Search

Objectives: This study aimed to determine the characteristics of patients with qualitative olfactory dysfunction (qualOD) and whether individuals with parosmia exhibit increased olfactory sensitivity to previously reported odorous triggers of parosmia. Methods: This study included individuals aged ≥18 years, divided into quantitative OD only, parosmia, and phantosmia groups. Data collected included: clinical‐demographic data, "Sniffin' Sticks" scores, questionnaires (depression scale, importance of olfaction), and information about parosmia and phantosmia. A proportion of patients underwent trigger odor threshold testing for 2‐Furfurylthiol [FFT] found in coffee and 2,6‐nonadienal [Nonadienal] found in cucumber. Results: Those with parosmia were typically younger women, with shorter OD duration due to post‐viral OD (PVOD), hyposmic/normosmic, and experienced parosmia more severely. Parosmia was 3.5 times more likely in PVOD. Those with phantosmia were older, with longer OD duration due to idiopathic OD, hyposmic/anosmic, and experienced phantosmia less severely. There were no significant differences between FFT and Nonadienal threshold scores in patients with parosmia, phantosmia, or only quantitative OD, but all groups had significantly increased olfactory sensitivity for trigger odors compared to phenyl ethyl alcohol (PEA). Conclusion: Parosmia and phantosmia patients have distinct characteristics. This may provide clinicians with a better understanding of possible olfactory outcomes in these patients. The higher olfactory sensitivity of all groups to trigger odors compared to PEA raises interesting points about parosmia triggers and odors in the context of warning for danger, in relation to the pathophysiology of parosmia that may be worth exploring in future studies. Level of Evidence: 3 Laryngoscope, 134:3277–3285, 2024 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the unique symptoms of COVID-19 is chemosensory dysfunction. Almost three years since the beginning of the pandemic of COVID-19, there have been many studies on the symptoms, progress, and possible causes, and also studies on methods that may facilitate recovery of the senses. Studies have shown that some people recover their senses even within a couple of weeks whereas there are other patients that fail to recover chemosensory functions fully for several months and some never fully recover. Here we summarize the symptoms and the progress, and then review the papers on the causation as well as the treatments that may help facilitate the recovery of the symptoms. Depending on the differences in the levels of severity and the locations where the main pathological venues are, what is most effective in facilitating recovery can vary largely across patients and thus may require individualized strategies for each patient. The goal of this paper is to provide some thoughts on these choices depending on the differences in the causes and severity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: Although risk factors for olfactory dysfunction in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) have been examined, most studies did not distinguish between classified eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis (ECRS) and noneosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis (NECRS). The incidence of eosinophilic disease in Japan differs from that in the West. Thus, when olfaction in CRS is investigated, ECRS and NECRS should be examined separately. In the present study, we examined the clinical characteristics associated with olfactory dysfunction in Japanese patients with ECRS and NECRS enrolled in a large multicenter, prospective cohort study. Methods: Olfactory examination results, demographic data, clinical factors, and comorbidity data were analyzed for 418 patients with CRS at 3 tertiary care centers. We used T&T olfactometry, intravenous olfactory test (the Alinamin test) and Likert scale to assess subjects’ olfactory function. Data were analyzed with univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: Olfactory dysfunction was more severe and more prevalent in ECRS than in NECRS. We found that olfactory cleft polyps (odds ratio [OR], 3.24), ethmoid opacification (OR, 2.64), asthma (OR, 2.29), current smoking (OR, 1.74) and age ≥50 years (OR, 1.66) were associated with olfactory dysfunction in CRS. Ethmoid opacification (OR, 3.09) and olfactory cleft polyps (OR, 3.05) were associated with olfactory dysfunction in NECRS. Olfactory cleft polyps (OR, 3.98), current smoking (OR, 2.67), IgE ≥400IU/ml (OR, 2.65), ethmoid opacification (OR, 2.51), and asthma (OR, 2.34) were associated with olfactory dysfunction in ECRS. Conclusions: Olfactory dysfunction was more severe and prevalent in ECRS than in NECRS. Physician should pay attention to these clinical findings to diagnose olfactory dysfunction, especially in ECRS, and should provide appropriate explanation, guidance, and care. In addition, smokers should be advised to stop smoking to help prevent olfactory dysfunction. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]