Search

Introduction: Electronic cigarette use is increasing in popularity, and thousands of flavors are available. Adolescent vaping rates in the United States have nearly doubled in the past year. Unlike combustible tobacco, added flavors are not currently regulated for some types of electronic cigarette products. Here, we investigated the role of flavor in electronic cigarette liking and acute intake.Methods: Men (n = 39) aged 18-45 vaped in a controlled laboratory setting after being randomized to one of four e-liquids: 6 mg nicotine/mL cherry, 18 mg/mL cherry, 6 mg/mL chocolate, or 18 mg/mL chocolate. They completed several questionnaires, and vaped ad libitum for 10 minutes. After the first puff, participants rated sensations (sweetness, bitterness, coolness, harshness/irritation) on general labeled magnitude scales (gLMS) and rated overall liking on a generalized hedonic scale. Once the 10-minute session ended, participants made another set of ratings.Results: Liking was generally stable across the vaping session and liking varied substantially across the four conditions. Across all conditions, sensory ratings predicted liking: harshness/irritation was negatively associated with first puff liking, whereas perceived sweetness was positively associated with first puff liking. First puff liking associated with increased amount of e-liquid vaped, but not total nicotine intake. Participants appeared to titrate their nicotine intake regardless of assigned condition.Conclusion: Flavored e-liquids affect acute liking ratings, but not acute nicotine intake.Implications: These data suggest individuals who regularly vape may titrate their nicotine intake, regardless of flavor, and contrary to expectations, acute liking did not predict total nicotine intake. However, more-liked flavors may potentially make higher nicotine levels more tolerable by adding pleasant sensations directly, rather than by perceptual masking that reduces aversive sensations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 < OR < 10). Once independently validated, this tool could be deployed when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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, 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Participants in cluster 2 (orange,N= 1724; bottom center) are generally characterized by ratings that reflect smell/taste loss with preserved chemesthesis. 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. Loadings for participants in cluster 3 (green,N= 548; right side) are generally characterized by reduced smell and taste loss, and preserved chemesthesis. [Extracted from the article]