Postinfectious conditions challenge disease-specificity of SNOT-22.

PURPOSE: The Sino-Nasal-Outcome-Test 22 (SNOT-22) questionnaire assesses treatment outcome and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). However, given the overlap between CRS and olfaction in terms of nasal function and the definition of CRS, a fundamental question arises: can patients with olfactory dysfunction (OD) stemming from other causes attain SNOT-22 scores similar to those seen in CRS, even in the absence of CRS? Our study aimed to explore whether OD arising from various postinfectious mechanisms challenges the disease-specificity of SNOT-22 for CRS. If so, could focus on scores within specific symptom domains of SNOT-22 prove valuable in distinguishing between different etiologies. METHODS: The study adopted an observational, retrospective cohort design based on prospectively registered patients and related variables using the REDCap platform. 460 patients experiencing OD due to either (1) simple or (2) complex post-COVID-19, (3) postinfectious non-COVID-19, and (4) CRS, were included in the analysis. RESULTS: The study revealed that the total SNOT-22 score lacks disease-specificity for CRS. This is evident, because complex postinfectious mechanisms resulting from COVID-19 can produce similar symptoms in patients. Notably, elevated total scores were primarily driven by high subdomain scores within the "sleep and cognition" domain. CONCLUSIONS: The application of SNOT-22 as a screening tool needs to be approached with caution, as the total score alone does not provide disease-specific insights. A more thorough exploration of the four symptom domains and the identification of distinctive scoring patterns within the clinical context may prove pivotal in effectively differentiating between various underlying causes.

International clinical assessment of smell: An international, cross-sectional survey of current practice in the assessment of olfaction.

OBJECTIVES: Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is common and carries significant personal and societal burden. Accurate assessment is necessary for good clinical and research practice but is highly dependent on the assessment technique used. Current practice with regards to UK/international clinical assessment is unknown. We aimed to capture current clinical practice, with reference to contemporaneously available guidelines. We further aimed to compare UK to international practice. DESIGN: Anonymous online questionnaire with cross-sectional non-probability sampling. Subgroup analysis according to subspeciality training in rhinology ('rhinologists' and 'non-rhinologists') was performed, with geographical comparisons only made according to subgroup. PARTICIPANTS: ENT surgeons who assess olfaction. RESULTS: Responses were received from 465 clinicians (217 from UK and 17 countries total). Country-specific response rate varied, with the lowest rate being obtained from Japan (1.4%) and highest from Greece (72.5%). Most UK clinicians do not perform psychophysical smell testing during any of the presented clinical scenarios-though rhinologists did so more often than non-rhinologists. The most frequent barriers to testing related to service provision (e.g., time/funding limitations). Whilst there was variability in practice, in general, international respondents performed psychophysical testing more frequently than those from the UK. Approximately 3/4 of all respondents said they would like to receive training in psychophysical smell testing. Patient reported outcome measures were infrequently used in the UK/internationally. More UK respondents performed diagnostic MRI scanning than international respondents. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive UK-based, and only international survey of clinical practice in the assessment of OD. We present recommendations to improve practice, including increased education and funding for psychophysical smell testing. We hope this will promote accurate and reliable olfactory assessment, as is the accepted standard in other sensory systems.

Frequent reversible causes to deteriorised or lost olfactory or gustatory function.

Change in olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunction have gained attention in recent years because of COVID-19. However, these symptoms are common and have numerous different aetiologies, which should not be forgotten. Adequate diagnostic work up and clinical examination is essential. Treatment may include olfactory training, topically applied steroids and perhaps surgery. This review summarises common reversible causes of olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunction and current treatment modalities.

The Association Between Smoking on Olfactory Dysfunction in 3,900 Patients With Olfactory Loss.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The association between smoking and olfactory loss remains a conundrum. Prior studies have found negative and positive effects of smoking on olfactory function in the general population. However, smoking cessation seems to improve both rated and measured olfactory function. The purpose of this study was to investigate the olfactory function and smoking habits in patients with olfactory loss caused by different etiologies to unveil underlying patterns related to smoking. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. METHODS: Patients were included from two specialized taste and smell centers. Patients underwent olfactory testing, clinical examination including rhinoscopy, and the underlying etiology was identified. Patterns of olfactory test scores, demographics, and etiologies were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 3,900 patients with olfactory loss were included. Of these, 521 were current smokers, and 316 were former smokers. Patients with a history of smoking did not have significantly lower olfactory function. Current smokers were more often affected by posttraumatic olfactory loss, but not sinonasal, postviral, or idiopathic olfactory loss. CONCLUSIONS: Current smoking, but not former smoking, was associated with posttraumatic olfactory loss. In relation to measured olfactory function, a history of smoking was not associated to lower olfactory scores. Our findings suggest that the general recommendations of smoking cessation for patients with olfactory loss are especially relevant for patients with posttraumatic olfactory loss. The nature of this association between current smoking and posttraumatic olfactory loss has yet to be elucidated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b Laryngoscope, 131:E8-E13, 2021.

More Than Smell-COVID-19 Is Associated With Severe Impairment of Smell, Taste, and Chemesthesis.

Recent anecdotal and scientific reports have provided evidence of a link between COVID-19 and chemosensory impairments, such as anosmia. However, these reports have downplayed or failed to distinguish potential effects on taste, ignored chemesthesis, and generally lacked quantitative measurements. Here, we report the development, implementation, and initial results of a multilingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in 3 distinct chemosensory modalities (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) before and during COVID-19. In the first 11 days after questionnaire launch, 4039 participants (2913 women, 1118 men, and 8 others, aged 19-79) reported a COVID-19 diagnosis either via laboratory tests or clinical assessment. Importantly, smell, taste, and chemesthetic function were each significantly reduced compared to their status before the disease. Difference scores (maximum possible change ±100) revealed a mean reduction of smell (-79.7 ± 28.7, mean ± standard deviation), taste (-69.0 ± 32.6), and chemesthetic (-37.3 ± 36.2) function during COVID-19. Qualitative changes in olfactory ability (parosmia and phantosmia) were relatively rare and correlated with smell loss. Importantly, perceived nasal obstruction did not account for smell loss. Furthermore, chemosensory impairments were similar between participants in the laboratory test and clinical assessment groups. These results show that COVID-19-associated chemosensory impairment is not limited to smell but also affects taste and chemesthesis. The multimodal impact of COVID-19 and the lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus strain 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms.