Postinfectious conditions challenge disease-specificity of SNOT-22.

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

Test-retest reliability and validity of the Importance of Olfaction Questionnaire in Denmark.

While measures to detect psychophysical olfactory ability are a crucial part of clinicians' assessment of potential olfactory loss, it gives no indication of how olfaction is experienced by the patient and these different aspects often deviate substantially. To ensure quality and reproducibility of subjectively reported olfactory experience and significance, the Importance of Olfaction Questionnaire (IO-Q) was introduced around a decade ago, and while initial validations have produced promising results, important aspects remain nearly unexamined. For example, the test-retest reliability has rarely been examined and the difference of online versus pen-and-paper administration remains unexplored. Here, we translated IO-Q to Danish and examined its validity, test-retest reliability and mode of administration. A cohort of 179 younger, Danish participants with a high level of English proficiency took the test twice with varying time in-between. The first test was taken digitally and in English, while the second was taken using pen-and-paper and in Danish. The distribution of scores and the relationship between the IO-Q and subscale scores were nearly identical between tests, indicating little to no influence of language/test modality in the sampled population. The internal consistency was comparable to previously published results. Likewise, an acceptable test-retest reliability was observed for the full IO-Q and slightly lower for subscales. No significant effect of time was found across several weeks. In conclusion, the IO-Q performed satisfactorily in all examinations and could therefore serve as a valuable clinical measure of subjective olfactory experience, and its Danish translation shows highly similar characteristics to the original, English version.

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

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

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

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

Workup and treatment of voice problems.

Voice problems, also called hoarseness or dysphonia, can cause significant morbidity with communication difficulties and social isolation. This review summarises the causes and treatment of voice problems. Common causes of voice problems are related to inflammation, non-physiological usage of the voice, benign lesions of the vocal cords and damage to the nerves innervating the larynx. Nonetheless, it is important to keep malignancy in mind as a differential diagnosis. Referral to an otorhinolaryngologist is recommended for voice problems in adults with a duration of more than two weeks.

Evaluation of subjective and tested olfactory dysfunction as a screening tool for COVID-19 in children.

INTRODUCTION: Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is an extremely frequent symptom of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults. However, the symptomatology in the paediatric population remains understudied and heavily reliant on questionnaires. The aims of this study were to evaluate the prevalence of OD in children with SARS-CoV-2 infection and to assess the use of olfactory testing in predicting COVID-19 in children. Furthermore, we aimed to investigate the correlation between subjective and objective sense of smell in children. METHODS: Children aged 6-12 years presenting at Test Centre Aarhus for a reverse transcription PCR for SARS-CoV-2 were invited to participate during the study period (from 8 January to 22 February 2022). They underwent olfactory testing with Sniffin' Sticks 16 Identification Kit and they were asked about their subjective assessment of smell and any confounding factors. RESULTS: A total of 78 children completed inclusion of whom 51 had a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. We found no correlation between either current SARS-CoV-2 status and Sniffin' Sticks Identification score (p = 0.500) or previous self-reported infection. We also found no correlation between subjective and objective sense of smell (p = 0. 109). CONCLUSION: The lack of correlation between SARS-CoV-2 infection and OD may indicate that OD is not a dominant symptom in children. Therefore, olfactory testing is not recommended as a screening method for SARS-CoV-2 as was suggested in adults. Likewise, subjective questioning is not a reliable tool in assessing olfactory function in children. FUNDING: Laura Danielsen received funding for salary from Forskningsfond Hospitalsenheden Vest (now Forskningsfond Regionshospitalet Gødstrup). Alexander Wieck Fjældstad wishes to acknowledge research salary funding for other projects from Velux Fonden. The sponsors had no say, roles or responsibilities in relation to the study, including (but not limited to) the study design, data collection, management, analysis or decision to publish. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not relevant.

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.

Self-reported periodontitis association with impaired smell and taste: A multicenter survey.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association between self-reported periodontitis and the senses of taste and smell among employees of one Danish and two American universities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected through a digital survey. A total of 1239 individuals from Aarhus University - Denmark, the University of Iowa, and the University of Florida - USA were included. Self-reported periodontitis was the exposure. The perceived senses of taste and smell were the outcomes and were measured through a visual analog scale (VAS). Self-perceived halitosis was the mediator. Confounders were age, sex, income, education, xerostomia, COVID-19, smoking, body mass index, and diabetes. The total effect was decomposed into direct and indirect using a counterfactual approach. RESULTS: The total effect of periodontitis on an impaired sense of taste was OR 1.56 (95% CI [1.02, 2.09]), of which 23% was mediated by halitosis (OR 1.13; 95% CI [1.03, 1.22]). Additionally, individuals with self-reported periodontitis had a 53% higher chance of having impaired smell (OR 1.53; 95% CI [1.00, 2.04]), with halitosis mediating 21% of the total effect (OR 1.11; 95% CI [1.02, 1.20]). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that periodontitis is associated with distorted senses of taste and smell. Additionally, this association appears to be mediated by halitosis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recovery from 3 Years of Daily Olfactory Distortions after Short-Term Treatment with GABA-Analogue.

This case report describes a healthy 47-year-old man with a 3 years history of daily unpleasant olfactory distortions with severe negative effects on the quality of life. The distorted smoke-like smell occurred every day and was most prominent in the evenings resulting in severe discomfort as the patient felt suffocated by the smoke when falling asleep. The distorted smell had no odour triggers and was classified as phantosmia. Patient history, nasal endoscopy, neurological and otolaryngological examination, depression screening, cognitive testing, and CT scan revealed no obvious aetiology, resulting in the diagnosis of idiopathic phantosmia. Quantitate olfactory function was normal. Based on anecdotal evidence in the literature, the patient was treated with a GABA-analogue (pregabalin 50 mg × 3) for 4 weeks. During this treatment, the olfactory distortions completely disappeared for the first time in 3 years and had not reoccurred after 7 months of follow-up. GABA-analogues may be a potential treatment for some of the patients suffering from olfactory distortions. While this constitutes a single case report without controls and phantosmia can disappear spontaneously, there is no proof of causality. However, given the long duration of symptoms, temporal relationship with treatment on the sudden disappearance of phantosmia, and long follow-up without recurrence, this highlights the need for further studies on GABA-analogues as a potential treatment of idiopathic phantosmia. Consequently, larger studies and systematic evaluation of potential effects in different patient groups are warranted before routine treatment with GABA-analogues is advised.

Long-Term COVID-19 Smell and Taste Disorders Differ Significantly from Other Post-Infectious Cases.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 is causing a wide range of clinical manifestations. Severe complications and long-lasting sequelae have been identified. Thus, olfactory disorders are reported in up to 86% of cases in mild and moderate COVID-19 infections. We present the first study comparing simple and complex post-COVID-19 cases with matched non-COVID-19 post-infectious smell and taste disorders. METHODS: A total of 328 patients were recruited from the University Clinic for Flavour, Balance and Sleep, Ear-nose-throat Department, Goedstrup Hospital, Denmark. A non-COVID -19 post-infectious population of 148 individuals was identified from the Redcap database, and was matched by duration of smell and taste disorders. Post-COVID-19 patients were divided into 99 patients with simple smell and taste disorders (only suffering from smell and taste disorders after COVID-19); and (81 patients with complex smell and taste disorder plus several other post-COVID-19 complaints). Besides patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) questionnaires and quality of life score (QoL), ear-nose-throat examination, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), orthonasal smell test (Sniffing's sticks), retronasal quick test, and taste screening were performed. RESULTS: Cases with post-COVID-19-related smell and taste disorders deviated from non-COVID-19 post-infectious cases; the patients were younger, had a lower occurrence of anosmia/ageusia, and had higher overall smell test scores. In contrast, patients with post-COVID-19-related smell and taste disorders more frequently complained of distorted senses. Parosmia and phantosmia were more prevalent among patients with simple post-COVID-19 complaints than among complex cases and their QoL were more negatively affected. CONCLUSION: Smell and taste function differ significantly between post-COVID-19 and other non-COVID-19 post-viral cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 133:169-174, 2023.

Danish Validation of a Retronasal Olfactory Powder Test and Development of a Novel Quick Retronasal Olfactory Test

Abstract Introduction Quality of life is closely linked to retronasal olfactory function. Familiarity with odors vary, so tests need validation. Testing can be time-consuming, so a quick test and a thorough test are needed for clinical and research settings. Objectives The objectives of this study were to validate the original retronasal powder olfactory test in a Danish population and to develop a novel quick retronasal test for easy application. Methods Ninety-seven participants were included in the study, 59 healthy controls and 38 patients with olfactory impairment. The retronasal test was modified by substituting unfamiliar odors and descriptors and validated with a criterion of correct identification rate of 50% in the original test and 90% in the quick test. Items with over 90% correct identification rate in the modified original test were included in the quick test, resulting in a 10-item test. Results The modified retronasal olfactory test achieved good test characteristics, with a 10th percentile cut-off value of 13: sensitivity was 88.9%, specificity 83.0%, positive predictive value 78%, negative predictive value 91.7%, and the receiver operating characteristics area under the curve (ROC-AUC) was 0.86. The quick test achieved acceptable test characteristics, with a 10th percentile cut-off value of 8.2: sensitivity was 72.2%, specificity 90.6%, positive predictive value 83.9%, negative predictive value was 82.8%, and ROC-AUC 0.81. Conclusion Validation of both tests demonstrated satisfactory accuracy. We recommend the quick test for screening purposes, and the modified original version for a thorough evaluation. The tests are easily implemented as they are easy to understand and very affordable.

Development and Psychometric Validation of the Taste And Smell Tool for Evaluation (TASTE) Questionnaire.

Importance: The human senses of taste and smell are essential in everyday life. However, as clinical testing of the senses and patient-reported sensory problems are often diverging, additional validated questionnaires are essential for the evaluation of chemosensory impairments. Objective: To develop an instrument with all relevant domains concerning chemosensory dysfunction and quality of life using modern psychometrics. Design, Setting, and Participants: The study was designed as a questionnaire study for developing a new instrument. The study started in 2019 and was completed in 2022. Patients with chemosensory dysfunction were recruited from a specialized smell and taste clinic at an ear, nose, and throat department in Denmark. Healthy participants with no history of chemosensory dysfunction were recruited through social media. Main Outcomes and Measures: Eight domains were included (distorted chemosensation, emotional, food and meals, social, hygiene, danger, work, and relationship), and 35 items were generated based on review of the existing literature and interviews with patients and experts. Participants were tested with the Major Depression Inventory, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, Taste Sprays, and Sniffin' Sticks for chemosensory function. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all items. Reliability, internal consistency, and validity were investigated, and a Rasch model was fitted. Healthy controls (n = 39) filled out the questionnaire for comparison of known-groups validity. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed. Finally, item reduction was performed, resulting in a final version with 21 items in 8 domains. Results: The study included responses from 316 patients, 183 women (58%) and 133 men (42%), with a mean (SD) age of 57 (15.1) years. Rasch model fit was acceptable with P > .05 for all items. An 8-dimensional confirmatory factor analysis model showed a better fit than a bifactor confirmatory factor analysis model. Cronbach α ranged from 0.65 to 0.86. Criterion validity with the Sniffin' Sticks, Taste Sprays, Major Depression Inventory, and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey was satisfactory. The test-retest reliability was good in all domains, ranging from 0.55 to 0.86. All domains were discriminative, except the social and work domains. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, the instrument was validated with 8 domains related to chemosensory dysfunction and quality of life. All items had good internal consistency, test-retest reliability, interitem correlations, item-total correlations, and Rasch model fit. The questionnaire appears suitable for use in clinical and research settings.

Chemosensory function and food preferences among haemodialysis patients.

INTRODUCTION: Malnutrition and disturbed sense of smell and taste frequently occur in patients treated with chronic haemodialysis. The common denominator between chemosensation and nutrition may be food preferences. Our aim was to investigate smell and taste function as well as food preferences among haemodialysis patients and compare the results with those of age-matched controls. METHODS: An observational case-control study was conducted on 29 patients on chronic haemodialysis and 39 age-matched healthy controls. Chemosensory function was evaluated using validated gustatory and olfactory tests. Food preferences were recorded using a questionnaire of 63 items including a five-point Likert scale of familiarity, liking and frequency. RESULTS: Chemosensory function was significantly poorer among patients than among controls. Patients had significantly lower familiarity and frequency of consumptions of all food categories than controls and they also had significantly lower liking of vegetables, fruits and starches. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the provided knowledge about haemodialysis patients' smell and taste function including their food preferences are suggested, such as enhancement of odorant intensity, use of taste amplification, cooking habits and exposure to more varied food items. Assessments of food preferences and chemosensory function prior to determination of individual dietary schedules are therefore recommended. FUNDING: The authors did not receive any financial support for the research or drafting of this article. The authors declare that they have no financial interests to report. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Danish Ethical Committee project number: M-2018-188-18.

Danish Validation of a Retronasal Olfactory Powder Test and Development of a Novel Quick Retronasal Olfactory Test.

Introduction Quality of life is closely linked to retronasal olfactory function. Familiarity with odors vary, so tests need validation. Testing can be time-consuming, so a quick test and a thorough test are needed for clinical and research settings. Objectives The objectives of this study were to validate the original retronasal powder olfactory test in a Danish population and to develop a novel quick retronasal test for easy application. Methods Ninety-seven participants were included in the study, 59 healthy controls and 38 patients with olfactory impairment. The retronasal test was modified by substituting unfamiliar odors and descriptors and validated with a criterion of correct identification rate of 50% in the original test and 90% in the quick test. Items with over 90% correct identification rate in the modified original test were included in the quick test, resulting in a 10-item test. Results The modified retronasal olfactory test achieved good test characteristics, with a 10th percentile cut-off value of 13: sensitivity was 88.9%, specificity 83.0%, positive predictive value 78%, negative predictive value 91.7%, and the receiver operating characteristics area under the curve (ROC-AUC) was 0.86. The quick test achieved acceptable test characteristics, with a 10th percentile cut-off value of 8.2: sensitivity was 72.2%, specificity 90.6%, positive predictive value 83.9%, negative predictive value was 82.8%, and ROC-AUC 0.81. Conclusion Validation of both tests demonstrated satisfactory accuracy. We recommend the quick test for screening purposes, and the modified original version for a thorough evaluation. The tests are easily implemented as they are easy to understand and very affordable.