Development and Validation of a Novel At-home Smell Assessment

Clinical studies in COVID-related olfactory disorders: Review of an institutional experience

Objective

To share a single institutional experience with clinical research on COVID-related olfactory dysfunction (OD).

Data Source/Method

Narrative review of published original data and ongoing clinical trials on COVID-related OD at Washington University from 2020 to 2023.

Results

There were three new diagnostic-/patient-reported outcome measures developed and tested. We report five clinical trials of interventions for COVID-related olfactory disorders: combined Visual-Olfactory Training (VOLT) with patient-preferred scents versus standard olfactory training (VOLT trial), oral gabapentin versus placebo (Gabapentin for the Relief of Acquired Chemosensory Experience trial), nasal theophylline irrigations versus placebo (Smell Changes and Efficacy of Nasal Theophylline trial), stellate ganglion block (single-arm), and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) versus lifestyle intervention (MBSR trial).

Conclusions

Initial intervention trials for COVID-related OD have shown potential for improving subjective and objective olfactory outcomes. However, there remains no gold standard treatment that definitively outperforms placebo in controlled trials. Therefore, continued investigation of novel therapeutic strategies for COVID-related OD is necessary to maximize olfactory outcomes for affected patients.

Remote olfactory assessment using the NIH Toolbox Odor Identification test and the brain health registry

BACKGROUND

Early identification of deficits in our ability to perceive odors is important as many normal (i.e., aging) and pathological (i.e., sinusitis, viral, neurodegeneration) processes can result in diminished olfactory function. To realistically enable population-level measurements of olfaction, validated olfaction tests must be capable of being administered outside the research laboratory and clinical setting.

AIM

The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of remotely testing olfactory performance using a test that was developed with funding from the National Institutes of Health as part of a ready-to-use, non-proprietary set of measurements useful for epidemiologic studies (NIH Toolbox Odor ID Test).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eligible participants older than 39 years and active (within 6 months) in the Brain Health Registry (BHR), an online cognitive assessment platform which connects participants with researchers, were recruited for this study. Interested participants were mailed the NIH Toolbox Odor ID Test along with instructions on accessing a website to record their responses. Data obtained from subjects who performed the test at home was compared to the normative data collected when the NIH Toolbox Odor ID Test was administered by a tester in a research setting and validated against the Smell Identification Test. The age-range and composition of the population ensured we had the ability to observe both age-related decline and gender-related deficits in olfactory ability, as shown in the experimental setting.

RESULTS

We observed that age-associated olfactory decline and gender-associated performance was comparable to performance on the administered test. Self-administration of this test showed the age-related loss in olfactory acuity, F(4, 1156)=14.564, p<.0001 as well as higher accuracy for women compared to men after controlling for participants' age, F(1, 1160) = 22.953, p <.0001. The effect size calculated as Hedge's g, was 0.41.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that the NIH Toolbox Odor ID Test is an appropriate instrument for self-administered assessment of olfactory performance. The ability to self-administer an inexpensive olfactory test increases its utility for inclusion in longitudinal epidemiological studies and when in-person testing is not feasible.

Olfactory and cognitive decrements in 1991 Gulf War veterans with gulf war illness/chronic multisymptom illness

BACKGROUND

Gulf War illness (GWI)/Chronic Multisymptom Illness (CMI) is a disorder related to military service in the 1991 Gulf War (GW). Prominent symptoms of GWI/CMI include fatigue, pain, and cognitive dysfunction. Although anosmia is not a typical GWI/CMI symptom, anecdotally some GW veterans have reported losing their sense smell shortly after the war. Because olfactory deficit is a prodromal symptom of neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, and because we previously reported suggestive evidence that deployed GW veterans may be at increased risk for Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and dementia, the current study examined the relationship between olfactory and cognitive function in deployed GW veterans.

METHODS

Eighty deployed GW veterans (mean age: 59.9  ±7.0; 4 female) were tested remotely with the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Veterans also completed self-report questionnaires about their health and deployment-related exposures and experiences. UPSIT and MoCA data from healthy control (HC) participants from the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) study were downloaded for comparison.

RESULTS

GW veterans had a mean UPSIT score of 27.8  ± 6.3 (range 9-37) and a mean MoCA score of 25.3  ± 2.8 (range 19-30). According to age- and sex-specific normative data, 31% of GW veterans (vs. 8% PPMI HCs) had UPSIT scores below the 10th percentile. Nearly half (45%) of GW veterans (vs. 8% PPMI HCs) had MoCA scores below the cut-off for identifying MCI. Among GW veterans, but not PPMI HCs, there was a positive correlation between UPSIT and MoCA scores (Spearman's ρ = 0.39, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in UPSIT or MoCA scores between GW veterans with and without history of COVID or between those with and without Kansas GWI exclusionary conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence of olfactory and cognitive deficits and a significant correlation between UPSIT and MoCA scores in a cohort of 80 deployed GW veterans, 99% of whom had CMI. Because impaired olfactory function has been associated with increased risk for MCI and dementia, it may be prudent to screen aging, deployed GW veterans with smell identification tests so that hypo- and anosmic veterans can be followed longitudinally and offered targeted neuroprotective therapies as they become available.

Efficacy of Gabapentin For Post-COVID-19 Olfactory Dysfunction: The GRACE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The COVID-19 pandemic affected millions of people and has become a dominant etiology of olfactory dysfunction (OD). No interventions with definitive clinical utility exist. Gabapentin represents a potential therapy for COVID-19-induced OD.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of oral gabapentin on olfactory function and olfaction-related quality of life in patients with COVID-19-induced OD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This pilot double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted at Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis from January 7, 2022, to February 3, 2023. Adults with at least 3 months of OD after COVID-19 infection were eligible for inclusion. Participants with a history of other causes of OD or contraindications to gabapentin were excluded.

Intervention

Patients were randomized 1:1 to oral gabapentin or placebo. All patients underwent titration to a maximum tolerable dose, which was maintained during an 8-week fixed-dose (FD) phase then tapered off. Participants were monitored for 4 weeks following cessation of study medication.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes were assessed following the 8-week FD phase and 4 weeks after taper completion. The primary outcome measure was the response rate determined by subjective improvement in OD on the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) after the FD phase. Other subjective and objective measures of olfactory function were also assessed as secondary outcome measures.

Results

Sixty-eight participants were enrolled (34 randomized to each arm), a total of 44 participants completed the FD period and 20 (45.4%) reported response to treatment with at least slight improvement in olfaction from baseline. Of those randomized, 51 (75%) were women and 56 were White (82%) with a mean (SD) age of 43 (13.5) years. Baseline demographic features including age, sex, and race and ethnicity were not significantly different between the groups. Of the 18 participants in the gabapentin group, 8 (44%) were responders and of the 26 participants in the placebo group, 12 (46%) reported response to treatment (percent difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, -31.6% to 28.2%). Mixed-model analysis of all secondary outcome measures demonstrated no clinically meaningful or statistically significant difference between the gabapentin and placebo groups throughout the trial. There were no serious adverse events.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, gabapentin was not associated with statistically significant or clinically meaningful benefit over placebo and likely is not an efficacious therapy for COVID-19-induced OD.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05184192.

Psychophysical assessment of olfactory and gustatory function in post-mild COVID-19 patients: A matched case-control study with 2-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to psychophysically evaluate the prevalence of smell and taste dysfunction 2 years after mildly symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection compared to that observed at 1-year follow-up and while considering the background of chemosensory dysfunction in the no-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) population.

METHOD

This is a prospective case-control study on 93 patients with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection and 93 matched controls. Self-reported olfactory and gustatory dysfunction was assessed by 22-item Sino-Nasal-Outcome Test (SNOT-22), item "Sense of smell or taste." Psychophysical orthonasal and retronasal olfactory function and gustatory performance were estimated using the extended Sniffin' Sticks test battery, 20 powdered tasteless aromas, and taste strips test, respectively. Nasal trigeminal sensitivity was assessed by sniffing a 70% solution of acetic acid.

RESULTS

The two psychophysical assessments of chemosensory function took place after a median of 409 days (range, 366-461 days) and 765 days (range, 739-800 days) from the first SARS-CoV-2-positive swab, respectively. At 2-year follow-up, cases exhibited a decrease in the prevalence of olfactory (27.9% vs. 42.0%; absolute difference, -14.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -21.8% to -2.6%; p = 0.016) and gustatory dysfunction (14.0% vs. 25.8%; absolute difference, -11.8%; 95% CI, -24.2% to 0.6%; p = 0.098). Subjects with prior COVID-19 were more likely than controls to have an olfactory dysfunction (27.9% vs. 10.8 %; absolute difference, 17.2%; 95% CI, 5.2% to 28.8%) but not gustatory dysfunction (14.0% vs. 9.7%; absolute difference, 4.3%; 95% CI, -5.8% to 14.4% p = 0.496) still 2 years after the infection. Overall, 3.2% of cases were still anosmic 2 years after the infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a proportion of subjects recovered from long-lasting smell/taste dysfunction more than 1 year after COVID-19, cases still exhibited a significant excess of olfactory dysfunction 2 years after SARS-CoV-2 infection when compared to matched controls.

The assessment of qualitative olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review of tools and their content validity

Background

There is a lack of overview of the tools used to assess qualitative olfactory dysfunction, including parosmia and phantosmia, following COVID-19 illness. This could have an impact on the diagnosis and treatment offered to patients. Additionally, the formulations of symptoms are inconsistent and often unclear, and consensus around the wording of questions and responses is needed.

Aim of study

The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of tools used to assess qualitative olfactory dysfunction after COVID-19, in addition to addressing the content validity (i.e., item and response formulations) of these tools.

Methods

MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched 5th of August 2022 and updated on the 25th of April 2023 to identify studies that assess qualitative olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients. Primary outcomes were the tool used (i.e., questionnaire or objective test) and item and response formulations. Secondary outcomes included psychometric properties, study design, and demographic variables.

Results

The assessment of qualitative olfactory dysfunction is characterized by heterogeneity, inconsistency, and lack of validated tools to determine the presence and degree of symptoms. Several tools with overlapping and distinct features were identified in this review, of which some were thorough and detailed, while others were merely assessing the presence of symptoms as a binary measure. Item and response formulations are also inconsistent and often used interchangeably, which may lead to confusion, incorrect diagnoses, and inappropriate methods for solving the problem.

Conclusions

There is an unmet need for a reliable and validated tool for assessing qualitative olfactory dysfunction, preferably one that also captures quantitative olfactory issues (i.e., loss of smell), to ensure time-effective and specific assessment of the ability to smell. A consensus around the formulation of items and response options is also important to increase the understanding of the problem, both for clinicians, researchers, and the patient, and ultimately to provide the appropriate diagnosis and treatment.

Registration and protocol

The URL is https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=351621. A preregistered protocol was submitted and accepted (12.09.22) in the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) with the registration number CRD42022351621.

Post-COVID-19 Anosmia and Therapies: Stay Tuned for New Drugs to Sniff Out

Background: Anosmia is defined as the complete absence of olfactory function, which can be caused by a variety of causes, with upper respiratory tract infections being among the most frequent causes. Anosmia due to SARS-CoV-2 infection has attracted attention given its main role in symptomatology and the social impact of the pandemic. Methods: We conducted systematic research in a clinicaltrials.gov database to evaluate all active clinical trials worldwide regarding drug therapies in adult patients for anosmia following SARS-CoV-2 infection with the intention of identifying the nearby prospects to treat Anosmia. We use the following search terms: "Anosmia" AND "COVID-19" OR "SARS-CoV-2" OR "2019 novel coronavirus". Results: We found 18 active clinical trials that met our criteria: one phase 1, one phase 1-2, five phases 2, two phases 2-3, three phases 3, and six phases 4 studies were identified. The drug therapies that appear more effective and promising are PEA-LUT and Cerebrolysin. The other interesting drugs are 13-cis-retinoic acid plus aerosolized Vitamin D, dexamethasone, and corticosteroid nasal irrigation. Conclusions: COVID-19 has allowed us to highlight how much anosmia is an important and debilitating symptom for patients and, above all, to direct research to find a therapy aimed at curing the symptom, whether it derives from SARS-CoV-2 infection or other infections of the upper airways. Some of these therapies are very promising and are almost at the end of experimentation. They also provide hope in this field, which not addressed until recently.

Olfactory Function and Olfactory Disorders

The sense of smell is important. This became especially clear to patients with infection-related olfactory loss during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We react, for example, to the body odors of other humans. The sense of smell warns us of danger, and it allows us to perceive flavors when eating and drinking. In essence, this means quality of life. Therefore, anosmia must be taken seriously. Although olfactory receptor neurons are characterized by regenerative capacity, anosmia is relatively common with about 5 % of anosmic people in the general population. Olfactory disorders are classified according to their causes (e. g., infections of the upper respiratory tract, traumatic brain injury, chronic rhinosinusitis, age) with the resulting different therapeutic options and prognoses. Thorough history taking is therefore important. A wide variety of tools are available for diagnosis, ranging from short screening tests and detailed multidimensional test procedures to electrophysiological and imaging methods. Thus, quantitative olfactory disorders are easily assessable and traceable. For qualitative olfactory disorders such as parosmia, however, no objectifying diagnostic procedures are currently available. Therapeutic options for olfactory disorders are limited. Nevertheless, there are effective options consisting of olfactory training as well as various additive drug therapies. The consultation and the competent discussion with the patients are of major importance.

A quick test to objectify smell and taste dysfunction at home: a proof of concept for the validation of the chemosensory perception test

Recent studies have shown the efficacy of a home test for the self-evaluation of olfactory and gustatory functions in quarantined coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, testing was often limited to COVID-19 participants, and the accuracy of home test kits was rarely compared to standardized testing. This study aims at providing proof of concept for the validation of the new Chemosensory Perception Test (CPT) developed to remotely assess orthonasal olfactory, retronasal olfactory, and gustatory functions in various populations using common North American household items. In the 2 experiments, a total of 121 participants irrespective of having olfactory and/or gustatory complaints from various causes (COVID-19, sinunasal, post-viral, idiopathic) were tested first, with one or many of the following tests: (i) a brief chemosensory questionnaire, (ii) an olfactory test-Sniffin' Sticks Test (SST) or University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), and/or (iii) a gustatory test-Brief Waterless Empirical Taste Test (B-WETT). We then applied the CPT which yielded 3 different subscores, namely orthonasal, retronasal, and gustatory CPT scores. The orthonasal CPT score was significantly correlated with SST (ρ = 0.837, P < 0.001) and UPSIT (ρ = 0.364, P < 0.001) scores, and exhibited an excellent accuracy to identify olfactory dysfunction (OD) as compared to SST (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.923 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.822-1.000], P < 0.001). The retronasal CPT score but not the gustatory CPT score allowed to distinguish between participants with or without subjective gustatory complaint (AUC: 0.818 [95% CI, 0.726-0.909], P < 0.001). The CPT has the ability to identify OD and to quantify subjective gustatory complaints.

Exploring the research landscape of COVID-19-induced olfactory dysfunction: A bibliometric study

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, olfactory dysfunction (OD) has become an important and persistent legacy problem that seriously affects the quality of life. The purpose of this paper is to quantitatively analyze and visualize the current research status and development trend of COVID-19 related OD by using VOSviewer software. Based on the Web of Science database, a total of 1,592 relevant documents were retrieved in January 2023, with publication time spanning from 2020 to 2023. The bibliometric analysis revealed that the most influential research results in the field of COVID-19 related OD were concentrated in journals of related disciplines such as otorhinolaryngology, medicine, general and internal, virology, neurosciences, etc. The knowledge base of the research is mainly formed in two fields: COVID-19 clinical research and OD specialized research. The research hotspots are mainly concentrated in six directions: COVID-19, long COVID, smell, anosmia, OD, and recovery. Based on the results of the bibliometric analysis, the temporal trends of COVID-19 related OD studies were visually revealed, and relevant suggestions for future research were proposed.

Development and Psychometric Validation of the Olfactory Dysfunction Outcomes Rating

Importance

Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is an increasingly common and morbid condition, especially given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the ability to reproducibly measure smell loss-associated quality of life (QOL) and its response to treatment is paramount.

Objective

To develop and validate a concise and visually appealing smell loss-associated QOL patient-reported outcome measure for OD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A secondary analysis of comments to an online survey by 1000 patients with olfactory dysfunction published in 2013 was used as the primary source to generate items of the Olfactory Dysfunction Outcomes Rating (ODOR). In addition, 30 patients with OD enrolled in 2 clinical studies at a tertiary care medical center (Washington University) were asked to identify their main concerns associated with smell loss. And finally, 4 otolaryngologists reviewed the items generated from the online survey and the patients' interviews to identify any additional items. Prospective study design was used for data collection from the 30 patients and 4 otolaryngologists. Prospective study design was used for survey validation. Validation of the ODOR was performed with 283 patients enrolled in several prospective studies at a single institution that completed the ODOR as an outcome measure.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Item generation and selection were the outcomes of ODOR development. The psychometric and clinimetric measures evaluated for validation were internal consistency, test-retest reliability, face and content validity, concurrent validity, and discriminant validity. Minimal clinically important difference was also determined.

Results

The ODOR is a 28-item instrument with each item scored as either no difficulty or very rarely bothered (0) to complete difficulty or very frequently bothered (4) with a total instrument score range of 0 to 112 points. Higher scores indicate higher degree of dysfunction and limitation. Validation in the cohort of 283 patients (mean [SD] age, 47.0 [14.4] years; 198 female participants [73%]; 179 White participants [80%]) revealed that the instrument has high internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.968), test-retest reliability (r = 0.90 [95% CI, 0.81-0.95]), face validity, content validity, concurrent validity (r = 0.87 [95% CI, 0.80-0.91] compared with the Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders-Negative Statements; ρ = -0.76 [95% CI, -0.81 to -0.71] compared with a patient-reported symptom severity scale), and divergent validity (mean score difference, -33.9 [95% CI, -38.3 to -29.6] between normosmic patients and hyposmic/anosmic patients). The minimal clinically important difference was 15 points. The estimated time for survey completion was approximately 5 minutes.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this survey creation and validation study, the ODOR was shown to be a novel, concise, reliable, and valid patient-reported outcome measure of OD-associated QOL. It can be used to measure physical problems, functional limitations, and emotional consequences associated with OD and how they change after a given intervention, which is clinically applicable and particularly pertinent given the growing burden of OD associated with COVID-19.

Psychophysical Testing in Chemosensory Disorders

Purpose of Review

To provide an overview of psychophysical testing in olfaction and gustation.

Recent Findings

Subjective patient report correlates poorly with objective assessment of olfaction and gustation. It is therefore important that clinicians and researchers perform psychophysical testing during chemosensory assessment. There are several validated psychophysical tests of olfaction and gustation, with ongoing developments accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. These tests have been culturally and linguistically adapted globally. Screening tests have been developed with careful consideration to distinguish normosmics from those with olfactory dysfunction.

Summary

Validated chemosensory tools are available for use by the clinician to support screening, diagnosis, or monitoring. There are promising advances in self-assessment and screening that provide avenues for the development of a standardised pathway for identification and formal assessment of patients with smell and taste disorders.

Revealing the mystery of persistent smell loss in Long COVID patients

COVID-19 is hopefully approaching its end in many countries as herd immunity develops and weaker strains of SARS-CoV-2 dominate. However, a new concern occurs over the long-term effects of COVID-19, collectively called "Long COVID", as some symptoms of the nervous system last even after patients recover from COVID-19. This review focuses on studies of anosmia, i.e., impairment of smell, which is the most common sensory defect during the disease course and is caused by olfactory dysfunctions. It remains mysterious how the olfactory functions are affected since the virus can't invade olfactory receptor neurons. We describe several leading hypotheses about the mystery in hope to provide insights into the pathophysiology and treatment strategies for anosmia.