Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been associated with prolonged post-acute symptoms in at least 10% of patients [1, 2]. The majority of published data evaluates hospitalised patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 disease (COVID-19) with symptoms and pulmonary function defects several months after discharge [1]. Most of the infected subjects develop mild symptoms and are treated as outpatients. Though they are also reported to suffer from prolonged symptoms, their lung function is studied far less. Furthermore, the prolonged symptoms and objectively measurable findings are usually not compared to a group suffering from airway infection caused by other pathogens [2]. As spirometry and other aerosol-producing procedures are minimised during the pandemic, there are no reports on lung function during acute COVID-19.

Background SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis relies on the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs. Alternative sample sites have been assessed but the heterogeneity of the studies have made comparing different sites difficult. Objectives Our aim was to compare the performance of four different sampling sites for SARS-CoV-2 samples with nasopharynx being the benchmark. Study design COVID-19 positive patients were recruited prospectively, and samples were collected and analysed for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR from all four anatomical sites in 43 patients, who provided written informed consent. Results All anterior nasal and saliva samples were positive, while two oropharyngeal samples were negative. There was no significant difference in the cycle threshold values of nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal samples while saliva and oropharynx had higher cycle threshold values. Conclusions Anterior nasal swab performs as good as nasopharynx swab with saliva also finding all the positives but with higher cycle threshold values. Thus, we can conclude that anterior nasal swabs can be used for SARS-CoV-2 detection instead of nasopharyngeal swabs if the situation would require so.

Gaseous nitric oxide levels from the lungs (FeNO) and from the nose (nNO) have been demonstrated to react to acute infection or influenza vaccination. There are no published data on nNO levels during acute COVID-19, but normal levels of FeNO have been reported in one study. Our aim was to assess if acute mild COVID-19 alters nasal or bronchial NO output at the time of acute infection and at a 2-month follow up, and if this is related to symptoms or viral load. This study included 82 subjects with mild acute airway infection who did not need hospitalisation: 43 cases (RT-PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2 in routine testing from nasopharynx) and 39 age- (+/- 5 years) and gender-matched controls (RT-PCR-negative for SARS-CoV-2). During acute infection, the cases had lower nNO compared to controls (526 [345–688] vs. 773 [677–929] ppb; p<0.001), but after two months, there was no significant difference between the groups (766 [597–965] vs. 893 [739–1066] ppb; p=0.162). There was no difference in FeNO between the groups at either of the visits. Nasal NO correlated with the cycle threshold (Ct) value of the nasopharyngeal RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 (Spearman’s rs=0.550; p<0.001), that is, nNO was lower with a higher viral load. Nasal NO output was decreased in acute COVID-19 in relation to higher viral load, suggesting that the type and intensity of inflammatory response affects the release of NO from airway mucosa. In these subjects without significant lower airway involvement, there were no clinically relevant findings regarding FeNO.

Purpose This study will evaluate the clinical quality and usability of peripheral image data from the temporal bone area obtained using a sinonasal ultra-low-dose (ULD) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan and compare them to those obtained using a high-resolution (HR) CBCT. Methods The population consisted of 66 anatomical sites (ears of 33 subjects) imaged using two modalities: an HR CBCT (Scanora 3Dx scanner; Soredex, Tuusula, Finland) and a ULD CBCT (Promax 3D Mid scanner; Plandent, Helsinki, Finland). The image quality (IQ) for every anatomical site in each image was rated using a Likert scale from 0 to 5. Results The quality of ULD CBCT scans was clinically sufficient in over 95% of the assessed images of the sigmoid sinus, jugular bulb, epitympanum and mastoid antrum as well as external acoustic meatus (all p > 0.05 compared to HR CBCT). The IQ was clinically sufficient in 75–94% of the assessed images of the scutum, mastoid segment of the facial nerve, cochlea and semicircular canals (all p < 0.05 compared to HR CBCT). The overall IQ of the HR CBCT scans was good or excellent. Conclusion CBCT imaging and the data at image margins are underutilized. CBCT can produce excellent structural resolution with conventional imaging parameters, even with off-focus images. Using ultra-low doses of radiation, the produced IQ is clinically sufficient. We encourage ear surgeons to check the patients’ imaging history and to consider the use of imaging modalities that involve lower radiation doses especially when conducting repetitive investigations and with children.