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

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

Clinical Olfactory Working Group Consensus statement on the treatment of post infectious 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<10). Once independently validated, this tool could be deployed when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable

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

Correction: Chemical Senses, Volume 46, 2021, bjab050, https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjab050 Published: 08 December 2021Recent 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 multilingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in 3 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, and 8 others, aged 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 +/- standard deviation), 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 the lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus strain 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms.Peer reviewe

The Effects of Olfactory Loss and Parosmia on Food and Cooking Habits, Sensory Awareness, and Quality of Life—A Possible Avenue for Regaining Enjoyment of Food

Olfactory dysfunction often has severe consequences on patients’ quality of life. The most common complaint in these patients is their reduced enjoyment of food in both patients with olfactory loss and parosmia. How the different types of olfactory dysfunction differ in relation to food and cooking habits, sensory awareness, and food-related quality of life has not yet received much attention. By applying questionnaires on cooking, food, olfactory function, weight changes, sensory awareness, and food-related quality of life, we investigated how various aspects of eating differ between participants with olfactory loss (n = 271), parosmia (n = 251), and normosmic controls (n = 166). Cooking habits in olfactory dysfunction revealed pronounced differences as compared with normosmic controls. Cooking with olfactory dysfunction was associated with, e.g., a lack of comfort and inspiration for cooking and an inability to make new foods successfully. Significant differences in cooking were also found between olfactory loss and parosmia. Food items were less familiar in participants with olfactory loss and parosmia, while the ratings of liking food items differed between olfactory loss and parosmia, indicating the importance of adapting ingredients in meals separately for olfactory loss and parosmia. Parosmia was associated with a higher incidence of weight loss, but we found no difference in food-related quality of life between participants with olfactory loss and parosmia. While olfactory loss and parosmia have wide-ranging consequences on patients’ cooking and food habits, adapting meals to include ‘safer food items’ and integrating multisensory stimulation may be a possible avenue for improving the enjoyment of food

Differences in Correlation between Subjective and Measured Olfactory and Gustatory Dysfunctions after Initial Ear, Nose and Throat Evaluation

Introduction Subjective chemosensory function can differ from measured function. Previous studies on olfactory assessment have found a positive correlation between subjective and measured scores. However, information on gustatory correlation between measured and subjective functions is sparse in patients who have undergone an initial ear, nose and throat (ENT) evaluation. Objectives To evaluate the correlation between subjective and measured olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions in a population complaining of taste and/or smell dysfunction after an initial ENT evaluation without chemosensory testing. Furthermore, we aimed to assess the need for chemosensory testing depending on the type of subjective chemosensory dysfunction. Methods A case series in which subjective chemosensory function was assessed through a questionnaire and measured chemosensory function was assessed by validated clinical tests. Results In total, 602 patients with complaints of olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunction were included. We found that 50% of the patients with normal gustatory function and an olfactory impairment classified their olfactory impairment as a subjective taste disorder. Furthermore, 98% of the patients who rated their olfactory function as absent did have a measurable olfactory impairment, but only 64% were anosmic. Conclusion Subjective gustatory dysfunction was poorly correlated with measured gustatory dysfunction, and was often found to reflect olfactory dysfunction. Contrarily, subjective olfactory dysfunction was positively correlated with measurable olfactory dysfunction. Although subjective anosmia was a strong indicator of measured anosmia or hyposmia, the existence of remaining olfactory function was frequently found in these patients. Validated chemosensory testing should be performed in patients with perceived olfactory or gustatory deficits, as this could help ensure increased diagnostic precision and a relevant treatment

Chemosensory Sensitivity after Coffee Consumption Is Not Static: Short-Term Effects on Gustatory and Olfactory Sensitivity

Chemosensory sensitivity has great variation between individuals. This variation complicates the chemosensory diagnostics, as well as the creation of a meal with universally high hedonic value. To ensure accurate characterization of chemosensory function, a common rule of thumb is to avoid food/beverages one hour before chemosensory testing. However, the scientific foundation of this time of fast remains unclear. Furthermore, the role of coffee on immediate chemosensitivity is not known and may have implications for optimization of gastronomy and hedonia. The aim of this study is to investigate the modularity effects of coffee consumption on immediate gustatory and olfactory sensitivity. We included 155 participants. By applying tests for olfactory and gustatory sensitivity before and after coffee intake, we found no changes in olfactory sensitivity, but significantly altered sensitivity for some basic tastants. We repeated our experimental paradigm using decaffeinated coffee and found similar results. Our results demonstrate that coffee (regular and decaffeinated) alters the subsequent perception of taste, specifically by increasing the sensitivity to sweet and decreasing the sensitivity to bitter. Our findings provide the first evidence of how coffee impacts short-term taste sensitivity and consequently the way we sense and perceive food following coffee intake—an important insight in the context of gastronomy, as well as in chemosensory testing procedures