over time. It ranges from 1 to 7, where 1 means "Very Much Improved," 2 means "Much Improved," 3 means "Minimally Improved," 4 means "No Change," 5 means "Minimally Worse," 6 means "Much Worse," and 7 means "Very Much Worsened." In this study, participants reporting scores of 1, 2, or 3 on the CGI-I are considered responders to treatment. The primary analysis will compare the proportion of responders between the theophylline and placebo groups assessing both within-subject changes over time and between-group differences. We will measure the response rate defined as the number of participants self-reporting minimal change or larger in the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) scale, divided by the number of participants in each group.The main comparison will be focused on changes at 12-weeks

    Time frame: week 12

Secondary outcomes

  1. Olfactory Dysfunction Outcomes Rating

    Olfactory Dysfunction Outcomes Rating (ODOR) is a disease-specific questionnaire that assesses for physical, functional, and emotional limitations in participants with olfactory dysfunction of any etiology. The instrument contains 28 total items with each scored on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 to 4. Total score ranges from 0 to 112. Higher scores indicate higher degree of dysfunction and limitation.

    Time frame: 6 weeks and 12 week

  2. Assessment of Adherence

    Participants will be contacted to report the number of irrigations completed over the prior 7 days out of a possible 14. Participants report their compliance with the twice-daily nasal irrigations through self-reported measures in REDCap surveys, including how many rinses they have completed. The measure count represents the self-reported compliance with twice daily irrigations.

    Time frame: 12 weeks

  3. Assessment of Blind

    The assessment of the blind in this study involves contacting participants within the first 3 weeks after starting nasal irrigations and asking them which treatment arm they believe they were assigned to-either "theophylline and nasal saline irrigation" or "nasal saline irrigation alone." The numbers reported represent how many participants correctly guessed an arm in which they were assigned to.

    Time frame: within first 3 weeks

  4. Adverse Effects

    Patients will be asked to report any adverse effects they experience at any time during the 12-week study period. An adverse event in this study refers to any undesirable or unintended medical occurrence experienced by a participant during the trial, which may or may not be related to the use of intranasal theophylline.

    Time frame: up to 12 weeks

06

Results

Posted Aug 20, 2025
Limitations and caveats
The exact pathogenesis of COVID-related anosmia remains unclear, complicating targeted treatment development. Prior treatments like corticosteroids and olfactory training have shown limited or variable efficacy, and no gold standard exists.

Participant flow

Per protocol the study plans to enroll 240 patients to account for a 20% dropout rate, aiming to have 200 evaluable participants for the trial. Reported are 77 randomized patients.

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneTheophyllinePlacebo
Started3938
Completed2127
Not completed1811

Outcome measures

PrimaryClinical Global Impression - Improvement Scale

The Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (CGI-I) is a subjective rating scale used to measure changes in a patient's condition over time. It ranges from 1 to 7, where 1 means "Very Much Improved," 2 means "Much Improved," 3 means "Minimally Improved," 4 means "No Change," 5 means "Minimally Worse," 6 means "Much Worse," and 7 means "Very Much Worsened." In this study, participants reporting scores of 1, 2, or 3 on the CGI-I are considered responders to treatment. The primary analysis will compare the proportion of responders between the theophylline and placebo groups assessing both within-subject changes over time and between-group differences. We will measure the response rate defined as the number of participants self-reporting minimal change or larger in the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) scale, divided by the number of participants in each group.The main comparison will be focused on changes at 12-weeks

Time frame:
week 12
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Clinical Global Impression - Improvement Scale
ParticipantsTheophyllinePlacebo
Clinical Global Impression - Improvement Scale99
SecondaryOlfactory Dysfunction Outcomes Rating

Olfactory Dysfunction Outcomes Rating (ODOR) is a disease-specific questionnaire that assesses for physical, functional, and emotional limitations in participants with olfactory dysfunction of any etiology. The instrument contains 28 total items with each scored on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 to 4. Total score ranges from 0 to 112. Higher scores indicate higher degree of dysfunction and limitation.

Time frame:
6 weeks and 12 week
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale (0-112)
Olfactory Dysfunction Outcomes Rating
score on a scale (0-112)TheophyllinePlacebo
6 weeks43.38 (34.35 to 52.41)45.96 (38.21 to 53.72)
12 weeks43.94 (35.08 to 52.80)45.26 (37.33 to 53.18)
SecondaryAssessment of Adherence

Participants will be contacted to report the number of irrigations completed over the prior 7 days out of a possible 14. Participants report their compliance with the twice-daily nasal irrigations through self-reported measures in REDCap surveys, including how many rinses they have completed. The measure count represents the self-reported compliance with twice daily irrigations.

Time frame:
12 weeks
Reported as:
Number · participants
Assessment of Adherence
participantsTheophyllinePlacebo
6 days11
8 days10
10 days11
11 days10
12 days51
13 days24
14 days1825
SecondaryAssessment of Blind

The assessment of the blind in this study involves contacting participants within the first 3 weeks after starting nasal irrigations and asking them which treatment arm they believe they were assigned to-either "theophylline and nasal saline irrigation" or "nasal saline irrigation alone." The numbers reported represent how many participants correctly guessed an arm in which they were assigned to.

Time frame:
within first 3 weeks
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Assessment of Blind
ParticipantsTheophyllinePlacebo
Assessment of Blind2026
SecondaryAdverse Effects

Patients will be asked to report any adverse effects they experience at any time during the 12-week study period. An adverse event in this study refers to any undesirable or unintended medical occurrence experienced by a participant during the trial, which may or may not be related to the use of intranasal theophylline.

Time frame:
up to 12 weeks
Reported as:
Number · participants
Adverse Effects
participantsTheophyllinePlacebo
Mild nose bleed10
Dry nose noted and blood-tinged nasal discharge10
Small amount of epistaxis and cold during the first week.10
Upper respiratory infection and sleep disturbing cough10
Little hard red bumps inside and outside of nose.01
Migraine01
Participant developed a sinus infection03
Patient developed nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea01
Nasal soreness01
Urine in blood01

Adverse events

Collected over Adverse event data will be collected throughout the entire 12-week study period. Specifically, participants will be asked about adverse events during phone check-ins at weeks 3, 6, 9, and 12. Additionally, participants can report adverse events at any time by contacting the study team via phone or pager, who are available 24/7 during the trial.. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Theophylline0/39 (0%)0/39 (0%)4/39 (10.3%)
Placebo0/38 (0%)0/38 (0%)8/38 (21.1%)
Most frequent other events
Most frequent other events
EventTheophyllinePlacebo
Participants developed a sinus infectionGeneral disorders0/393/38
Little hard red bumps inside and outside of noseGeneral disorders0/391/38
MigraineGeneral disorders0/391/38
Patient developed nausea, vomiting and diarrheaGeneral disorders0/391/38
Nasal sorenessGeneral disorders0/391/38
Urine in bloodGeneral disorders0/391/38
mid nose bleedGeneral disorders1/390/38
Dry nose noted and blood tingled nasal dischargeGeneral disorders1/390/38
Small amount of epistaxis and cold during the first weekGeneral disorders1/390/38
Upper respiratory of infection and sleep disturbing coughGeneral disorders1/390/38

Baseline characteristics

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)TheophyllinePlaceboTotal
Mean47 ± 1449 ± 1348 ± 13
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)TheophyllinePlaceboTotal
Female302656
Male91221
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity, Customized(Participants)TheophyllinePlaceboTotal
American Indian or Alaskan Native011
Asian000
Black or African American202
Hispanic or Latino101
Native Hawaiian or pacific Islander000
White182543
Asian and White011
Parosmia
Parosmia(Participants)TheophyllinePlaceboTotal
Yes282957
No11920
Phantosmia
Phantosmia(Participants)TheophyllinePlaceboTotal
Yes171734
No222143
The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test
The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test(score on a scale (0-40))TheophyllinePlaceboTotal
Median25 (5 to 34)28 (7 to 34)25 (5 to 34)
The Olfactory Dysfunction Outcomes Rating
The Olfactory Dysfunction Outcomes Rating(score on a scale 0-112)TheophyllinePlaceboTotal
Median52 (0 to 105)47 (14 to 89)49 (0 to 105)
Clinical Global Impression of Severity of Smell Loss
Clinical Global Impression of Severity of Smell Loss(Participants)TheophyllinePlaceboTotal
Absent7613
Poor252146
Fair5914
Good011
Very Good011
Excellent202
07

Study locations

1 site
  • Washington University School of Medicine
    St Louis, Missouri 63110, United States
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Kaye R, Chang CWD, Kazahaya K, Brereton J, Denneny JC 3rd. COVID-19 Anosmia Reporting Tool: Initial Findings. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020 Jul;163(1):132-134. doi: 10.1177/0194599820922992. Epub 2020 Apr 28. PubMed 32340555 ↗
  • Meng X, Deng Y, Dai Z, Meng Z. COVID-19 and anosmia: A review based on up-to-date knowledge. Am J Otolaryngol. 2020 Sep-Oct;41(5):102581. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102581. Epub 2020 Jun 2. PubMed 32563019 ↗
  • Whitcroft KL, Hummel T. Clinical Diagnosis and Current Management Strategies for Olfactory Dysfunction: A Review. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 Sep 1;145(9):846-853. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2019.1728. PubMed 31318413 ↗
  • Dong E, Ratcliff J, Goyea TD, Katz A, Lau R, Ng TK, Garcia B, Bolt E, Prata S, Zhang D, Murray RC, Blake MR, Du H, Ganjkhanloo F, Ahmadi F, Williams J, Choudhury S, Gardner LM. The Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering COVID-19 Dashboard: data collection process, challenges faced, and lessons learned. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022 Dec;22(12):e370-e376. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00434-0. Epub 2022 Aug 31. PubMed 36057267 ↗
  • Menni C, Valdes AM, Polidori L, Antonelli M, Penamakuri S, Nogal A, Louca P, May A, Figueiredo JC, Hu C, Molteni E, Canas L, Osterdahl MF, Modat M, Sudre CH, Fox B, Hammers A, Wolf J, Capdevila J, Chan AT, David SP, Steves CJ, Ourselin S, Spector TD. Symptom prevalence, duration, and risk of hospital admission in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 during periods of omicron and delta variant dominance: a prospective observational study from the ZOE COVID Study. Lancet. 2022 Apr 23;399(10335):1618-1624. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00327-0. Epub 2022 Apr 7. PubMed 35397851 ↗
  • Chen M, Pekosz A, Villano JS, Shen W, Zhou R, Kulaga H, Li Z, Smith A, Gurung A, Beck SE, Witwer KW, Mankowski JL, Ramanathan M Jr, Rowan NR, Lane AP. Evolution of nasal and olfactory infection characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 variants. J Clin Invest. 2024 Mar 14;134(8):e174439. doi: 10.1172/JCI174439. PubMed 38483537 ↗
  • Sedaghat AR, Gengler I, Speth MM. Olfactory Dysfunction: A Highly Prevalent Symptom of COVID-19 With Public Health Significance. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020 Jul;163(1):12-15. doi: 10.1177/0194599820926464. Epub 2020 May 5. PubMed 32366160 ↗
  • Moein ST, Hashemian SM, Mansourafshar B, Khorram-Tousi A, Tabarsi P, Doty RL. Smell dysfunction: a biomarker for COVID-19. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2020 Aug;10(8):944-950. doi: 10.1002/alr.22587. Epub 2020 Jun 18. PubMed 32301284 ↗
  • Menni C, Sudre CH, Steves CJ, Ourselin S, Spector TD. Quantifying additional COVID-19 symptoms will save lives. Lancet. 2020 Jun 20;395(10241):e107-e108. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31281-2. Epub 2020 Jun 4. No abstract available. PubMed 32505221 ↗
  • Carfi A, Bernabei R, Landi F; Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group. Persistent Symptoms in Patients After Acute COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Aug 11;324(6):603-605. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.12603. PubMed 32644129 ↗
  • Tan BKJ, Han R, Zhao JJ, Tan NKW, Quah ESH, Tan CJ, Chan YH, Teo NWY, Charn TC, See A, Xu S, Chapurin N, Chandra RK, Chowdhury N, Butowt R, von Bartheld CS, Kumar BN, Hopkins C, Toh ST. Prognosis and persistence of smell and taste dysfunction in patients with covid-19: meta-analysis with parametric cure modelling of recovery curves. BMJ. 2022 Jul 27;378:e069503. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2021-069503. PubMed 35896188 ↗
  • Whitcroft KL, Hummel T. Olfactory Dysfunction in COVID-19: Diagnosis and Management. JAMA. 2020 Jun 23;323(24):2512-2514. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.8391. No abstract available. PubMed 32432682 ↗
  • Catton G, Gardner A. COVID-19 Induced Taste Dysfunction and Recovery: Association with Smell Dysfunction and Oral Health Behaviour. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022 May 26;58(6):715. doi: 10.3390/medicina58060715. PubMed 35743978 ↗
  • Sungnak W, Huang N, Becavin C, Berg M, Queen R, Litvinukova M, Talavera-Lopez C, Maatz H, Reichart D, Sampaziotis F, Worlock KB, Yoshida M, Barnes JL; HCA Lung Biological Network. SARS-CoV-2 entry factors are highly expressed in nasal epithelial cells together with innate immune genes. Nat Med. 2020 May;26(5):681-687. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0868-6. Epub 2020 Apr 23. PubMed 32327758 ↗
  • Rockx B, Kuiken T, Herfst S, Bestebroer T, Lamers MM, Oude Munnink BB, de Meulder D, van Amerongen G, van den Brand J, Okba NMA, Schipper D, van Run P, Leijten L, Sikkema R, Verschoor E, Verstrepen B, Bogers W, Langermans J, Drosten C, Fentener van Vlissingen M, Fouchier R, de Swart R, Koopmans M, Haagmans BL. Comparative pathogenesis of COVID-19, MERS, and SARS in a nonhuman primate model. Science. 2020 May 29;368(6494):1012-1015. doi: 10.1126/science.abb7314. Epub 2020 Apr 17. PubMed 32303590 ↗
  • Zou L, Ruan F, Huang M, Liang L, Huang H, Hong Z, Yu J, Kang M, Song Y, Xia J, Guo Q, Song T, He J, Yen HL, Peiris M, Wu J. SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in Upper Respiratory Specimens of Infected Patients. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 19;382(12):1177-1179. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2001737. Epub 2020 Feb 19. No abstract available. PubMed 32074444 ↗
  • Baig AM, Khaleeq A, Ali U, Syeda H. Evidence of the COVID-19 Virus Targeting the CNS: Tissue Distribution, Host-Virus Interaction, and Proposed Neurotropic Mechanisms. ACS Chem Neurosci. 2020 Apr 1;11(7):995-998. doi: 10.1021/acschemneuro.0c00122. Epub 2020 Mar 13. PubMed 32167747 ↗
  • Brann DH, Tsukahara T, Weinreb C, Lipovsek M, Van den Berge K, Gong B, Chance R, Macaulay IC, Chou HJ, Fletcher RB, Das D, Street K, de Bezieux HR, Choi YG, Risso D, Dudoit S, Purdom E, Mill J, Hachem RA, Matsunami H, Logan DW, Goldstein BJ, Grubb MS, Ngai J, Datta SR. Non-neuronal expression of SARS-CoV-2 entry genes in the olfactory system suggests mechanisms underlying COVID-19-associated anosmia. Sci Adv. 2020 Jul 31;6(31):eabc5801. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abc5801. Epub 2020 Jul 24. PubMed 32937591 ↗
  • Morbini P, Benazzo M, Verga L, Pagella FG, Mojoli F, Bruno R, Marena C. Ultrastructural Evidence of Direct Viral Damage to the Olfactory Complex in Patients Testing Positive for SARS-CoV-2. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020 Oct 1;146(10):972-973. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2020.2366. No abstract available. PubMed 32790835 ↗
  • Politi LS, Salsano E, Grimaldi M. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Alteration of the Brain in a Patient With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Anosmia. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Aug 1;77(8):1028-1029. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2125. No abstract available. PubMed 32469400 ↗
  • Pekala K, Chandra RK, Turner JH. Efficacy of olfactory training in patients with olfactory loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2016 Mar;6(3):299-307. doi: 10.1002/alr.21669. Epub 2015 Dec 1. PubMed 26624966 ↗
  • Wilson DA, Best AR, Sullivan RM. Plasticity in the olfactory system: lessons for the neurobiology of memory. Neuroscientist. 2004 Dec;10(6):513-24. doi: 10.1177/1073858404267048. PubMed 15534037 ↗
  • Kollndorfer K, Kowalczyk K, Hoche E, Mueller CA, Pollak M, Trattnig S, Schopf V. Recovery of olfactory function induces neuroplasticity effects in patients with smell loss. Neural Plast. 2014;2014:140419. doi: 10.1155/2014/140419. Epub 2014 Dec 3. PubMed 25544900 ↗
  • Hoffman HJ, Rawal S, Li CM, Duffy VB. New chemosensory component in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES): first-year results for measured olfactory dysfunction. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2016 Jun;17(2):221-40. doi: 10.1007/s11154-016-9364-1. PubMed 27287364 ↗
  • Liu B, Luo Z, Pinto JM, Shiroma EJ, Tranah GJ, Wirdefeldt K, Fang F, Harris TB, Chen H. Relationship Between Poor Olfaction and Mortality Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Cohort Study. Ann Intern Med. 2019 May 21;170(10):673-681. doi: 10.7326/M18-0775. Epub 2019 Apr 30. PubMed 31035288 ↗
  • Pinto JM, Wroblewski KE, Kern DW, Schumm LP, McClintock MK. Olfactory dysfunction predicts 5-year mortality in older adults. PLoS One. 2014 Oct 1;9(10):e107541. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107541. eCollection 2014. PubMed 25271633 ↗
  • Van Regemorter V, Hummel T, Rosenzweig F, Mouraux A, Rombaux P, Huart C. Mechanisms Linking Olfactory Impairment and Risk of Mortality. Front Neurosci. 2020 Feb 21;14:140. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00140. eCollection 2020. PubMed 32153360 ↗
  • Soler ZM, Patel ZM, Turner JH, Holbrook EH. A primer on viral-associated olfactory loss in the era of COVID-19. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2020 Jul;10(7):814-820. doi: 10.1002/alr.22578. Epub 2020 Jun 1. PubMed 32271490 ↗
  • Bitter T, Gudziol H, Burmeister HP, Mentzel HJ, Guntinas-Lichius O, Gaser C. Anosmia leads to a loss of gray matter in cortical brain areas. Chem Senses. 2010 Jun;35(5):407-15. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjq028. Epub 2010 Mar 15. PubMed 20231262 ↗
  • Murphy C, Schubert CR, Cruickshanks KJ, Klein BE, Klein R, Nondahl DM. Prevalence of olfactory impairment in older adults. JAMA. 2002 Nov 13;288(18):2307-12. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.18.2307. PubMed 12425708 ↗
  • Cho SH. Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment of Olfactory Dysfunction. Hanyang Med Rev. 2014;34(3):107-115.
  • Schiffman SS, Warwick ZS. Flavor enhancement of foods for the elderly can reverse anorexia. Neurobiol Aging. 1988 Jan-Feb;9(1):24-6. doi: 10.1016/s0197-4580(88)80009-5. PubMed 3164095 ↗
  • Hendriks AP. Olfactory dysfunction. Rhinology. 1988 Dec;26(4):229-51. PubMed 3070710 ↗
  • Reden J, Mueller A, Mueller C, Konstantinidis I, Frasnelli J, Landis BN, Hummel T. Recovery of olfactory function following closed head injury or infections of the upper respiratory tract. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006 Mar;132(3):265-9. doi: 10.1001/archotol.132.3.265. PubMed 16549746 ↗
  • RECOVERY Collaborative Group; Horby P, Lim WS, Emberson JR, Mafham M, Bell JL, Linsell L, Staplin N, Brightling C, Ustianowski A, Elmahi E, Prudon B, Green C, Felton T, Chadwick D, Rege K, Fegan C, Chappell LC, Faust SN, Jaki T, Jeffery K, Montgomery A, Rowan K, Juszczak E, Baillie JK, Haynes R, Landray MJ. Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 25;384(8):693-704. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2021436. Epub 2020 Jul 17. PubMed 32678530 ↗
  • Sorokowska A, Drechsler E, Karwowski M, Hummel T. Effects of olfactory training: a meta-analysis. Rhinology. 2017 Mar 1;55(1):17-26. doi: 10.4193/Rhino16.195. PubMed 28040824 ↗
  • Konstantinidis I, Tsakiropoulou E, Bekiaridou P, Kazantzidou C, Constantinidis J. Use of olfactory training in post-traumatic and postinfectious olfactory dysfunction. Laryngoscope. 2013 Dec;123(12):E85-90. doi: 10.1002/lary.24390. Epub 2013 Oct 4. PubMed 24114690 ↗
  • Konstantinidis I, Tsakiropoulou E, Constantinidis J. Long term effects of olfactory training in patients with post-infectious olfactory loss. Rhinology. 2016 Jun;54(2):170-5. doi: 10.4193/Rhino15.264. PubMed 27017331 ↗
  • Hura N, Xie DX, Choby GW, Schlosser RJ, Orlov CP, Seal SM, Rowan NR. Treatment of post-viral olfactory dysfunction: an evidence-based review with recommendations. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2020 Sep;10(9):1065-1086. doi: 10.1002/alr.22624. Epub 2020 Jun 25. PubMed 32567798 ↗
  • Cerebrolycin for Treatment of Covid-related Anosmia and Ageusia.
  • Moon C, Simpson PJ, Tu Y, Cho H, Ronnett GV. Regulation of intracellular cyclic GMP levels in olfactory sensory neurons. J Neurochem. 2005 Oct;95(1):200-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2005.03356.x. PubMed 16181424 ↗
  • Pace U, Hanski E, Salomon Y, Lancet D. Odorant-sensitive adenylate cyclase may mediate olfactory reception. Nature. 1985 Jul 18-24;316(6025):255-8. doi: 10.1038/316255a0. PubMed 3927168 ↗
  • Barnes PJ. Theophylline. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2010 Mar 18;3(3):725-747. doi: 10.3390/ph3030725. PubMed 27713276 ↗
  • Ronnett GV, Parfitt DJ, Hester LD, Snyder SH. Odorant-sensitive adenylate cyclase: rapid, potent activation and desensitization in primary olfactory neuronal cultures. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991 Mar 15;88(6):2366-9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.88.6.2366. PubMed 2006174 ↗
  • Anholt RR. Molecular neurobiology of olfaction. Crit Rev Neurobiol. 1993;7(1):1-22. PubMed 8467526 ↗
  • Neumann S, Bradke F, Tessier-Lavigne M, Basbaum AI. Regeneration of sensory axons within the injured spinal cord induced by intraganglionic cAMP elevation. Neuron. 2002 Jun 13;34(6):885-93. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00702-x. PubMed 12086637 ↗
  • Henkin RI, Velicu I. cAMP and cGMP in nasal mucus: relationships to taste and smell dysfunction, gender and age. Clin Invest Med. 2008;31(2):E71-7. doi: 10.25011/cim.v31i2.3366. PubMed 18377763 ↗
  • Henkin RI, Velicu I. cAMP and cGMP in nasal mucus related to severity of smell loss in patients with smell dysfunction. Clin Invest Med. 2008;31(2):E78-84. doi: 10.25011/cim.v31i2.3367. PubMed 18377764 ↗
  • Henkin RI, Velicu I, Schmidt L. An open-label controlled trial of theophylline for treatment of patients with hyposmia. Am J Med Sci. 2009 Jun;337(6):396-406. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3181914a97. PubMed 19359985 ↗
  • Levy LM, Henkin RI, Lin CS, Hutter A, Schellinger D. Increased brain activation in response to odors in patients with hyposmia after theophylline treatment demonstrated by fMRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1998 Sep-Oct;22(5):760-70. doi: 10.1097/00004728-199809000-00019. PubMed 9754114 ↗
  • AlAjmi MF, Azhar A, Owais M, Rashid S, Hasan S, Hussain A, Rehman MT. Antiviral potential of some novel structural analogs of standard drugs repurposed for the treatment of COVID-19. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2021 Oct;39(17):6676-6688. doi: 10.1080/07391102.2020.1799865. Epub 2020 Jul 30. PubMed 32729392 ↗
  • Elzupir AO. Caffeine and caffeine-containing pharmaceuticals as promising inhibitors for 3-chymotrypsin-like protease of SARS-CoV-2. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2022 Mar;40(5):2113-2120. doi: 10.1080/07391102.2020.1835732. Epub 2020 Oct 23. PubMed 33094705 ↗
  • Tomita K, Chikumi H, Tokuyasu H, Yajima H, Hitsuda Y, Matsumoto Y, Sasaki T. Functional assay of NF-kappaB translocation into nuclei by laser scanning cytometry: inhibitory effect by dexamethasone or theophylline. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 1999 Apr;359(4):249-55. doi: 10.1007/pl00005349. PubMed 10344522 ↗
  • Henkin RI, Schultz M, Minnick-Poppe L. Intranasal theophylline treatment of hyposmia and hypogeusia: a pilot study. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012 Nov;138(11):1064-70. doi: 10.1001/2013.jamaoto.342. PubMed 23165381 ↗
  • Goldstein MF, Hilditch GJ, Frankel I, Chambers L, Dvorin DJ, Belecanech G. Intra-Nasal Theophylline for the Treatment of Chronic Anosmia and Hyposmia. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2017;139(2):AB252.
  • Gupta S, Lee JJ, Perrin A, Khan A, Smith HJ, Farrell N, Kallogjeri D, Piccirillo JF. Efficacy and Safety of Saline Nasal Irrigation Plus Theophylline for Treatment of COVID-19-Related Olfactory Dysfunction: The SCENT2 Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022 Sep 1;148(9):830-837. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2022.1573. PubMed 35797024 ↗
  • Dunlop BW, Gray J, Rapaport MH. Transdiagnostic Clinical Global Impression Scoring for Routine Clinical Settings. Behav Sci (Basel). 2017 Jun 27;7(3):40. doi: 10.3390/bs7030040. PubMed 28653978 ↗
  • Barnes PJ. Theophylline in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: new horizons. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2005;2(4):334-9; discussion 340-1. doi: 10.1513/pats.200504-024SR. PubMed 16267358 ↗
  • Tzelepis GE, Bascom AT, Safwan Badr M, Goshgarian HG. Effects of theophylline on pulmonary function in patients with traumatic tetraplegia. J Spinal Cord Med. 2006;29(3):227-33. doi: 10.1080/10790268.2006.11753878. PubMed 16859226 ↗
  • Yu TJ, Liu YC, Chu CM, Hu HC, Kao KC. Effects of theophylline therapy on respiratory muscle strength in patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation: A retrospective cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Jan;98(2):e13982. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000013982. PubMed 30633180 ↗
  • McKay SE, Howie CA, Thomson AH, Whiting B, Addis GJ. Value of theophylline treatment in patients handicapped by chronic obstructive lung disease. Thorax. 1993 Mar;48(3):227-32. doi: 10.1136/thx.48.3.227. PubMed 8497820 ↗
  • Hosein W, Henkin RI. Therapeutic diminution of Interleukin-10 with intranasal theophylline administration in hyposmic patients. Am J Otolaryngol. 2022 Mar-Apr;43(2):103375. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2022.103375. Epub 2022 Jan 28. PubMed 35124402 ↗
  • Lee JJ, Peterson AM, Kallogjeri D, Jiramongkolchai P, Kukuljan S, Schneider JS, Klatt-Cromwell CN, Drescher AJ, Brunworth JD, Piccirillo JF. Smell Changes and Efficacy of Nasal Theophylline (SCENT) irrigation: A randomized controlled trial for treatment of post-viral olfactory dysfunction. Am J Otolaryngol. 2022 Mar-Apr;43(2):103299. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2021.103299. Epub 2021 Dec 3. PubMed 34894449 ↗
  • Lee JJ, Gupta S, Kallogjeri D, Piccirillo JF. Safety of High-Dose Nasal Theophylline Irrigation in the Treatment of Postviral Olfactory Dysfunction: A Dose-Escalation Study. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022 Sep 1;148(9):885-886. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2022.1574. PubMed 35797023 ↗
  • Doty RL, Shaman P, Dann M. Development of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test: a standardized microencapsulated test of olfactory function. Physiol Behav. 1984 Mar;32(3):489-502. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(84)90269-5. PubMed 6463130 ↗
  • Theophylline in Dextrose [package insert]. Lake Forest, IL: Hospira, INC;2008

Study documents

  • Protocol and statistical analysis plan · Mar 6, 2023

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05947643
Lead sponsor
Washington University School of Medicine
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jul 17, 2023
Start date
Nov 22, 2022
Primary completion
Apr 24, 2025
Completion
Aug 4, 2025
Results posted
Aug 20, 2025
Last update
Aug 20, 2025

Study contacts

Jay F Piccirillo, MD
principal investigator · Washington University School of Medicine

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
Yes
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion