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.

Covid-19 affects taste independent of taste-smell confusions: results from a combined chemosensory home test and online survey from a large global cohort.

People often confuse smell loss with taste loss, so it is unclear how much gustatory function is reduced in patients self-reporting taste loss. Our pre-registered cross-sectional study design included an online survey in 12 languages with instructions for self-administering chemosensory tests with 10 household items. Between June 2020 and March 2021, 10,953 individuals participated. Of these, 5,225 self-reported a respiratory illness and were grouped based on their reported COVID test results: COVID-positive (COVID+, N = 3,356), COVID-negative (COVID-, N = 602), and COVID unknown for those waiting for a test result (COVID?, N = 1,267). The participants who reported no respiratory illness were grouped by symptoms: sudden smell/taste changes (STC, N = 4,445), other symptoms excluding smell or taste changes (OthS, N = 832), and no symptoms (NoS, N = 416). Taste, smell, and oral irritation intensities and self-assessed abilities were rated on visual analog scales. Compared to the NoS group, COVID+ was associated with a 21% reduction in taste (95% confidence interval (CI): 15-28%), 47% in smell (95% CI: 37-56%), and 17% in oral irritation (95% CI: 10-25%) intensity. There were medium to strong correlations between perceived intensities and self-reported abilities (r = 0.84 for smell, r = 0.68 for taste, and r = 0.37 for oral irritation). Our study demonstrates that COVID-19-positive individuals report taste dysfunction when self-tested with stimuli that have little to none olfactory components. Assessing the smell and taste intensity of household items is a promising, cost-effective screening tool that complements self-reports and may help to disentangle taste loss from smell loss. However, it does not replace standardized validated psychophysical tests.

Olfactory training in long COVID-19 patients with lasting symptoms including olfactory dysfunction.

INTRODUCTION: Two-thirds of patients with COVID-19 developed smell and taste dysfunction, of whom half experienced improvement within the first month. After six months, 5-15% still suffered from significant olfactory dysfunction (OD). Before COVID-19, olfactory training (OT) was proved to be effective in patients with post-infectious OD. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the progress of olfactory recovery with and without OT in patients with long COVID-19. METHODS: Consecutive patients with long COVID-19 referred to the Flavour Clinic at Gødstrup Regional Hospital, Denmark, were enrolled. The diagnostic set-up at the first visit and follow-up included smell and taste tests, questionnaires, ENT examination and instructions in OT. RESULTS: From January 2021 to April 2022, 52 patients were included due to long COVID-19-related OD. The majority of patients complained of distorted sensory quality, in particular, parosmia. Two-thirds of the patients reported a subjective improvement of their sense of smell and taste along with a significant decline in the negative impact on quality of life (p = 0.0001). Retesting at follow-up demonstrated a significant increase in smell scores (p = 0.023) where a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in smell scores was found in 23% of patients. Full training compliance was significantly associated with the probability of MCID improvement (OR = 8.13; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The average effect of OT is modest; however, full training compliance was significantly associated with an increased probability of a clinically relevant olfactory improvement. FUNDING: none. TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.

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.

Covid-19 affects taste independently of smell: results from a combined chemosensory home test and online survey from a global cohort (N=10,953).

People often confuse smell loss with taste loss, so it is unclear how much gustatory function is reduced in patients self-reporting taste loss. Our pre-registered cross-sectional study design included an online survey in 12 languages with instructions for self-administering chemosensory tests with ten household items. Between June 2020 and March 2021, 10,953 individuals participated. Of these, 3,356 self-reported a positive and 602 a negative COVID-19 diagnosis (COVID+ and COVID-, respectively); 1,267 were awaiting test results (COVID?). The rest reported no respiratory illness and were grouped by symptoms: sudden smell/taste changes (STC, N=4,445), other symptoms excluding smell or taste loss (OthS, N=832), and no symptoms (NoS, N=416). Taste, smell, and oral irritation intensities and self-assessed abilities were rated on visual analog scales. Compared to the NoS group, COVID+ was associated with a 21% reduction in taste (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 15-28%), 47% in smell (95%-CI: 37-56%), and 17% in oral irritation (95%-CI: 10-25%) intensity. In all groups, perceived intensity of smell (r=0.84), taste (r=0.68), and oral irritation (r=0.37) was correlated. Our findings suggest most reports of taste dysfunction with COVID-19 were genuine and not due to misinterpreting smell loss as taste loss (i.e., a classical taste-flavor confusion). Assessing smell and taste intensity of household items is a promising, cost-effective screening tool that complements self-reports and helps to disentangle taste loss from smell loss. However, it does not replace standardized validated psychophysical tests.

Future Directions for Chemosensory Connectomes: Best Practices and Specific Challenges.

Ecological chemosensory stimuli almost always evoke responses in more than one sensory system. Moreover, any sensory processing takes place along a hierarchy of brain regions. So far, the field of chemosensory neuroimaging is dominated by studies that examine the role of brain regions in isolation. However, to completely understand neural processing of chemosensation, we must also examine interactions between regions. In general, the use of connectivity methods has increased in the neuroimaging field, providing important insights to physical sensory processing, such as vision, audition, and touch. A similar trend has been observed in chemosensory neuroimaging, however, these established techniques have largely not been rigorously applied to imaging studies on the chemical senses, leaving network insights overlooked. In this article, we first highlight some recent work in chemosensory connectomics and we summarize different connectomics techniques. Then, we outline specific challenges for chemosensory connectome neuroimaging studies. Finally, we review best practices from the general connectomics and neuroimaging fields. We recommend future studies to develop or use the following methods we perceive as key to improve chemosensory connectomics: (1) optimized study designs, (2) reporting guidelines, (3) consensus on brain parcellations, (4) consortium research, and (5) data sharing.

Systemic corticosteroids in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related smell dysfunction: an international view.

The frequent association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and olfactory dysfunction is creating an unprecedented demand for a treatment of the olfactory loss. Systemic corticosteroids have been considered as a therapeutic option. However, based on current literature, we call for caution using these treatments in early COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction because: (1) evidence supporting their usefulness is weak; (2) the rate of spontaneous recovery of COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction is high; and (3) corticosteroids have well-known potential adverse effects. We encourage randomized placebo-controlled trials investigating the efficacy of systemic steroids in this indication and strongly emphasize to initially consider smell training, which is supported by a robust evidence base and has no known side effects.

Clinical Olfactory Working Group consensus statement on the treatment of postinfectious olfactory dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory tract viruses are the second most common cause of olfactory dysfunction. As we learn more about the effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), with the recognition that olfactory dysfunction is a key symptom of this disease process, there is a greater need than ever for evidence-based management of postinfectious olfactory dysfunction (PIOD). OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to provide an evidence-based practical guide to the management of PIOD (including post-coronavirus 2019 cases) for both primary care practitioners and hospital specialists. METHODS: A systematic review of the treatment options available for the management of PIOD was performed. The written systematic review was then circulated among the members of the Clinical Olfactory Working Group for their perusal before roundtable expert discussion of the treatment options. The group also undertook a survey to determine their current clinical practice with regard to treatment of PIOD. RESULTS: The search resulted in 467 citations, of which 107 articles were fully reviewed and analyzed for eligibility; 40 citations fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 11 of which were randomized controlled trials. In total, 15 of the articles specifically looked at PIOD whereas the other 25 included other etiologies for olfactory dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: The Clinical Olfactory Working Group members made an overwhelming recommendation for olfactory training; none recommended monocycline antibiotics. The diagnostic role of oral steroids was discussed; some group members were in favor of vitamin A drops. Further research is needed to confirm the place of other therapeutic options.

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.

Recent Smell Loss Is the Best Predictor of COVID-19 Among Individuals With Recent Respiratory Symptoms.

In a preregistered, cross-sectional study, we investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19 using a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n = 4148) or negative (C19-; n = 546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified univariate and multivariate predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean ± SD, C19+: -82.5 ± 27.2 points; C19-: -59.8 ± 37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both univariate and multivariate models (ROC AUC = 0.72). Additional variables provide negligible model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms (e.g., fever). Olfactory recovery within 40 days of respiratory symptom onset was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since respiratory symptom onset. We find that quantified smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19 amongst those with symptoms of respiratory illness. To aid clinicians and contact tracers in identifying individuals with a high likelihood of having COVID-19, we propose a novel 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss, the ODoR-19. We find that numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (4 < OR < 10). Once independently validated, this tool could be deployed when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable.

[Taste and smell loss in patients with COVID-19].

In the aftermath of COVID-19, the association between SARS-CoV-2 and chemosensory deficits have been well established. Taste and smell loss have been included in the official lists of symptoms worldwide, as it is a common symptom (and for some patients the only symptom) of COVID-19 as described in this review. Patients with COVID-19 often have combined taste and smell loss, have a milder clinical presentation, and are younger than previous patients with postviral olfactory loss. Patients should start olfactory training early and should be seen by an ear, nose and throat physician if they do not experience improvement of the senses within 12 weeks.

The best COVID-19 predictor is recent smell loss: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has heterogeneous manifestations, though one of the most common symptoms is a sudden loss of smell (anosmia or hyposmia). We investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19. METHODS: This preregistered, cross-sectional study used a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n=4148) or negative (C19-; n=546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified singular and cumulative predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. RESULTS: Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean±SD, C19+: -82.5±27.2 points; C19-: -59.8±37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both single and cumulative feature models (ROC AUC=0.72), with additional features providing no significant model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms, such as fever or cough. Olfactory recovery within 40 days was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since illness onset. CONCLUSIONS: As smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19, we developed the ODoR-19 tool, a 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss. Numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (10

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.

Chemosensory Sensitivity after Coffee Consumption Is Not Static: Short-Term Effects on Gustatory and Olfactory Sensitivity.

Chemosensory sensitivity has great variation between individuals. This variation complicates the chemosensory diagnostics, as well as the creation of a meal with universally high hedonic value. To ensure accurate characterization of chemosensory function, a common rule of thumb is to avoid food/beverages one hour before chemosensory testing. However, the scientific foundation of this time of fast remains unclear. Furthermore, the role of coffee on immediate chemosensitivity is not known and may have implications for optimization of gastronomy and hedonia. The aim of this study is to investigate the modularity effects of coffee consumption on immediate gustatory and olfactory sensitivity. We included 155 participants. By applying tests for olfactory and gustatory sensitivity before and after coffee intake, we found no changes in olfactory sensitivity, but significantly altered sensitivity for some basic tastants. We repeated our experimental paradigm using decaffeinated coffee and found similar results. Our results demonstrate that coffee (regular and decaffeinated) alters the subsequent perception of taste, specifically by increasing the sensitivity to sweet and decreasing the sensitivity to bitter. Our findings provide the first evidence of how coffee impacts short-term taste sensitivity and consequently the way we sense and perceive food following coffee intake-an important insight in the context of gastronomy, as well as in chemosensory testing procedures.