Search

IntroductionThe current study evaluated the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), an autologous blood product with supraphysiologic concentrations of growth factors, in the treatment of prolonged coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related smell loss.MethodsThis multi-institutional, randomized controlled trial recruited patients with COVID-19 who had objectively measured smell loss (University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test [UPSIT] ≤ 33) between 6 and 12 months. Patients were randomized to three intranasal injections of either PRP or sterile saline into their olfactory clefts. The primary outcome measure was change in Sniffin' Sticks score (threshold, discrimination, and identification [TDI]) from baseline. The secondary end point measures included responder rate (achievement of a clinically significant improvement, ≥5.5 points TDI), change in individual TDI olfaction scores, and change in subjective olfaction via a visual analog scale.ResultsA total of 35 patients were recruited and 26 completed the study. PRP treatment resulted in a 3.67-point (95% CI: 0.05-7.29, p = 0.047) greater improvement in olfaction compared with the placebo group at 3 months and a higher response rate (57.1% vs 8.3%, odds ratio 12.5 [95% exact bootstrap confidence interval, 2.2-116.7]). There was a greater improvement in smell discrimination following PRP treatment compared with placebo but no difference in smell identification or threshold. There was no difference in subjective scores between PRP and placebo. No adverse effects were reported.ConclusionOlfactory function following COVID-19 can improve spontaneously after 6 months and can improve to a greater extent with PRP injection. These data build on the promise of PRP to be a safe potential treatment option for patients with COVID-19-related smell loss, and larger-powered studies will help further assess its efficacy.

BackgroundRapid spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and concern for viral transmission by ambulatory patients with minimal to no symptoms underline the importance of identifying early or subclinical symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Two such candidate symptoms include anecdotally reported loss of smell and taste. Understanding the timing and association of smell/taste loss in COVID-19 may help facilitate screening and early isolation of cases.MethodsA single-institution, cross-sectional study evaluating patient-reported symptoms with a focus on smell and taste was conducted using an internet-based platform on adult subjects who underwent testing for COVID-19. Logistic regression was employed to identify symptoms associated with COVID-19 positivity.ResultsA total of 1480 patients with influenza-like symptoms underwent COVID-19 testing between March 3, 2020, and March 29, 2020. Our study captured 59 of 102 (58%) COVID-19-positive patients and 203 of 1378 (15%) COVID-19-negative patients. Smell and taste loss were reported in 68% (40/59) and 71% (42/59) of COVID-19-positive subjects, respectively, compared to 16% (33/203) and 17% (35/203) of COVID-19-negative patients (p < 0.001). Smell and taste impairment were independently and strongly associated with COVID-19 positivity (anosmia: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 10.9; 95% CI, 5.08-23.5; ageusia: aOR 10.2; 95% CI, 4.74-22.1), whereas sore throat was associated with COVID-19 negativity (aOR 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.50). Of patients who reported COVID-19-associated loss of smell, 74% (28/38) reported resolution of anosmia with clinical resolution of illness.ConclusionIn ambulatory individuals with influenza-like symptoms, chemosensory dysfunction was strongly associated with COVID-19 infection and should be considered when screening symptoms. Most will recover chemosensory function within weeks, paralleling resolution of other disease-related symptoms.

BackgroundRapid spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus has left many health systems around the world overwhelmed, forcing triaging of scarce medical resources. Identifying indicators of hospital admission for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients early in the disease course could aid the efficient allocation of medical interventions. Self-reported olfactory impairment has recently been recognized as a hallmark of COVID-19 and may be an important predictor of clinical outcome.MethodsA retrospective review of all patients presenting to a San Diego Hospital system with laboratory-confirmed positive COVID-19 infection was conducted with evaluation of olfactory and gustatory function and clinical disease course. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were performed to identify risk factors for hospital admission and anosmia.ResultsA total of 169 patients tested positive for COVID-19 disease between March 3 and April 8, 2020. Olfactory and gustatory data were obtained for 128 (75.7%) of 169 subjects, of which 26 (20.1%) of 128 required hospitalization. Admission for COVID-19 was associated with intact sense of smell and taste, increased age, diabetes, and subjective and objective parameters associated with respiratory failure. On adjusted analysis, anosmia was strongly and independently associated with outpatient care (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.74), whereas positive findings of pulmonary infiltrates and/or pleural effusion on chest radiograph (aOR 8.01; 95% CI, 1.12-57.49) was strongly and independently associated with admission.ConclusionNormosmia is an independent predictor of admission in COVID-19 cases. Smell loss in COVID-19 may be associated with a milder clinical course.

BackgroundOlfactory dysfunction is a prevalent problem with a significant impact on quality of life and increased mortality. Limited effective therapies exist. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous biologic product with anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects. This novel pilot study evaluated the role of PRP on olfactory neuroregeneration in patients with hyposmia.MethodsSeven patients who had olfactory loss greater than 6 months in duration, no evidence of sinonasal inflammatory disease, and no improvement with olfactory training and budesonide topical rinses were enrolled in this preliminary study. Patients received a single intranasal injection of PRP into the mucosa of the olfactory cleft. The Sniffin' Sticks olfactory test consisting of threshold, discrimination, and identification measurements (TDI) was administered at the beginning of the study and at 1 and 3 months.ResultsAll patients reported a subjective improvement of their smell shortly after injection but then stabilized. At 3-month post-treatment, two patients with functional anosmia (TDI < 16) did not improve significantly. Five patients with hyposmia (TDI > 16 but <30) showed an improvement with 60% achieving normosmia (TDI > 30) at 3-month follow-up. On average, patients with baseline TDI > 16 improved by 5.85 points with the most significant improvement in the threshold subcomponent. There were no adverse outcomes from intranasal PRP injections.ConclusionPRP appears safe for use in the treatment of olfactory loss, and preliminary data suggest possible efficacy, especially for those with moderate yet persistent loss. Further studies will help determine optimal frequency and duration of use.Level of evidence 2b

BackgroundOlfactory dysfunction is a prevalent problem with a significant impact on quality of life and increased mortality. Limited effective therapies exist. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous biologic product with anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects. This novel pilot study evaluated the role of PRP on olfactory neuroregeneration in patients with hyposmia.MethodsSeven patients who had olfactory loss greater than 6 months in duration, no evidence of sinonasal inflammatory disease, and no improvement with olfactory training and budesonide topical rinses were enrolled in this preliminary study. Patients received a single intranasal injection of PRP into the mucosa of the olfactory cleft. The Sniffin' Sticks olfactory test consisting of threshold, discrimination, and identification measurements (TDI) was administered at the beginning of the study and at 1 and 3 months.ResultsAll patients reported a subjective improvement of their smell shortly after injection but then stabilized. At 3-month post-treatment, two patients with functional anosmia (TDI < 16) did not improve significantly. Five patients with hyposmia (TDI > 16 but <30) showed an improvement with 60% achieving normosmia (TDI > 30) at 3-month follow-up. On average, patients with baseline TDI > 16 improved by 5.85 points with the most significant improvement in the threshold subcomponent. There were no adverse outcomes from intranasal PRP injections.ConclusionPRP appears safe for use in the treatment of olfactory loss, and preliminary data suggest possible efficacy, especially for those with moderate yet persistent loss. Further studies will help determine optimal frequency and duration of use.Level of evidence 2b

BackgroundRapid spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus has left many health systems around the world overwhelmed, forcing triaging of scarce medical resources. Identifying indicators of hospital admission for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients early in the disease course could aid the efficient allocation of medical interventions. Self-reported olfactory impairment has recently been recognized as a hallmark of COVID-19 and may be an important predictor of clinical outcome.MethodsA retrospective review of all patients presenting to a San Diego Hospital system with laboratory-confirmed positive COVID-19 infection was conducted with evaluation of olfactory and gustatory function and clinical disease course. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were performed to identify risk factors for hospital admission and anosmia.ResultsA total of 169 patients tested positive for COVID-19 disease between March 3 and April 8, 2020. Olfactory and gustatory data were obtained for 128 (75.7%) of 169 subjects, of which 26 (20.1%) of 128 required hospitalization. Admission for COVID-19 was associated with intact sense of smell and taste, increased age, diabetes, and subjective and objective parameters associated with respiratory failure. On adjusted analysis, anosmia was strongly and independently associated with outpatient care (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.74), whereas positive findings of pulmonary infiltrates and/or pleural effusion on chest radiograph (aOR 8.01; 95% CI, 1.12-57.49) was strongly and independently associated with admission.ConclusionNormosmia is an independent predictor of admission in COVID-19 cases. Smell loss in COVID-19 may be associated with a milder clinical course.

BackgroundRapid spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and concern for viral transmission by ambulatory patients with minimal to no symptoms underline the importance of identifying early or subclinical symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Two such candidate symptoms include anecdotally reported loss of smell and taste. Understanding the timing and association of smell/taste loss in COVID-19 may help facilitate screening and early isolation of cases.MethodsA single-institution, cross-sectional study evaluating patient-reported symptoms with a focus on smell and taste was conducted using an internet-based platform on adult subjects who underwent testing for COVID-19. Logistic regression was employed to identify symptoms associated with COVID-19 positivity.ResultsA total of 1480 patients with influenza-like symptoms underwent COVID-19 testing between March 3, 2020, and March 29, 2020. Our study captured 59 of 102 (58%) COVID-19-positive patients and 203 of 1378 (15%) COVID-19-negative patients. Smell and taste loss were reported in 68% (40/59) and 71% (42/59) of COVID-19-positive subjects, respectively, compared to 16% (33/203) and 17% (35/203) of COVID-19-negative patients (p < 0.001). Smell and taste impairment were independently and strongly associated with COVID-19 positivity (anosmia: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 10.9; 95% CI, 5.08-23.5; ageusia: aOR 10.2; 95% CI, 4.74-22.1), whereas sore throat was associated with COVID-19 negativity (aOR 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.50). Of patients who reported COVID-19-associated loss of smell, 74% (28/38) reported resolution of anosmia with clinical resolution of illness.ConclusionIn ambulatory individuals with influenza-like symptoms, chemosensory dysfunction was strongly associated with COVID-19 infection and should be considered when screening symptoms. Most will recover chemosensory function within weeks, paralleling resolution of other disease-related symptoms.

BackgroundEndoscopic endonasal approaches pose the potential risk of olfactory loss. Loss of olfaction and potentially taste can be permanent and greatly affect patients' quality of life. Treatments for olfactory loss have had limited success. Omega-3 supplementation may be a therapeutic option with its effect on wound healing and nerve regeneration.ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact on olfaction in patients treated with omega-3 supplementation following endoscopic skull base tumor resection.MethodsIn this multi-institutional, prospective, randomized controlled trial, 110 patients with sellar or parasellar tumors undergoing endoscopic resection were randomized to nasal saline irrigations or nasal saline irrigations plus omega-3 supplementation. The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) was administered preoperatively and at 6 wk, 3 mo, and 6 mo postoperatively.ResultsEighty-seven patients completed all 6 mo of follow-up (41 control arm, 46 omega-3 arm). At 6 wk postoperatively, 25% of patients in both groups experienced a clinically significant loss in olfaction. At 3 and 6 mo, patients receiving omega-3 demonstrated significantly less persistent olfactory loss compared to patients without supplementation (P = .02 and P = .01, respectively). After controlling for multiple confounding variables, omega-3 supplementation was found to be protective against olfactory loss (odds ratio [OR] 0.05, 95% CI 0.003-0.81, P = .03). Tumor functionality was a significant independent predictor for olfactory loss (OR 32.7, 95% CI 1.15-929.5, P = .04).ConclusionOmega-3 supplementation appears to be protective for the olfactory system during the healing period in patients who undergo endoscopic resection of sellar and parasellar masses.

The association of smell and taste loss with COVID-19 has been well demonstrated with high prevalence rates. In certain cases, chemosensory loss may be the only symptom of COVID-19 and may linger while other symptoms have resolved. The significance of persistent smell and taste loss and its relationship to ongoing viral shedding has yet to be investigated. In this cross-sectional study, of the 316 laboratory test-confirmed COVID-19 cases at our institution, 46 had subsequent test-based confirmation of viral clearance with 2 consecutive negative RT-PCR test results (reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction). Olfactory dysfunction was reported by 50% of the patients (23 of 46), with 78% (18 of 23) having subjective persistent smell loss despite negative RT-PCR test results. These preliminary data demonstrate the persistence of self-reported smell loss despite otherwise clinical resolution and undetectable nasal viral RNA.

BackgroundPatients with persistent COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction (OD) commonly report parosmia. Understanding the impact of COVID-19 OD and parosmia is critical to prioritizing research and interventions. In this study we investigate the impact of parosmia and other clinical and disease characteristics on health state utility values (HUVs) for those with persistent COVID-19 OD.MethodsPatients with a history of COVID-19 diagnosis and persistent OD were recruited from a tertiary medical center and a social media support forum for chemosensory dysfunction. Clinical characteristics and disease-specific symptoms were obtained along with self-reported history of smell function and presence of parosmia. HUVs were calculated using indirect (EuroQol 5-Dimension [EQ-5D]) and direct (VAS) measures.ResultsOur study included 286 subjects (75.52% women) with persistent COVID-19-related OD. Results (mean ± standard deviation) of HUVs based on EQ-5D and VAS were 0.81 ± 0.14 and 0.73 ± 0.21, respectively. Mean self-reported smell function (on a 0-10 scale) was 9.67 ± 1.25 pre-COVID-19, 0.93 ± 2.34 at diagnosis, and 3.39 ± 2.32 at most current assessment. A total of 89.16% of the subjects reported parosmia and 24.13% sought medical care for anosmia. Seeing an MD for OD (p < 0.001), female gender (EQ-5D only, p = 0.002), a history of chronic pain (p < 0.05) and depression/anxiety (EQ-5D only, p < 0.001) predicted worse health. Parosmia and persistent symptoms, such as shortness of breath, were associated with lower EQ-5D and VAS scores, but did not independently predict poorer health scores on multivariable analysis.ConclusionPersistent COVID-19 OD results in health states comparable to other chronic diseases.

The literature regarding clinical olfaction, olfactory loss, and olfactory dysfunction has expanded rapidly over the past two decades, with an exponential rise in the past year. There is substantial variability in the quality of this literature and a need to consolidate and critically review the evidence. It is with that aim that we have gathered experts from around the world to produce this International Consensus on Allergy and Rhinology: Olfaction (ICAR:O). Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to olfaction. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review, or evidence-based review with recommendations format as dictated by available evidence and scope within the ICAR:O document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:O document was integrated and reviewed by all authors for final consensus. The ICAR:O document reviews nearly 100 separate topics within the realm of olfaction, including diagnosis, epidemiology, disease burden, diagnosis, testing, etiology, treatment, and associated pathologies. This critical review of the existing clinical olfaction literature provides much needed insight and clarity into the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with olfactory dysfunction, while also clearly delineating gaps in our knowledge and evidence base that we should investigate further.

BackgroundPatients with persistent COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction (OD) commonly report parosmia. Understanding the impact of COVID-19 OD and parosmia is critical to prioritizing research and interventions. In this study we investigate the impact of parosmia and other clinical and disease characteristics on health state utility values (HUVs) for those with persistent COVID-19 OD.MethodsPatients with a history of COVID-19 diagnosis and persistent OD were recruited from a tertiary medical center and a social media support forum for chemosensory dysfunction. Clinical characteristics and disease-specific symptoms were obtained along with self-reported history of smell function and presence of parosmia. HUVs were calculated using indirect (EuroQol 5-Dimension [EQ-5D]) and direct (VAS) measures.ResultsOur study included 286 subjects (75.52% women) with persistent COVID-19-related OD. Results (mean ± standard deviation) of HUVs based on EQ-5D and VAS were 0.81 ± 0.14 and 0.73 ± 0.21, respectively. Mean self-reported smell function (on a 0-10 scale) was 9.67 ± 1.25 pre-COVID-19, 0.93 ± 2.34 at diagnosis, and 3.39 ± 2.32 at most current assessment. A total of 89.16% of the subjects reported parosmia and 24.13% sought medical care for anosmia. Seeing an MD for OD (p < 0.001), female gender (EQ-5D only, p = 0.002), a history of chronic pain (p < 0.05) and depression/anxiety (EQ-5D only, p < 0.001) predicted worse health. Parosmia and persistent symptoms, such as shortness of breath, were associated with lower EQ-5D and VAS scores, but did not independently predict poorer health scores on multivariable analysis.ConclusionPersistent COVID-19 OD results in health states comparable to other chronic diseases.

Viral infections have already been implicated with otitis media and sudden sensorineural hearing loss. However, the pathophysiology of COVID-19 as it relates to otologic disorders is not well-defined. With the spread of SARS-CoV-2, it is important to evaluate its colonization of middle ear mucosa. Middle ear and nasal tissue samples for quantitative RT-PCR and histologic evaluations were obtained from post-mortem COVID-19 patients and non-diseased control patients. Here we present evidence that SARS-CoV-2 colonizes the middle ear epithelium and co-localizes with the primary viral receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). Both middle ear and nasal epithelial cells show relatively high expression of ACE2, required for SARS-CoV-2 entry. The epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) was use as a biomarker of epithelia. Furthermore, we found that the viral load in the middle ear is lower than that present in the nasal cavity.

Understanding viral tropism is an essential step towards reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, decreasing mortality from COVID-19, and limiting opportunities for mutant strains to arise. Currently, little is known about the extent to which distinct tissue sites in the human head & neck region and proximal respiratory tract selectively permit SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication. In this translational study, we discover key variabilities in the expression of ACE2 and TMPRSS2, essential SARS-CoV-2 entry factors, among the mucosal tissues of the human proximal airways. We show that SARS-CoV-2 infection is present in all examined head & neck tissues, with a notable tropism for the nasal cavity and tracheal mucosa. Finally, we uncover an association between smoking and higher SARS-CoV-2 viral infection in the human proximal airway, which may explain the increased susceptibility of smokers to developing severe COVID-19. This is at least partially explained by differences in IFN-β1 levels between smokers and non-smokers.

This is a correction notice for article bjaa041 (DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjaa041), published 20 June 2020. An incorrect version of the caption to Figure 5 was mistakenly included in the published paper. An updated version is given below. Neither the data nor the paper's conclusions were affected by this correction. The authors sincerely apologize for the error. (A) Correlations between the 3 principal components with respect to changes in 3 chemosensory modalities (i.e., taste, smell, and chemesthesis). Shades of gray indicate positive correlation, whereas shades of red indicate negative correlations. White denotes no correlation. (B) Clusters of participants identified by k-means clustering. The scatterplot shows each participant's loading on dimension 1 (degree of smell and taste loss, PC1 on x-Axis) and dimension 2 (degree of chemesthesis loss, PC2 on y-Axis). Based on the centroid of each cluster, participants in cluster 1 (blue, N = 1767; top left) are generally characterized by significant smell, taste and chemesthesis loss. Participants in cluster 2 (orange, N = 1724; bottom center) are generally characterized by ratings that reflect smell/taste loss with preserved chemesthesis. Loadings for participants in cluster 3 (green, N = 548; right side) are generally characterized by reduced smell and taste loss, and preserved chemesthesis.

Recent 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, generally lacked quantitative measurements, and were mostly restricted to data from single countries. Here, we report the development, implementation and initial results of a multi-lingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in three 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, 8 other, ages 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±SD), 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 lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement This work was supported financially with discretionary funds from the Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), including a gift from James and Helen Zallie g

This review summarizes the challenges and adaptations that have taken place in rhinology and facial plastics in response to the ongoing coronavirus disease-19 pandemic. In particular, the prolonged exposure and manipulation of the nasal and oral cavities portend a high risk of viral transmission. We discuss evidence-based recommendations to mitigate the risk of viral transmission through novel techniques and device implementation as well as increasing conservative management of certain pathologies.

The coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is the causative agent of the ongoing severe acute respiratory disease pandemic COVID-19. Tissue and cellular tropism is one key to understanding the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2. We investigate the expression and subcellular localization of the SARS-CoV-2 receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), within the upper (nasal) and lower (pulmonary) respiratory tracts of human donors using a diverse panel of banked tissues. Here, we report our discovery that the ACE2 receptor protein robustly localizes within the motile cilia of airway epithelial cells, which likely represents the initial or early subcellular site of SARS-CoV-2 viral entry during host respiratory transmission. We further determine whether ciliary ACE2 expression in the upper airway is influenced by patient demographics, clinical characteristics, comorbidities, or medication use, and show the first mechanistic evidence that the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) does not increase susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection through enhancing the expression of ciliary ACE2 receptor. These findings are crucial to our understanding of the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 for prevention and control of this virulent pathogen.

This review summarizes the challenges and adaptations that have taken place in rhinology and facial plastics in response to the ongoing coronavirus disease-19 pandemic. In particular, the prolonged exposure and manipulation of the nasal and oral cavities portend a high risk of viral transmission. We discuss evidence-based recommendations to mitigate the risk of viral transmission through novel techniques and device implementation as well as increasing conservative management of certain pathologies.

The coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is the causative agent of the ongoing severe acute respiratory disease pandemic COVID-19. Tissue and cellular tropism is one key to understanding the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2. We investigate the expression and subcellular localization of the SARS-CoV-2 receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), within the upper (nasal) and lower (pulmonary) respiratory tracts of human donors using a diverse panel of banked tissues. Here, we report our discovery that the ACE2 receptor protein robustly localizes within the motile cilia of airway epithelial cells, which likely represents the initial or early subcellular site of SARS-CoV-2 viral entry during host respiratory transmission. We further determine whether ciliary ACE2 expression in the upper airway is influenced by patient demographics, clinical characteristics, comorbidities, or medication use, and show the first mechanistic evidence that the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) does not increase susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection through enhancing the expression of ciliary ACE2 receptor. These findings are crucial to our understanding of the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 for prevention and control of this virulent pathogen.

A 14-year-old boy had undergone an orbitozygomatic craniotomy for a pontine lesion. There was growth on surveillance imaging with involvement of posterior clinoids, clivus, and left pons suggestive of chordoma (Fernandez-Miranda et al., 2014b). An endoscopic endonasal approach was undertaken involving full upper and midclival exposure including bilateral posterior clinoidectomy (Fernandez-Miranda et al., 2014a; Truong et al., 2019a, 2019b). The internal carotid artery was skeletonized to maximize exposure and facilitate safe resection. The tumor was removed from between the dural layers of the midclivus while preserving the interdural abducens nerve (Barges-Coll et al., 2010). The brainstem component was resected while preserving the pontine perforators. Postoperative diagnosis was chordoma with MRI demonstrating complete resection. The patient was intact postoperatively. The video can be found here: https://youtu.be/g6SQ5JVK0Ko.

BackgroundThere is preliminary evidence that patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and comorbid obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) have reduced quality-of-life (QOL) improvements after functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) compared with patients without OSA. The effect of OSA severity on QOL improvement after FESS is unknown.ObjectivesTo better characterize the QOL improvement after FESS for patients with comorbid OSA and to assess whether QOL improvement is dependent on OSA severity.MethodsThis multi-institution, retrospective cohort study evaluated adult patients with CRS who underwent FESS between 2007 and 2015. Preoperative, 1-month, 3-month, 6-month, and 1-year postoperative 22-Item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test scores were used to evaluate QOL. We compared patients without OSA with patients with stratified OSA based on the preoperative apnea-hypopnea index. A multilevel, mixed-effects linear regression model was used for the analysis.ResultsOf 480 participants, 83 (17%) had OSA, and 47 of these patients had polysomnography results available for review. Both patients with OSA and patients without OSA reported significant QOL improvement after surgery (p < 0.0001) relative to baseline. In the unadjusted model, the subjects with OSA demonstrated a statistically worse outcome in 22-Item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test scores at each time point (2.4 points higher per time point, p = 0.006). When controlling for covariates, the adjusted model showed no difference in QOL outcome based on OSA status (p = 0.114). When stratified by OSA disease severity, the adjusted model showed no difference in the QOL outcome.ConclusionsPatients with CRS and comorbid OSA had worse QOL outcomes after FESS; however, when controlling for patient factors, there was no difference in QOL outcome. OSA disease severity did not seem to predict QOL improvement after FESS.

BackgroundThere is preliminary evidence that patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and comorbid obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) have reduced quality-of-life (QOL) improvements after functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) compared with patients without OSA. The effect of OSA severity on QOL improvement after FESS is unknown.ObjectivesTo better characterize the QOL improvement after FESS for patients with comorbid OSA and to assess whether QOL improvement is dependent on OSA severity.MethodsThis multi-institution, retrospective cohort study evaluated adult patients with CRS who underwent FESS between 2007 and 2015. Preoperative, 1-month, 3-month, 6-month, and 1-year postoperative 22-Item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test scores were used to evaluate QOL. We compared patients without OSA with patients with stratified OSA based on the preoperative apnea-hypopnea index. A multilevel, mixed-effects linear regression model was used for the analysis.ResultsOf 480 participants, 83 (17%) had OSA, and 47 of these patients had polysomnography results available for review. Both patients with OSA and patients without OSA reported significant QOL improvement after surgery (p < 0.0001) relative to baseline. In the unadjusted model, the subjects with OSA demonstrated a statistically worse outcome in 22-Item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test scores at each time point (2.4 points higher per time point, p = 0.006). When controlling for covariates, the adjusted model showed no difference in QOL outcome based on OSA status (p = 0.114). When stratified by OSA disease severity, the adjusted model showed no difference in the QOL outcome.ConclusionsPatients with CRS and comorbid OSA had worse QOL outcomes after FESS; however, when controlling for patient factors, there was no difference in QOL outcome. OSA disease severity did not seem to predict QOL improvement after FESS.