This is a Brighton Collaboration case definition of anosmia to be used in the evaluation of adverse events following immunization, and for epidemiologic studies for the assessment of background incidence or hypothesis testing. The case definition was developed by a group of experts convened by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) in the context of active development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. The case definition format of the Brighton Collaboration was followed to develop a consensus definition and defined levels of certainty, after an exhaustive review of the literature and expert consultation. The document underwent peer review by the Brighton Collaboration Network and by two expert reviewers prior to submission.

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.

To date, much of the research on individual difference correlates of coronavirus guideline adherence is cross-sectional, leaving prospective associations between these factors unaddressed. Additionally, investigations of prospective predictors of mask-wearing, COVID-19 symptoms, and viral testing remain wanting.
The present study examined prospective relations between demographic factors, personality traits, social cognitions and guideline adherence, mask-wearing, symptoms, and viral testing in a U.S. sample (N = 500) during the initial surge of COVID-19 deaths in the United State between late March and early May 2020.
Guided by a disposition-belief-motivation framework, correlational analyses, and path models tested associations among baseline personality traits, guideline adherence social cognitions, health beliefs, guideline adherence and follow-up guideline adherence, mask-wearing, symptom counts, and 30-day viral testing.
Modeling results showed greater baseline agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion were associated with more frequent baseline guideline adherence. More liberal political beliefs, greater guideline adherence intentions, and more frequent guideline adherence at baseline predicted more frequent mask-wearing at follow-up. Sex (female), lower perceived health, and greater neuroticism at baseline predicted greater symptom counts at follow-up. Reports of viral testing were quite low (1.80%), yet were consistent with concurrent national reporting and limited availability of testing.
Results show how inconsistencies and politicization of health policy communication were concomitant with the effects of individual-level political beliefs on mask-wearing during the initial surge. The results further clarify how personality traits related to social responsibility (i.e., agreeableness, conscientiousness) are associated with following new norms for prescribed behaviors and how symptom reporting can be as much a marker of perceived health as emotional stability.

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).
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.
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.
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.
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.

Infection with the new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) leads to a previously unknown clinical picture, which is known as COVID-19 (COrona VIrus Disease-2019) and was first described in the Hubei region of China. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has implications for all areas of medicine. It directly and indirectly affects the care of neurological diseases. SARS-CoV-2 infection may be associated with an increased incidence of neurological manifestations such as encephalopathy and encephalomyelitis, ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage, anosmia and neuromuscular diseases. In October 2020, the German Society of Neurology (DGN, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie) published the first guideline on the neurological manifestations of the new infection. This S1 guideline provides guidance for the care of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection regarding neurological manifestations, patients with neurological disease with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection, and for the protection of healthcare workers. This is an abbreviated version of the guideline issued by the German Neurological society and published in the Guideline repository of the AWMF (Working Group of Scientific Medical Societies; Arbeitsgemeinschaft wissenschaftlicher Medizinischer Fachgesellschaften).

This consensus statement about the indications and modalities of corticosteroid treatment in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic was jointly written by experts from the French Association of Otology and Oto-Neurology (AFON) and from the French Society of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (SFORL). There is currently not enough data in favour of danger or benefit from corticosteroids in COVID-19, so until this matter is resolved it is advisable to limit their indications to the most serious clinical pictures for which it is well established that this type of treatment has a positive impact on the progression of symptoms. In Grade V and VI Bell\'s palsy according to the House-Brackmann grading system, a week\'s course of oral corticosteroids is recommended. Corticosteroid therapy is also recommended in cases of sudden hearing loss of more than 60dB, either in the form of intratympanic injections or a week\'s course of oral medication. In rhinology, there is no indication for systemic corticosteroid therapy in the current situation. However, patients are advised to continue with their local corticosteroid therapy in the form of a nasal spray or by inhalation. Treatments with corticosteroid nasal sprays can still be prescribed if there is no alternative. Finally, systemic or local corticosteroid therapy is not indicated for bacterial ENT infections.