Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Dear editor,
We are delighted by the interest in our publication “Prevalence of acute olfactory dysfunction differs between variants of SARS-CoV-2—results from chemosensitive testing in wild type, VOC alpha (B.1.1.7) and VOC delta (B.1617.2)” and want to thank Lechien et al. for their kind estimation and the thoughtful discussion of our manuscript [1].
In this study we psychophysically confirmed a lower prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in the SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) alpha and delta compared to the wild-type. This is in accordance with recent publications: Coelho et al. showed odds ratios of 0.50, 0.44 for patients’ self-ratings of olfactory dysfunction in VOCs alpha and delta compared to the wild-type [2]. Similarly, Klimek et al. found a significantly higher TDI score in patients with VOC delta compared to wild-type [3].
Our data has been collected under the challenges of acute COVID-19. Hence, as addressed by Lechien et al. our study has some limitations:
Chemosensitive assessment is normally performed in specialized departments and comprises the collection of the patient’s history, a clinical examination including nasal endoscopy and psychophysical testing. As SARS-CoV-2 positive patients are normally quarantined, home-based approaches have been established using self-prepared or shipped test kits combined with questionnaires [4, 5], online surveys [6], or telephone interviews [7].
I. Besides remote olfactory testing we recorded preconditions of both general health and chemosenses and the individual course of the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with a previously known hyposmia or related conditions such as rhinosinusitis, traumatic brain injury or neurological diseases were excluded to minimize a possible bias of the results. However, due to the strict word limitation of the Short Communication, we could unfortunately not describe the methods in full detail and not present all findings of our study.
II. We do completely agree that testing of threshold, discrimination, and gustation (TDI, Sniffin’ Sticks) remains the gold standard for the psychophysical assessment of olfaction [8]. Due to the special circumstances of home-quarantine during acute COVID-19 this was hardly possible. Hence, we chose the well-established 8-item NHANES pocket smell test and the 16-item identification test to assesses olfaction in a remote approach. Different than stated by Lechien et al. a cut-off values have been established for both the 8-item NHANES pocket smell test (hyposmia: five or less correct answers of eight) [9] and the 16-item identification (hyposmia: eleven or less correct answers of 16) [10]. Therefore, the cut-off value for normosmia is 75% for both used tests.
III. The self-assessment of Sniffin’ Sticks might be prone to bias for various reasons as stated correctly by Lechien et al. To ensure the correct execution patients were instructed through an established telemedicine approach [7]. Moreover, the very same 16-item identification test [11] as well as other smell tests [12] have been previously validated for self-administration.
References
Hintschich CA et al (2022) Prevalence of acute olfactory dysfunction differs between variants of SARS-CoV-2-results from chemosensitive testing in wild type, VOC alpha (B.1.1.7) and VOC delta (B.1617.2). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-022-07431-6
Coelho DH et al (2022) Decreasing incidence of chemosensory changes by COVID-19 variant. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. https://doi.org/10.1177/1945998221097656
Klimek L et al (2022) Olfactory dysfunction is more severe in wild-type SARS-CoV-2 infection than in the Delta variant (B.1.617.2). World Allergy Organ J 15(6):100653
Hintschich CA et al (2022) Gustatory function in acute COVID-19—results from home-based psychophysical testing. Laryngoscope 132:1082–1087
Hintschich CA et al (2022) Persisting olfactory dysfunction in post-COVID-19 is associated with gustatory impairment: results from chemosensitive testing eight months after the acute infection. PLoS ONE 17(3):e0265686
Hintschich CA et al (2020) Psychophysical tests reveal impaired olfaction but preserved gustation in COVID-19 patients. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 10(9):1105–1107
Klimek L et al (2021) Telemedicine allows quantitative measuring of olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19. Allergy 76(3):868–870
Hummel T et al (1997) ‘Sniffin’ sticks’: olfactory performance assessed by the combined testing of odor identification, odor discrimination and olfactory threshold. Chem Senses 22(1):39–52
Rawal S et al (2015) The taste and smell protocol in the 2011–2014 US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES): test-retest reliability and validity testing. Chemosens Percept 8(3):138–148
Oleszkiewicz A et al (2019) Updated Sniffin’ Sticks normative data based on an extended sample of 9139 subjects. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 276(3):719–728
Mueller CA et al (2006) A self-administered odor identification test procedure using the “Sniffin’ Sticks.” Chem Senses 31(6):595–598
Vaira LA et al (2020) Validation of a self-administered olfactory and gustatory test for the remotely evaluation of COVID-19 patients in home quarantine. Head Neck 42(7):1570–1576
Boscolo-Rizzo P et al (2019) Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related smell and taste impairment with widespread diffusion of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.22995
Menni C et al (2022) Symptom prevalence, duration, and risk of hospital admission in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 during periods of omicron and delta variant dominance: a prospective observational study from the ZOE COVID Study. Lancet 399(10335):1618–1624
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Hintschich, C.A., Vielsmeier, V., Bohr, C. et al. Author’s reply to the Letter to the Editor “The study of olfactory dysfunction in SARS-CoV-2 variants”. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 279, 5471–5472 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-022-07569-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-022-07569-3