Next Article in Journal
Neural Basis of Anticipatory Multisensory Integration
Next Article in Special Issue
Pomegranate Juice Ameliorates Dopamine Release and Behavioral Deficits in a Rat Model of Parkinson’s Disease
Previous Article in Journal
Treatment Realities of Headache Disorders in Rural Germany by the Example of the Region of Western Pomerania
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Brain Sciences
Volume 11
Issue 7
10.3390/brainsci11070841
brainsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Frequency and Determinants of Olfactory Hallucinations in Parkinson’s Disease Patients

by
Paolo Solla
1,*,†,
Carla Masala
2,*,†,
Ilenia Pinna
2,
Tommaso Ercoli
3,
Francesco Loy
2,
Gianni Orofino
3,
Laura Fadda
3 and
Giovanni Defazio
3
1
Department of Neurology, University of Sassari, Viale S. Pietro 10, 07100 Sassari, Italy
2
Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Cagliari, SP 8 Cittadella Universitaria, 09042 Monserrato, Italy
3
Movement Disorders Center, Department of Neurology, University of Cagliari, SS 554 km 4.500, 09042 Cagliari, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Both authors contributed equally to this work.
Brain Sci. 2021, 11(7), 841; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11070841
Submission received: 27 May 2021 / Revised: 16 June 2021 / Accepted: 23 June 2021 / Published: 24 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Correlation between Olfactory Function and Other Non-Motor Symptoms in Parkinson's Disease)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Olfactory dysfunctions and hallucinations are considered common nonmotor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease (PD). Visual and auditory hallucinations are well-known; however, olfactory hallucinations (OHs) are not fully investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate OHs in PD patients, and their correlation to motor impairment, cognitive abilities, visual and auditory hallucinations, and olfactory and gustatory function. Methods: A sample of 273 patients was enrolled: 141 PD patients (mean age ± SD: 70.1 ± 9.5 years) and 132 healthy controls (mean age ± SD: 69.4 ± 9.6 years). In all patients, the following parameters were evaluated: motor symptoms (UPDRS-III), olfactory function, cognitive abilities, and occurrence of OH, gustatory hallucinations (GHs), and visual/auditory hallucinations. Results: OHs were found only in PD patients with a percentage of 11.3%. Among PD patients with OHs, 2.8% also presented GHs. High significant frequencies of females, the presence of visual/auditory hallucinations, and a high mean UPDRS-III score were found in patients with OHs related to patients without them. Binary logistic regression evidenced the presence of visual/auditory hallucinations and sex as main variables predicting the presence of OHs. Conclusions: Our data indicated that OHs occur frequently in PD patients, especially in women, and often concomitant with visual and auditory hallucinations, without any association with olfactory impairment.

1. Introduction

Diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (PD) depends on the presence of a few motor symptoms, including bradykinesia, rigidity, tremor, and postural instability [1]. Nevertheless, PD is also characterized by the presence of a variety of nonmotor symptoms (NMSs) resulting from neurodegeneration-induced impairment in several systems such as olfaction, taste, vision, the gastric system, salivation, cardiovascular function, sleep, mood, and cognition [2].
Olfactory impairment is one of the most frequent nonmotor symptoms in PD [3,4,5,6]. It is usually reported in 65–90% of PD patients [7,8], may often precede the onset of motor symptoms, and may manifest as hyposmia/anosmia, parosmia (distorted perception of an odor), and phantosmia (perception of an odor in the absence of a relevant odor source), also indicated as olfactory hallucinations (OHs) [9,10].
While hyposmia/anosmia is widely characterized by means of validated tests (such as the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test, UPSIT, and the Sniffin’ Sticks), OHs are not well investigated. A few previous studies, which focused on the frequency of OHs in PD [11,12,13,14,15], have provided inconsistent results, with estimates ranging between 2% and 10%. In addition, the relationship between OHs and quantitative impairment of the olfactory system in PD (hyposmia/anosmia) remains to be elucidated. Likewise, there are scant available data on the relationship between OHs and other relevant motor and nonmotor parkinsonian symptoms, also including other forms of hallucinations such as gustatory (GHs), visual, and auditory hallucinations [11].
The aim of the study was to evaluate OHs in PD patients, and their correlation to olfactory function, cognitive abilities, motor impairment, and gustatory, visual, and auditory hallucinations.

2. Materials and Methods

This cross-sectional study enrolled 273 subjects, 141 PD patients and 132 healthy controls, without any significant difference in sex (56 women and 85 men vs. 71 women and 61 men, p = 0.3) or age (70.2 ± 9.5 vs. 69.1 ± 9.6 years, p = 0.2).
PD patients were consecutively recruited at the outpatient Movement Disorder Clinic of the University of Cagliari. PD was diagnosed according to the Gelb criteria [16]. Exclusion criteria were a history of head or neck trauma, stroke, atypical parkinsonism, dementia, psychiatric conditions, and chronic/acute rhinosinusitis.
In PD patients, demographic information including age, sex, age at PD onset (the age at which the patient first observed initial motor symptoms), and current medications was collected by a structured clinical interview. The levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) was computed as previously reported [17]. Motor impairment was assessed by the Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS) part III [18]. Cognitive status was evaluated by means of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), which measures cognitive abilities on different domains: visual-constructional skills, executive functions, attention and concentration, memory, language, conceptual thinking, calculations, and spatial orientation [19,20,21]. The total possible score was 30, with any score higher than 25 considered normal. Motor and cognitive assessments were performed in the on state.
Olfactory function was evaluated in PD patients and healthy control subjects by the Sniffin’ Sticks test (Burghart Messtechnik, Wedel, Germany), taking into consideration three parameters: odor threshold (OT), discrimination (OD), and identification (OI) [22,23,24,25,26,27]. All patients were instructed to drink only water 1 h before the test, and to avoid any smoking and scented product on the testing day. The Sniffin’ Sticks are pen-like odor-dispensing devices, and the complete procedure lasted 30–40 min [24,25]. Patients were blindfolded during the OT and OD task. First, OT was determined with 16 stepwise dilutions of n-butanol [28]. A three-alternative forced-choice task (3AFC) and the single-staircase technique were used [24,25,26,27]. Scores of OT ranged from 16 (patients who were able to detect the lowest concentration of n-butanol) to 1 (patients who were unable to detect the highest concentration). Second, OD was assessed using 16 trials. Three different pens were presented using the 3AFC task, two contained the same odor, and the third presented the target odorant. The OD score was calculated as the sum of the correct responses and ranged from 0 to 16 points [26,27]. Third, OI was evaluated using 16 common odors presented with four verbal descriptors in a multiple forced-choice format (three distractors and one target). The total score (threshold–discrimination–identification: TDI) was calculated: values > 30.5, ≤30.5, and ≤16.5 were considered normosmia, hyposmia, and functional anosmia, respectively [23,29]. PD patients and controls were also asked about OHs, and gustatory, visual, and auditory hallucinations observed in the last six months using questions about hallucinations from the Neuropsychiatric Inventory [30,31]. The occurrence of OHs was assessed by the question “Have you in the last year experienced so called phantom smells?” The question was answered on a 5-point Likert type scale, where 0 = “Never” and 4 = “Always”. Patients were grouped as phantosmic (1–4) and nonphantosmic (0 = never), as indicated by Sjölund et al. [32]. If patients showed a phantosmia, follow-up questions regarding the quality, frequency, and intensity of the phantosmia were asked. For each question, patients could answer with one of the four presented definitions, as previously reported by Landis et al. [33]. The sum of the four questions may range from 4 to 16 points [33].
Statistical analysis was performed by the SPSS software version 25 for Windows (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Data were expressed as mean and standard deviation (SD) unless otherwise indicated. Differences between groups were evaluated using one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, or the chi-square (χ2) statistic with Yates correction, as appropriate.
In order to identify more promising factors for the binary logistic regression, bivariate correlations were performed between OHs vs. other hallucinations, sex, UPDRS, MoCA, LEDD, disease duration, and age using Spearman’s coefficient (rs). Binary logistic regression was used to determine which variable was the best significant predictor of OHs (the significance level was set at 0.05).
The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee (Prot. PG/2018/10157) and was performed according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Participants received an explanatory statement and gave their written informed consent to participate in the study.

3. Results

In the parkinsonian group, the age at PD onset was 66.4 (SD: 10.2) years and the disease duration was 3.7 (SD: 3.2) years. The group mean UPDRS-III score during the on state was 20.7 (SD: 12.2), whereas the mean LEDD was 250 (SD: 237) and the mean MoCA score was 20.6 (SD: 5.5).
Healthy controls did not show any olfactory, gustatory, visual, and auditory hallucinations (Table 1). Significant differences between PD patients and healthy controls were observed in olfactory and visual hallucinations (p = 0.0004 and 0.0001, respectively). In particular, in the PD group, OHs were reported by 16/141 (11.3%) subjects (Table 1), while visual hallucinations were reported by 25/141 (17.7%) patients.
OHs were qualitatively heterogeneous: 3 patients (18.8%) described a perception of unpleasant odors, such as rotten eggs, garbage, or other noxious odors, while the remaining 13 (81.3%) reported pleasant smells such as flowers and fruits. Among PD patients with OHs, 4 (2.8%) also presented GHs. Visual and auditory hallucinations were reported by 25/141 (17.7%) and 6/141 (4.3%), respectively, in PD patients and 0/132 in healthy controls (Table 1). Nine patients shared OHs with visual hallucinations.
Assessing olfactory function by the Sniffin’ Sticks test yielded OT, OD, OI, and TDI scores that were significantly lower in PD patients as compared to the respective scores in healthy control subjects (Table 1). Among healthy controls, 44% (n = 58) showed normosmia, 54% (n = 71) presented hyposmia, and 2% (n = 3) were affected by functional anosmia.
Instead, among PD patients, 4% (n = 6) showed normosmia, 52% (n = 73) presented hyposmia, and 44% (n = 62) were affected by functional anosmia. Statistical differences between PD patients and healthy controls were observed in the percentage of anosmia (Yates χ2 39.7; p < 0.001) and normosmia (Yates χ2 35.9; p < 0.001).
In PD patients, women showed a high frequency of OHs (Table 2). In the same way, in patients with OHs, visual/auditory hallucinations increased, as well as UPDRS-III score.
The MoCA score was lower in the OHs group compared to those without OHs, but the difference did not reach the level of significance after Bonferroni correction. Patients with and without OHs were comparable for age, disease duration, LEDD, and TDI score (Table 2). Likewise, patients with OHs and those without OHs showed similar values of OT score (2.0 ± 1.4 vs. 2.7 ± 2.5; F(1,139) = 1.290, p = 0.258), OD score (7.0 ± 2.5 vs. 7.5 ± 3.3, F(1,139) = 0.448, p = 0.504), and OI score (7.0 ± 2.3 vs. 7.8 ± 3.5, F(1,139) = 0.975, p = 0.325) on the Sniffin’ Sticks test.
Bivariate correlations were evaluated in order to assess correlations between olfactory hallucinations versus other hallucinations (visual and acoustic hallucinations), sex, UPDRS-III score, MoCA, LEDD, disease duration, and age (Table 3). Significant correlations were observed between olfactory hallucinations versus other hallucinations (rs = 0.361, p < 0.01), versus sex (rs = −0.258, p < 0.01), and versus UPDRS-III score (rs = 0.199, p = 0.018). Instead, no significant correlations were found for MoCA, LEDD, disease duration, and age.
Finally, binary logistic regression analysis was performed in order to evaluate the main predictor variables on OHs (Table 4). The model showed significant effects (omnibus chi-square = 22.337, df = 8, p < 0.05). The model accounted for a range between 14.7% and 28.9% of the variance in OHs, with 98.4% of OHs successfully predicted. These data evidenced that the presence of visual/auditory hallucinations and female sex were the main variables predicting the presence of OHs.

4. Discussion

Assessing OHs in a large sample of nondemented PD patients in the early/intermediate stage of their clinical disease yielded a 11.3% frequency. A few investigations that previously dealt with this issue provided estimates ranging between 2% and 10% [11,12,13,14,15,34,35]. It is worth noting that our data on OHs replicated the results of the study by Bannier and Colleagues [14] (10%) that evaluated OHs not only using questionnaires but also analyzing quantitative olfactory function. Replicating the OHs frequency estimated in the higher part of the range of variability would suggest that the frequency of OHs may be underestimated. This may result from the general lack of unpleasantness of these experiences. Indeed, only a minority of PD patients reported situations of harmful or repulsive odors (cacosmia), while most of them (81.2%) described more often a pleasant smell.
In agreement with Bannier and Colleagues [14], we also observed no differences in OT, OD, and OI between PD patients with and without OHs. Thus, OHs in PD patients are probably not related to the quantitative olfactory dysfunction leading to hyposmia/anosmia, but rather to other mechanisms. In support of this view was the observed association between OHs and other forms of hallucinations such as gustatory, visual, and acoustic hallucinations, as indicated by Goetz et al. [36]. Interestingly, we found that GHs were present in 2.8% of PD patients, a frequency estimate that was higher than that released by the most recent comprehensive evaluation of these disperceptions [15].
Among the examined motor and nonmotor variables, visual/auditory hallucinations and female sex were the main variables predicting the presence of OHs. This observation adds to the body of evidence indicating that sex differences may play a key role in the development of NMSs in PD patients [34,37], and it also indicates peculiar features in olfactory dysfunction between the two sexes [34,37]. The lack of relationship between OHs and LEDD deserves further comments, bearing in mind previous studies that did not show significant differences between patients with or without current psychiatric symptoms in the cumulative dosage of levodopa [12]. Although the MoCA score tended to be lower in OH patients, the difference did not reach the level of significance after Bonferroni correction. However, in our study, we did not enroll patients with definite diagnoses of dementia. The strengths of our study include a consistent sample size resembling the demographic and clinical features of the general population of cases with early/intermediate clinical PD and the use of a psychophysical test such as the Sniffin’ Sticks test that consents the identification of a threshold, as well as of the discrimination and identification of smells. As the main limitations, this study was performed as a cross-sectional design, which enrolled patients and healthy controls from a single center.

5. Conclusions

Our findings indicated that OHs may be relatively common in PD patients. OHs were especially more frequent in female patients, often concomitant with other modalities of hallucinations, without a clear association with hyposmia/anosmia, disease duration, normal cognition/mild cognitive impairment, and LEDD. Interestingly, we identified a significant number of patients with GHs that were concomitant with OHs. These results emphasize the need for routine questioning to identify hallucinations in patients affected by PD and warrant further study to facilitate comprehension and treatment of these psychotic symptoms.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.D.; data curation, C.M. and P.S.; formal analysis, C.M. and I.P.; funding acquisition, C.M. and G.D.; investigation, L.F., T.E. and G.O.; methodology, F.L., T.E., G.O. and I.P.; project administration, C.M.; software, F.L.; supervision, P.S. and G.D.; validation, P.S.; visualization, F.L.; writing—original draft, C.M. and P.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the local Ethics Committee (Prot.PG/2018/10157) and was performed according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Compliance with ethical standards.

Informed Consent Statement

Participants received an explanatory statement and gave their written informed consent to participate in the study.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a grant from the University of Cagliari (Progetti di Ricerca di Interesse Dipartimentale, PRID 2020).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Belvisi, D.; Pellicciari, R.; Fabbrini, A.; Costanzo, M.; Pietracupa, S.; De Lucia, M.; Modugno, N.; Magrinelli, F.; Dallocchio, C.; Ercoli, T.; et al. Risk factors of Parkinson disease: Simultaneous assessment, interactions, and etiologic subtypes. Neurology 2020, 95, e2500–e2508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Halliday, G.M.; Barker, R.A.; Rowe, D.B. Non-Dopamine Lesions in Parkinson’s Disease; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ansari, K.A.; Johnson, A. Olfactory function in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J. Chronic Dis. 1975, 28, 493–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sobel, N.; Thomason, M.E.; Stappen, I.; Tanner, C.M.; Tetrud, J.W.; Bower, J.M.; Sullivan, E.V.; Gabrieli, J.D. An impairment in sniffing contributes to the olfactory impairment in Parkinson’s disease. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98, 4154–4159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Haehner, A.; Hummel, T.; Hummel, C.; Sommer, U.; Junghanns, S.; Reichmann, H. Olfactory loss may be a first sign of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 2007, 22, 839–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Haehner, A.; Masala, C.; Walter, S.; Reichmann, H.; Hummel, T. Incidence of Parkinson’s disease in a large patient cohort with idiopathic smell and taste loss. J. Neurol. 2019, 266, 339–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Boesveldt, S.; Verbaan, D.; Knol, D.L.; Visser, M.; van Rooden, S.M.; van Hilten, J.J.; Berendse, H.W. A comparative study of odor identification and odor discrimination deficits in Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 2008, 23, 1984–1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Haehner, A.; Boesveldt, S.; Berendse, H.W.; Mackay-Sim, A.; Fleischmann, J.; Silburn, P.A.; Jonhston, A.N.; Mellick, G.D.; Haerting, B.; Reichmann, H.; et al. Prevalence of smell loss in Parkinson’s disease—A multicenter study. Park. Relat. Disord. 2009, 15, 490–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Hummel, T.; Whitcroft, K.L.; Andrews, P.; Altundag, A.; Cinghi, C.; Costanzo, R.M.; Damm, M.; Frasnelli, J.; Gudziol, H.; Gupta, N.; et al. Position paper on olfactory dysfunction. Rhinol. Suppl. 2017, 54, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Hummel, T.; Landis, B.N.; Hüttenbrink, K.B. Smell and taste disorders. GMS Curr. Top. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2011, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Papapetropoulos, S.; Katzen, H.; Schrag, A.; Singer, C.; Scanlon, B.K.; Nation, D.; Guevara, A.; Levin, B. A questionnaire- based (UM-PDHQ) study of hallucinations in Parkinson’s disease. BMC Neurol. 2008, 20, 8–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Mack, J.; Rabins, P.; Anderson, K.; Goldstein, S.; Grill, S.; Hirsch, E.S.; Lehmann, S.; Little, J.T.; Margolis, R.L.; Palanci, J.; et al. Prevalence of psychotic symptoms in a community-based Parkinson Disease sample. Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2012, 20, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. McAuley, J.H.; Gregory, S. Prevalence of clinical course of olfactory hallucination in idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. J. Parkinson’s Dis. 2012, 2, 199–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bannier, S.; Berdagué, J.L.; Rieu, I.; de Chazeron, I.; Marques, A.; Derost, P.; Ulla, M.; Llorca, P.M.; Durif, F. Prevalence and phenomenology of olfactory hallucinations in Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2012, 83, 1019–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kulick, C.V.; Montgomery, K.M.; Nirenberg, M.J. Comprehensive identification of delusions and olfactory, tactile, gustatory, and minor hallucinations in Parkinson’s disease psychosis. Park. Relat. Disord. 2018, 54, 40–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Gelb, D.J.; Oliver, E.; Gilman, S. Diagnostic criteria for Parkinson disease. Arch. Neurol. 1999, 56, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tomlinson, C.L.; Stowe, R.; Patel, S.; Rick, C.; Gray, R.; Clarke, C.E. Systematic review of levodopa dose equivalency reporting in Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 2010, 25, 2649–2653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Fahn, S.; Elton, R.; Members of the UPDRS Development Committee. In The Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale. In Recent Developments in Parkinson’s Disease; Fahn, S., Marsden, C.D., Calne, D.B., Goldstein, M., Eds.; McMellam Health Care Information: Florham Park, NJ, USA, 1987; Volume 2, pp. 153–163. [Google Scholar]
  19. Conti, S.; Bonazzi, S.; Laiacona, M.; Masina, M.; Coralli, M.V. Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)-Italian version: Regression based norms and equivalent scores. Neurol. Sci. 2015, 36, 209–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nasreddine, Z.S.; Phillips, N.A.; Bédirian, V.; Charbonneau, S.; Whitehead, V.; Collin, I.; Cummings, J.L.; Chertkow, H. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2005, 53, 695–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cecchini, M.P.; Federico, A.; Zanini, A.; Mantovani, E.; Masala, C.; Tinazzi, M.; Tamburin, S. Olfaction and taste in Parkinson’s disease: The association with mild cognitive impairment and the single cognitive domain dysfunction. J. Neural. Transm. 2019, 126, 585–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hummel, T.; Sekinger, B.; Wolf, S.R.; Pauli, E.; Kobal, G. ‘Sniffin’ Sticks’ Olfactory performances assessed by the combined testing of odor identification, odor discrimination and olfactory threshold. Chem. Senses 1997, 22, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hummel, T.; Kobal, G.; Gudziol, H.; Mackay-Sim, A. Normative data for the “Sniffin’ Sticks” including tests of odor identification, odor discrimination, and olfactory thresholds: An upgrade based on a group of more than 3000 subjects. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2007, 264, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Masala, C.; Saba, L.; Cecchini, M.P.; Solla, P.; Loy, F. Olfactory function and age: A Sniffin’ Sticks extended test study performed in Sardinia. Chemosens. Percept. 2018, 11, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Masala, C.; Solla, P.; Liscia, A.; Defazio, G.; Saba, L.; Cannas, A.; Cavazzana, A.; Hummel, T.; Haehner, A. Correlation among olfactory function, motors’ symptoms, cognitive impairment, apathy, and fatigue in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurol. 2018, 265, 1764–1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Masala, C.; Loy, F.; Piras, R.; Liscia, A.; Fadda, L.; Moat, A.; Solla, P.; Defazio, G. Effect of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction and motor symptoms on body weight in patients with Parkinson’s Disease. Brain Sci. 2020, 10, 218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Solla, P.; Masala, C.; Liscia, A.; Piras, R.; Ercoli, T.; Fadda, L.; Hummel, T.; Haenher, A.; Defazio, G. Sex-related differences in olfactory function and evaluation of possible confounding factors among patients with Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurol. 2020, 267, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Masala, C.; Käehling, C.; Fall, F.; Hummel, T. Correlation between olfactory function, trigeminal sensitivity, and nasal anatomy in healthy subjects. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2019, 276, 1649–1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Oleszkiewicz, A.; Schriver, V.A.; Croy, I.; Hähner, A.; Hummel, T. Updated Sniffin’ Stick normative data based on an extended sample of 9139 subjects. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2019, 276, 719–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Landis, B.N.; Burkhard, P.R. Phantosmias and Parkinson Disease. Arch. Neurol. 2008, 65, 1237–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Cummings, J.L.; Mega, M.; Gray, K.; Rosemberg-Thompson, S.; Carusi, D.A.; Gornbei, J. The Neuropsychiatric Inventory: Comprehensive assessment of psychopathology in dementia. Neurology. 1994, 44, 2308–2314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Sjölund, S.; Larsson, M.; Olofsson, J.K.; Seubert, J.; Laukka, E.J. Phantom smells: Prevalence and correlates in a population-based sample of older adults. Chem. Senses 2017, 42, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Landis, B.N.; Frasnelli, J.; Croy, I.; Hummel, T. Evaluating the clinical usefulness of structured questions in parosmia assessment. Laryngoscope 2010, 120, 1707–1713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Solla, P.; Cannas, A.; Ibba, F.C.; Loi, F.; Corona, M.; Orofino, G.; Marrosu, M.G.; Marrosu, F. Gender differences in motor and non-motor symptoms among Sardinian patients with Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurol. Sci. 2012, 323, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Frei, K.; Truong, D.D. Hallucinations and the spectrum of psychosis in Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurol. Sci. 2017, 374, 56–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Goetz, C.G.; Stebbins, G.T.; Ouyang, B. Visual plus nonvisual hallucinations in Parkinson’s disease: Development and evolution over 10 years. Mov. Disord. 2011, 26, 2196–2200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Melis, M.; Sollai, G.; Masala, C.; Pisanu, C.; Cossu, G.; Melis, M.; Sarchiotto, M.; Oppo, V.; Morelli, M.; Crnjar, R.; et al. Odor identification performance in idiopathic Parkinson’s disease is associated with gender and the genetic variability of the olfactory binding protein. Chem. Senses 2019, 44, 311–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. Frequency of hallucinations and results of the Sniffin’ Stick test in patients with Parkinson’s disease and healthy control subjects.
Table 1. Frequency of hallucinations and results of the Sniffin’ Stick test in patients with Parkinson’s disease and healthy control subjects.
Parkinson’s Disease (n. 141)Healthy Controls (n. 132)p Value
Number of subjects with hallucinations
Olfactory hallucinations (%)16 (11.3%)0 (0%)0.0004
Gustatory hallucinations (%)4 (2.8%)0 (0%)0.156
Visual hallucinations (%)25 (17.7%)0 (0%)0.0001
Auditory hallucinations (%)6 (4.3%)0 (0%)0.053
Sniffin’ Stick test
Odor threshold score (mean ± SD)2.8±2.95.4±3.60.0005
Odor discrimination score (mean ± SD)7.8±3.412.4±2.40.0005
Odor identification score (mean ± SD)7.5±3.211.1±2.50.0005
TDI score (mean ± SD)17.8±7.328.7±6.10.0005
Legend: TDI = threshold–discrimination–identification scores. SD = standard deviation.
Table
Table 2. Clinical characteristics of PD subjects with or without olfactory hallucinations. Significance was set at the 0.0062 level after Bonferroni correction.
Table 2. Clinical characteristics of PD subjects with or without olfactory hallucinations. Significance was set at the 0.0062 level after Bonferroni correction.
Parkinsonian Patients with Olfactory Hallucinations (n.16)Parkinsonian Patients without Olfactory Hallucinations (n. 125)p Value
Number of women (%)12 (75.0%)44 (35.2%)0.005
Age (mean years ± SD)73.9 ± 8.169.7 ± 9.60.099
Disease duration (mean years ± SD)3.9 ± 3.53.8 ± 3.20.912
Number of patients with visual/auditory hallucinations (%)9 (56.3%)20 (16%)<0.0001
UPDRS-III score (mean ± SD)29.5 ± 17.219.4 ± 11.00.0008
LEDD (mean ± SD)260.6 ± 242.8248.6 ± 236.90.849
TDI score (mean ± SD)16.0 ± 4.818.1 ± 7.60.294
MoCA score (mean ± SD)17.9 ± 6.121.0 ± 4.80.035
Legend: LEDD = levodopa equivalent daily dose; MoCA = Montreal Cognitive Assessment; TDI = threshold–discrimination–identification scores; SD = standard deviation; UPDRS-III = Unified PD Rating Scale part III.
Table
Table 3. Bivariate correlations between olfactory hallucinations versus other hallucinations (visual and acoustic), sex, Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), levodopa daily dose (LEDD), disease duration, and age.
Table 3. Bivariate correlations between olfactory hallucinations versus other hallucinations (visual and acoustic), sex, Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), levodopa daily dose (LEDD), disease duration, and age.
Olfactory Hallucinationsp Value
Other hallucinationsrs = 0.361p < 0.01
Sexrs = −0.258p < 0.01
UPDRS-III scorers = 0.199p = 0.018
MoCArs = −0.161p = 0.057
LEDDrs = 0.012p = 0.887
Disease durationrs = 0.004p = 0.958
Agers = 0.156p = 0.065
Legend: LEDD = levodopa equivalent daily dose; MoCA = Montreal Cognitive Assessment; rs = Spearman rank coefficient; UPDRS-III = Unified PD Rating Scale part III. Bold indicates significant level p < 0.05
Table
Table 4. Binary logistic regression models for clinical variables predicting presence of olfactory hallucinations in PD patients.
Table 4. Binary logistic regression models for clinical variables predicting presence of olfactory hallucinations in PD patients.
BS.E.WaldpExp(B)
Presence of visual/auditory hallucinations1.5430.6495.6580.0174.680
Sex−1.3650.6444.5000.0340.255
UPDRS-III score0.0300.0221.8220.1771.030
MoCA score−0.0370.0550.4490.5030.964
Legend: MoCA = Montreal Cognitive Assessment; S.E. = standard error; UPDRS-III = Unified PD Rating Scale part III. Bold indicates significant level p < 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Solla, P.; Masala, C.; Pinna, I.; Ercoli, T.; Loy, F.; Orofino, G.; Fadda, L.; Defazio, G. Frequency and Determinants of Olfactory Hallucinations in Parkinson’s Disease Patients. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 841. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11070841

AMA Style

Solla P, Masala C, Pinna I, Ercoli T, Loy F, Orofino G, Fadda L, Defazio G. Frequency and Determinants of Olfactory Hallucinations in Parkinson’s Disease Patients. Brain Sciences. 2021; 11(7):841. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11070841

Chicago/Turabian Style

Solla, Paolo, Carla Masala, Ilenia Pinna, Tommaso Ercoli, Francesco Loy, Gianni Orofino, Laura Fadda, and Giovanni Defazio. 2021. "Frequency and Determinants of Olfactory Hallucinations in Parkinson’s Disease Patients" Brain Sciences 11, no. 7: 841. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11070841

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop