Recovery rates of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction using psychophysical assessment: A longitudinal cohort study.

Objectives: Persistent olfactory dysfunction (OD) following loss of smell associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is a major feature of long COVID. Perspectives on the prevalence of persistent OD predominantly rely on self-reported olfactory function. Few studies have tracked longitudinal rates of recovery using psychophysical assessment among patients presenting for evaluation of persistent OD beyond a window of acute recovery. Data anchored in standardized testing methods are needed to counsel patients who fail to acutely regain their sense of smell. This study aims to quantify the degree of persistent OD in post-COVID-19 patients who experience subjective and psychophysical OD. Methods: We grouped participants presenting for OD evaluation into cohorts based on both subjective and psychophysical olfactory status at a baseline assessment and assessed their olfactory abilities with a visual analogue scale and the Sniffin' Sticks extended test at baseline and 1-year time points. Participants had confirmed a history of COVID-19 by lab evaluation or clinical diagnosis if lab evaluation was not available. Results: Baseline olfactory evaluation was completed by 122 participants, 53 of whom completed the 1-year follow-up assessment. Among participants presenting with perceived OD, 74.5% had confirmed psychophysical OD at baseline, with 55.1% at 1-year follow-up. Participants had reliable trends in self-rated versus psychophysically tested olfactory function at both time points. The total threshold, discrimination, and identification (TDI) score improved by +3.25 points in the cohort with psychophysical OD (p = 0.0005), with this improvement largely attributable to an increase in median threshold scores (+2.75 points; p = 0.0004). Conclusions: OD persists in a significant number of patients who fail to acutely recovery their sense of smell after COVID-19, with many demonstrating lingering deficits at 1-year. Improvements in threshold, but not discrimination or identification, most significantly mediate improvement of total TDI score at follow-up.

Subjective versus Psychophysical Measures of Chemosensory Alterations following COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Olfactory dysfunction is a common symptom of COVID-19. However, subjective perception of olfactory function does not always correlate well with more objective measures. This study seeks to clarify associations between subjective and psychophysical measures of olfaction and gustation in patients with subjective chemosensory dysfunction following COVID-19. METHODS: Adults with persistent COVID-19-associated chemosensory disturbance were recruited for a prospective, longitudinal cohort study at a tertiary care institution. Participants provided subjective measures of olfactory and gustatory function and underwent psychophysical assessment using Sniffin' Sticks olfactory and Monell gustatory tests. RESULTS: Data analysis (n = 65) showed a statistically significant association between subjective and psychophysical measures of olfaction (p < 0.001). For each one-point increase in subjectively-reported olfactory ability, there is, on average, a 0.11 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.16; p < 0.001) point increase in TDI score while adjusting for age at baseline assessment, sex, and follow-up time. For each one-point increase in subjectively-reported olfactory ability, there is, on average, a 0.04 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.06; p < 0.001) point and 0.05 (95% CI: 0.03, 0.07; p < 0.001) point increase in discrimination and identification scores, respectively, when adjusting for age at baseline assessment, sex, and follow-up time. CONCLUSION: Subjective olfaction shows a mild to moderate association with psychophysical measures, but it fails to comprehensively assess persistent COVID-19-associated chemosensory deficits. The lack of significant association between subjective olfaction and threshold limits the utility of subjective olfaction in tracking recovery. These findings support the push for more widespread psychophysical chemosensory testing.

Predictors of Sinonasal Improvement After Highly Effective Modulator Therapy in Adults with Cystic Fibrosis.

OBJECTIVES: The 22-question SinoNasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) assesses chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) severity. We aimed to identify predictors of SNOT-22 score improvement following highly effective modulator therapy (HEMT) initiation and to corroborate the SNOT-22 minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in adults with cystic fibrosis (CF). METHODS: Prospective observational data was pooled from four studies across 10 US centers investigating people with CF (PwCF) and CRS. Three studies evaluated HEMT's impact on CRS. For participants enrolled prior to HEMT initiation, SNOT-22 scores were obtained at baseline and after 3-6 months of HEMT. Multivariate regression identified predictors of improvement. Cronbach's alpha and four distribution-based methods were used to assess internal consistency and calculate the MCID of the SNOT-22. RESULTS: A total of 184 PwCF participated with mean baseline SNOT-22 scores ranging from 18.1 to 56.7. Cronbach's alpha was ≥0.90 across sites. Participants at sites with pre- and post-HEMT data reported improvement in SNOT-22 scores after initiating HEMT (all p < 0.05). Worse baseline SNOT-22 score (odds ratio (OR): 1.05, p < 0.001, 95% CI: 1.02-1.08), F508del homozygosity (OR: 4.30, p = 0.040, 95% CI: 1.14-18.99), and absence of prior modulator therapy (OR: 4.99, p = 0.017, 95% CI: 1.39-20.11) were associated with greater SNOT-22 improvement. The mean MCID calculated via distribution-based methods was 8.5. CONCLUSION: Worse baseline sinonasal symptoms, F508del homozygosity, and absence of prior modulator therapy predicted greater improvement after HEMT initiation. The mean MCID for SNOT-22 in PwCF is 8.5 points, similar to non-CF individuals with CRS, and provides a threshold specifically for PwCF. The SNOT-22 has strong internal consistency in PwCF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 134:3965-3973, 2024.

Surgical and medical management of chronic rhinosinusitis in pediatric cystic fibrosis patients: Impact on olfactory symptoms.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Olfactory dysfunction (OD) commonly occurs in patients with sinonasal dysfunction, but the prevalence and severity of olfactory issues in adolescents with cystic fibrosis (AwCF) is unclear. OD may contribute to dietary deficiencies and exacerbate nutritional challenges. We sought to review literature on the effectiveness of medical and surgical management of sinonasal symptoms in AwCF and the associated impact on olfactory function. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Ebsco CINAHL from 1980 to 2022 per PRISMA-ScR protocols to conduct a scoping review in an effort to compile data on study design, patient demographics, clinical characteristics and outcomes, along with risk of bias. RESULTS: Of 368 abstracts, 3 articles exclusively evaluated AwCF for a total of 34 patients. Two studies evaluated endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) and dornase alfa. An additional 6 articles were included for mixed pediatric and adult CF populations totaling 313 patients. Interventions included ESS, elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor (ETI), ivacaftor, saline, dornase alfa, hyaluronic acid, and hyaluronic acid-tobramycin combination. Outcome measures included subjective assessment of OD using non-validated (4/9) and validated (4/9) surveys, and psychophysical (1/9) smell testing. Studies evaluating ESS, FESS, dornase alfa, ivacaftor, and both hypertonic and isotonic saline reported statistically significant improvement in OD, whereas ETI failed to improve OD despite improvement in other quality of life measures. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited data regarding the impact of medical and surgical interventions on olfaction for AwCF. Assessment of olfaction was often limited to subjective and qualitative self-report. We suggest that tracking of olfactory outcomes with psychophysical testing is critical in this population with dietary challenges and weight management issues.

Associations between olfactory dysfunction and cognition: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Strong evidence suggests that olfactory dysfunction (OD) can predict additional neurocognitive decline in neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. However, research exploring olfaction and cognition in younger populations is limited. The aim of this review is to evaluate cognitive changes among non-elderly adults with non-COVID-19-related OD. METHODS: We performed a structured comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library in developing this scoping review. The primary outcome of interest was the association between OD and cognitive functioning in adults less than 60 years of age. RESULTS: We identified 2878 studies for title and abstract review, with 167 undergoing full text review, and 54 selected for data extraction. Of these, 34 studies reported on populations of individuals restricted to the ages of 18-60, whereas the remaining 20 studies included a more heterogeneous population with the majority of individuals in this target age range in addition to some above the age of 60. The etiologies for smell loss among the included studies were neuropsychiatric disorders (37%), idiopathic cause (25%), type 2 diabetes (7%), trauma (5%), infection (4%), intellectual disability (4%), and other (18%). Some studies reported numerous associations and at times mixed, resulting in a total number of associations greater than the included number of 54 studies. Overall, 21/54 studies demonstrated a positive association between olfaction and cognition, 7/54 demonstrated no association, 25/54 reported mixed results, and only 1/54 demonstrated a negative association. CONCLUSION: Most studies demonstrate a positive correlation between OD and cognition, but the data are mixed with associations less robust in this young adult population compared to elderly adults. Despite the heterogeneity in study populations and outcomes, this scoping review serves as a starting point for further investigation on this topic. Notably, as many studies in this review involved disorders that may have confounding effects on both olfaction and cognition, future research should control for these confounders and incorporate non-elderly individuals with non-psychiatric causes of smell loss.

Determining the minimal clinically important difference for the questionnaire of olfactory disorders in people with cystic fibrosis and factors associated with improvement after highly effective modulator therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is common among people with cystic fibrosis (PwCF). The Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders (QOD) is a validated instrument that evaluates olfactory-specific quality-of-life. The QOD minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and factors associated with olfactory improvement after elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor have not been determined for PwCF. METHODS: Prospective observational data were pooled from three studies that enrolled adult PwCF with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). QOD scores and disease characteristics were assessed. To evaluate internal consistency and calculate the QOD MCID, Cronbach's alpha and four distribution-based methods were employed. For participants who enrolled prior to elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor, QOD scores were obtained at baseline and after elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor initiation. Multivariable regression was used to identify factors associated with QOD improvement. RESULTS: Of 129 PwCF included, 65 had QOD scores before and 3-6 months after starting elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor. Mean baseline QOD score was 6.5 ± 7.9. Mean Cronbach's alpha was ≥0.85. The MCID estimates were as follows: Cohen's effect size = 1.6, standard error of measurement = 2.5, ½ baseline standard deviation = 4.0, and minimal detectable change = 6.9. Mean MCID was 3.7. Of those with pre/post elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor QOD scores, the mean change in QOD was -1.3 ± 5.4. After elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor, QOD improvement surpassed the MCID in 22% of participants (14/65). Worse baseline QOD scores and nasal polyps were associated with improved QOD scores after elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor (both p < 0.04). CONCLUSION: The QOD MCID in PwCF was estimated to be 3.7. Elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor led to qualitative but not clinically meaningful improvements in QOD score for most PwCF; PwCF with worse baseline QOD scores and nasal polyps improved in a clinically significant manner.