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

OBJECTIVES

Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is common and carries significant personal and societal burden. Accurate assessment is necessary for good clinical and research practice but is highly dependent on the assessment technique used. Current practice with regards to UK/international clinical assessment is unknown. We aimed to capture current clinical practice, with reference to contemporaneously available guidelines. We further aimed to compare UK to international practice.

DESIGN

Anonymous online questionnaire with cross-sectional non-probability sampling. Subgroup analysis according to subspeciality training in rhinology ('rhinologists' and 'non-rhinologists') was performed, with geographical comparisons only made according to subgroup.

PARTICIPANTS

ENT surgeons who assess olfaction.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 465 clinicians (217 from UK and 17 countries total). Country-specific response rate varied, with the lowest rate being obtained from Japan (1.4%) and highest from Greece (72.5%). Most UK clinicians do not perform psychophysical smell testing during any of the presented clinical scenarios-though rhinologists did so more often than non-rhinologists. The most frequent barriers to testing related to service provision (e.g., time/funding limitations). Whilst there was variability in practice, in general, international respondents performed psychophysical testing more frequently than those from the UK. Approximately 3/4 of all respondents said they would like to receive training in psychophysical smell testing. Patient reported outcome measures were infrequently used in the UK/internationally. More UK respondents performed diagnostic MRI scanning than international respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive UK-based, and only international survey of clinical practice in the assessment of OD. We present recommendations to improve practice, including increased education and funding for psychophysical smell testing. We hope this will promote accurate and reliable olfactory assessment, as is the accepted standard in other sensory systems.

Patient Experience and Preferences for the Assessment of Olfaction: The Patient International Clinical Assessment of Smell Survey

INTRODUCTION

Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is common and carries significant personal and societal burden of disease. Accurate assessment of olfaction is required for good clinical care and affords patients insight into their condition. However, the accuracy of assessment varies with technique used, and there is presently little standardisation of clinical practice. We therefore aimed to determine experience of and preferences for olfactory assessment in healthcare-seeking adults.

METHODS

An anonymous patient co-produced survey was developed in collaboration with a UK-based OD charity. Distribution was via their social media patient forum. "Healthcare seeking" adults (i.e., who had undergone olfactory assessment by a healthcare professional [any care level/speciality] or may do so in the future) were included.

RESULTS

576 people (88.5% female, mean 46 years) responded. Hyposmia, parosmia, and retronasal OD were most frequently reported. 55.2% had been assessed by a healthcare professional - GP most commonly, followed by ENT. Importantly, only 15.6% and 16.9% of respondents had undergone systematic assessment with smell tests or symptom questionnaires, respectively. Most respondents had not undergone imaging. Mean satisfaction was higher in those seen by ENT. Interestingly, respondents prioritise orthonasal odour identification over other forms of smell test. Unfortunately, many felt that healthcare professionals (across specialities) were dismissive towards OD and lacked appropriate knowledge of both its pathophysiology and effects. We propose simple steps that can be taken to improve olfactory assessment, including education and establishment of robust referral networks.

CONCLUSION

We hope these results and supporting practical recommendations will inform future service planning, funding allocation and research, as well as better aligning patient and clinician priorities.

Orthonasal and retronasal odor identification in patients with parosmia

OBJECTIVE

To compare retronasal and orthonasal perception in parosmic COVID-19 patients, in order to determine whether COVID-19 has a differential effect on these functions.

METHODS

Using the Sniffin Sticks test battery orthonasal function was examined for odor threshold, discrimination and identification. Retronasal function was assessed using 20 tasteless aromatized powders. Gustatory function was measured using the Taste Strips test.

RESULTS

This study included 177 patients (127 women, 50 men; mean age 45 years), of whom 127 (72%) were hyposmic and 50 (28%) normosmic. Compared to patients without parosmia, parosmic patients performed worse in odor identification for both orthonasal (F = 4.94, p = 0.03) and retronasal tests (F = 11.95, p < 0.01). However, an interaction effect between route of odor identification (orthonasal or retronasal) and parosmia status was found (F = 4.67, p = 0.03): patients with parosmia had relatively lower retronasal scores than patients without parosmia.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that COVID-19 may affect the olfactory mucosa differently along the anterior-posterior axis, thereby possibly contributing to the pathophysiology of parosmia. Patients with parosmia also exhibit a higher degree of impairment when odors are presented through the retronasal route during eating and drinking.

Position paper on olfactory dysfunction: 2023

BACKGROUND

Since publication of the original Position Paper on Olfactory Dysfunction in 2017 (PPOD-17), the personal and societal burden of olfactory disorders has come sharply into focus through the lens of the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinicians, scientists and the public are now more aware of the importance of olfaction, and the impact of its dysfunction on quality of life, nutrition, social relationships and mental health. Accordingly, new basic, translational and clinical research has resulted in significant progress since the PPOD-17. In this updated document, we present and discuss currently available evidence for the diagnosis and management of olfactory dysfunction. Major updates to the current version include, amongst others: new recommendations on olfactory related terminology; new imaging recommendations; new sections on qualitative OD and COVID-19 OD; updated management section. Recommendations were agreed by all co-authors using a modified Delphi process.

CONCLUSIONS

We have provided an overview of current evidence and expert-agreed recommendations for the definition, investigation, and management of OD. As for our original Position Paper, we hope that this updated document will encourage clinicians and researchers to adopt a common language, and in so doing, increase the methodological quality, consistency, and generalisability of work in this field.

Olfactory Nomenclature: An Orchestrated Effort to Clarify Terms and Definitions of Dysosmia, Anosmia, Hyposmia, Normosmia, Hyperosmia, Olfactory Intolerance, Parosmia, and Phantosmia/Olfactory Hallucination

BACKGROUND

Definitions are essential for effective communication and discourse, particularly in science. They allow the shared understanding of a thought or idea, generalization of knowledge, and comparison across scientific investigation. The current terms describing olfactory dysfunction are vague and overlapping.

SUMMARY

As a group of clinical olfactory researchers, we propose the standardization of the terms "dysosmia," "anosmia," "hyposmia," "normosmia," "hyperosmia," "olfactory intolerance," "parosmia," and "phantosmia" (or "olfactory hallucination") in olfaction-related communication, with specific definitions in this text.

KEY MESSAGES

The words included in this paper were determined as those which are most frequently used in the context of olfactory function and dysfunction, in both clinical and research settings. Despite widespread use in publications, however, there still exists some disagreement in the literature regarding the definitions of terms related to olfaction. Multiple overlapping and imprecise terms that are currently in use are confusing and hinder clarity and universal understanding of these concepts. There is a pressing need to have a unified agreement on the definitions of these olfactory terms by researchers working in the field of chemosensory sciences. With the increased interest in olfaction, precise use of these terms will improve the ability to integrate and advance knowledge in this field.

Functional septorhinoplasty alters brain structure and function: Neuroanatomical correlates of olfactory dysfunction

Introduction

We previously demonstrated functionally significant structural plasticity within the central olfactory networks, in association with improved olfaction after surgical treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). In order to confirm and expand on these findings, the primary aim of this study was to determine whether these same regions undergo functionally significant structural plasticity following functional septorhinoplasty (fSRP), in patients with non-CRS olfactory dysfunction (OD) of mixed cause. fSRP has previously been shown to improve olfactory function, and the secondary aim of this study was to provide initial insights into the mechanism by which fSRP affects olfaction.

Methods

We performed a pilot prospective, multimodal neuroimaging study in 20 participants undergoing fSRP, including patients with non-CRS OD of mixed cause, as well as normosmic surgical controls. Participants underwent psychophysical olfactory testing, assessment of nasal airway, structural and functional neuroimaging. This was performed pre- and postoperatively in patients, and preoperatively in controls.

Results

There was a statistically and clinically significant improvement in mean psychophysical olfactory scores after surgery. This was associated with structural and functional plasticity within areas of the central olfactory network (anterior cingulate, orbitofrontal cortex, insula, temporal pole). Improved psychophysical scores were significantly correlated with change in bilateral measures of nasal airflow, not measures of airflow symmetry, suggesting that improved overall airflow was more important than correction of septal deviation.

Conclusion

This work highlights the importance of these neuroanatomical regions as potential structural correlates of olfactory function and dysfunction. Our results also provide initial insight into the mechanistic effects of fSRP on olfaction. Further work could investigate the utility of these regions as personalised biomarkers of OD, as well as the role of fSRP in treating OD.

Sinonasal surgery alters brain structure and function: Neuroanatomical correlates of olfactory dysfunction

Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is more common than hearing loss, partial blindness, or blindness and can have a significant impact on the quality of life. Moreover, unexplained OD is an early biomarker in neurodegenerative diseases and increases 5-year mortality risk. Structural alterations in olfactory eloquent brain regions may represent the neuroanatomical correlates of OD. Previous studies have demonstrated reduced gray matter (GM) volume in areas of presumed olfactory relevance in patients with OD. However, being cross-sectional in nature, these studies do not provide evidence of causality, for which longitudinal work is required. At present, however, longitudinal studies addressing olfactory structural plasticity are limited, both in number and methodological approach: to our knowledge, such work has not included parallel functional imaging to confirm the relevance of structural change. We therefore performed a longitudinal multimodal neuroimaging study investigating structural and functional plasticity in 24 patients undergoing surgical treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis, compared with 17 healthy controls. We demonstrated functionally significant structural plasticity within the orbitofrontal, anterior cingulate and insular cortices, and temporal poles in patients 3 months after surgery. Of interest, GM volume decreased in these regions, in association with increased psychophysical scores and BOLD signal. To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate both structural and functional plasticity of the central olfactory networks, thereby confirming these areas as neuroanatomical correlates of olfactory function/dysfunction.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

Respiratory tract viruses are the second most common cause of olfactory dysfunction. As we learn more about the effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), with the recognition that olfactory dysfunction is a key symptom of this disease process, there is a greater need than ever for evidence-based management of postinfectious olfactory dysfunction (PIOD).

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to provide an evidence-based practical guide to the management of PIOD (including post-coronavirus 2019 cases) for both primary care practitioners and hospital specialists.

METHODS

A systematic review of the treatment options available for the management of PIOD was performed. The written systematic review was then circulated among the members of the Clinical Olfactory Working Group for their perusal before roundtable expert discussion of the treatment options. The group also undertook a survey to determine their current clinical practice with regard to treatment of PIOD.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 467 citations, of which 107 articles were fully reviewed and analyzed for eligibility; 40 citations fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 11 of which were randomized controlled trials. In total, 15 of the articles specifically looked at PIOD whereas the other 25 included other etiologies for olfactory dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

The Clinical Olfactory Working Group members made an overwhelming recommendation for olfactory training; none recommended monocycline antibiotics. The diagnostic role of oral steroids was discussed; some group members were in favor of vitamin A drops. Further research is needed to confirm the place of other therapeutic options.

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

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

Comparison of COVID-19 and common cold chemosensory dysfunction

Anosmia constitutes a prominent symptom of COVID-19. However, anosmia is also a common symptom of acute colds of various origins. In contrast to an acute cold, it appears from several questionnaire-based studies that in the context of COVID-19 infection, anosmia is the main rhinological symptom and is usually not associated with other rhinological symptoms such as rhinorrhoea or nasal obstruction. Until now, no study has directly compared smell and taste function between COVID-19 patients and patients with other causes of upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) using valid and reliable psychophysical tests. In this study, we aimed to objectively assess and compare olfactory and gustatory functions in 10 COVID-19 patients (PCR diagnosed, assessed on average 2 weeks after infection), 10 acute cold (AC) patients (assessed before the COVID-19 outbreak) and 10 healthy controls, matched for age and sex. Smell performance was assessed using the extended "Sniffin' Sticks" test battery (4), while taste function was assessed using "taste strips" (5). Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were built to probe olfactory and gustatory scores in terms of their discrimination between COVID-19 and AC patients. Our results suggest that mechanisms of COVID-19 related olfactory dysfunction are different from those seen in an AC and may reflect, at least to some extent, a specific involvement at the level of central nervous system in some COVID-19 patients. In the future, studies to assess the prevalence of persistent anosmia and neuroanatomical changes on MRI correlated to chemosensory function, will be useful to understand these mechanisms.

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

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

Diagnosing nasal obstruction and its common causes using the nasal acoustic device: A pilot study

Objectives

There is a need to develop a medical device which can accurately measure normal and abnormal nasal breathing which the patient can better understand in addition to being able to diagnose the cause for their nasal obstruction.

The aim is to evaluate the accuracy of the nasal acoustic device (NAD) in diagnosing the common causes for nasal obstruction and diagnosing normal and abnormal (nasal obstruction) nasal breathing.

Methods

This pilot study recruited 27 patients with allergic rhinitis (AR), chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), and a deviated nasal septum (DNS) which represents the common causes for NO and 26 controls (with normal nasal breathing). Nasal breathing sounds were recorded by the NAD akin to two small stethoscopes placed over the left and right nasal ala. The novel outcome metrics for the NAD include inspiratory nasal acoustic score (INA) score, expiratory nasal acoustic (ENA) score and the inspiratory nasal obstruction balance index (NOBI). The change in acoustic score following decongestant is key in this diagnostic process.

Results

Pre‐decongestant ENA score was used to detect the presence of nasal obstruction in patients compared to controls, with a sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.66‐0.96) and a specificity of 0.77 (0.54‐1.00). Post‐decongestant percentage change in INA score was used to identify the presence of AR or CRS, with a sensitivity of 0.87 (0.69‐1.00) and specificity of 0.72 (0.55‐0.89) for AR; and a sensitivity of 0.92 (0.75‐1.00) and specificity of 0.69 (0.52‐0.86) for CRS. Post‐decongestant inspiratory NOBI was used to identify DNS, with a sensitivity of 0.77 (0.59‐0.95) and specificity of 0.94 (0.82‐1.00).

Conclusion

We have demonstrated that the NAD can help distinguish between normal and abnormal nasal breathing and help diagnose AR, CRS, and DNS. Such a device has not been invented and could revolutionize COVID‐19 recovery telemedicine.

Level of Evidence

Diagnostic accuracy study—Level III.

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

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has heterogeneous manifestations, though one of the most common symptoms is a sudden loss of smell (anosmia or hyposmia). We investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19.

METHODS

This preregistered, cross-sectional study used a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n=4148) or negative (C19-; n=546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified singular and cumulative predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery.

RESULTS

Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean±SD, C19+: -82.5±27.2 points; C19-: -59.8±37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both single and cumulative feature models (ROC AUC=0.72), with additional features providing no significant model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms, such as fever or cough. Olfactory recovery within 40 days was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since illness onset.

CONCLUSIONS

As smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19, we developed the ODoR-19 tool, a 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss. Numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (10<OR<4), especially when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable.

Olfactory Dysfunction in Patients With CNGB1-Associated Retinitis Pigmentosa

Importance

Co-occurrence of retinitis pigmentosa (RP) and olfactory dysfunction may have a common genetic cause.

Objective

To report olfactory function and the retinal phenotype in patients with biallelic mutations in CNGB1, a gene coding for a signal transduction channel subunit expressed in rod photoreceptors and olfactory sensory neurons.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This case series was conducted from August 2015 through July 2017. The setting was a multicenter study involving 4 tertiary referral centers for inherited retinal dystrophies. Participants were 9 patients with CNGB1-associated RP.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Results of olfactory testing, ocular phenotyping, and molecular genetic testing using targeted next-generation sequencing.

Results

Nine patients were included in the study, 3 of whom were female. Their ages ranged between 34 and 79 years. All patients had an early onset of night blindness but were usually not diagnosed as having RP before the fourth decade because of slow retinal degeneration. Retinal features were characteristic of a rod-cone dystrophy. Olfactory testing revealed reduced or absent olfactory function, with all except one patient scoring in the lowest quartile in relation to age-related norms. Brain magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalography measurements in response to olfactory stimulation were available for 1 patient and revealed no visible olfactory bulbs and reduced responses to odor, respectively. Molecular genetic testing identified 5 novel (c.1312C>T, c.2210G>A, c.2492+1G>A, c.2763C>G, and c.3044_3050delGGAAATC) and 5 previously reported mutations in CNGB1.

Conclusions and Relevance

Mutations in CNGB1 may cause an autosomal recessive RP-olfactory dysfunction syndrome characterized by a slow progression of retinal degeneration and variable anosmia or hyposmia.

Short-Course Pentoxifylline Is Not Effective in Post-Traumatic Smell Loss: A Pilot Study

It has been suggested that systemic pentoxifylline may be beneficial in the treatment of olfactory dysfunction. The postulated mechanism of action involves nonselective competitive phosphodiesterase inhibition, leading to increased intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate and consequent increased olfactory neuron activity. This should in theory lead to improved olfactory function. We describe a pilot case series from our tertiary referral center of patients treated with oral pentoxifylline for olfactory dysfunction. Six patients with post-traumatic impairment who were treated with systemic pentoxifylline were included. Patients were treated with 200 mg of oral prolonged release pentoxifylline, 3 times a day for 21 days. Olfactory function was tested pre and post-treatment for odor threshold (T), discrimination (D), identification (I) and composite 'TDI' score using a psychophysical test battery, the "Sniffin' Sticks." Oral pentoxifylline was well tolerated and all patients completed the treatment period. There was a small improvement in odor threshold and identification scores, but these did not reach statistical or clinical significance. There were deteriorations in discrimination and composite TDI score, which did not reach significance. While our case series was small, systemic pentoxifylline did not appear to be beneficial in the treatment of hyposmia in this patient group.

Structural Plasticity of the Primary and Secondary Olfactory cortices: Increased Gray Matter Volume Following Surgical Treatment for Chronic Rhinosinusitis

Functional plasticity of the adult brain is well established. Recently, the structural counterpart to such plasticity has been suggested by neuroimaging studies showing experience-dependent differences in gray matter (GM) volumes. Within the primary and secondary olfactory cortices, reduced GM volumes have been demonstrated in patients with olfactory loss. However, these cross-sectional studies do not provide causal evidence for GM volume change, and thereby structural plasticity. Disorders of the peripheral olfactory system, such as chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), provide an ideal model to study GM structural plasticity, given that patients may experience long periods of olfactory impairment, followed by near complete recovery with treatment. We therefore performed a prospective longitudinal study in patients undergoing surgical treatment for CRS. We used voxel-based morphometry (VBM) to investigate GM volume change in 12 patients (M:F = 7:5; 47.2 ± 14.9 years), 3 months post-op. There was a significant improvement in olfactory function according to birhinal psychophysical testing. We performed a voxel-wise region of interest analysis, with significance corrected for number of regions (p < 0.0036_corr). We found significantly increased post-operative GM volumes within the primary (left piriform cortex, right amygdala) and secondary (right orbitofrontal cortex, caudate nucleus, hippocampal-parahippocampal complex and bilateral temporal poles) olfactory networks, and decreased GM volumes within the secondary network only (left caudate nucleus and temporal pole, bilateral hippocampal-parahippocampal complex). As a control measure, we assessed GM change within V1, S1 and A1, where there were no suprathreshold voxels. To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate GM structural plasticity within the primary and secondary olfactory cortices, following restoration of olfaction.

The confounding effect of background odors on olfactory sensitivity testing

BACKGROUND

Human olfactory sensitivity is known to vary significantly across subjects. Furthermore, environmental factors such as background noise and odor are known to affect target odor threshold scores but have not yet been fully delineated. We aimed to determine whether congruent and non-congruent background odor impaired target odor threshold scores.

NEW METHOD

We performed odor threshold testing in 103 normosmic adults, using phenylethylalcohol (PEA) or linalool as target odors, under three conditions: (a) congruent target and background odors (e.g., PEA in the test and PEA in the background), (b) non-congruent target and background odors (e.g. PEA in the test and Linalool in the background) and (c) no background odor. Background odor was applied to the investigator's glove and testing was performed in an otherwise odorless room.

RESULTS

We found that congruent background odors significantly impaired target odor threshold scores. Non-congruent background odors also impaired target odor threshold, but significantly more so with PEA as target and Linalool as background odor. The best threshold scores were obtained with no background odor. Comparison with Existing Method(s). At present, many testing environments may be contaminated with ambient background odors. We have shown that this may negatively affect odor threshold scores, particularly where background and target odors are congruent.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that investigators performing odor threshold testing do so in well ventilated, odor free environments.

Position paper on olfactory dysfunction

Background

Olfactory dysfunction is an increasingly recognised condition, associated with reduced quality of life and major health outcomes such as neurodegeneration and death. However, translational research in this field is limited by heterogeneity in methodological approach, including definitions of impairment, improvement and appropriate assessment techniques. Accordingly, effective treatments for smell loss are limited. In an effort to encourage high quality and comparable work in this field, among others, we propose the following ideas and recommendations. Whilst the full set of recommendations are outlined in the main document, points include the following: • Patients with suspected olfactory loss should undergo a full examination of the head and neck, including rigid nasal endoscopy with small diameter endoscopes. • Subjective olfactory assessment should not be undertaken in isolation, given its poor reliability. • Psychophysical assessment tools used in clinical and research settings should include reliable and validated tests of odour threshold, and/or one of odour identification or discrimination. • Comprehensive chemosensory assessment should include gustatory screening. • Smell training can be helpful in patients with olfactory loss of several aetiologies.

Conclusions

We hope the current manuscript will encourage clinicians and researchers to adopt a common language, and in so doing, increase the methodological quality, consistency and generalisability of work in this field.

Position paper on olfactory dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Olfactory dysfunction is an increasingly recognised condition, associated with reduced quality of life and major health outcomes such as neurodegeneration and death. However, translational research in this field is limited by heterogeneity in methodological approach, including definitions of impairment, improvement and appropriate assessment techniques. Accordingly, effective treatments for smell loss are limited. In an effort to encourage high quality and comparable work in this field, among others, we propose the following ideas and recommendations. Whilst the full set of recommendations are outlined in the main document, points include the following: - Patients with suspected olfactory loss should undergo a full examination of the head and neck, including rigid nasal endoscopy with small diameter endoscopes. - Subjective olfactory assessment should not be undertaken in isolation, given its poor reliability. - Psychophysical assessment tools used in clinical and research settings should include reliable and validated tests of odour threshold, and/or one of odour identification or discrimination. - Comprehensive chemosensory assessment should include gustatory screening. - Smell training can be helpful in patients with olfactory loss of several aetiologies.

CONCLUSIONS

We hope the current manuscript will encourage clinicians and researchers to adopt a common language, and in so doing, increase the methodological quality, consistency and generalisability of work in this field.

Intranasal vitamin A is beneficial in post-infectious olfactory loss

Vitamin A plays a decisive role in the regeneration of olfactory receptor neurons. In this retrospective study we investigated the effectiveness of topical vitamin A in patients with post-infectious and posttraumatic smell disorders. Retrospective cohort. A total of 170 patients (age range 18-70 years, mean age 52 years) participated. Forty-six patients were treated with smell training only. The remaining 124 patients received smell training and topical vitamin A. Olfactory function was assessed using the Sniffin' Sticks test kit, a validated technique to measure odor thresholds, discrimination and identification. The duration of olfactory training was 12 weeks. In patients receiving vitamin A, this was applied topically (head back position) at a dose of 10,000 IU/day for 8 weeks. Follow-up testing was performed approximately 10 months after the first assessment. Thirty-seven per cent of all post-infectious patients treated with vitamin A exhibited clinical improvement, whereas only 23% improved in controls. Using a Chi-square test, this was a significant result (χ ² = 7.06, df = 2, p = 0.03). In addition, when comparing change in score after treatment, olfactory training + vitamin A produced significantly greater improvement compared with training alone, in discrimination score for all patients (1.4 points, p = 0.008), and in threshold and discrimination in the post-infectious group (1.6 points, p = 0.01 and 1.4 points, p = 0.04, respectively). Intranasal vitamin A at a dose of 10,000 IU per day for 2 months may be useful in the treatment of post-infectious olfactory loss. Further work with prospective, placebo-controlled studies is required to confirm these findings.

Peak nasal inspiratory flow correlates with quality of life in functional endoscopic sinus surgery

OBJECTIVES

Whilst nasal function and airflow improve subjectively following functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS), a clinically useful and objective tool for quantifying such improvement is lacking. The peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) metre offers convenient and objective measures of nasal patency. However, it has not yet been established whether changes in PNIF after surgery reflect changes in subjective disease burden. In this study we aimed to determine whether changes in PNIF correlate with commonly used subjective symptom and quality of life outcome measures following FESS for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).

DESIGN

Prospective cohort.

SETTING

Royal National Throat Nose and Ear Hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-seven patients undergoing FESS for CRS, with or without polyps (21 male, mean age 48.8).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

PNIF, "SNOT-22", "NOSE" and "VAS" questionnaires were performed before and after surgery.

RESULTS

In all patients, there was a strong negative correlation between change in PNIF and change in "SNOT-22" score following surgery (Pearson r=-.64, P<.0001). Strong negative correlations were also seen during subgroup analysis of patients with and without polyps (r=-.57, P=.006 and r=-.67, P=.005, respectively). Change in PNIF correlated significantly with change in "NOSE" score following surgery in all patients and those without polyps (r=-.54, P=.0005 and r=-.68, P=.003). There were no significant correlations between PNIF and VAS (nasal obstruction).

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in PNIF after FESS appear to best reflect improvements in quality of life in CRS as measured using the "SNOT-22" questionnaire.

Intranasal sodium citrate solution improves olfaction in post-viral hyposmia

BACKGROUND

Calcium plays an integral role in olfactory signal transduction, including feedback inhibition. Sodium citrate acts as a calcium sequestrant and when applied intranasally, reduces free calcium available for feedback inhibition, which should theoretically improve olfaction. We aimed to investigate the utility of intranasal sodium citrate in improving the olfactory function of hyposmic patients, by performing this prospective placebo controlled, single-blind trial.

METHODOLOGY

Monorhinal olfactory testing for odour identification and threshold was performed in hyposmic patients using Sniffin Sticks, before and after treatment. Treatment consisted of one-off sodium citrate solution application to the olfactory cleft. Sodium chloride solution was applied to the contralateral olfactory cleft, which therefore acted as placebo control. Patients were blinded to the side of sodium citrate application, and side of treatment was randomized between patients.

RESULTS

57 patients participated, aged 22-79. Causes of hyposmia included: post-viral (7); posttraumatic (10); sinonasal disease (30) and idiopathic (10). Compared with placebo, there was significant improvement in the identification scores of participants with post-viral hyposmia, following sodium citrate treatment. No significant change in olfactory function occurred for either identification or threshold in any other aetiological subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Intranasal sodium citrate may be of benefit to patients with post-viral hyposmia.

The effect of intranasal sodium citrate on olfaction in post-infectious loss: results from a prospective, placebo-controlled trial in 49 patients

OBJECTIVES

Free calcium plays an integral role in peripheral olfactory processing, including feedback inhibition. It has therefore been suggested that reduction of intranasal free calcium with buffer solutions such as sodium citrate may improve olfactory function in patients with smell impairment. Several previous studies have supported this hypothesis, particularly in post-infectious olfactory loss. We therefore aimed to determine whether treatment with intranasal sodium citrate improves olfactory function in patients with post-infectious impairment.

DESIGN

Prospective, single-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Interdisciplinary Smell and Taste Clinic, TU Dresden (tertiary referral centre).

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-nine adult participants with post-infectious olfactory impairment (M : F = 11 : 38, mean age 58.71 ± 11.03 years).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Olfactory function (odour threshold and identification) before and after treatment as determined using "Sniffin' Sticks". Patients were treated monorhinally with 1 mL sodium citrate solution. The contralateral nasal cavity was treated with 1 mL physiological sodium chloride solution, which acted as internal control. Clinical improvement was assumed where threshold or identification score increased by ≥2.5 or 3 points, respectively, or ≥5.5 points together.

RESULTS

We demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in composite threshold + identification scores following treatment with sodium citrate, compared with placebo. This was true for all patients (mean improvement 0.87 ± 2.68 points, P = 0.04), and on subgroup analysis in those with hyposmia (mean improvement 1.15 ± 2.37 points, P = 0.02). However, the effect size did not reach clinical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Further basic and clinical work is required to fully delineate the effect of intranasal sodium citrate in the treatment of post-infectious olfactory loss.

Patterns of olfactory impairment reflect underlying disease etiology

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine whether the pattern of olfactory impairment seen in psychophysical testing reflects underlying disease etiology.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 1,226 patients from our tertiary referral center. Only hyposmic patients with the following conditions were included: postinfectious hyposmia, posttraumatic hyposmia, hyposmia secondary to sinonasal disease, and hyposmia secondary to Parkinson disease. Patients with anosmia were excluded.

RESULTS

Using a repeated measures analysis of variance (within subject factor "test": threshold [T], discrimination [D], identification [I]; between subject factor: "etiology") with posthoc Bonferroni corrected t tests, we found significant interaction between the factors "test" and "etiology" (F_6,2444 = 8.46, P < 0.001), indicating that different causes of hyposmia produce different patterns of olfactory loss with respect to the individual subtests T, D, and I . Specifically, patients with Parkinson disease performed relatively well in odor threshold testing, but poorly in odor identification and discrimination compared with the other etiology groups. Conversely, patients with sinonasal disease performed well in odor identification and discrimination but poorly in odor threshold. Patients with postinfectious and posttraumatic hyposmia performed relatively well in both thresholds and discrimination but poorly in identification. However, patients with posttraumatic hyposmia had globally reduced scores compared with the other groups.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to comprehensively show that patterns of olfactory impairment reflect underlying disease etiology. We suggest that multicomponent olfactory testing should be performed, especially if there is diagnostic uncertainty. However, to clearly separate different patterns of olfactory loss to the various causes at an individual level, more work is needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4. Laryngoscope, 2016 127:291-295, 2017.

A comparison of neck movement in the soft cervical collar and rigid cervical brace in healthy subjects

OBJECTIVE

The soft cervical collar has been prescribed for whiplash injury but has been shown to be clinically ineffective. As some authors report superior results for managing whiplash injury with a cervical brace, we were interested in comparing the mechanical effectiveness of the soft collar with a rigid cervical brace. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to measure ranges of motion in subjects without neck pain using a soft cervical collar and a rigid brace compared with no orthosis.

METHODS

Fifty healthy subjects (no neck or shoulder pain) aged 22 to 67 years were recruited for this study. Neck movement was measured using a cervical range of motion goniometer. Active flexion, extension, right and left lateral flexion, and right and left rotation were assessed in each subject under 3 conditions: no collar, a soft collar, and a rigid cervical brace.

RESULTS

The soft collar and rigid brace reduced neck movement compared with no brace or collar, but the cervical brace was more effective at reducing motion. The soft collar reduced movement on average by 17.4%; and the cervical brace, by 62.9%. The effect of the orthoses was not affected by age, although older subjects had stiffer necks.

CONCLUSION

Based on the data of the 50 subjects presented in this study, the soft cervical collar did not adequately immobilize the cervical spine.