High prevalence of long-term olfactory dysfunction confirmed by olfactory testing after a community COVID-19 outbreak

Purpose The prevalence of long-term olfactory and gustatory dysfunction in participants suffering from sudden chemosensory loss due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unknown. Furthermore, evaluations of the reliability of participants’ self-reporting of olfactory function (SOF) and gustatory function (SGF) using extended objective psychophysical testing are missing. Methods In this population-based cohort study in a PCR-tested community in Thuringia, Germany, olfactory function was extensively examined 4 months after a COVID-19 outbreak using the “Sniffin Sticks” test battery to determine the TDIa score, i.e., the sum of results obtained for threshold, discrimination, and identification scores averaged for both nasal sides. Gustatory function was assessed using the three-drop test resulting in the gustatory composite score (CSg). The data were compared with SOF and SGF. Results Of 43 adult convalescents (median age: 68 years; 58% female) after SARS-CoV‑2 infection, 18 participants (42%) had olfactory complaints due to SOF, one participant (2%) complained of taste disturbance due to SGF. The TDIa was 22.0 ± 5.9. Normosmia, hyposmia, and anosmia were seen in 17, 18, and eight participants, respectively. TDIa correlated with SOF (rs = −0.434, p = 0.004); CSg was 23.5 ± 2.7. Normogeusia and hypogeusia were objectified in 39 and four participants, respectively. The prevalence of long-term olfactory dysfunction and gustatory dysfunction in the study group was 60.5 and 9.3%, respectively. Conclusion The SOF was reliable, especially for participants who felt a sudden chemosensory dysfunction during the outbreak. At 4 months after SARS-CoV‑2 infection, a high proportion of participants were dysosmic, whereas nearly all of them had normal taste function.

The Effect of Olfactory Training on Olfaction, Cognition, and Brain Function in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment

Background: The olfactory system is affected very early in Alzheimer’s disease and olfactory loss can already be observed in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), an early stage of AD. Objective: The aim of this randomized, prospective, controlled, blinded study was to evaluate whether olfactory training (OT) may have an effect on olfactory function, cognitive impairment, and brain activation in MCI patients after a 4-month period of frequent short-term exposure to various odors. Methods: A total of 38 MCI outpatients were randomly assigned to OT or a control training condition, which were performed twice a day for 4 months. Olfactory testing, comprehensive neuropsychological assessment, and magnetic resonance imaging were performed before and after training. Results: The results suggested that OT exhibited no significant effect on olfaction and cognitive function. However, OT exhibited a positive effect on frontal lobe activation (left middle frontal gyrus and orbital-frontal cortex) but exhibited no effect on grey matter volume. Moreover, the change of olfactory scores was positively associated with the change of frontal activation. Conclusion: OT was found to have a limited effect on olfaction and cognition in patients with MCI compared to a non-OT condition but increased their functional response to odors in frontal area.

Olfactory impairment in mild cognitive impairment with Lewy bodies and Alzheimer’s disease

ABSTRACT Objectives: Impaired olfaction may be a biomarker for early Lewy body disease, but its value in mild cognitive impairment with Lewy bodies (MCI-LB) is unknown. We compared olfaction in MCI-LB with MCI due to Alzheimer’s disease (MCI-AD) and healthy older adults. We hypothesized that olfactory function would be worse in probable MCI-LB than in both MCI-AD and healthy comparison subjects (HC). Design: Cross-sectional study assessing olfaction using Sniffin’ Sticks 16 (SS-16) in MCI-LB, MCI-AD, and HC with longitudinal follow-up. Differences were adjusted for age, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used for discriminating MCI-LB from MCI-AD and HC. Setting: Participants were recruited from Memory Services in the North East of England. Participants: Thirty-eight probable MCI-LB, 33 MCI-AD, 19 possible MCI-LB, and 32HC. Measurements: Olfaction was assessed using SS-16 and a questionnaire. Results: Participants with probable MCI-LB had worse olfaction than both MCI-AD (age-adjusted mean difference (B) = 2.05, 95% CI: 0.62–3.49, p = 0.005) and HC (B = 3.96, 95% CI: 2.51–5.40, p < 0.001). The previously identified cutoff score for the SS-16 of ≤ 10 had 84% sensitivity for probable MCI-LB (95% CI: 69–94%), but 30% specificity versus MCI-AD. ROC analysis found a lower cutoff of ≤ 7 was better (63% sensitivity for MCI-LB, with 73% specificity vs MCI-AD and 97% vs HC). Asking about olfactory impairments was not useful in identifying them. Conclusions: MCI-LB had worse olfaction than MCI-AD and normal aging. A lower cutoff score of ≤ 7 is required when using SS-16 in such patients. Olfactory testing may have value in identifying early LB disease in memory services.

COVID-19 and anosmia: The story so far

Objectives The pandemic has affected over 182 million coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases worldwide. Accumulated evidence indicates that anosmia is one of the significant characteristics of COVID-19 with a high prevalence. However, many aspects of COVID-19-induced anosmia are still far from being fully understood. The purpose of this review is to summarize recent developments in COVID-19-induced anosmia to increase awareness of the condition. Methods A literature search was carried out using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. We reviewed the latest literature on COVID-19-induced anosmia, including mechanisms of pathogenesis, olfactory testing, anosmia as predictive tool, pathological examinations, imaging findings, affected factors, co-existing diseases, treatments, prognosis, hypothesis theories, and future directions. Results The possible pathogenesis of COVID-19-induced anosmia may involve inflammation of the olfactory clefts and damage to the olfactory epithelium or olfactory central nervous system by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The D614G spike variant may also play a role in the increased number of anosmia patients. Anosmia may also be an essential indicator of COVID-19 spread and an early indicator of the effectiveness of political decisions. The occurrence and development of COVID-19-induced anosmia may be influenced by smoking behaviors and underlying diseases such as type 2 diabetes, gastroesophageal disorders, and rhinitis. Most patients with COVID-19-induced anosmia can fully or partially recover their olfactory function for varying durations. COVID-19-induced anosmia can be treated with various approaches such as glucocorticoids and olfactory training. Conclusion Anosmia is one of the main features of COVID-19 and the underlying disease of the patient may also influence its occurrence and development. The possible pathogenesis of COVID-19-induced anosmia is very complicated, which may involve inflammation of the olfactory clefts and damage to the olfactory epithelium or olfactory central nervous system.

Simple Disposable Odor Identification Tests for Predicting SARS-CoV-2 Positivity

Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is a common manifestation of COVID-19 and may be useful for screening. Survey-based olfactory evaluation tends to underestimate the prevalence of OD, while psychophysical olfactory testing during a pandemic has the disadvantage of being time consuming, expensive, and requiring standardized laboratory settings. We aimed to develop a quick, simple, affordable, and reliable test to objectively assess the prevalence and diagnostic accuracy of OD in COVID-19. The olfactory function of 64 COVID-19 inpatients and 34 controls was evaluated using a questionnaire and a simple disposable odor identification test (SDOIT) developed for this study. Four SDOIT models were assessed: 10-SDOIT, 9-SDOIT, 8-SDOIT, and 4-SDOIT, with 10, 9, 8 and 4 samples, respectively. We found a high frequency of self-reported OD in COVID-19 patients, with 32.8% and 42.2% reporting current and recent OD, respectively. Different SDOIT models revealed smell impairment in 54.7–64.1% of COVID-19 patients. The combination of either 10-SDOIT results and self-reported OD, or 8-SDOIT results and self-reported OD, were the best predictors of COVID-19, both with an AUC value of 0.87 (0.85 and 0.86 for the age-matched subjects). OD is a common symptom of COVID-19. A combination of self-reported smell deterioration and OD psychophysically evaluated using SDOIT appears to be a good predictor of COVID-19.

Steroids and Olfactory Training for Postviral Olfactory Dysfunction: A Systematic Review

Background: Postviral olfactory dysfunction (PVOD) is a clinical challenge due to limited therapeutic options and poor prognosis. Both steroids and olfactory training have been proved to be effective for olfactory dysfunction with varied etiologies. We sought to perform a systematic review to summarize the evidence of steroids or olfactory training for patients with PVOD.Methods: A systematic literature review using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted to identify studies assessing olfactory change in patients with PVOD receiving steroid or olfactory training.Results: Of the initial 273 abstracts reviewed, 20 articles with data from 2,415 patients with PVOD were included. Treatments including topical steroids, systemic steroids, classical olfactory training (COT), modified olfactory training (MOT), and olfactory training with steroid were analyzed. Both psychophysical olfactory testing and subjective symptom scores were utilized to assess the olfactory function. The routine use of nasal steroid spray alone during the management of PVOD seems to have no positive effect on olfactory dysfunction. Direct injection of steroid or nasal steroid spray into the olfactory cleft significantly improved the olfactory function in patients with PVOD. Olfactory improvement is greater than that of the natural course of the disease with short-term COT. Patients with PVOD would benefit more from long-term COT (&gt;12 weeks). Treatment duration, various odorants, olfactory training devices, changing the types of odors periodically, different molecular odorants, and different concentrations of odorants tended to increase the efficiency of MOT. Clinically significant improvement after olfactory training was defined as an increase of threshold, discrimination, and identification (TDI) score ≥6. From week 24 to week 36, both COT and MOT groups reached the maximum therapeutic effect regarding the number of participants achieving clinically significant improvement. A combination of local or oral steroids with olfactory training is more efficient than COT only.Conclusion: Olfactory function in patients with PVOD was effectively improved through direct steroid administration in the olfactory cleft, COT, or modification of COT. The addition of topical steroids to COT therapy showed a tendency for greater olfactory improvement in patients with PVOD.

Self-Ratings of Olfactory Function and Their Relation to Olfactory Test Scores. A Data Science-Based Analysis in Patients with Nasal Polyposis

Olfactory self-assessments have been analyzed with often negative but also positive conclusions about their usefulness as a surrogate for sensory olfactory testing. Patients with nasal polyposis have been highlighted as a well-predisposed group for reliable self-assessment. In a prospective cohort of n = 156 nasal polyposis patients, olfactory threshold, odor discrimination, and odor identification were tested using the “Sniffin’ Sticks” test battery, along with self-assessments of olfactory acuity on a numerical rating scale with seven named items or on a 10-point scale with only the extremes named. Apparent highly significant correlations in the complete cohort proved to reflect the group differences in olfactory diagnoses of anosmia (n = 65), hyposmia (n = 74), and normosmia (n = 17), more than the true correlations of self-ratings with olfactory test results, which were mostly very weak. The olfactory self-ratings correlated with a quality of life score, however, only weakly. By contrast, olfactory self-ratings proved as informative in assigning the categorical olfactory diagnosis. Using an olfactory diagnostic instrument, which consists of a mapping rule of two numerical rating scales of one’s olfactory function to the olfactory functional diagnosis based on the “Sniffin’ Sticks” clinical test battery, the diagnoses of anosmia, hyposmia, or normosmia could be derived from the self-ratings at a satisfactorily balanced accuracy of about 80%. It remains to be seen whether this approach of translating self-assessments into olfactory diagnoses of anosmia, hyposmia, and normosmia can be generalized to other clinical cohorts in which olfaction plays a role.

Olfactory groove meningioma with a 10-year history of smell loss and olfactory recovery after surgery

A rare cause of olfactory impairment is olfactory groove meningiomas with insidious onset of non-specific symptoms like headache, olfactory dysfunction, psychiatric symptoms such as depression, personality changes, declining cognitive function, visual disturbances or seizures. A common complication of surgery is loss of olfactory function. Still, the preservation of olfactory function should be attempted as olfactory loss often has a severe negative impact on quality of life. This report describes a woman with an olfactory groove meningioma and a 10-year history of olfactory impairment. It includes preoperatively and postoperatively extended olfactory testing, a neurosurgical approach to preserve the olfactory function and postoperative olfactory rehabilitation. After rehabilitation, the patient regained a normal olfactory function, even though the right-sided olfactory nerve could not be preserved during surgery. The case demonstrates the importance of performing neuroimaging in selected patients with olfactory loss and a method for preserving and potentially improving postoperative olfactory function.

Olfactory shifts linked to postpartum depression

Postpartum Depression (PPD) is the most common non-obstetric complications associated with childbearing, but currently has poor diagnostic regimes. Sensory symptoms of PPD are understudied, particularly with regard to the sense of olfaction. The present study addresses this research gap by assessing differences in olfactory abilities between 39 depressed mothers, who were within the perinatal period (i.e., during pregnancy and up to 1-year post pregnancy) and assessed with Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, and their case-matched healthy volunteers. The assessments include two olfactory testing sessions conducted 4-weeks apart, each comprising a standard odour detection threshold test (i.e., Snap & Sniff Olfactory Test System), and intensity and valence ratings for 3 “pleasant” and 3 “unpleasant” odorants. The results revealed no difference between patients (M = 5.6; SE = 0.3) and control group (M = 5.7; SE = 0.4) in terms of olfactory detection threshold. However, the patients group perceived the 3 “unpleasant” odours as significantly less pleasant (p < 0.05), and 2 odorants (1 “pleasant” and 1 “unpleasant”) as less intense. Additionally, these results did not appear to be significantly interacted with the individual’s perinatal stage. The present study is the first to evaluate associations between olfactory function and PPD. Findings from the study suggest that, while PPD has little effect on the early stages of olfactory processing, these conditions may have stronger influence on higher-order olfactory perception, including both hedonic and intensity perception. These novel findings add knowledge to sensory symptoms of PPD.

Anosmia in SARS-CoV-2 Patients: a Retrospective Study

BackgroundPost viral anosmia has been reported in human coronavirus infections. In this current pandemic, olfactory dysfunction (OD) has emerged as a common key presenting symptom of COVID-19 infection. In this study, we describe OD assessment in the inpatient setting of patients both suspected of and with confirmed COVID-19 infection via University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) objective assessment and a simple self-reported 3-item questionnaire.MethodsThirty patients admitted to the isolation wards of the National University Hospital, Singapore for either suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection from April to May 2020 were recruited to this study. 10 patients who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 were recruited as control subjects. The 20 patients with COVID-19 infection were divided into two groups (10 had olfactory testing performed during the first week of illness, 10 in the second week of illness). A simple 3-question survey was administered to each participant - to rank the severity, state the onset and duration of their hyposmia. Olfactory testing was performed using an English version of the UPSIT.ResultsLoss of smell was reported in 2 participants from the control group, 6 participants from the in the first week of illness and 5 participants from the second week of illness. Two COVID-19 patients have anosmia on the UPSIT. COVID-19 patients were more likely to have severe hyposmia or anosmia by objective assessment, a difference that was statistically significant (P = 0.0485). The differences in degree of OD among COVID-19 patients in their first and second week of illness were not statistically significant (P= 0.6563).ConclusionSelf-reported anosmia was higher among COVID-19 patients compared to controls who were admitted to isolation wards for respiratory symptoms but were tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection. On objective assessment by the UPSIT, COVID-19 patients were found to have higher rates of severe hyposmia or anosmia, a difference that was statistically significant (P = 0.0485). A limitation of this study is the odorants used in UPSIT which may be less familiar to the primarily Asian participants in this study, owing to cultural differences.