Parosmia as a predictor of a better olfactory function in COVID-19: a multicentric longitudinal study for upper respiratory tract infections

Factors Associated With Persisting Olfactory Dysfunction After COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Fortunately, the majority of COVID-19 patients recover from olfactory dysfunction (OD) within the first couple of weeks. However, from approximately 5% up to 20% continue to suffer from OD even more than 1 year after the onset. Nonetheless, factors associated with long-lasting OD are hardly known. The aim of this study was to identify favourable and disadvantageous markers of persisting OD in COVID-19 patients.

METHODOLOGY

Sixty-six patients (46 female; mean age: 39.9 years) that suffer from OD longer than 6 months due to laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection have participated in this longitudinal study. Participants completed comprehensive psychophysical chemosensory tests (i.e., Sniffin' Sticks = TDI) and questionnaires twice at our department-on average 219 ± 80 (T-1) and 489 ± 89 (T-2) days after the onset of symptoms, respectively. Olfactory recovery rates were associated with demographic factors and questionnaires using linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

Patients below 40 years of age improved better (TDI: 4.1 ± 4.3 vs. 0.7 ± 5.8; p = 0.008) and achieved statistically significant higher scores (TDI: 31.5 ± 4.0 vs. 27.3 ± 6.7; p = 0.033) regarding psychophysical chemosensory tests. Furthermore, linear regression analysis revealed that parosmia was associated with worse orthonasal smell function (T-1: β = -0.346, p = 0.004; T-2: β = -0.384, p = 0.001), especially concerning identification subtest (T-1: β = -0.395, p = 0.001; T-2: β = -0.398, p < 0.001). Moreover, increasing parosmia between T-1and T-2 led to worse orthonasal olfactory function (β = -0.294, p = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

Older age and parosmia seem to be unfavourable factors of persisting OD in COVID-19 patients.

Persistent Post-COVID-19 Olfactory Dysfunction and Its Association with Autonomic Nervous System Function: A Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND

Following the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many patients have reported ongoing smell and taste issues. This study aims to investigate the prevalence of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction among patients with a history of COVID-19 and its association with autonomic dysfunction and disability.

PATIENT AND METHODS

This case-control study included a COVID-19 group (n = 82) and a control group (n = 82). Olfactory dysfunction, including parosmia and taste problems, was explored using self-reports and the Quick Smell Identification Test (QSIT). The association between post-COVID-19 disability severity and taste and smell alterations was also analyzed. Moreover, autonomic function was evaluated using the Composite Autonomic Symptom Scale-31 (COMPASS-31) to assess the association between autonomic and olfactory dysfunction.

RESULTS

Significantly higher rates of ongoing smell (26.8%) and taste (14.6%) dysfunction were reported for the post-COVID-19 group compared to the control group. Post-COVID-19 patients reported 36.6 times more smell issues and 8.22 times more taste issues than controls. Parosmia scores were significantly worse in the post-COVID-19 group, while QSIT scores showed no significant difference between the groups. However, those with worse QSIT scores exhibited significantly more ongoing smell issues. No significant association was observed between disability and altered smell or taste. Higher secretomotor dysfunction scores were significantly associated with abnormal QSIT scores and worse parosmia scores; the other domains of the COMPASS-31 scale showed no significant associations.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicated a potential link between autonomic and olfactory dysfunction. Further studies are needed to elucidate the mechanisms underlying persistent olfactory and autonomic dysfunction in post-COVID-19 patients.

Assessment of olfactory recovery after COVID-19: cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate recovery patterns of olfactory dysfunction among recovered COVID-19 patients, both subjective and objective, and correlate this recovery to the severity of the disease.

METHODS

The study recruited 200 patients and assigned them to two equal groups, one of them was a control group. The olfactory function of the study group was assessed via subjective and objective methods at baseline and then monthly for three months, with changes in smell function reported at each visit. These patients underwent chemosensory testing using the Sniffin' Sticks test and completed the validated Arabic version of the Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders-Negative Statements (QOD-NS).

RESULTS

Olfactory dysfunction occurred on the first day of COVID-19 symptoms in 37% of participants. Subjective reports suggested smell recovery in 55% after 3 months, but Sniffin' Sticks showed only 1% with normal function, indicating persistent deficits in others. This study revealed smell recovery for 93% of participants (median 14 days), with most (58%) recovering within 2 weeks. No significant links were found between demographics, COVID-smell loss timing, and recovery speed.

CONCLUSION

Three months after COVID-19, many patients perceive smell recovery, but objective tests reveal shockingly high rates of persistent dysfunction. Further follow-up with objective tests is vital to assess the true burden and potential long-term effects of smell loss.

Parosmia in patients with post-infectious olfactory dysfunction in the era of COVID-19-associated olfactory impairment

OBJECTIVES

A large number of patients with olfactory impairment are affected by parosmia or phantosmia. This study aimed to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of parosmia.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective data analysis of patients consulting at our Smell and Taste Outpatient Clinic. A total of 297 patients were included (203 women, mean age 44.4 ± 13.7 years). Olfactory function was quantified using the "Sniffin' Sticks" composite TDI (odor threshold, determination, and identification) score. The presence of qualitative olfactory impairment was assessed trough medical history and a parosmia questionnaire.

RESULTS

Most of the patients showed olfactory impairment after an infection with SARS-CoV‑2 (84%) and were diagnosed with parosmia (49%). Patients with parosmia (PAR) (n = 201) were significantly younger compared to the group without parosmia (noPAR; n = 92) (PAR 43.2 ± 13 years vs. noPAR 47 ± 15.1 years, p = 0.03) and had a slightly shorter duration of disease, without reaching statistical significance (PAR 10.3 ± 4.9 months, noPAR 13.6 ± 37.6 months, p = 0.23). They also had higher TDI scores (PAR 24.3 ± 7 points, noPAR 21.4 ± 8.2 points, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients affected by parosmia were younger and had a better olfactory function compared to patients without parosmia.

Comparison of Patient Characteristics and Olfactory Sensitivity for Trigger Odorants in Parosmia and Phantosmia

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine the characteristics of patients with qualitative olfactory dysfunction (qualOD) and whether individuals with parosmia exhibit increased olfactory sensitivity to previously reported odorous triggers of parosmia.

METHODS

This study included individuals aged ≥18 years, divided into quantitative OD only, parosmia, and phantosmia groups. Data collected included: clinical-demographic data, "Sniffin' Sticks" scores, questionnaires (depression scale, importance of olfaction), and information about parosmia and phantosmia. A proportion of patients underwent trigger odor threshold testing for 2-Furfurylthiol [FFT] found in coffee and 2,6-nonadienal [Nonadienal] found in cucumber.

RESULTS

Those with parosmia were typically younger women, with shorter OD duration due to post-viral OD (PVOD), hyposmic/normosmic, and experienced parosmia more severely. Parosmia was 3.5 times more likely in PVOD. Those with phantosmia were older, with longer OD duration due to idiopathic OD, hyposmic/anosmic, and experienced phantosmia less severely. There were no significant differences between FFT and Nonadienal threshold scores in patients with parosmia, phantosmia, or only quantitative OD, but all groups had significantly increased olfactory sensitivity for trigger odors compared to phenyl ethyl alcohol (PEA).

CONCLUSION

Parosmia and phantosmia patients have distinct characteristics. This may provide clinicians with a better understanding of possible olfactory outcomes in these patients. The higher olfactory sensitivity of all groups to trigger odors compared to PEA raises interesting points about parosmia triggers and odors in the context of warning for danger, in relation to the pathophysiology of parosmia that may be worth exploring in future studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 134:3277-3285, 2024.

Recovery rates and long-term olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection

Objectives

Olfactory dysfunction is one of the most recognized symptoms of COVID-19, significantly impacting quality of life, particularly in cases where recovery is prolonged. This review aims to explore patterns of olfactory recovery post-COVID-19 infection, with particular focus on delayed recovery.

Data Sources

Published literature in the English language, including senior author's own work, online and social media platforms, and patients' anecdotal reports.

Method

A comprehensive review of the literature was undertaken by the authors with guidance from the senior author with expertise in the field of olfaction.

Results

Based on self-report, an estimated 95% of patients recover their olfactory function within 6 months post-COVID-19 infection. However, psychophysical testing detects higher rates of persistent olfactory dysfunction. Recovery has been found to continue for at least 2 years postinfection; negative prognostic indicators include severe olfactory loss in the acute phase, female sex, and older age. Variability in quantitative and qualitative disturbance in prolonged cases likely reflects both peripheral and central pathophysiological mechanisms. Limitations of many of the reviewed studies reflect lack of psychophysical testing and baseline olfactory assessment.

Conclusions

Post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction remains a significant health and psychosocial burden. Emerging evidence is improving awareness and knowledge among clinicians to better support patients through their olfactory rehabilitation, with hope of recovery after several months or years. Further research is needed to better understand the underlying pathogenesis of delayed recovery, identify at risk individuals earlier in the disease course, and develop therapeutic targets.

Post-COVID-19 patients suffer from chemosensory, trigeminal, and salivary dysfunctions

Recent literature indicates that post-COVID-19 patients suffer from a plethora of complications, including chemosensory dysfunction. However, little attention has been given to understand the interactions between chemosensory, trigeminal, and salivary dysfunctions in these patients. The aims of this study were (1) to investigate the prevalence and combinations of chemosensory, trigeminal, and salivary dysfunctions, (2) to identify the odorants/tastants that are compromised, and (3) to explore possible associations between the four dysfunctions in post-COVID-19 patients. One hundred post-COVID-19 patients and 76 healthy controls (pre-COVID-19) were included in this cross-sectional, case-controlled study. Participants' smell, taste, trigeminal, and salivary functions were assessed. The patients had a significantly higher prevalence of parosmia (80.0%), hyposmia (42.0%), anosmia (53.0%), dysgeusia (34.0%), complete ageusia (3.0%), specific ageusia (27.0%), dysesthesia (11.0%) and dry mouth (18.0%) compared to controls (0.0% for all parameters, except 27.6% for hyposmia). Complete loss of bitter taste was the most prevalent specific ageusia (66.7%) and coffee was the most common distorted smell (56.4%). Seven different combinations of dysfunction were observed in the patients, the most common being a combination of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction (48.0%). These findings indicate that post-COVID-19 patients experience a range of chemosensory, trigeminal, and salivary disturbances, occurring in various combinations.

Olfactory Epithelium Infection by SARS-CoV-2: Possible Neuroinflammatory Consequences of COVID-19

Background

The loss of smell is a typical diagnostic symptom of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This sensorial deprivation may be expressed as quantitative (anosmia or hyposmia) or qualitative (dysosmia) alterations as a consequence of anatomical disturbances of the nasal epithelium structure. The olfactory system sends direct neuronal connections to brain structures that are involved in emotional processing, including deep temporal nuclei. This anatomical and functional feature may be related to the occurrence of emotional disorders among COVID-19 patients.

Summary

We identify a possible sequence of events, from typical olfactory dysfunction that is associated with COVID-19 and caused by olfactory epithelium damage to disturbances in the quality of life and emotional state of infected patients that is attributable to possible neuroinflammatory processes. Sensorial deprivation causes deleterious actions on mood, negatively affecting quality of life. Olfactory dysfunction that is associated with COVID-19 occurs concurrently with psychological distress, symptoms of anxiety, and depressive disorders and impinges on self-perceived quality of life.

Key Messages

Changes in mood are certainly associated with multiple factors, including the environment and isolation, but the observation that the virus may penetrate the central nervous system through the olfactory bulb and the connection between the olfactory system and prefrontal and orbitofrontal cortices and the amygdala-hippocampus do not allow one to discard neural factors that are involved in the pathophysiology of emotional symptoms in post-COVID-19 patients. Behavioral symptoms of COVID-19 involve local olfactory actions and the participation of central neuronal systems.

[Persistent olfactory impairment after COVID-19-recommendations of the Working Group on Olfactology and Gustology of the German Society of Oto-rhino-laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery]

This article does not intend to comprehensively review the existing literature on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated smell disorders, but aims to summarize scientific evidence for otorhinolaryngological practice and provide recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of persistent smell disorders following COVID-19.

Orthonasal and retronasal odor identification in patients with parosmia

OBJECTIVE

To compare retronasal and orthonasal perception in parosmic COVID-19 patients, in order to determine whether COVID-19 has a differential effect on these functions.

METHODS

Using the Sniffin Sticks test battery orthonasal function was examined for odor threshold, discrimination and identification. Retronasal function was assessed using 20 tasteless aromatized powders. Gustatory function was measured using the Taste Strips test.

RESULTS

This study included 177 patients (127 women, 50 men; mean age 45 years), of whom 127 (72%) were hyposmic and 50 (28%) normosmic. Compared to patients without parosmia, parosmic patients performed worse in odor identification for both orthonasal (F = 4.94, p = 0.03) and retronasal tests (F = 11.95, p < 0.01). However, an interaction effect between route of odor identification (orthonasal or retronasal) and parosmia status was found (F = 4.67, p = 0.03): patients with parosmia had relatively lower retronasal scores than patients without parosmia.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that COVID-19 may affect the olfactory mucosa differently along the anterior-posterior axis, thereby possibly contributing to the pathophysiology of parosmia. Patients with parosmia also exhibit a higher degree of impairment when odors are presented through the retronasal route during eating and drinking.

Post-viral olfactory loss and parosmia

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 has brought olfactory dysfunction to the forefront of public awareness, because up to half of infected individuals could develop olfactory dysfunction. Loss of smell-which can be partial or total-in itself is debilitating, but the distortion of sense of smell (parosmia) that can occur as a consequence of a viral upper respiratory tract infection (either alongside a reduction in sense of smell or as a solo symptom) can be very distressing for patients. Incidence of olfactory loss after SARS-CoV-2 infection has been estimated by meta-analysis to be around 50%, with more than one in three who will subsequently report parosmia. While early loss of sense of smell is thought to be due to infection of the supporting cells of the olfactory epithelium, the underlying mechanisms of persistant loss and parosmia remain less clear. Depletion of olfactory sensory neurones, chronic inflammatory infiltrates, and downregulation of receptor expression are thought to contribute. There are few effective therapeutic options, so support and olfactory training are essential. Further research is required before strong recommendations can be made to support treatment with steroids, supplements, or interventions applied topically or injected into the olfactory epithelium in terms of improving recovery of quantitative olfactory function. It is not yet known whether these treatments will also achieve comparable improvements in parosmia. This article aims to contextualise parosmia in the setting of post-viral olfactory dysfunction, explore some of the putative molecular mechanisms, and review some of the treatment options available.

Alzheimer's early detection in post-acute COVID-19 syndrome: a systematic review and expert consensus on preclinical assessments

Introduction

The risk of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD) in older adults increasingly is being discussed in the literature on Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome (PACS). Remote digital Assessments for Preclinical AD (RAPAs) are becoming more important in screening for early AD, and should always be available for PACS patients, especially for patients at risk of AD. This systematic review examines the potential for using RAPA to identify impairments in PACS patients, scrutinizes the supporting evidence, and describes the recommendations of experts regarding their use.

Methods

We conducted a thorough search using the PubMed and Embase databases. Systematic reviews (with or without meta-analysis), narrative reviews, and observational studies that assessed patients with PACS on specific RAPAs were included. The RAPAs that were identified looked for impairments in olfactory, eye-tracking, graphical, speech and language, central auditory, or spatial navigation abilities. The recommendations' final grades were determined by evaluating the strength of the evidence and by having a consensus discussion about the results of the Delphi rounds among an international Delphi consensus panel called IMPACT, sponsored by the French National Research Agency. The consensus panel included 11 international experts from France, Switzerland, and Canada.

Results

Based on the available evidence, olfaction is the most long-lasting impairment found in PACS patients. However, while olfaction is the most prevalent impairment, expert consensus statements recommend that AD olfactory screening should not be used on patients with a history of PACS at this point in time. Experts recommend that olfactory screenings can only be recommended once those under study have reported full recovery. This is particularly important for the deployment of the olfactory identification subdimension. The expert assessment that more long-term studies are needed after a period of full recovery, suggests that this consensus statement requires an update in a few years.

Conclusion

Based on available evidence, olfaction could be long-lasting in PACS patients. However, according to expert consensus statements, AD olfactory screening is not recommended for patients with a history of PACS until complete recovery has been confirmed in the literature, particularly for the identification sub-dimension. This consensus statement may require an update in a few years.

An olfactory perceptual fingerprint in people with olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19

The sense of smell is based on sensory detection of the molecule(s), which is then further perceptually interpreted. A possible measure of olfactory perception is an odor-independent olfactory perceptual fingerprint (OPF) defined by Snitz et al. We aimed to investigate whether OPF can distinguish patients with olfactory dysfunction (OD) due to coronavirus disease (COVID-19) from controls and which perceptual descriptors are important for that separation. Our study included 99 healthy controls and 41 patients. They rated 10 odors using 8 descriptors such as "pleasant," "intense," "familiar," "warm," "cold," "irritating," "edible," and "disgusting." An unsupervised machine learning method, hierarchical cluster analysis, showed that OPF can distinguish patients from controls with an accuracy of 83%, a sensitivity of 51%, and a specificity of 96%. Furthermore, a supervised machine learning method, random forest classifier, showed that OPF can distinguish patients and controls in the testing dataset with an accuracy of 86%, a sensitivity of 64%, and a specificity of 96%. Principal component analysis and random forest classifier showed that familiarity and intensity were the key qualities to explain the variance of the data. In conclusion, people with COVID-19-related OD have a fundamentally different olfactory perception.