Andreas Espehana’s research while affiliated with University of East Anglia and other places

Olfactory dysfunction affects approximately 20% of the population globally, with incidence increasing over the age of 60. The pathophysiology is complex, not yet fully understood, and depends on many factors, including the underlying cause. Despite this, the present literature on olfaction is limited due to significant heterogeneity in methodological approaches. This has resulted in limited effective treatments available for olfactory dysfunction. Medications for olfactory dysfunction can be administered locally (directly to the olfactory epithelium) or systemically (orally or intravenously). Currently, there are various methods for local drug delivery to the olfactory epithelium (nasal drops, nasal sprays, atomisers, pressured meter-dosed inhalers, rinses, and exhalation delivery systems). The aims of this review are to summarise the different methods of drug delivery to the olfactory cleft, evaluate the current literature to assess which method is the most effective in delivering drugs to the olfactory epithelium, and review the medications currently available to treat olfactory dysfunction topically. Going forward, further research is required to better establish effective methods of drug delivery to the olfactory epithelium to treat smell disorders.

Purpose of review To provide a detailed overview of the assessment of COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction and its association with psychological, neuropsychiatric, and cognitive symptoms. Recent findings COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction can have a detrimental impact to the quality of life of patients. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, olfactory and taste disorders were a common but under-rated, under-researched and under-treated sensory loss. The pandemic has exacerbated the current unmet need for accessing good healthcare for patients living with olfactory disorders and other symptoms secondary to COVID-19. This review thus explores the associations that COVID-19 has with psychological, neuropsychiatric, and cognitive symptoms, and provide a framework and rationale for the assessment of patients presenting with COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction. Summary Acute COVID-19 infection and long COVID is not solely a disease of the respiratory and vascular systems. These two conditions have strong associations with psychological, neuropsychiatric, and cognitive symptoms. A systematic approach with history taking and examination particularly with nasal endoscopy can determine the impact that this has on the patient. Specific olfactory disorder questionnaires can demonstrate the impact on quality of life, while psychophysical testing can objectively assess and monitor olfaction over time. The role of cross-sectional imaging is not yet described for COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction. Management options are limited to conservative adjunctive measures, with some medical therapies described.

Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a heterogeneous condition characterized by differing inflammatory endotypes. The identification of suitable biomarkers could enable personalized approaches to treatment selection. Objective: This study aimed to identify and summarize clinical studies of biomarkers in adults with CRS in order to inform future research into CRS endotypes. Methods: We conducted systematic searches of MEDLINE and Web of Science from inception to January 30, 2022 and included all clinical studies of adult CRS patients and healthy controls measuring biomarkers using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays or Luminex immunoassays. Outcomes included the name and tissue type of identified biomarkers and expression patterns within CRS phenotypes. Study quality was assessed using the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. A narrative synthesis was performed. Results: We identified 78 relevant studies involving up to 9394 patients, predominantly with CRS with nasal polyposis. Studies identified 80 biomarkers from nasal tissue, 25 from nasal secretions, 14 from nasal lavage fluid, 24 from serum, and one from urine. The majority of biomarkers found to distinguish CRS phenotypes were identified in nasal tissue, especially in nasal polyps. Serum biomarkers were more commonly found to differentiate CRS from controls. The most frequently measured biomarker was IL-5, followed by IL-13 and IL-4. Serum IgE, IL-17, pentraxin-3 and nasal phospho-janus kinase 2, IL-5, IL-6, IL-17A, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, and interferon gamma were identified as correlated with disease severity. Conclusion: We have identified numerous potential biomarkers to differentiate a range of CRS phenotypes. Future studies should focus on the prognostic role of nasal tissue biomarkers or expand on the more limited studies of nasal secretions and nasal lavage fluid.We registered this study in PROSPERO (CRD42022302787).