Although there are numerous brief odor identification tests available for quantifying the ability to smell, none are available in multiple parallel forms that can be longitudinally administered without potential confounding from knowledge of prior test items. Moreover, empirical algorithms for establishing optimal test lengths have not been generally applied. In this study, we employed and compared eight machine learning algorithms to develop a set of four brief parallel smell tests employing items from the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test that optimally differentiated 100 COVID-19 patients from 132 healthy controls. Among the algorithms, linear discriminant analysis (LDA) achieved the best overall performance. The minimum number of odorant test items needed to differentiate smell loss accurately was identified as eight. We validated the sensitivity of the four developed tests, whose means and variances did not differ from one another (Bradley-Blackwood test), by sequential testing an independent group of 32 subjects that included persons with smell dysfunction not due to COVID-19. These eight-item tests clearly differentiated the olfactory compromised subjects from normosmics, with areas under the ROC curve ranging from 0.79 to 0.83. Each test was correlated with the overall UPSIT scores from which they were derived. These brief smell tests can be used separately or sequentially over multiple days in a variety of contexts where longitudinal olfactory testing is needed.

Introduction: There is increasing recognition of the need for deprescribing of inappropriate medications in older adults. However, efforts to encourage implementation of deprescribing in clinical practice have resulted in mixed results across settings and countries.Area covered: Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar in June 2019. Reference lists, citation checking, and personal reference libraries were also utilized. Studies capturing the main challenges of, and opportunities for, implementing deprescribing into clinical practice across selected health-care settings internationally, and international deprescribing-orientated policies were included and summarized in this narrative review.Expert opinion: Deprescribing intervention studies are inherently heterogeneous because of the complexity of interventions employed and often do not reflect the real-world. Further research investigating enhanced implementation of deprescribing into clinical practice and across health-care settings is required. Process evaluations in deprescribing intervention studies are needed to determine the contextual factors that are important to the translation of the interventions in the real-world. Deprescribing interventions may need to be individually tailored to target the unique barriers and opportunities to deprescribing in different clinical settings. Introduction of national policies to encourage deprescribing may be beneficial, but need to be evaluated to determine if there are any unintended consequences.

A World Café workshop was held at the Bruyère Evidence-Based Deprescribing Guidelines Symposium in March 2018 with 30 participants (researchers, clinicians, policy makers, stakeholders). This workshop explored priorities for future work in the field of deprescribing and deprescribing guidelines through group discussion. The discussions were guided by the following questions: (1) What are deprescribing research priorities (to inform guideline development), (2) What outcome measures are important for developing deprescribing guidelines, and (3) How do we evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of deprescribing guidelines? Discussion from all 3 questions identified 6 main priority areas: (1) conducting high-quality and long-term clinical trials that measure patient-important outcomes, (2) focusing on patient involvement and perspectives, (3) investigating the pharmacoeconomics of deprescribing interventions, (4) understanding deprescribing interventions in different populations, (5) generating evidence on clinical management during deprescribing (e.g. managing adverse drug withdrawal effects, subsequent re-prescribing), and (6) implementing interventions in clinical practice. These topics represent what a group of experienced researchers, clinicians, and stakeholders in the field collectively felt was important to consider for design and implementation of future deprescribing studies. The aim is for these findings to stimulate future discussions and be considered by granting agencies, policy makers, deprescribing research networks, and individual researchers planning future deprescribing studies.

Interpreting results from deprescribing interventions to generate actionable evidence is challenging owing to inconsistent and heterogeneous outcome definitions between studies. We sought to characterize deprescribing intervention outcomes and recommend approaches to measure outcomes for future studies. A scoping literature review focused on deprescribing interventions for polypharmacy and informed a series of expert panel discussions and recommendations. Twelve experts in deprescribing research, policy, and clinical practice interventions participating in the Measures Workgroup of the US Deprescribing Research Network sought to characterize deprescribing outcomes and recommend approaches to measure outcomes for future studies. The scoping review identified 125 papers reflecting 107 deprescribing studies. Common outcomes included medication discontinuation, medication appropriateness, and a broad range of clinical outcomes potentially resulting from medication reduction. Panel recommendations included clearly defining clinically meaningful medication outcomes (e.g., number of chronic medications, dose reductions), ensuring adequate sample size and follow-up time to capture clinical outcomes resulting from medication discontinuation (e.g., quality of life [QOL]), and selecting appropriate and feasible data sources. A new conceptual model illustrates how downstream clinical outcomes (e.g., reduction in falls) should be interpreted in the context of initial changes in medication measures (e.g., reduction in mean total medications). Areas needing further development include implementation outcomes specific to deprescribing interventions and measures of adverse drug withdrawal events. Generating evidence to guide deprescribing is essential to address patient, caregiver, and clinician concerns about the benefits and harms of medication discontinuation. This article provides recommendations and an initial conceptual framework for selecting and applying appropriate intervention outcomes to support deprescribing research.

Background

Acute invasive fungal sinusitis (AIFS) is an aggressive disease that requires prompt diagnosis and multidisciplinary treatment given its rapid progression. However, there is currently no consensus on diagnosis, prognosis, and management strategies for AIFS, with multiple modalities routinely employed. The purpose of this multi-institutional and multidisciplinary evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) is to thoroughly review the literature on AIFS, summarize the existing evidence, and provide recommendations on the management of AIFS.

Methods

The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed from inception through January 2022. Studies evaluating management for orbital, non-sinonasal head and neck, and intracranial manifestations of AIFS were included. An iterative review process was utilized in accordance with EBRR guidelines. Levels of evidence and recommendations on management principles for AIFS were generated.

Results

A review and evaluation of published literature was performed on 12 topics surrounding AIFS (signs and symptoms, laboratory and microbiology diagnostics, endoscopy, imaging, pathology, surgery, medical therapy, management of extrasinus extension, reversing immunosuppression, and outcomes and survival). The aggregate quality of evidence was varied across reviewed domains.

Conclusion

Based on the currently available evidence, judicious utilization of a combination of history and physical examination, laboratory and histopathologic techniques, and endoscopy provide the cornerstone for accurate diagnosis of AIFS. In addition, AIFS is optimally managed by a multidisciplinary team via a combination of surgery (including resection whenever possible), antifungal therapy, and correcting sources of immunosuppression. Higher quality (i.e., prospective) studies are needed to better define the roles of each modality and determine diagnosis and treatment algorithms.