Aim: Pharyngodynia, nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, smell, and taste dysfunctions could be the presenting symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The aim was to perform a systematic review of current evidences on clinical presentation of COVID-19, focusing on upper airway symptoms in order to help otolaryngologists identifying suspected cases. Methods: We searched PubMed and Web of Science electronic databases. Results: We included 5 retrospective clinical studies for a total of 1556 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, 57.5% were male and mean age was 49.1 years. Pooled data revealed that pharyngodynia was present in 12.4% of patients, nasal congestion in 3.7%, and rhinorrhea was rare. No reports on COVID-19 and olfactory/gustative disorders matched inclusion criteria but preliminary evidences suggested they could be present. Common symptoms were fever (85.6%), cough (68.7%), and fatigue (39.4%). Frequent comorbidities were hypertension (17.4%), diabetes (3.8%), and coronary heart disease (3.8%); 83% of patients had alterations on chest computed tomography that were bilateral in 89.5% of cases. Ground-glass opacity was the most common finding (50%). Lymphopenia (77.2%) and leucopenia (30.1%) were common. Critical cases with complications were 9%, intensive care unit admission was required in 7.3%, invasive ventilation in 3.4%, and mortality was 2.4%. Conclusion: Otolaryngologists should know that pharyngodynia, nasal congestion, olfactory, and gustative disorders could be the presenting symptoms of COVID-19. Clinical presentation together with radiological and laboratory findings could help to identify suspected cases.

Background and Objectives: Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss (SSNHL) is a quite common clinical finding in otolaryngology. Most cases are classified as idiopathic and there is a dearth of information on factors able to predict the response to treatment and hearing recovery. The main aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess and critically discuss the role of circulating inflammatory biomarkers in SSNHL. Materials and Methods: A search was conducted of the English literature published between 1 January 2009 and 7 July 2022 on Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane following PRISMA guidelines. Results: A total of 256 titles were retrieved from the search. After full-text screening and application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, 13 articles were included. Twelve out of thirteen studies reported significant differences in biomarkers values in SSNHL patients, of which Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha (TNF-α) and C-reactive Protein (CRP) were the most analyzed. Our meta-analysis for CRP’s mean values in SSNHL groups vs. controls showed significantly higher CRP levels with a pooled overall difference of 1.07; confidence interval (CI) at 95%: 0.03; 2.11. For TNF-α, discordant results were found: three studies showed significantly higher levels in SSNHL patients vs. controls, whereas other three investigations showed lower levels in the SSNHL groups (overall pooled difference 1.97; 95% CI: −0.90; 4.84). A high between-study heterogeneity was found. Conclusions: This systematic review pointed out that, although there exists a growing literature in the field of circulatory biomarkers identification in SSNHL, there is a high heterogeneity of results and low quality of evidence. CRP resulted to be higher in SSNHL patients than in controls, while TNF-α showed more heterogeneous behavior. The data reported herein needs to be confirmed in well-designed prospective multicenter randomized studies, with the objective of improving SSNHL treatment and outcome and thereby reducing the social burden of hearing loss.

Background. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) directed against the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor represented the first targeted and specialized approach to migraine prophylaxis. Nevertheless, they have been rarely considered in the treatment of vestibular migraine (VM). Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of anti-CGRP mAbs in VM patients who did not respond to conventional migraine treatments. Methods. Consecutive VM patients treated with erenumab were considered. As a comparison, we considered the same VM patients during conventional migraine treatments (i.e., propranolol, flunarizine, or valproic acid), which were tried before mAbs therapy. Videonystagmography, the Italian version of the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) questionnaire, and migraine days over the last 3 months were evaluated in all patients before and after treatments. Results. In the present retrospective study, we included 21 female and 2 male VM patients, mean age 45.2 years. All patients underwent contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging that ruled out other causes of vertigo. The DHI questionnaire significantly improved after mAb therapy (p < 0.0001). Mean migraine days over the last 3 months were significantly reduced after treatment (p = 0.001). Videonystagmography was altered in 11 (48%) patients prior to monoclonal antibodies. We found vertical positional nystagmus in 9 patients and horizontal positional nystagmus in 2 patients. After the treatment, we found vertical positional nystagmus only in 1 patient (p = 0.002). When patients were treated with conventional therapies, there was no significant reduction in DHI, and instrumental vestibular examinations remained altered. Conclusions. VM patients using anti-CGRP mAbs experienced a reduction in the dizziness-derived handicap, as reported in the DHI questionnaire. Furthermore, these treatments were significantly associated with a normalization of vestibular instrumental analysis. These findings were not seen with conventional treatments. Treatment with anti-CGRP mAbs may be effective in VM patients who did not respond to conventional migraine treatments. These findings should be tested in large, randomized clinical trials.

We read with interest the recent meta‐analysis by Sun et al.¹ that included 50466 patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‐19). The author found that fever and cough were the most common symptoms, and several subjects had muscle soreness or fatigue. In addition, they reported that “by reading the included literature, we found that diarrhea, hemoptysis, headache, sore throat, shock, and other symptoms are rare”.¹