Terp Matthews (goatcamel2)

Olfactory research in humans has largely focused on odors perceived via sniffing, orthonasal olfaction, whereas odors perceived from the mouth, retronasal olfaction, are less well understood. Prior work on retronasally presented odors involves animal models and focus mainly on odor sensitivity, but little is known about retronasal olfactory perception and cognition in humans. In this study, we compared orthonasal and retronasal odor presentation routes to investigate differences in odor descriptions and evaluations. Thirty-six individuals participated in a within-subjects study using twelve odors (varying in pleasantness and edibility) in perceptual and semantic tasks. Orthonasal presentation was associated with a better ability to identify odors, and with more concrete (and source-based) language. Exploratory analyses revealed that whereas orthonasal odors were described with words that had visual associations, retronasal odors were described with words that had interoceptive associations. Interestingly, these route-dependent differences in descriptor usage were not explained by differences in sensitivity and intensity, suggesting instead a cognitive and linguistic processing difference between odors presented orthonasally and retronasally. Our results indicate that olfaction is, in fact, a dual sense, in which the routes change the perception of an odor. In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Cost-avoidance studies of pharmacist interventions are common and often the first type of study conducted by investigators to quantify the economic impact of clinical pharmacy services. selleck chemical The purpose of this primer is to provide guidance for conducting cost-avoidance studies pertaining to clinical pharmacy practice. Cost-avoidance studies represent a paradigm conceptually different from traditional pharmacoeconomic analysis. A cost-avoidance study reports on cost savings from a given intervention, where the savings is estimated based on a counterfovide pilot data for the planning of future clinical trials. The guidance provided in this article should be followed to improve the quality and validity of such investigations. Emerging evidence suggests many people have persistent symptoms after acute COVID-19 illness. Our objective was to estimate the prevalence and correlates of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). We employed a population-based probability survey of adults with COVID-19 in Michigan. Living non-institutionalized adults aged 18+ in the Michigan Disease Surveillance System with COVID-19 onset through mid-April 2020 were eligible for selection (n=28,000). Among 2,000 selected, 629 completed the survey between June - December 2020. We estimated PASC prevalence, defined as persistent symptoms 30+ (30-day COVID-19) or 60+ days (60-day COVID-19) post COVID-19 onset, overall and by sociodemographic and clinical factors, including self-reported symptom severity and hospitalization status. We used modified Poisson regression to produce adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) for potential risk factors. The analytic sample (n=593) was predominantly female (56.1%), aged 45 and older (68.2%), and Non-Hispanic White (46.3%) or Black (34.8%). 30- and 60-day COVID-19 were highly prevalent (52.5% and 35.0%), even among non-hospitalized respondents (43.7% and 26.9%) and respondents reporting mild symptoms (29.2% and 24.5%). Respondents reporting very severe (vs. mild) symptoms had 2.25 times higher prevalence of 30-day COVID-19 ([aPR] 2