Establishing the minimal clinically important difference for the Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders

Effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma in long-lasting post-viral olfactory dysfunction: a case-series

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the platelet-rich plasma (PRP) effectiveness in patients with a long-lasting postviral olfactory dysfunction (LPOD).

METHODS

Forty-three consecutive patients with a long-lasting postviral OD were prospectively recruited. The injection of 1 mL of PRP was carried out in both olfactory clefts. The pre- to 6-month post-PRP injection change in olfaction was assessed with the olfactory disorder questionnaire (ODQ) and the threshold, discrimination, and identification (TDI) tests.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients received bilateral PRP injections (24 females). The mean age of patients was 58.9 ± 16.8 years. The mean duration of LPOD was 8.7 years. The pre to 6-month post-injection mean TDI significantly improved from 10.3 ± 10.2 to 20.12 ± 12.07 (p = 0.001). The mean ODQ significantly decreased from 29.8 ± 13.0 to 23.4 ± 11.3 (p = 0.013). The average change of the TDI and the ODQ were 9.8 and 6.4, respectively. Age was inversely associated with the 6-month threshold score.

CONCLUSION

PRP appears to be a promising therapeutic strategy for long-lasting postviral OD. Our findings support the conduction of controlled randomized trial in this population of patients.

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.

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.

Patterns of Olfactory Impairment Among Patients with Uncontrolled Chronic Rhinosinusitis

OBJECTIVES

Self-reported olfactory dysfunction is an assessment component criterion for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) disease control of the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS). No studies have objectively explored olfactory function across different psychophysical olfactory domains among patients with uncontrolled CRS. We aimed to investigate the patterns of olfactory impairment in patients with uncontrolled CRS with Sniffin' Sticks test.

METHODS

A total of 79 patients with CRS were prospectively recruited and assessed for disease control based on the EPOS criteria. Sniffin' Sticks test scores, olfactory cleft computed tomography (CT) scores, olfactory cleft endoscopy scale (OCES), questionnaire of olfactory disorders-negative statements (QOD-NS), and sinonasal outcome test-22 (SNOT-22) were obtained. Multiple logistic regression was applied to explore risk factors of uncontrolled CRS.

RESULTS

Twenty-six percent of patients with CRS presented with uncontrolled status. The odor threshold (OT) (p = 0.005), odor identification (OI) (p = 0.041), and thresholds-discrimination-identification (TDI) (p = 0.029) scores were significantly lower in patients with uncontrolled CRS when compared with patients with controlled CRS. Furthermore, patients with uncontrolled CRS presented with a significantly increased percentage of anosmia (p = 0.014), olfactory cleft CT score (p = 0.038), OCES (p = 0.016), QOD-NS(p = 0.008), and SNOT-22 (p < 0.001) scores than patients with controlled CRS. After adjusting for patient demographics, as for the subdomain of olfaction, only the OT score was an independent risk factor for uncontrolled CRS (odds ratio = 0.604; p = 0.030). The OT scores less than 5.950 were the best predictor of uncontrolled CRS.

CONCLUSION

Patients with uncontrolled CRS demonstrated distinct patterns of olfactory impairment, and a reduced olfactory threshold was highly associated with uncontrolled CRS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 134:2341-2348, 2024.

Variability in Minimal Clinically Important Difference Calculation and Reporting in the Otolaryngology Literature

OBJECTIVE

Best practices for calculation of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of outcome measures include the use of complementary methodologies (broadly classified as anchor-based and distribution-based) and reporting of the MCID's predictive ability. We sought to determine MCID calculation and reporting patterns within the otolaryngology literature.

METHODS

A systematic search strategy of Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases was developed and implemented to identify studies reporting the determination of an MCID for an outcome measure. Studies specifically within the otolaryngology literature (defined as journals classified as "otorhinolaryngology" in the Journal Citation Reports database) were included. All those journals were additionally searched for relevant articles.

RESULTS

There were 35 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 88.6% reported MCID of a patient-reported outcome measure and the remainder were for objective outcome measurements. Anchor-based methods were used by 82.9% of studies and distribution-based methods were used by 68.6% of studies. Of all studies, 31.4% utilized anchor-based methods alone, 17.1% utilized distribution-based methods alone, and 51.4% used both methods. Only 25.7% of studies reported the sensitivity (median: 60.8%, range: 40.5%-86.7%) and specificity (median: 80.4%, range: 63.5%-88.0%) of the MCID to detect patients experiencing clinically important change.

CONCLUSION

Deviation from best practices in MCID calculation and reporting exists within the otolaryngology literature, with almost half of all studies only using one method of MCID calculation and almost three-quarters not reporting the predictive ability (sensitivity/specificity) of the calculated MCID. When predictive ability is reported, however, MCIDs appear to be more specific than sensitive.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 134:2059-2069, 2024.

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, 2024.

Effectiveness of Platelet-Rich Plasma for COVID-19-Related Olfactory Dysfunction: A Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection into the olfactory clefts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with persistent olfactory dysfunction (OD).

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled study.

SETTING

Multicenter study.

METHODS

From March 2022 to November 2022, COVID-19 patients with persistent OD were recruited from three European hospitals to undergo PRP injections into the olfactory clefts. Olfactory function was evaluated at baseline and 10 weeks postinjection with the Olfactory Disorder Questionnaire (ODQ) and threshold, discrimination, and identification (TDI) test. Data were compared with a control group of untreated patients.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients who underwent PRP injection and 78 controls were included. Sixty-five PRP patients (80.3%) experienced subjective smell improvement after a mean duration of 3.4 ± 1.9 weeks. The parosmia, life quality statement, and ODQ sub- and total scores significantly decreased from pre- to 10-week postinjection in the PRP group. The TDI sub- and total scores significantly increased 10 weeks postinjection. In controls, the ODQ score did not change over time, while the discrimination, identification, and total TDI scores significantly increase after 10 weeks of follow-up. The 10-week TDI and ODQ scores were significantly better in the PRP group compared with the controls.

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent PRP injection reported better 10-week subjective and objective smell outcomes than controls. Future randomized-controlled studies using saline injection into the olfactory cleft of controls are needed to determine the superiority of PRP over placebo.

[Artificial intelligence-assisted prediction of olfactory disorders in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis]

Objective:To analyze the influencing factors and perform the prediction of olfactory disorders in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis（CRS） based on artificial intelligence. Methods:The data of 75 patients with CRS who underwent nasal endoscopic surgery from October 2021 to February 2023 in the Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University were analyzed retrospectively. There were 53 males and 22 females enrolled in the study, with a median age of 42.0 years old. The CRS intelligent microscope interpretation system was used to calculate the proportion of area glands and blood vessels occupy in the pathological sections of each patient, and the absolute value and proportion of eosinophils, lymphocytes, plasma cells and neutrophils. The patients were grouped according to the results of the Sniffin' Sticks smell test, and the clinical baseline data, differences in nasal mucosal histopathological characteristics, laboratory test indicators and sinus CT were compared between the groups. Determine the independent influencing factors of olfactory disorders and receiver operating characteristic curves（ROC） were used to evaluate the performance of the prediction model. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 25.0 software. Results:Among the 75 CRS patients, 25 cases（33.3%） had normal olfaction and 50 cases（66.7%） had olfactory disorders. Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that tissue eosinophils percentage（OR=1.032, 95%CI 1.002-1.064, P=0.036）, Questionnaire of olfactory disorders-Negative statement（QOD-NS）（OR=1.079, 95%CI 1.004-1.160, P=0.040） and Anterior olfactory cleft score（AOCS）（OR=2.672, 95%CI 1.480-4.827, P=0.001） were independent risk factors for olfactory disorders in CRS patients. Further research found that the area under the ROC curve（AUC） of the combined prediction model established by the tissue eosinophil percentage, QOD-NS and AOCS was 0.836（95%CI 0.748-0.924, P<0.001）, which is better than the above single factor prediction model in predicting olfactory disorders in CRS. Conclusion:Based on pathological artificial intelligence, tissue eosinophil percentage, QOD-NS and AOCS are independent risk factors for olfactory disorders in CRS patients, and the combination of the three factors has a good predictive effect on CRS olfactory disorders.

[Detection of disorders of the chemical senses-assessment of state of health by those affected]

Although hundreds of thousands of people seek medical help every year because of smell and taste disorders, the burden on patients is often underestimated by health care professionals. Numerous studies have demonstrated the impact of disorders of the chemical senses on quality of life. In clinical practice, the Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders (QOD) has proven to be a good measure of the impact of olfactory loss on everyday life. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) should therefore be used more frequently for better recording and assessing the needs of patients. In addition to education and treatment by specialized clinics, the provision and optimization of information platforms, support groups, and organizations should be promoted in Germany.

Reliability and validity of the Polish version of the Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders

Background

The comprehensive counseling of patients with olfactory dysfunctions requires accurate diagnosis. The recommendations include subjective assessment. The Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders (QOD) is a disease-specific questionnaire for the subjective evaluation of olfactory dysfunctions.

Material

The study included 54 patients with olfactory dysfunctions, who were recruited to the study group (SG). The other 47 patients without the history of olfactory dysfunction and nasal cavity pathology were voluntarily allocated to the control group (CG). The protocol of the study was introduced to each patient and included: olfactory testing with Sniffin' Stick test, fulfillment of the Polish version of World Health Organization Quality of Life brief questionnaire and completing of the Polish version of the QOD. All participants (101) were invited for refilling the QOD questionnaire after 2 weeks for the test-retest statistics.

Results

The Polish QOD statements were significantly correlated and met the requirement by having test-retest correlation larger than 0.7. We found that internal consistency of the test measured by Cronbach's alpha coefficient was very high. The mean scores of the QOD test in normosmic SG patients were compared with corresponding scores in normosmic CG patients using U Mann-Whitney test. The analysis revealed statistically significant differences on mean QOD scores for each domains except QOD-S between both groups.

Conclusions

The Polish version of the QOD demonstrated high rate of the validity and the reliability. This instrument may be widely used in research projects and clinical practice concerning olfactory disorders in Polish patients.

Level of Evidence

NA.

Establishing minimal clinically important differences for the Quality of Life Instrument of Chronic Gastritis QLICD-CG(V2.0) based on distribution-based methods

BACKGROUND

To establish the lowest score reflecting meaningful changes from the perspective of patients is very important for explaining the results of patient reports. The measurement scale of quality of life in patients with chronic gastritis has been used in clinical practice, but the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) has not been worked out. In this paper, we use a distribution-based method to calculate the MCID of the scale QLICD-CG (Quality of Life Instruments for Chronic Diseases- Chronic Gastritis) (V2.0).

METHODS

The QLICD-CG(V2.0) scale was used to evaluate the quality of life in patients with chronic gastritis. Since the methods for developing MCID were diverse and there was no uniform standard, we took MCID developed by anchor-based method as the gold standard, and compared the MCID of QLICD-CG(V2.0) scale developed by various distribution-based methods for selection. Standard deviation method (SD), effect size method (ES), standardized response mean method (SRM), standard error of measurement method (SEM) and reliable change index method (RCI) are given in the distribution-based methods.

RESULTS

A total of 163 patients, with an average age of (52.37 ± 12.96) years old, were calculated according to the various methods and formulas given by the distribution-based method, and the results were compared with the gold standard. It was suggested that the results of the SEM method at the moderate effect (1.96) should be taken as the preferred MCID of the distribution-based method. And thus the MCID of the physical domain, psychological domain, social domain, general module, specific module and total score of the QLICD-CG(V2.0) scale were 9.29, 13.59, 9.27, 8.29, 13.49 and 7.86, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

With anchor-based method as the gold standard, each method in distribution-based method has its own advantages and disadvantages. In this paper, 1.96SEM was found to have a good effect on the minimum clinically significant difference of the QLICD-CG(V2.0) scale, and it is recommended as the preferred method to establish MCID.

Most-Cited Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Within Otolaryngology-Revisiting the Minimal Clinically Important Difference: A Review

Importance

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) allow clinicians and researchers to assess health-related information from a patient's perspective. These measures have been used more frequently over the last several decades, but an associated minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is needed to optimize their utility. This narrative review identified the top 100 most-cited otolaryngology-related PROM development and validation publications and assessed the presence and characteristics of the PROMs' associated MCID.

Observations

In this narrative review, a literature search in Scopus and Web of Science was conducted on June 29, 2022, using keywords related to PROM development and validation studies in otolaryngology and reference lists. Studies that met the definition of a PROM and assessed an otolaryngologic disorder or study population were included for full-text review. After full-text review of 188 articles, the top 100 most-cited PROM development and validation publications, resulting in 106 total PROMs, were chosen for review. A total of 39 (37%) of the identified PROMs had an associated MCID. Of those reporting an MCID, 14 (35.9%) used an anchor-based method, 12 (30.8%) used a distribution-based method, 10 (25.6%) used both, and 3 (7.7%) did not specify or used neither method. Rhinology had the greatest number of PROMs with an associated MCID (16 of 24, 66%), and pediatrics had the fewest (1 of 13, 7.7%). The median number of citations of PROMs with an MCID was higher than those without an MCID.

Conclusions and Relevance

The majority of the most-cited PROMs in otolaryngology lack an associated MCID. These data indicated that there are a multitude of PROMs that have been cited hundreds of times and used for decades without the ability to identify whether a particular change in score on the instrument is clinically meaningful. There is a need to determine and validate MCIDs for commonly used PROMs to aid clinical research and trial interpretation.

Investigations and Outcomes for Olfactory Disorders

Purpose of Review

To provide a detailed overview of the investigations and core outcome measures for olfactory disorders.

Recent Findings

Olfactory disorders can have a detrimental impact to the quality of life of patients. There are a wide range of causes of olfactory loss including sinonasal conditions, idiopathic, post-head trauma or infection. This review highlights the key investigations and reasoning for their use to clinically assess and research patients with olfactory disorders. In addition, this review outlines the core outcome measures for olfaction that will help inform future research in olfactory disorders.

Summary

A systematic approach with history taking and examination particularly with nasal endoscopy can determine the cause of the olfactory disorder in most cases. Specific olfactory disorder questionnaires can demonstrate the impact on quality of life, while psychophysical testing can objectively assess and monitor olfaction over time. Olfactory-evoked potentials and functional MRI are reserved for research, whereas CT and MRI imaging are used depending on history and examination. A core outcome set for olfaction has been developed that will help standardise the outcome measures used in olfaction and olfactory disorders research.

Interventions for the treatment of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Olfactory dysfunction is a common consequence of COVID-19 infection and persistent symptoms can have a profound impact on quality of life. At present there is little guidance on how best to treat this condition. A variety of interventions have been suggested to promote recovery, including medication and olfactory training. However, it is uncertain whether any intervention is of benefit. This is an update of the 2021 review with one additional study added.  OBJECTIVES: 1) To evaluate the benefits and harms of any intervention versus no treatment for people with persisting olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection.  2) To keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach.  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the latest search was 20 October 2021.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with COVID-19 related olfactory disturbance that had persisted for at least four weeks. We included any intervention compared to no treatment or placebo.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were the recovery of sense of smell, disease-related quality of life and serious adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were the change in sense of smell, general quality of life, prevalence of parosmia and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies with 30 participants. The studies evaluated the following interventions: systemic corticosteroids plus intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant and palmitoylethanolamide plus luteolin.  Systemic corticosteroids plus intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant compared to no intervention We included a single RCT with 18 participants who had anosmia for at least 30 days following COVID-19 infection. Participants received a 15-day course of oral corticosteroids combined with nasal irrigation (consisting of an intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant solution) or no intervention. Psychophysical testing was used to assess olfactory function at 40 days. This is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Palmitoylethanolamide plus luteolin compared to no intervention We included a single RCT with 12 participants who had anosmia or hyposmia for at least 90 days following COVID-19 infection. Participants received a 30-day course of palmitoylethanolamide and luteolin or no intervention. Psychophysical testing was used to assess olfactory function at 30 days. This is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very limited evidence available on the efficacy and harms of treatments for persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified a number of ongoing trials in this area. As this is a living systematic review we will update the data regularly, as new results become available.

Interventions for the prevention of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Loss of olfactory function is well recognised as a symptom of COVID-19 infection, and the pandemic has resulted in a large number of individuals with abnormalities in their sense of smell. For many, the condition is temporary and resolves within two to four weeks. However, in a significant minority the symptoms persist. At present, it is not known whether early intervention with any form of treatment (such as medication or olfactory training) can promote recovery and prevent persisting olfactory disturbance. This is an update of the 2021 review with four studies added.

OBJECTIVES

1) To evaluate the benefits and harms of any intervention versus no treatment for people with acute olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection.  2) To keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach.  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the latest search was 20 October 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with COVID-19 related olfactory disturbance, which had been present for less than four weeks. We included any intervention compared to no treatment or placebo.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were the presence of normal olfactory function, serious adverse effects and change in sense of smell. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of parosmia, change in sense of taste, disease-related quality of life and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies with 691 participants. The studies evaluated the following interventions: intranasal corticosteroid sprays, intranasal corticosteroid drops, intranasal hypertonic saline and zinc sulphate.  Intranasal corticosteroid spray compared to no intervention/placebo We included three studies with 288 participants who had olfactory dysfunction for less than four weeks following COVID-19. Presence of normal olfactory function The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of intranasal corticosteroid spray on both self-rated recovery of olfactory function and recovery of olfactory function using psychophysical tests at up to four weeks follow-up (self-rated: risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.68; 1 study; 100 participants; psychophysical testing: RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.63; 1 study; 77 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Change in sense of smell The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of intranasal corticosteroid spray on self-rated change in the sense of smell (at less than 4 weeks: mean difference (MD) 0.5 points lower, 95% CI 1.38 lower to 0.38 higher; 1 study; 77 participants; at > 4 weeks to 3 months: MD 2.4 points higher, 95% CI 1.32 higher to 3.48 higher; 1 study; 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence, rated on a scale of 1 to 10, higher scores mean better olfactory function). Intranasal corticosteroids may make little or no difference to the change in sense of smell when assessed with psychophysical testing (MD 0.2 points, 95% CI 2.06 points lower to 2.06 points higher; 1 study; 77 participants; low-certainty evidence, 0- to 24-point scale, higher scores mean better olfactory function).  Serious adverse effects The authors of one study reported no adverse effects, but their intention to collect these data was not pre-specified so we are uncertain if these were systematically sought and identified. The remaining two studies did not report on adverse effects.  Intranasal corticosteroid drops compared to no intervention/placebo We included one study with 248 participants who had olfactory dysfunction for ≤ 15 days following COVID-19. Presence of normal olfactory function Intranasal corticosteroid drops may make little or no difference to self-rated recovery at > 4 weeks to 3 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.11; 1 study; 248 participants; low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes were assessed by this study.  Data on the use of hypertonic saline nasal irrigation and the use of zinc sulphate to prevent persistent olfactory dysfunction are included in the full text of the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very limited evidence available on the efficacy and harms of treatments for preventing persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified a number of ongoing trials in this area. As this is a living systematic review we will update the data regularly, as new results become available.

Predictive significance of the questionnaire of olfactory disorders-negative statements for olfactory loss in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis

Objectives

The questionnaire of olfactory disorder-negative statements (QOD-NS) is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the olfactory-specific quality of life. This study aimed to explore the association between the QOD-NS and objective olfactory metrics (including objective olfactory cleft assessment) and then evaluate the predictive significance of the QOD-NS for olfactory loss in Chinese patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).

Methods

A total of 70 patients with CRS were enrolled in the study. Olfaction was assessed with Sniffin’ Sticks. The olfactory cleft was assessed by the sinus CT scan and nasal endoscopy (the Lund–Mackay olfactory cleft scale, LM-OC and olfactory cleft endoscopy scale, OCES). The QOD-NS and its short version were utilized to assess the patient-reported olfaction. The predictors associated with olfactory loss were analyzed by the logistic regression analysis. The optimal cutoff points of the predictors were determined by the receiver-operating characteristic curves and the Youden index.

Results

The TDI score in patients with CRS significantly correlated with the QOD-NS (r = − 0.755, P < 0.001), OCES (r = − 0.520, P < 0.001), LM-OC (r = − 0.615, P < 0.001). After adjusting for patient demographics and comorbidities, QOD-NS was significantly associated with olfactory dysfunction [odds ratio (OR) = 1.243; P = 0.001] and anosmia in patients with CRS (OR = 1.838; P = 0.006). Furthermore, the QOD-NS significantly correlated with the LM-OC (r = 0.610, P < 0.001), and the OCES (r = 0.464, P < 0.001) in patients with CRS. The QOD-NS had the highest predictive value for olfactory dysfunction (optimal cutoff = 10.5; Youden index = 0.635; area under the curve = 0.861) and anosmia (optimal cutoff = 20.5; Youden index = 0.790; area under the curve = 0.928) in patients with CRS.

Conclusion

The QOD-NS showed high validity and correlated well with objective olfactory metrics and olfactory cleft assessment in patients with CRS. The QOD-NS was a reliable predictor for olfactory dysfunction and anosmia in patients with CRS, which may aid in the fast screening of olfactory loss in the clinic.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Olfaction

BACKGROUND

The literature regarding clinical olfaction, olfactory loss, and olfactory dysfunction has expanded rapidly over the past two decades, with an exponential rise in the past year. There is substantial variability in the quality of this literature and a need to consolidate and critically review the evidence. It is with that aim that we have gathered experts from around the world to produce this International Consensus on Allergy and Rhinology: Olfaction (ICAR:O).

METHODS

Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to olfaction. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review, or evidence-based review with recommendations format as dictated by available evidence and scope within the ICAR:O document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:O document was integrated and reviewed by all authors for final consensus.

RESULTS

The ICAR:O document reviews nearly 100 separate topics within the realm of olfaction, including diagnosis, epidemiology, disease burden, diagnosis, testing, etiology, treatment, and associated pathologies.

CONCLUSION

This critical review of the existing clinical olfaction literature provides much needed insight and clarity into the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with olfactory dysfunction, while also clearly delineating gaps in our knowledge and evidence base that we should investigate further.

Smell Changes and Efficacy of Nasal Theophylline (SCENT) irrigation: A randomized controlled trial for treatment of post-viral olfactory dysfunction

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intranasal theophylline saline irrigation on olfactory recovery in patients with post-viral olfactory dysfunction (PVOD).

METHODS

Between May 2019 and April 2020, we conducted a double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of adults with 6-36 months of PVOD. Patients were randomized to nasal theophylline saline irrigation or placebo saline irrigation twice a day for 6 weeks. The primary outcome was the Global Rating of Smell Change. Secondary outcomes were changes in the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) and Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders-Negative Statements (QOD-NS).

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients (n = 12, theophylline; n = 10, placebo) completed the study. Slightly more patients in the theophylline group (33%) reported improved smell compared to the placebo group (30%, difference 3.3%, 95% CI -35.6% to 42.3%). The median differences in pre- and post-treatment UPSIT and QOD-NS change between the two groups were 1 (95% CI -3 to 5) and -10 (95% CI -15 to -4), respectively in favor of theophylline. Three patients receiving theophylline and 2 receiving placebo had clinically meaningful improvements on the UPSIT (difference 5%, 95% CI -30% to 40%). There were no adverse events, and serum theophylline levels were undetectable in 10/10 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

While safe, there were no clinically meaningful differences in olfactory change between the two groups except for olfaction-related quality of life, which was better with theophylline. The imprecise estimates suggest future trials will need substantially larger sample sizes or treatment modifications, such as increasing the theophylline dose, to observe larger treatment effects.

Olfactory Dysfunction in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Review

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is wreaking havoc on public-health and economic systems worldwide. Among the several neurological symptoms of patients with COVID-19 reported in clinical practice, olfactory dysfunction (OD) is the most common. OD occurs as the earliest or the only clinical manifestation in some patients. Increasing research attention has focused on OD, which is listed as one of the main diagnostic symptoms of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 infection. Multiple clinical and basic-science studies on COVID-19-induced OD are underway to clarify the underlying mechanism of action. In this review, we summarize the clinical characteristics, mechanisms, evaluation methods, prognosis, and treatment options of COVID-19-induced OD. In this way, we hope to improve the understanding of COVID-19-induced OD to aid early identification and precise intervention.

Sensitivity to change and minimal clinically important difference of Edinburgh postnatal depression scale

OBJECTIVE

Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) was widely used in measuring depression symptoms among pregnant women. However, it is still unclear about the sensitivity to change and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for EPDS.

METHODS

Based on data from an eight-week smartphone-based mindfulness intervention, scores of EPDS, 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) before and after the intervention were collected. Three self-appraisal questions were collected after the intervention. The sensitivity to change of EPDS was determined by correlations between changes in PHQ-9, GAD-7, and EPDS. MCID for EPDS was determined by distribution-based method (0.5 standard deviation and standard error of the measurement) and anchor-based method (PHQ-9, GAD-7, and participants' self-appraisal served as anchors). The final MCID value for EPDS was calculated by average scores of the two methods. 117 women with pre-post assessments were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

EPDS score changes from baseline to post-intervention were correlated with pre-post change in PHQ-9 and GAD-7 (r = 0.540, P < 0.001). The average MCID for EPDS score was found to be 4 points (ranging from -1.45 to -6.5 points) for improvement and 3 points for worsening (ranging from 1.45 to 3.5 points).

CONCLUSION

The EPDS is sensitive to detect the changes in maternal depressive symptoms during pregnancy through a mindfulness course of interventions. Four points for improvement and three points for worsening are recommended as MCID for EPDS.

Olfactory dysfunction in cystic fibrosis: Impact of CFTR modulator therapy

BACKGROUND

Elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor (ETI) improves pulmonary health and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) for people with cystic fibrosis (PwCF), however its impact on olfaction has not been investigated. Olfactory dysfunction impairs quality-of-life (QOL). This study evaluated the impact of ETI on multiple olfactory metrics.

METHODS

Adult PwCF/CRS with CF transmembrane conductance regulator genotype F508del/F508del or F508del/minimal function who clinically initiated ETI participated in a prospective, observational study. Endpoints included changes after 6 months of ETI in quantitative olfactory function (Smell Identification Test, SIT), olfactory QOL (Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders, QOD) and percent olfactory cleft opacification (%OCO), representing superior nasal cavity inflammation where afferent olfactory neurons are concentrated.

RESULTS

30 PwCF/CRS met inclusion criteria; 25 completed the study. Mean ETI adherence was 93%. At baseline, participants were hyposmic (mean SIT 31.3), had significant %OCO (mean 65.6%), yet reported non-impaired olfactory QOL (mean QOD 6.1). At follow-up, mean SIT worsened mildly (p=0.009), mean %OCO remained stable (p=0.46), and mean QOD improved modestly (p=0.008). No outcomes were impacted by prior modulator use, genotype, nasal polyps, or CF-related diabetes. Prior sinus surgery was associated with QOD improvement (p=0.04). Increased (worse) baseline QOD scores and %OCO were associated with greater improvements (p<0.003), but not SIT (p=0.44).

CONCLUSIONS

ETI was not associated with improvement in quantitative olfaction or olfactory cleft opacification after 6 months. PwCF/CRS have hyposmia but do not report impairment in olfactory QOL. Further study to investigate mechanisms explaining olfactory dysfunction and whether olfaction improves with greater duration of ETI or in younger age groups is warranted.

Association of Quality of Life Measures and Otolaryngologic Care in Cystic Fibrosis Patients

OBJECTIVES

Appropriate management of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) among patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) is important in improving quality of life. Otolaryngologists play a critical role in reducing CRS symptom burden. This study seeks to evaluate the role of patient-reported quality-of-life measures in guiding interventions for CF-related sinus disease.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, cross-sectional study of 105 patients presenting to a CF-accredited clinic between July and September 2018. Demographic data and sinus surgery history were collected, in addition to Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) and Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders (QOD-NS) scores. Statistical analysis was conducted using correlation and non-parametric Mann-Whitney U tests.

RESULTS

Baseline well-care visits accounted for 71.4% of all clinical evaluations. Prior otolaryngology intervention was noted in 69 (66%) patients, where the majority of these patients (63/69; 91%) underwent endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). Patients with a history of otolaryngology intervention had an average SNOT-22 score of 33.2 (SD = 20.6) compared to 24.9 (SD = 18.5) for patients without prior intervention (P = .048). The average QOD-NS score was 5.5 (SD = 6.4) among patients referred to otolaryngologists and 3.1 (SD = 5.7) for non-referred patients (P = .012). SNOT-22 and QOD-NS scores were modestly correlated (R of .43).

CONCLUSION

CF patients with symptoms resulting in worse quality-of-life assessments were more likely to have established coordinated care with an otolaryngologist. Further validation of the utility of SNOT-22 and QOD-NS questionnaires as care coordination metrics is necessary in the CF population.

Olfactory Phenotypes Differentiate Cognitively Unimpaired Seniors from Alzheimer's Disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Combined Machine Learning and Traditional Statistical Approach

BACKGROUND

Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is an early symptom of Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, olfactory testing is not commonly performed to test OD in the setting of AD.

OBJECTIVE

This work investigates objective OD as a non-invasive biomarker for accurately classifying subjects as cognitively unimpaired (CU), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and AD.

METHODS

Patients with MCI (n = 24) and AD (n = 24), and CU (n = 33) controls completed two objective tests of olfaction (Affordable, Rapid, Olfactory Measurement Array -AROMA; Sniffin' Sticks Screening 12 Test -SST12). Demographic and subjective sinonasal and olfaction symptom information was also obtained. Analyses utilized traditional statistics and machine learning to determine olfactory variables, and combinations of variables, of importance for differentiating normal and disease states.

RESULTS

Inability to correctly identify a scent after detection was a hallmark of MCI/AD. AROMA was superior to SST12 for differentiating MCI from AD. Performance on the clove scent was significantly different between all three groups. AROMA regression modeling yielded six scents with AUC of the ROC of 0.890 (p < 0.001). Random forest model machine learning algorithms considering AROMA olfactory data successfully predicted MCI versus AD disease state. Considering only AROMA data, machine learning algorithms were 87.5%accurate (95%CI 0.4735, 0.9968). Sensitivity and specificity were 100%and 75%, respectively with ROC of 0.875. When considering AROMA and subject demographic and subjective data, the AUC of the ROC increased to 0.9375.

CONCLUSION

OD differentiates CUs from those with MCI and AD and can accurately predict MCI versus AD. Leveraging OD data may meaningfully guide management and research decisions.

Interventions for the prevention of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Loss of olfactory function is well recognised as a cardinal symptom of COVID-19 infection, and the ongoing pandemic has resulted in a large number of affected individuals with abnormalities in their sense of smell. For many, the condition is temporary and resolves within two to four weeks. However, in a significant minority the symptoms persist. At present, it is not known whether early intervention with any form of treatment (such as medication or olfactory training) can promote recovery and prevent persisting olfactory disturbance.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions that have been used, or proposed, to prevent persisting olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection. A secondary objective is to keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach.  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register; Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies. The date of the search was 16 December 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials including participants who had symptoms of olfactory disturbance following COVID-19 infection. Individuals who had symptoms for less than four weeks were included in this review. Studies compared any intervention with no treatment or placebo.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were the presence of normal olfactory function, serious adverse effects and change in sense of smell. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of parosmia, change in sense of taste, disease-related quality of life and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included one study of 100 participants, which compared an intranasal steroid spray to no intervention. Participants in both groups were also advised to undertake olfactory training for the duration of the trial. Data were identified for only two of the prespecified outcomes for this review, and no data were available for the primary outcome of serious adverse effects. Intranasal corticosteroids compared to no intervention (all using olfactory training) Presence of normal olfactory function after three weeks of treatment was self-assessed by the participants, using a visual analogue scale (range 0 to 10, higher scores = better). A score of 10 represented "completely normal smell sensation". The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of intranasal corticosteroids on self-rated recovery of sense of smell (estimated absolute effect 619 per 1000 compared to 520 per 1000, risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.68; 1 study; 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Change in sense of smell was not reported, but the self-rated score for sense of smell was reported at the endpoint of the study with the same visual analogue scale (after three weeks of treatment). The median scores at endpoint were 10 (interquartile range (IQR) 9 to 10) for the group receiving intranasal corticosteroids, and 10 (IQR 5 to 10) for the group receiving no intervention (1 study; 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very limited evidence regarding the efficacy of different interventions at preventing persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified a small number of additional ongoing studies in this area. As this is a living systematic review, the evidence will be updated regularly to incorporate new data from these, and other relevant studies, as they become available.  For this (first) version of the living review, we identified a single study of intranasal corticosteroids to include in this review, which provided data for only two of our prespecified outcomes. The evidence was of very low certainty, therefore we were unable to determine whether intranasal corticosteroids may have a beneficial or harmful effect.

Interventions for the treatment of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Olfactory dysfunction is an early and sensitive marker of COVID-19 infection. Although self-limiting in the majority of cases, when hyposmia or anosmia persists it can have a profound effect on quality of life. Little guidance exists on the treatment of post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction, however several strategies have been proposed from the evidence relating to the treatment of post-viral anosmia (such as medication or olfactory training).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions that have been used, or proposed, to treat persisting olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection. A secondary objective is to keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach.  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register; Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies. The date of the search was 16 December 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials including participants who had symptoms of olfactory disturbance following COVID-19 infection. Only individuals who had symptoms for at least four weeks were included in this review. Studies compared any intervention with no treatment or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Primary outcomes were the recovery of sense of smell, disease-related quality of life and serious adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were the change in sense of smell, general quality of life, prevalence of parosmia and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one study with 18 participants, which compared the use of a 15-day course of oral steroids combined with nasal irrigation (consisting of an intranasal steroid/mucolytic/decongestant solution) with no intervention. Psychophysical testing was used to assess olfactory function at baseline, 20 and 40 days. Systemic corticosteroids plus intranasal steroid/mucolytic/decongestant compared to no intervention Recovery of sense of smell was assessed after 40 days (25 days after cessation of treatment) using the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (CCCRC) score. This tool has a range of 0 to 100, and a score of ≥ 90 represents normal olfactory function. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this intervention on recovery of the sense of smell at one to three months (5/9 participants in the intervention group scored ≥ 90 compared to 0/9 in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 11.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 173.66; 1 study; 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Change in sense of smell was assessed using the CCCRC score at 40 days. This study reported an improvement in sense of smell in the intervention group from baseline (median improvement in CCCRC score 60, interquartile range (IQR) 40) compared to the control group (median improvement in CCCRC score 30, IQR 25) (1 study; 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events andother adverse events were not identified in any participants of this study; however, it is unclear how these outcomes were assessed and recorded (1 study; 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very limited evidence available on the efficacy and harms of treatments for persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified other ongoing trials in this area. As this is a living systematic review we will update the data regularly, as new results become available. For this (first) version of the living review we identified only one study with a small sample size, which assessed systemic steroids and nasal irrigation (intranasal steroid/mucolytic/decongestant). However, the evidence regarding the benefits and harms from this intervention to treat persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction is very uncertain.

Flavor Enhancement in Daily Life of Patients with Olfactory Dysfunction

Introduction

Patients with olfactory dysfunction report deterioration of taste due to loss of flavor, leading to less food enjoyment, alterations in dietary behaviors and stress. The aim of this study was to introduce flavor enhancement to investigate its acceptance and possible effects on quality of life.

Methods

In this prospective, controlled, randomized, single-blinded, cross-over pilot study, we recruited 30 olfactory dysfunction patients, of which 16 were hyposmic and 14 anosmic. After single-blinded triangle flavor discrimination test, flavor drops were randomized either in high or low concentration for 14 days and vice versa for another 14 days. Records included a daily diary and the questionnaire of olfactory disorders.

Results

Usage rates were excellent with 82.2% of all days, while drops were mainly used for breakfast (44.6%, p < 0.05). Hyposmics used flavor enhancement on significantly more days (median = 14) compared to anosmics (median = 11, p = 0.0094). QOD improved in 12 patients to a meaningful extent.

Conclusions

In this pilot study, we show that flavor enhancement is feasible accompanied by high compliance and acceptance in olfactory dysfunction patients. Flavor drops were used regardless of low or high concentrations with no adverse events noted.

Implications

Our findings give rise to further studies illuminating the possible advantages of flavor enhancement in patients with olfactory disorders.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for the Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire - IUGA Revised (PISQ-IR)

BACKGROUND

To put statistically significant changes in patient reported outcome measurement (PROM) questionnaires into a clinical perspective, the concept of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) can be used.

AIM

To determine the MCID for the summary score for sexually active (SA) women of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, IUGA-Revised (PISQ-IR), a validated instrument which assesses sexual functioning (SF) for patients suffering from a symptomatic pelvic floor disorder.

METHODS

Patients participating in a multicentre prospective cohort study comparing pessary therapy with surgery for a symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP) filled in the PISQ-IR at baseline and 12 months' follow-up. We used both an anchor-based as well as a distribution-based method to calculate the MCID for both treatment groups. The Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) questionnaire and PISQ-IR question 19a about satisfaction with sexual functioning were used as anchors. For the distribution-based approach we used the effect size (ES).

OUTCOMES

MCID for the SA summary score of the PISQ-IR.

RESULTS

Data of 243 women were used to calculate the MCID. In the pessary group, Kendall's tau-b correlation coefficients between the PISQ-IR summary score and both anchors were below the cut-off of 0.21, which implies the anchors cannot be used to calculate an MCID. In our surgery group, the PISQ-IR question 19a met the anchor criteria and 0.31 points increase in the PISQ-IR summary score was equal to an improvement of 1 point on question 19a about satisfaction with sexual functioning.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Future research on this subject should focus on clinical relevance of results rather than statistical significance only.

STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS

Our main strength is the fact that we used both anchor-based and distribution-based methods to determine our MCID. Secondly, we set out to determine an MCID for both treatment groups separately, which relatively enhances the generalisability of our results. A limitation is that we were not able to estimate an MCID for the pessary group. Pruijssers B, van der Vaart L, Milani F, et al. Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for the Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire - IUGA Revised (PISQ-IR). J Sex Med 2021;18:1265-1270.

CONCLUSION

We estimated the MCID for the PISQ-IR SA summary score to be 0.31 in our surgery group.

Olfaction: Sensitive indicator of inflammatory burden in chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Olfactory dysfunction has a high prevalence in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) patients and significantly affects quality of life. CRS is recognized as a complex disorder encompassing heterogeneous inflammatory processes in the nose and paranasal sinuses. Olfactory dysfunction in CRS patients is associated with the level of inflammatory mediators and the efficiency of inflammatory control. Learning about the association between CRS-related inflammation and olfactory function will provide clues to the pathogenesis of CRS.

STRUCTURE

The first section of this review describes the assessment of olfactory function using various measures, from ratings to MR based imaging. Then, we discuss the conductive and inflammatory mechanisms related to olfactory dysfunction in CRS: olfaction is associated with certain inflammatory patterns and is potentially a marker of CRS subtype. Finally, we review anti-inflammatory therapies including conservative and surgical approaches, and their effectiveness in olfactory dysfunction in CRS.

CONCLUSION

Assessment of olfactory function should be considered in the clinical evaluation of CRS patients, not only for detecting and quantifying patients' symptom, but also because it appears to be useful to objectively assess the efficacy of CRS treatment over time. In addition, olfaction can be expected to expand the library of CRS phenotypes and endotypes and, hence, pave the way for more precise, tailored treatment options.

Factors driving olfactory loss in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis: a case control study

BACKGROUND

Olfactory dysfunction (OD) in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is common. It is likely that numerous factors such as sex, race, age, allergies, asthma, smoking, and other comorbidities play a role in CRS-related OD. In order to determine which aspects of OD are due solely to CRS and which are associated with other confounders, control populations are needed to allow appropriate risk assessments.

METHODS

Prospective, multi-institutional enrollment of patients with CRS and control subjects without CRS was performed. Demographic information, comorbidities, and olfactory testing (Sniffin' Sticks) of threshold (T), discrimination (D), and identification (I) scores (TDI) was collected.

RESULTS

A total of 224 patients with CRS and 164 control subjects were enrolled. Olfaction was worse in CRS patients compared to controls (mean ± standard deviation (SD) TDI = 22.4 ± 9.5 vs 28.8 ± 7.0, respectively, p < 0.001). Only 27% of CRS patients were normosmic compared to 49% of controls (p < 0.001). When stratifying by nasal polyp (NP) status, CRSwNP patients had significant impairments in TDI, T, D, and I compared to controls with mean differences of 11.2, 3.3, 3.5, and 4.4 points, respectively (all p < 0.001). In contrast, CRSsNP patients only had impaired T when compared to controls with a mean difference of 2.2 points (p < 0.001). Multivariate modeling of TDI scoring showed that OD was driven by polyps, asthma, diabetes, and age. CRSsNP was not independently associated with worse TDI scores.

CONCLUSION

OD in CRS patients is multifactorial. Independent drivers appear to be polyp status, asthma, diabetes, and age. OD in patients with CRSsNP is similar to controls with the exception of impaired thresholds.

Quality of Life in Patients With Olfactory Loss Is Better Predicted by Flavor Identification Than by Orthonasal Olfactory Function

To date, most studies on the relationship between chemosensory performance and quality of life have focused on orthonasal measures of olfactory function. In the current investigation, we examined the predictive value of orthonasal and flavor identification indices of olfactory function on a wide spectrum of health and sociopsychological factors, including quality of life, life satisfaction, overall health, and depressive symptoms. Participants were 178 ENT patients (Mage = 58 ± 1), representing various causes of olfactory loss: idiopathic smell loss (n = 51; Mage = 63 ± 2), sinunasal disease (n = 27; Mage = 56 ± 3), head trauma (n = 33; Mage = 51 ± 2), and infections of the upper respiratory tract (n = 67; Mage = 59 ± 2). They completed self-report questionnaires and underwent olfactory testing using Sniffin' Sticks (orthonasal olfactory testing) and "Taste Powder" (intraorally applied flavors for retronasal olfactory testing, additionally inducing taste sensation). Data were analyzed with hierarchical regression models wherein the first step included subjects' sex, age, and orthonasal olfaction score. In the second step, we included the "Taste Powder" score. Tested models revealed that the first step was not significantly predicting variables of interest; however, there was an improvement of the model's predictive value when the "Taste Powder" score was added. Results of this study suggest that flavor identification significantly improves predictions of health and sociopsychological functioning of ENT patients with various etiologies.

Olfactory changes after endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is an important treatment modality for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). However, its effect on olfaction remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE OF REVIEW

To assess the olfactory impact of ESS in patients with CRS.

TYPE OF REVIEW

A meta-analysis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A systematic literature search in the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases was conducted to identify studies that assessed change in olfaction after ESS in patients with CRS. Search terms were related to paranasal sinus diseases, smell and endoscopy.

EVALUATION METHOD

The extracted data included authors, publication year, study type, age, sex, diagnostic criteria, surgical mode, sample size, follow-up time, olfaction measurement tool and outcome. We analysed the olfactory changes as continuous variables.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies including 3164 patients with CRS were eligible for the meta-analysis. Among patients having CRS with nasal polyps, olfactory dysfunction improved, as assessed by the Sniffin' Sticks total score (P = .000), Sniffin' Sticks discrimination score (P = .023), Sniffin' Sticks identification score (P = .005), University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (P = .046) and Visual Analogue Scale (P = .000). However, the threshold score of the Sniffin' Sticks test did not improve significantly (P = .361). Olfactory dysfunction did not improve in patients having CRS without nasal polyps according to the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (P = .404). In non-classified CRS patients, improvement in olfactory dysfunction was observed according to the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (P = .000), Visual Analogue Scale (P = .001) and Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders-Negative Statements (P = .001). However, there were no significant improvements according to the Brief Smell Identification Test (P = .325), Sniffin' Sticks threshold score (P = .160) and Sniffin' Sticks identification score (P = .079).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic sinus surgery may be beneficial for improvement in olfactory conditions in patients with CRS. Further thorough and comprehensive studies need to be conducted.

Effect of short-course glucocorticoid application on patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

BACKGROUND

Local and systemic glucocorticoids are mainstay therapies for chronic rhinosinusitis. With respect to local glucocorticoids, nasal spray is used extensively, but some patients do not benefit from short-course treatment. Recently, some clinicians have focused on the effects of high-dose local glucocorticoids in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), such as treatment using nasal irrigation, transnasal nebulization, and nose-dripping therapy (nasal drop) with high-dose budesonide. However, there are little data comparing the effect of short-course high-dose local glucocorticoids with regular nasal spray and oral steroids in the treatment of preoperative CRSwNP patients. Furthermore, the appropriate use of different types of glucocorticoids in different endotypes of CRSwNP remains unclear.

METHODS

This randomized controlled clinical research study was performed at a single academic center. Patients who satisfied the criteria of chronic rhinosinusitis with bilateral nasal polyps were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive oral methylprednisolone, 24 mg/d and budesonide nasal spray, 256 μg/d, or intranasal budesonide suspension, 1 mg/d and budesonide nasal spray, 256 μg/d, or budesonide nasal spray, 256 μg/d for one week. Symptoms, endoscopic scores, and tissue and blood inflammatory cells were recorded before and after the study. Adverse events were recorded by clinicians.

RESULTS

A total of 127 patients with CRSwNP underwent randomization. The total nasal symptoms scores (TNSS) decreased significantly in all groups compared to those at baseline. The assessment of the reduction in TNSS demonstrated that the change was significantly greater in the nasal drop group than in the nasal spray group (-7.47 vs -4.10, P = 0.032), and it was also greater in the oral steroid group than in the nasal spray group (-7.30 vs -4.10, P = 0.039). A similar trend also appeared in the reduction in Sinonasal-Outcome Test 22 (SNOT-22). After treatment, a significantly reduction in NP score was observed in the nasal drop group (-0.82) and oral steroid group (-0.85) compared with that in the nasal spray group (-0.10), and there was no significant difference between the nasal drop and oral steroid groups (P = 0.98). While calculating the percentage of patients who were sensitive to glucocorticoid treatment, there was 10.26% in the nasal spray group, 47.37% in the nasal drop group, and 52.50% in the oral steroid group that were sensitive to glucocorticoid treatment. The reduction in NP score was more significant in patients with eosinophilic CRSwNP in the nasal drop group and oral steroid group than in the nasal spray group. However, in patients with non-eosinophilic CRSwNP, the change in NP size was similar in the different treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide suspension nasal drop can significantly improve the quality of life and reduce the endoscopic score following short-course treatment, and the treatment effect of nasal drop was better than that of regular nasal spray. Budesonide nasal suspension can be used as a regular treatment for eosinophilic CRSwNP and can be an alternative choice for patients with a high percentage of tissue eosinophil infiltration who cannot use oral glucocorticoids.

Quality-of-life and olfaction changes observed with short-term medical management of chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) commonly experience both reduced quality of life (QOL) and olfactory dysfunction (OD). Literature on the impacts of appropriate medical therapy (AMT) for CRS on QOL and OD is limited, and the focused design of these studies may limit their applicability to usual clinical practice.

METHODS

Adults with symptomatic CRS were prospectively enrolled (November 2016 to October 2018) into an observational, multi-institutional study. Individualized AMT was initiated using standard practice according to evidence-based guidelines. Endoscopy examination (Lund-Kennedy), olfactory function (Sniffin' Sticks) testing, and QOL survey responses (22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test [SNOT-22], Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders-Negative Statements [QOD-NS]) were obtained at enrollment and follow-up.

RESULTS

Baseline measures demonstrated heterogeneity of QOL and OD. After an average of 7.8 weeks, within-subject median SNOT-22 total improved by 39.5% (n = 39, p < 0.001) relative to baseline, including 50% (p = 0.014) improvement for item #21, "Sense of smell/taste." QOD-NS improvement was also statistically significant (p = 0.044). Sniffin' Sticks score relative improvement of 10.9% (n = 33, p = 0.109) was not statistically significant and lacked correlation with SNOT-22 total scores (R = -0.247, p = 0.165) or QOD-NS total scores (R = -0.016, p = 0.930), but correlated moderately with endoscopy score (R = -0.436, p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Participants with varied impacts of CRS, treated with individualized short-term AMT, demonstrated significant improvements in CRS- and olfactory-specific QOL measures, without corresponding improvement in clinically measured olfactory function. Olfactory function changes moderately correlated with endoscopy score changes, but lacked an association with QOL measurements.

Socioeconomic factors impact quality of life outcomes and olfactory measures in chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

Healthcare disparities related to socioeconomic factors may adversely impact disease states and treatment outcomes. Among patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), the impact of socioeconomic factors on outcomes following endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) remains uncertain.

METHODS

Adult patients with refractory CRS were prospectively enrolled into an observational, multi-institutional cohort study between March 2011 and June 2015. Socioeconomic factors analyzed included household income, insurance status, years of education completed, race, age, and ethnicity. Income was stratified according to the Thompson and Hickey model. The 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) and Brief Smell Identification Test (BSIT) were completed preoperatively and postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 392 patients met inclusion criteria. Higher age and male gender were associated with better mean preoperative SNOT-22 scores (both p < 0.02), whereas Medicare insurance status and male gender were associated with worse preoperative mean BSIT scores (both p < 0.02). Postoperatively, higher household income ($100,001+/year) and lower age were associated with a greater likelihood of improving at least 1 minimal clinically important difference (MCID) on SNOT-22 scores (OR = 2.40 and 1.03, respectively, both p < 0.05), while no factors were associated with increased odds of achieving a MCID on BSIT scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative olfactory function and postoperative quality of life (QOL) improvement were associated with metrics of socioeconomic status in patients with CRS electing ESS. The odds of experiencing a clinically meaningful QOL improvement were more than twice as likely for patients with the highest household income level compared to other income tiers. Further investigation is warranted to identify barriers to postoperative improvement.