Skip to main content

Assessing the impact of the five senses on quality of life in mucopolysaccharidoses



The mucopolysaccharidoses (MPSs) are lysosomal storage disorders associated with progressive multi-organ and skeletal abnormalities. Clinical manifestations can affect each of the five senses: hearing, vision, smell, taste, and touch.

Main body of the abstract

On 24–26 May 2018, 46 specialists with expertise in managing symptoms of MPS and experts specialized in evaluating and managing impairments in each one of the five senses gathered in Lisbon, Portugal at the “MPS & the five senses” meeting to discuss how loss of one or multiple senses can affect activities of daily living (ADL) and quality of life (QoL) in MPS patients and best practices in evaluating and managing the loss of senses in these individuals. The meeting confirmed that MPS can affect the senses considerably, but how these impairments affect ADL and overall QoL from a patient’s perspective remains unclear. A better insight may be achieved by prospectively collecting patient-reported outcome (PRO) data internationally in a standardized way, using a standard battery of tools. To identify relevant PRO tools, a systematic literature review and a selection of existing published questionnaires, focused on adults with no intellectual delay, were performed after the meeting. The search strategy identified 33 PRO tools for hearing, 30 for speech, 125 for vision, 49 for touch (including pain and upper limb function), and 15 for smell/taste. A further selection was made based on several criteria, including applicability/relevance for MPS, applicability in different countries (languages)/cultures, availability in English, ease of use, validation, and normative data, resulting in a final set of 11 tools. In addition to these sense-specific PRO tools, a general QoL tool, the EuroQol (EQ)-5D-5 L, was selected to assess overall QoL and reveal coping behaviors.

Short conclusion

MPS can affect each of the five senses, but current knowledge on the impact of sense impairments on QoL/ADL in MPS patients remains limited. Collection of data in a standardized fashion using sense-specific patient-reported outcome tools and a general QoL tool may fill the current knowledge gap.


The mucopolysaccharidoses (MPSs) comprise a group of lysosomal storage disorders caused by deficiencies in enzymes involved in the catabolism of glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) [1]. Patients with MPS exhibit an array of progressively worsening disease manifestations caused by GAG accumulation in tissues and organs throughout the body, including skeletal and joint abnormalities, cardiorespiratory disease, neurological disease, ocular abnormalities, and hearing loss [1]. Currently, there are 11 distinct subclasses of MPS disorders, each affecting a specific lysosomal hydrolase: MPS I (Hurler, Hurler-Scheie, and Scheie syndrome), MPS II (Hunter syndrome), MPS III (Sanfilippo syndrome, including subtypes MPS IIIA, IIIB, IIIC, and IIID), MPS IV (Morquio syndrome, including subtypes IVA and IVB), MPS VI (Maroteaux-Lamy syndrome), MPS VII (Sly syndrome), and MPS IX [1]. The GAGs that accumulate in these MPS subclasses differ considerably with respect to length, sulfation patterns, and other structural variations, leading to pathophysiological differences [2]. Clinical presentations and progression rates vary widely between and within MPS disorders.

The various clinical manifestations of MPS may considerably affect each of the five senses: hearing, vision, smell, taste, and touch [3,4,5,6,7]. However, little is known on how patients perceive impairments in the senses and how these affect activities of daily living (ADL) and quality of life (QoL). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) that assess functioning (ADL) and QoL are becoming increasingly important in clinical practice and research to supplement clinical disease markers, and provide important insight into how patients perceive their condition and cope with their disabilities on a daily basis [8].

The “MPS & the five senses” expert meeting was held on 24–26 May 2018 in Lisbon, Portugal to discuss how loss of one or multiple senses can affect ADL and QoL in individuals with MPS, best approaches to evaluate loss of senses using PRO tools, and management of loss of senses in these individuals. A total of 46 specialists with expertise in managing symptoms of MPS and experts specialized in the evaluation and management of impairments in each one of the five senses attended this meeting; four adult patients with MPS testified about their impairments and the impact these impairments have on ADL and QoL.

The objectives of the present paper are to provide an overview of the overall findings of the “MPS & the five senses” meeting and to identify the most relevant PRO tools for assessing impairment in the senses and their impact on ADL/QoL in MPS patients.

Impairments in the five senses in MPS

Hearing and speech

Progressive hearing loss is a common feature of all MPS disorders, and is mainly due to recurrent otitis media, middle ear effusion, ossicle deformity, inner ear (cochlea) abnormalities and alterations in the auditory nerve [3, 9]. While young children with MPS generally present with conductive hearing loss, mixed hearing loss or pure sensorineural hearing loss tends to develop later in life as part of the natural history of MPS. Hearing impairment, but also oral manifestations (enlargement of the lips, tongue, and oral mucosa), abnormalities of the larynx and vocal tract, abnormal nerve function, rhinolalia, and/or cognitive issues can complicate speech, language, and communication [10, 11]. Untreated hearing loss may also lead to cognitive impairment [12]. Hearing and speech problems may affect social interactions and participation, development and learning, work, and overall QoL, and can have psychological consequences (e.g. depression) [13, 14]. Communicative disabilities can also considerably affect other people in the patient’s environment [14].

Because of the high prevalence of hearing impairment, regular monitoring for hearing loss in individuals with MPS is important. Hearing-specific questionnaires may be useful to assess the impact of hearing impairment on the patient’s QoL [13, 15]. Management of hearing loss in this patient population (e.g. ventilation tube insertion, hearing aids, cochlear implantation) depends on the type of hearing loss (conductive, sensorineural, or mixed), the degree of hearing loss, and age of onset. Ventilation tubes do not always normalize hearing in MPS patients with conductive hearing loss [16]; clinicians should not delay considering hearing aids for these patients. Reports about the effect of hearing aids and cochlear implants in patients with MPS are sparse [17]. Patients with speech problems may also benefit from ventilation tube insertion, amplification, and speech therapy [10].


Individuals with MPS frequently present with ocular manifestations that can result in impaired vision and even blindness [4, 18]. Although ocular features have been described in all MPS disorders, they are particularly common in MPS I, VI, and VII [4]. Typical ocular manifestations of MPS include corneal clouding, astigmatism (mainly hyperopia), retinopathy, glaucoma, and optic nerve abnormalities (optic disc swelling, optic nerve atrophy), amblyopia, strabismus, and possibly cerebral visual impairment [4, 18]. Morphological changes in the eye generally develop very early in the disease course and are often already present at the time of diagnosis [18]. These alterations can be caused by excessive GAG storage in the cornea, trabecular meshwork, iris, ciliary body, retina, dura, sclera, optic nerve, extra-ocular muscles, and/or posterior visual pathway [4].

Visual impairment and blindness can considerably affect a patient’s independence, mobility, ADL, social interactions, education, work, and overall QoL [19,20,21]. Regular eye exams in MPS patients are essential to detect ocular abnormalities and allow proper management in an early stage [4, 18]. In addition, vision-specific PRO tools may provide information regarding potential impairments in vision and their impact on the patient [22]. Corneal transplantation (keratoplasty) showed good outcomes in MPS patients with corneal clouding, and should be discussed and recommended to these patients [23]. However, it should be noted that examination and surgical management of ocular manifestations of MPS can be challenging due to presence of masking concomitant symptoms (e.g. masking of visual field changes associated with glaucoma by superimposed visual field problems due to retinopathy), anesthetic risks, clinical progression, and social isolation [4, 18]. Patients with neurological decline or behavioral problems may be unable to cooperate in ophthalmological examinations [18].

Smell and taste

There are several clinical manifestations of MPS that may cause impairments in smell and/or taste, i.e. adenoid hypertrophy, chronic rhinosinusitis, recurrent upper respiratory tract infections, thickened nasal cartilages, macroglossia, dental defects (such as dental caries, gingival inflammation, enamel hypoplasia, unerupted teeth, hyperplastic tooth follicle, anterior open bite, and condylar defects), and possibly neurodegenerative disease [5, 24,25,26]. In addition, continuous upper airway infection can cause chronic production of infected mucus, altering smell and taste. Tracheostomy, a procedure often performed in MPS patients with progressed upper airway disease, may give rise to impaired nasal function [27]. However, there is a lack of publications describing the impairments of smell and taste in patients with MPS.

Olfactory dysfunction may negatively affect one’s appetite, personal hygiene, social relationships, detection of hazardous odors (e.g. smoke, gas), and ADL (e.g. cooking), and may result in weight loss [28]. Therefore, it is important that clinicians are aware of the potential presence of impaired nasal function in MPS patients. Impairments in olfactory dysfunction can be identified using odor identification, discrimination, and threshold levels (e.g. using Sniffin’ Sticks) and PRO questionnaires [29]. Vaccinations, medical and surgical treatment of rhinosinusitis, and nasal saline irrigation may prevent or improve impairments in smell and taste in these patients [30,31,32]. Hyperosmolar nasal sprays should be used with caution, as experience with these sprays is mostly limited to healthy individuals. In patients with swollen mucosae, it may obstruct rather than free the nose [33]. It is important to be aware that adenoidectomy can be challenging due to difficult airway access in patients with limited neck extension, macroglossia and/or reduced mouth opening, and the risk of atlanto-axial subluxation [30].

Touch (including upper extremity function and pain)

Musculoskeletal disease involving the upper limbs (i.e. skeletal and joint abnormalities), nerve compression syndromes (i.e. carpal tunnel syndrome [CTS], ulnar nerve entrapment [cubital tunnel syndrome], cervical cord compression), and central nervous system changes can result in impaired sensation and function of the upper extremities in MPS patients [6, 7, 34,35,36]. Skeletal and joint disease is particularly common in patients with MPS I, IV and VI, but also occurs in the other MPS disorders [35]. Typical skeletal findings in the upper extremities of MPS patients include bony and joint abnormalities in the fingers (claw hands, trigger finger) and forearms, and restricted joint motion in fingers, elbows, and shoulders [35, 37]. Wrist hypermobility is a typical and unique manifestation of MPS IVA, resulting in limited control of the wrist and weak grip strength [7, 38]. CTS is caused by compression of the median nerve in the carpal tunnel at the wrist, which is formed posteriorly by the carpal bones and anteriorly by the transverse carpal ligament [34, 38]. Apart from the median nerve, nine flexor tendons and their associated synovial sheaths pass through the carpal tunnel. The median nerve innervates five muscles in the hand: the first two lumbricals, the opponens pollicis, the abductor pollicis brevis and the flexor pollicis brevis. In MPS patients, CTS is generally caused by a combination of bone deformity, tenosynovial deposits, and GAG accumulation in the connective tissue of the flexor retinaculum, and is most common in MPS I, II, and VI [35, 39]. Typical signs are burning pain, tingling and numbness in the thumb, index and middle fingers, and the radial half of the ring finger [34, 38]. Cervical cord compression most frequently occurs in MPS I, IV, and VI and can be due to atlanto-axial instability, bony stenosis secondary to malformations of the spine and skull base, including odontoid dysplasia, or thickening of tissues surrounding the spinal cord [35, 40, 41]. Cervical cord compression in MPS patients may involve multiple levels, and can lead to compressive myelopathy, which can manifest as weakness, numbness, paresthesia, gait difficulty, and even paralysis or sudden death [39, 40].

Impaired sensation or pain and musculoskeletal abnormalities in the upper extremities may significantly affect ADL and self-care, and can lead to limitations in activity and social participation [7, 42]. CTS has been associated with increased pain and reduced physical functioning and overall QoL [43, 44], but evidence regarding the impact of CTS in MPS patients on PROs is limited [45].

Impairments in upper extremity function and pain in individuals with MPS can be evaluated using functional tests (e.g. goniometry, pinch and grip strength, 9-hole peg test), and/or PRO tools [8, 37, 46]. Diagnosing CTS can be difficult in MPS patients as it often progresses without typical symptoms, possibly due to masking symptoms, communication problems, insidious onset, and difficulties to perform nerve conduction studies due to the patients’ unusually small hands, often young age, and/or cognitive impairment [39, 47, 48]. Therefore, regular monitoring is important to identify CTS. Nerve ultrasound has been suggested as an alternative screening tool for CTS in these patients [47]. CTS can be treated successfully with surgical release of the median nerve, which should be performed before the median nerve is irreversibly damaged. Similarly, spinal cord compression should be surgically treated as recommended to prevent permanent damage to the spinal cord, and taking into account the considerable anesthetic risks in these patients [40, 41]. Pain can be managed with cognitive-behavioral strategies (e.g. relaxation training), physical strategies (e.g. exercise, physical activity), and pain medication [49,50,51].

Challenges for assessing impairments in the senses in MPS

Although it is clear that MPS can have a considerable negative impact on each of the five senses, it remains unclear how patients perceive these impairments and how these affect their overall QoL. Literature on this subject is very sparse, and PRO tools for assessing impairments of the senses and their impact on QoL/ADL are generally not part of routine clinical care of MPS patients. A voting round during the MPS & the five senses meeting showed that only a minority of the attendees currently use these kinds of PRO tools in MPS patients in their practice. Nevertheless, PRO tools and physical tests (e.g. audiology tests, visual acuity tests, goniometry) can complement each other in decision-making for disease management. It is important to make a distinction between health and how patients perceive their health, which depends on how patients are coping with their impairments.

A better insight into how MPS affects the senses and how loss in one or more senses affects ADL and overall QoL in patients with this disease can be achieved by prospectively collecting data internationally in a standardized way, using a standard battery of tools. As interactions between the senses are important, all senses should be evaluated. It has been well established that loss in one of the senses can lead to compensatory plasticity and sharpening of other senses (e.g. enhanced auditory abilities and tactile perception in blind individuals [52, 53]). However, MPS patients with impairments in multiple senses may not be able to compensate. In patients with loss in one of the senses, it becomes more important to preserve functioning in the other senses. In addition to using sense-specific PRO tools, it is important to evaluate patients using a general QoL tool to assess overall QoL. This may reveal coping behaviors; i.e. when a specific sense QoL tool shows impairment, an overall QoL tool may present a score in the normal range.

At the MPS & the five senses meeting, there was general agreement that creating new or adapting existing PRO tools specifically for MPS patients is difficult due to the small patient number to test validity of these tools. Instead, existing PRO tools could be useful for evaluating these patients. However, selecting the most appropriate PRO tools for MPS patients is extremely challenging, because of the high number of available tools. The following criteria were perceived most important: 1) applicability to patients with MPS, 2) applicability to different countries (languages) and cultures, 3) ease of use (≤10 min to complete), 4) validation, and 5) availability of normative data.

With the above criteria in mind, the experts converged on the use of the five-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5 L) as the recommended general QoL tool to document changes in QoL in patients with MPS [54]. The EQ-5D-5 L is a simple and validated generic questionnaire that covers five dimensions of health: Mobility, Self-care, Usual activities, Pain/Discomfort and Anxiety/Depression. It is applicable to a wide range of health conditions, and has also been used in a number of studies involving patients with MPS [55,56,57]. Evaluation with a general well-established QoL measure, such as the EQ-5D-5 L, in combination with sense-specific tools will provide a better picture on the impact of impairments in the senses on QoL in MPS patients, and will better guide management.

Selection of PRO tools for assessing the senses in MPS

After the meeting, a robust EMBASE literature search was performed in June 2018 to identify different PRO questionnaires used in other conditions related to the five senses, that may also be useful in the evaluation of sense impairments and their impact on QoL and/or ADL in MPS patients (Supplementary file 1). The searches were focused on tools for adult patients with no intellectual delay, who are able to complete questionnaires themselves.

The search strategy yielded a total of 421 unique hits, and identified a total of 33 tools for hearing, 30 for speech, 125 for vision, 49 for touch (including pain and upper limb function), and 15 for smell and taste. A selection of these PRO tools was made based on several criteria outlined in Supplementary file 1, including applicability/relevance for MPS, applicability in different countries (languages)/cultures, availability in English, ease of use, validation, and normative data. Table 1 provides an overview of the selected tools, including the most relevant criteria.

Table 1 Overview of PRO tools suitable for assessing impairment in the senses and overall health status in patients with MPS, with focus on adults and self-completion and based on the following criteria: applicability to patients with MPS, applicability to different countries and cultures, ease of use (≤10 min to complete), validated, and availability of normative data


MPS can lead to considerable impairments in each of the five senses. However, current knowledge on the impact of sense impairments on QoL/ADL in patients with MPS remains very limited. Further research, i.e. collection of data in a standardized fashion using sense-specific PRO tools (e.g. those summarized in Table 1) and a general QoL tool such as the EQ-5D-5 L, is warranted and may provide a better insight in how and to what extent impairments in the senses affect ADL and the patients’ overall QoL. The current selection focuses on PRO tools for adults. However, as impairments in the senses are also prevalent in children and adolescents with MPS, it would be interesting to make a similar selection of tools that might be suitable for these populations. This would allow investigators to better follow up impairments in the senses in these patients over time and take appropriate actions.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.



Activities of daily living

EQ-5D-5 L:

Five-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire




Patient-reported outcomes


Quality of life


  1. 1.

    Muenzer J. Overview of the mucopolysaccharidoses. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011;50(Suppl 5):v4–v12.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Lawrence R, Brown JR, Al-Mafraji K, Lamanna WC, Beitel JR, Boons GJ, Esko JD, Crawford BE. Disease-specific non-reducing end carbohydrate biomarkers for mucopolysaccharidoses. Nat Chem Biol. 2012;8:197–204.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Keilmann A, Nakarat T, Bruce IA, Molter D, Malm G, Investigators HOS. Hearing loss in patients with mucopolysaccharidosis II: data from HOS - the hunter outcome survey. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2012;35:343–53.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Del Longo A, Piozzi E, Schweizer F. Ocular features in mucopolysaccharidosis: diagnosis and treatment. Ital J Pediatr. 2018;44:125.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Gönüldas B, Yilmaz T, Sivri HS, Güçer KS, Kilinç K, Genc GA, Kiliç M, Coçkun T. Mucopolysaccharidosis: Otolaryngologic findings, obstructive sleep apnea and accumulation of glucosaminoglycans in lymphatic tissue of the upper airway. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;78:944–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Viskochil D, Muenzer J, Guffon N, Garin C, Munoz-Rojas MV, Moy KA, Hutchinson DT. Carpal tunnel syndrome in mucopolysaccharidosis I: a registry-based cohort study. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2017;59:1269–75.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Aslam R, van Bommel AC, Hendriksz CJ, Jester A. Subjective and objective assessment of hand function in mucopolysaccharidosis IVa patients. JIMD Rep. 2013;9:59–65.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Hendriksz CJ, Berger KI, Lampe C, Kircher SG, Orchard PJ, Southall R, Long S, Sande S, Gold JI. Health-related quality of life in mucopolysaccharidosis: looking beyond biomedical issues. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2016;11:119.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Silveira M, Buriti AKL, Martins AM, Gil D, Azevedo MF. Audiometric evaluation in individuals with mucopolysaccharidosis. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2018;73:e523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Cho YS, Kim JH, Kim TW, Chung SC, Chang SA, Jin DK. Otologic manifestations of hunter syndrome and their relationship with speech development. Audiol Neurootol. 2008;13:206–12.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Nakarat T, Läßig AK, Lampe C, Keilmann A. Alterations in speech and voice in patients with mucopolysaccharidoses. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2014;39:30–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Amieva H, Ouvrard C, Giulioli C, Meillon C, Rullier L, Dartigues JF. Self-reported hearing loss, hearing aids, and cognitive decline in elderly adults: a 25-year study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63:2099–104.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Roland L, Fischer C, Tran K, Rachakonda T, Kallogjeri D, Lieu JE. Quality of life in children with hearing impairment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;155:208–19.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Arlinger S. Negative consequences of uncorrected hearing loss-a review. Int J Audiol. 2003;42 Suppl 2:2S17–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Manchaiah V, Granberg S, Grover V, Saunders GH, Ann HD. Content validity and readability of patient-reported questionnaire instruments of hearing disability. Int J Audiol. 2019;58:565–75.

  16. 16.

    Wold SM, Derkay CS, Darrow DH, Proud V. Role of the pediatric otolaryngologist in diagnosis and management of children with mucopolysaccharidoses. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;74:27–31.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Saeed H, Nichani J, Melling C, Raine CH, Khan I, Martin JM, Bullough R, Green KM, Jones SA, Bruce IA. Feasibility of cochlear implantation in Mucopolysaccharidosis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;77:1255–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Ashworth JL, Kruse FE, Bachmann B, Tormene AP, Suppiej A, Parini R, Guffon N. Ocular manifestations in the mucopolysaccharidoses - a review. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2010;38:12–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Bergwerk KL, Rabinowitz YS, Falk RE. Quality of life related to visual function in three young adults with mucopolysaccharidoses. ScientificWorldJournal. 2003;3:922–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Vashist P, Gupta N, Tandon R, Gupta SK, Dwivedi S, Mani K. Population-based assessment of vision-related quality of life in corneal disease: results from the CORE study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100:588–93.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Fenwick EK, Ong PG, Man RE, Cheng CY, Sabanayagam C, Wong TY, Lamoureux EL. Association of vision impairment and major eye diseases with mobility and independence in a Chinese population. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134:1087–93.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Khadka J, McAlinden C, Pesudovs K. Quality assessment of ophthalmic questionnaires: review and recommendations. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90:720–44.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Ohden KL, Pitz S, Ashworth J, Magalhäes A, Marinho DR, Lindahl P, Teär Fahnehjelm K, Summers CG. Outcomes of keratoplasty in the mucopolysaccharidoses: an international perspective. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101:909–12.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Pereira DRR, Schweiger C, de Souza CF, Fagondes S, Manica D, Giugliani R, Kuhl G, Marostica PJC. Correlation between flexible fiberoptic laryngoscopic and polysomnographic findings in patients with mucopolysaccharidosis type VI. JIMD Rep. 2016;29:53–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Ballikaya E, Eymirli PS, Yildiz Y, Avcu N, Sivri HS, Uzamis-Tekcicek M. Oral health status in patients with mucopolysaccharidoses. Turk J Pediatr. 2018;60:400–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    de Almeida-Barros RQ, de Medeiros PFV, de Almeida Azevedo MQ, de Oliveira Lira Ortega A, Yamamoto ATA, Dornelas SKL, Bento PM. Evaluation of oral manifestations of patients with mucopolysaccharidosis IV and VI: clinical and imaging study. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22:201–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Tsikoudas A, Barnes ML, White P. The impact of tracheostomy on the nose. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;268:1005–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Boesveldt S, Postma EM, Boak D, Welge-Luessen A, Schöpf V, Mainland JD, Martens J, Ngai J, Duffy VB. Anosmia-A Clinical Review. Chem Senses. 2017;42:513–23.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Ruggiero GF, Wick JY. Olfaction: new understandings, diagnostic applications. Consult Pharm. 2016;31:624–32.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Harrison R, Schaefer S, Warner L, Mercer J, Jones S, Bruce I. Transnasal adenoidectomy in mucopolysaccharidosis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;111:149–52.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Chandy Z, Ference E, Lee JT. Clinical guidelines on chronic rhinosinusitis in children. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2019;19:14.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Bachert C, Pawankar R, Zhang L, Bunnag C, Fokkens WJ, Hamilos DL, Jirapongsananuruk O, Kern R, Meltzer EO, Mullol J, Naclerio R, Pilan R, Rhee CS, Suzaki H, Voegels R, Blaiss M. ICON: chronic rhinosinusitis. World Allergy Organ J. 2014;7:25.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Sanico AM, Philip G, Lai GK, Togias A. Hyperosmolar saline induces reflex nasal secretions, evincing neural hyperresponsiveness in allergic rhinitis. J Appl Physiol (1985). 1999;86:1202–10.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    O'Brien A, Bompadre V, Hale S, White KK. Musculoskeletal function in patients with mucopolysaccharidosis using the pediatric outcomes data collection instrument. J Pediatr Orthop. 2014;34:650–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    White KK, Harmatz P. Orthopedic management of mucopolysaccharide disease. J Pediatr Rehabil Med. 2010;3:47–56.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Karpati G, Carpenter S, Eisen AA, Wolfe LS, Feindel W. Multiple peripheral nerve entrapments. An unusual phenotypical variant of the hunter syndrome (mucopolysaccharidosis II) in a family. Arch Neurol. 1974;31:418–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Cardoso-Santos A, Azevedo ACMM, Fagondes S, Burin MG, Giugliani R, Schwartz IVD. Mucopolysaccharidosis type VI (Maroteaux-Lamy syndrome): assessment of joint mobility and grip and pinch strength. J Pediatr. 2008;84:130–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    White KK, Jester A, Bache CE, Harmatz PR, Shediac R, Thacker MM, Mackenzie WG. Orthopedic management of the extremities in patients with Morquio a syndrome. J Child Orthop. 2014;8:295–304.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    White K, Kim T, Neufeld JA. Clinical assessment and treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome in the mucopolysaccharidoses. J Pediatr Rehabil Med. 2010;3:57–62.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Solanki GA, Alden TD, Burton BK, Giugliani R, Horovitz DDG, Jones SA, Lampe C, Martin KW, Ryan ME, Schaefer MK, Siddiqui A, White KK, Harmatz P. A multinational, multidisciplinary consensus for the diagnosis and management of spinal cord compression among patients with mucopolysaccharidosis VI. Mol Genet Metab. 2012;107:15–24.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Solanki GA, Martin KW, Theroux MC, Lampe C, White KK, Shediac R, Lampe CG, Beck M, Mackenzie WG, Hendriksz CJ, Harmatz PR. Spinal involvement in mucopolysaccharidosis IVA (Morquio-Brailsford or Morquio a syndrome): presentation, diagnosis and management. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2013;36:339–55.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Harmatz PR, Mengel E, Geberhiwot T, Muschol N, Hendriksz CJ, Burton BK, Jameson E, Berger KI, Jester A, Treadwell M, Sisic Z, Decker C. Impact of elosulfase alfa in patients with morquio a syndrome who have limited ambulation: an open-label, phase 2 study. Am J Med Genet A. 2016;173:375–83.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Atroshi I, Gummesson C, Johnsson R, Sprinchorn A. Symptoms, disability, and quality of life in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am. 1999;24:398–404.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Cederlund RI, Dahlin LB, Thomsen NO. Activity limitations before and after surgical carpal tunnel release among patients with and without diabetes. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44:261–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Williams N, Challoumas D, Eastwood DM. Does orthopaedic surgery improve quality of life and function in patients with mucopolysaccharidoses? J Child Orthop. 2017;11:289–97.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Hendriksz CJ, Berger KI, Giugliani R, Harmatz P, Kampmann C, Mackenzie WG, Raiman J, Villarreal MS, Savarirayan R. International guidelines for the management and treatment of Morquio a syndrome. Am J Med Genet A. 2015;167A:11–25.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Bäumer T, Bühring N, Schelle T, Münchau A, Muschol N. Nerve ultrasound in clinical management of carpal tunnel syndrome in mucopolysaccharidosis. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2016;58:1172–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Aslam R, Hendriksz CJ, Jester A. Objective results of median nerve decompression and tenosynovectomy for carpal tunnel syndrome in patients with mucopolysaccharidoses types I and II. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2015;40:216–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Knoerl R, Lavoie Smith EM, Weisberg J. Chronic pain and cognitive behavioral therapy: an integrative review. West J Nurs Res. 2016;38:596–628.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Geneen LJ, Moore RA, Clarke C, Martin D, Colvin LA, Smith BH. Physical activity and exercise for chronic pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD011279.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Landry BW, Fischer PR, Driscoll SW, Koch KM, Harbeck-Weber C, Mack KJ, Wilder RT, Bauer BA, Brandenburg JE. Managing chronic pain in children and adolescents: a clinical review. PM R. 2015;7:S295–315.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Kolarik AJ, Cirstea S, Pardhan S, Moore BC. A summary of research investigating echolocation abilities of blind and sighted humans. Hear Res. 2014;310:60–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Papagno C, Minniti G, Mattavelli GC, Mantovan L, Cecchetto C. Tactile short-term memory in sensory-deprived individuals. Exp Brain Res. 2017;235:471–80.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen MF, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1727–36.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Hendriksz CJ, Lavery C, Coker M, Ucar SK, Jain M, Bell L, Lampe C. Burden of disease in patients with Morquio A syndrome: results from an international patient-reported outcomes survey. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014;9:32.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Péntek M, Gulácsi L, Brodszky V, Baji P, Boncz I, Pogány G, López-Bastida J, Linertová R, Oliva-Moreno J, Serrano-Aguilar P, Posada-de-la-Paz M, Taruscio D, Iskrov G, Schieppati A, von der Schulenburg JM, Kanavos P, Chevreul K, Persson U, Fattore G, Network B-RR. Social/economic costs and health-related quality of life of mucopolysaccharidosis patients and their caregivers in Europe. Eur J Health Econ. 2016;17(Suppl 1):89–98.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Pintos-Morell G, Blasco-Alonso J, Couce ML, Gutierrez-Solana LG, Guillen-Navarro E, O'Callaghan M, Del Toro M. Elosulfase alfa for mucopolysaccharidosis type IVA: real-world experience in 7 patients from the Spanish morquio-a early access program. Mol Genet Metab Rep. 2018;15:116–20.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Saunders GH, Cienkowski KM, Forsline A, Fausti S. Normative data for the attitudes towards loss of hearing questionnaire. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;16:637–52.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Tyler RS, Perreau AE, Ji H. The validation of the spatial hearing questionnaire. Ear Hear. 2009;30:466–74.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Perreau AE, Spejcher B, Ou H, Tyler R. The spatial hearing questionnaire: data from individuals with normal hearing. Am J Audiol. 2014;23:173–81.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Rinkel RN, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, van Reij EJ, Aaronson NK, Leemans CR. Speech handicap index in patients with oral and pharyngeal cancer: better understanding of patients' complaints. Head Neck. 2008;30:868–74.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Francis DO, Daniero JJ, Hovis KL, Sathe N, Jacobson B, Penson DF, Feurer ID, McPheeters ML. Voice-related patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review of instrument development and validation. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017;60:62–88.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Arffa RE, Krishna P, Gartner-Schmidt J, Rosen CA. Normative values for the voice handicap index-10. J Voice. 2012;26:462–5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Gliklich RE, Glovsky RM, Montgomery WW. Validation of a voice outcome survey for unilateral vocal cord paralysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;120:153–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Gothwal VK, Wright TA, Lamoureux EL, Pesudovs K. Measuring outcomes of cataract surgery using the visual function index-14. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36:1181–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Bruce B, Fries JF. The Stanford health assessment questionnaire: dimensions and practical applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN, Upper Extremity Collaborative Group. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1038–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Aasheim T, Finsen V. The DASH and the QuickDASH instruments. Normative values in the general population in Norway. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2014;39E:140–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Cleeland CS. The brief pain inventory user guide. 2009. Available from Last accessed in March 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Kerns RD, Turk DC, Rudy TE. The west haven-Yale multidimensional pain inventory (WHYMPI). Pain. 1985;23:345–56.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Gliklich RE, Metson R. Techniques for outcomes research in chronic sinusitis. Laryngoscope. 1995;105:387–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Stavem K, Røssberg E, Larsson PG. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of a Norwegian version of the chronic sinusitis survey. BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord. 2006;6:9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Gliklich RE, Metson R. Effect of sinus surgery on quality of life. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997;117:12–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Szende A, Janssen B, Cabases J. Self-Reported Population Health: An International Perspective based on EQ-5D. Dordrecht: Springer; 2014. Available from Last accessed in March 2020.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Hendriksz CJ, Parini R, AlSayed M, Raiman J, Giugliani R, Mitchell J, Burton BK, Guelbert N, Stewart FJ, Hughes DA, Matousek R, Hawley SM, Decker C, Harmatz PR. Impact of long-term elosulfase alfa on activities of daily living in patients with Morquio a syndrome in an open-label, multi-center, phase 3 extension study. Mol Genet Metab. 2018;123:8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors are grateful to Christine Ly from BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. who helped with the methodology of the literature review and to Ismar Healthcare NV who provided medical writing assistance, which was funded by BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.

The authors would also like to thank all faculty members and delegates involved in the MPS & the five senses meeting in Lisbon for their contribution. Faculty members included Constanza Acevedo, La Escuela Colombiana de Rehabilitación, Bogotá, Colombia; Patrício Aguiar, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Norte, Lisbon, Portugal; Jane L. Ashworth, Manchester Royal Eye Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom; Samuel R. Atcherson, University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR, USA; Iain A. Bruce, Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom; Lorne A. Clarke, University of British Colombia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Cláudio A. Cruz, MPS patient, Lisbon, Portugal; Can J. Ficicioglu, Children’s Hospital Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Paolo Gasparini, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy; Jeffrey I. Gold, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Heiko Gründling, MPS patient, Neuburg an der Kammel, Germany; Andrea A. M. Jester, Birmingham Children’s Hospital NHS, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Ana Jovanovic, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, United Kingdom; Annerose Keilmann, Voice Care Center, Bad Rappenau, Germany; Heather A. Lau, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Hsiang-Yu Lin, MacKay Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; John J. Mitchell, Montreal Children’s Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada; David W. Molter, St. Louis Children’s Hospital, St. Louis, MO, USA; Matthew Nixon, Countess of Chester Hospital, Chester & Manchester Children’s Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom; Dawn Phillips, Evidera Inc., Bethesda, MD, USA & University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Susanne Pitz, Bürgerhospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany; Diego Ponzin, International Center for Ocular Physiopathology, The Veneto Eye Bank Foundation, Venice, Italy; Cheralea Rogan, MPS patient, Egremont, United Kingdom; Philippe Rombaux, University Hospital Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium; Kerstin Simon, MPS patient, Filderstadt, Germany; Nicola Slee, Lady Cilento Children’s Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Martha L. Solano, Fundación Cardio-infantil, Bogotá, Colombia; Elisa Leão Teles, Hospital de São João, Porto, Portugal; David H. Viskochil, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.


This work was supported by BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.

Author information




All authors were actively involved in the meeting on which the publication is based. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto Giugliani.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The content of this manuscript is based on discussions during a meeting that was coordinated and funded by BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. BioMarin also provided a review of the manuscript. RG, PH, S-PL and MS received funding from BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. to participate in this meeting. In addition, RG received speaker honoraria, advisory board and consultancy fees, investigator fees, research grants or travel grants to participate in scientific meetings from Amicus, Actelion, BioMarin, GC Pharma, Inventiva, JCR, Lysogene, PTC, RegenxBio, Sangamo, Sanofi, Sobi, Takeda, and Ultragenyx. MS reports board membership and grants and payments (e.g. for lectures, speakerships, honoraria, travel/accommodation) from Shire, Genzyme, Chiesi, Ultragenix, and BioMarin. PH has been a consultant for BioMarin, Shire, Genzyme, Chiesi, Inventiva, Paradigm, Ultragenyx, SOBI, JCR, Denali, Orphazyme, RegenXbio, and Sangamo, he received grants from BioMarin, payments (lectures, speakerships, honoraria) from BioMarin, Chiesi, Ultragenyx, and Orphazyme and travel, accommodations, and/or payments for meeting expenses from BioMarin, Shire, Genzyme, Chiesi, Inventiva, Ultragenyx, SOBI, and RegenXbio.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1.

Details of literature search and selection of tools

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Giugliani, R., Harmatz, P., Lin, SP. et al. Assessing the impact of the five senses on quality of life in mucopolysaccharidoses. Orphanet J Rare Dis 15, 97 (2020).

Download citation


  • Hearing
  • Mucopolysaccharidosis
  • Patient-reported outcomes
  • Quality of life
  • Review
  • Senses
  • Smell
  • Taste
  • Touch
  • Vision