Testing Olfactory and Gustatory Dysfunctions among Quarantine COVID-19 Suspects

Transient loss and recovery of oral chemesthesis, taste and smell with COVID-19: a small case-control series

Anosmia is common with respiratory virus infections, but loss of taste or chemesthesis is rare. Reports of true taste loss with COVID-19 were viewed skeptically until confirmed by multiple studies. Nasal menthol thresholds are elevated in some with prior COVID-19 infections, but data on oral chemesthesis are lacking. Many patients recover quickly, but precise timing and synchrony of recovery are unclear. Here, we collected broad sensory measures over 28 days, recruiting adults (18-45 years) who were COVID-19 positive or recently exposed (close contacts per U.S. CDC criteria at the time of the study) in the first half of 2021. Participants received nose clips, red commercial jellybeans (Sour Cherry and Cinnamon), and scratch-n-sniff cards (ScentCheckPro). Among COVID-19 cases who entered the study on or before Day 10 of infection, Gaussian Process Regression showed odor identification and odor intensity (two distinct measures of function) each declined relative to controls (close contacts who never developed COVID-19), but effects were larger for intensity than identification. To assess changes during early onset, we identified four COVID-19 cases who enrolled on or prior to Day 1 of their illness â€" this allowed for visualization of baseline ratings, loss, and recovery of function over time. Four controls were matched for age, gender, and race. Variables included sourness and sweetness (Sour Cherry jellybeans), oral burn (Cinnamon jellybeans), mean orthonasal intensity of four odors (ScentCheckPro), and perceived nasal blockage. Data were plotted over 28 days, creating panel plots for the eight cases and controls. Controls exhibited stable ratings over time. By contrast, COVID-19 cases showed sharp deviations over time. No single pattern of taste loss or recovery was apparent, implying different taste qualities might recover at different rates. Oral burn was transiently reduced for some before recovering quickly, suggesting acute loss may be missed in data collected after acute illness ends. Changes in odor intensity or odor identification were not explained by nasal blockage. Collectively, intensive daily testing shows orthonasal smell, oral chemesthesis and taste were each altered by acute COVID-19 infection, and this disruption was dyssynchronous for different modalities, with variable loss and recovery rates across modalities and individuals.

Taste loss as a distinct symptom of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chemosensory scientists have been skeptical that reports of COVID-19 taste loss are genuine, in part because before COVID-19 taste loss was rare and often confused with smell loss. Therefore, to establish the predicted prevalence rate of taste loss in COVID-19 patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 376 papers published in 2020-2021, with 235 meeting all inclusion criteria. Drawing on previous studies and guided by early meta-analyses, we explored how methodological differences (direct vs. self-report measures) may affect these estimates. We hypothesized that direct measures of taste are at least as sensitive as those obtained by self-report and that the preponderance of evidence confirms taste loss is a symptom of COVID-19. The meta-analysis showed that, among 138,015 COVID-19-positive patients, 36.62% reported taste dysfunction (95% confidence interval: 33.02%-40.39%), and the prevalence estimates were slightly but not significantly higher from studies using direct (n = 15) versus self-report (n = 220) methodologies (Q = 1.73, df = 1, P = 0.1889). Generally, males reported lower rates of taste loss than did females, and taste loss was highest among middle-aged adults. Thus, taste loss is likely a bona fide symptom of COVID-19, meriting further research into the most appropriate direct methods to measure it and its underlying mechanisms.

The Prevalence and Pathophysiology of Chemical Sense Disorder Caused by the Novel Coronavirus

Emerging viral infections are a ceaseless challenge and remain a global public health concern. The world has not yet come back to normal from the devastating effects of the highly contagious and pathogenic novel coronavirus, or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Olfactory and taste dysfunction is common in patients infected by the novel coronavirus. In light of the emergence of different coronavirus variants, it is important to update the prevalence and pathophysiology of these side effects. In this review, articles published on the prevalence of olfactory and taste dysfunction from coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and their possible pathophysiologic mechanisms have been reviewed and reported. The modulatory role of different SARS-CoV-2 variants on the chemical senses is then described. The clinical relevance of chemical sense disorder and its long-term morbidity and management is also discussed.

Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 illness is highly variable, ranging from infection with no symptoms through to pneumonia and life-threatening consequences. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of sense of smell (anosmia) or taste (ageusia), can help flag early on if the disease is present. Such information could be used either to rule out COVID-19 disease, or to identify people who need to go for COVID-19 diagnostic tests. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We undertook electronic searches up to 10 June 2021 in the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We used artificial intelligence text analysis to conduct an initial classification of documents. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible if they included people with clinically suspected COVID-19, or recruited known cases with COVID-19 and also controls without COVID-19 from a single-gate cohort. Studies were eligible when they recruited people presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies that included people who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract, and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 checklist, and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Analyses were restricted to prospective studies only. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis whenever five or more primary prospective studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 90 studies; for this update we focused on the results of 42 prospective studies with 52,608 participants. Prevalence of COVID-19 disease varied from 3.7% to 60.6% with a median of 27.4%. Thirty-five studies were set in emergency departments or outpatient test centres (46,878 participants), three in primary care settings (1230 participants), two in a mixed population of in- and outpatients in a paediatric hospital setting (493 participants), and two overlapping studies in nursing homes (4007 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild COVID-19 disease from COVID-19 pneumonia, so we present the results for both conditions together. Twelve studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because they used a high level of preselection to decide whether reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was needed, or because they enrolled a non-consecutive sample, or because they excluded individuals while they were part of the study base. We rated 36 of the 42 studies as high risk of bias for the index tests because there was little or no detail on how, by whom and when, the symptoms were measured. For most studies, eligibility for testing was dependent on the local case definition and testing criteria that were in effect at the time of the study, meaning most people who were included in studies had already been referred to health services based on the symptoms that we are evaluating in this review. The applicability of the results of this review iteration improved in comparison with the previous reviews. This version has more studies of people presenting to ambulatory settings, which is where the majority of assessments for COVID-19 take place. Only three studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 96 symptoms or combinations of signs and symptoms. Evidence on individual signs as diagnostic tests was rarely reported, so this review reports mainly on the diagnostic value of symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. RT-PCR was the most often used reference standard (40/42 studies). Only cough (11 studies) had a summary sensitivity above 50% (62.4%, 95% CI 50.6% to 72.9%)); its specificity was low (45.4%, 95% CI 33.5% to 57.9%)). Presence of fever had a sensitivity of 37.6% (95% CI 23.4% to 54.3%) and a specificity of 75.2% (95% CI 56.3% to 87.8%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of cough was 1.14 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.25) and that of fever 1.52 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.10). Sore throat had a summary positive likelihood ratio of 0.814 (95% CI 0.714 to 0.929), which means that its presence increases the probability of having an infectious disease other than COVID-19. Dyspnoea (12 studies) and fatigue (8 studies) had a sensitivity of 23.3% (95% CI 16.4% to 31.9%) and 40.2% (95% CI 19.4% to 65.1%) respectively. Their specificity was 75.7% (95% CI 65.2% to 83.9%) and 73.6% (95% CI 48.4% to 89.3%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of dyspnoea was 0.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.11) and that of fatigue 1.52 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.91), which means that the presence of fatigue slightly increases the probability of having COVID-19. Anosmia alone (7 studies), ageusia alone (5 studies), and anosmia or ageusia (6 studies) had summary sensitivities below 50% but summary specificities over 90%. Anosmia had a summary sensitivity of 26.4% (95% CI 13.8% to 44.6%) and a specificity of 94.2% (95% CI 90.6% to 96.5%). Ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 23.2% (95% CI 10.6% to 43.3%) and a specificity of 92.6% (95% CI 83.1% to 97.0%). Anosmia or ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 39.2% (95% CI 26.5% to 53.6%) and a specificity of 92.1% (95% CI 84.5% to 96.2%). The summary positive likelihood ratios of anosmia alone and anosmia or ageusia were 4.55 (95% CI 3.46 to 5.97) and 4.99 (95% CI 3.22 to 7.75) respectively, which is just below our arbitrary definition of a 'red flag', that is, a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5. The summary positive likelihood ratio of ageusia alone was 3.14 (95% CI 1.79 to 5.51). Twenty-four studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms, mostly combining olfactory symptoms. By combining symptoms with other information such as contact or travel history, age, gender, and a local recent case detection rate, some multivariable prediction scores reached a sensitivity as high as 90%.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most individual symptoms included in this review have poor diagnostic accuracy. Neither absence nor presence of symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out the disease. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for the presence of COVID-19. The presence of cough also supports further testing. There is currently no evidence to support further testing with PCR in any individuals presenting only with upper respiratory symptoms such as sore throat, coryza or rhinorrhoea. Combinations of symptoms with other readily available information such as contact or travel history, or the local recent case detection rate may prove more useful and should be further investigated in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. The diagnostic accuracy of symptoms for COVID-19 is moderate to low and any testing strategy using symptoms as selection mechanism will result in both large numbers of missed cases and large numbers of people requiring testing. Which one of these is minimised, is determined by the goal of COVID-19 testing strategies, that is, controlling the epidemic by isolating every possible case versus identifying those with clinically important disease so that they can be monitored or treated to optimise their prognosis. The former will require a testing strategy that uses very few symptoms as entry criterion for testing, the latter could focus on more specific symptoms such as fever and anosmia.

How common are taste and smell abnormalities in COVID-19? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Olfactory and gustatory dysfunction (OGD) are important early clinical symptoms of COVID-19. We aim to calculate the pooled prevalence of these symptoms and discuss the likely implications on clinical practice such as their use as screening tools and potential prognosis indicators.

METHODS

Using a combination of keywords and medical subject headings, we searched for observational studies in the following five databases: Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Two authors independently screened and selected the final articles according to the inclusion criteria. Two investigators independently assessed the risk of bias in individual studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Heterogeneity and publication bias were also assessed. The reported outcome of the pooled analysis was the prevalence of OGD calculated using a random-effect model. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed to report results.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies with a total sample size of 4149 were included in this meta-analysis. Out of these, 2106 and 2676 patients reported some degree of olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunction with COVID-19, respectively. The reported outcomes were in terms of pooled prevalence, with gustatory dysfunction being 57.33% and olfactory dysfunction being 59.69%, a significantly high occurrence.

CONCLUSION

There is a high occurrence of smell and taste impairment in COVID-19. Given the lack of objective testing for detecting OGD in most studies, the high prevalence found is likely to be an underestimation of the true prevalence. This implies that physicians must use them as reliable early indicators of COVID-19 and employ them before using expensive tests.

Taste loss as a distinct symptom of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chemosensory scientists have been skeptical that reports of COVID-19 taste loss are genuine, in part because before COVID-19 taste loss was rare and often confused with smell loss. Therefore, to establish the predicted prevalence rate of taste loss in COVID-19 patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 376 papers published in 2020-2021, with 241 meeting all inclusion criteria. Drawing on previous studies and guided by early meta-analyses, we explored how methodological differences (direct vs. self-report measures) may affect these estimates. We hypothesized that direct measures of taste are at least as sensitive as those obtained by self-report and that the preponderance of evidence confirms taste loss is a symptom of COVID-19. The meta-analysis showed that, among 138,897 COVID-19-positive patients, 39.2% reported taste dysfunction (95% confidence interval: 35.34%-43.12%), and the prevalence estimates were slightly but not significantly higher from studies using direct (n = 18) versus self-report (n = 223) methodologies (Q = 0.57, df = 1, P = 0.45). Generally, males reported lower rates of taste loss than did females, and taste loss was highest among middle-aged adults. Thus, taste loss is likely a bona fide symptom of COVID-19, meriting further research into the most appropriate direct methods to measure it and its underlying mechanisms.

Massively collaborative crowdsourced research on COVID19 and the chemical senses: Insights and outcomes

In March 2020, the Global Consortium of Chemosensory Research (GCCR) was founded by chemosensory researchers to address emerging reports of unusual smell and taste dysfunction arising from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Over the next year, the GCCR used a highly collaborative model, along with contemporary Open Science practices, to produce multiple high impact publications on chemosensation and COVID19. This invited manuscript describes the founding of the GCCR, the tools and approaches it used, and a summary of findings to date. These findings are contextualized within a summary of some of the broader insights about chemosensation (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) and COVID19 gained over the last 18 months, including potential mechanisms of loss. Also, it includes a detailed discussion of some current Open Science approaches and practices used by the GCCR to increase transparency, rigor, and reproducibility.

Exploring the Clinical Utility of Gustatory Dysfunction (GD) as a Triage Symptom Prior to Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) in the Diagnosis of COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of COVID-19 is made using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) but its sensitivity varies from 20 to 100%. The presence of gustatory dysfunction (GD) in a patient with upper respiratory tract symptoms might increase the clinical suspicion of COVID-19.

AIMS

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR-) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of using GD as a triage symptom prior to RT-PCR.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase were searched up to 20 June 2021. Studies published in English were included if they compared the frequency of GD in COVID-19 adult patients (proven by RT-PCR) to COVID-19 negative controls in case control or cross-sectional studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies.

RESULTS

21,272 COVID-19 patients and 52,298 COVID-19 negative patients were included across 44 studies from 21 countries. All studies were of moderate to high risk of bias. Patients with GD were more likely to test positive for COVID-19: DOR 6.39 (4.86-8.40), LR+ 3.84 (3.04-4.84), LR- 0.67 (0.64-0.70), pooled sensitivity 0.37 (0.29-0.47) and pooled specificity 0.92 (0.89-0.94). While history/questionnaire-based assessments were predictive of RT-PCR positivity (DOR 6.62 (4.95-8.85)), gustatory testing was not (DOR 3.53 (0.98-12.7)). There was significant heterogeneity among the 44 studies (I2 = 92%, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

GD is useful as a symptom to determine if a patient should undergo further testing, especially in resource-poor regions where COVID-19 testing is scarce. Patients with GD may be advised to quarantine while repeated testing is performed if the initial RT-PCR is negative.

FUNDING

None.

Objective Evaluation of Olfactory and Taste Dysfunction Among COVID-19 Patients: A Cross Sectional Study from Tribal India

There is a varying prevalence of olfactory and taste dysfunction (OTD) in COVID-19 patients, with a higher prevalence reported in the European population as compared to the Asian population. Psychophysical tests are crucial to determine the exact frequency, extent and clinical characteristics of these OTDs. The present study objectively evaluated the OTD for patients treated in the Dedicated COVID-19 Hospital (DCH) in Shahdol. This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted after IEC approval in DCH Shahdol for a period of four months among RT-PCR positive patients, and they were evaluated using validated chemosensitive psychophysical test during ENT consultation to identify OTD. The sample size was calculated as 92 considering prevalence (p) of OTD as 41.3% by applying formula: n = (Z^1-a/2)² × p (1-p) / d ². The information pertaining to the subjects was kept anonymous and confidential. During data analysis, an association was significant for p value < 0.05. It was observed that 45.5% of subjects reported either loss of taste or smell. During objective evaluation, olfactory and taste dysfunction was observed among 42.4% of subjects (95/224). The Chi-square analysis reflected statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between subjects with OTD and without OTD for the variables such as days from onset of symptoms to admission, and symptoms (fever, sore throat and shortness of breath). Taste and smell are among the important senses and in India they are mostly subjectively evaluated for COVID-19 induced OTD which results in underreporting of these symptoms. So, a gold standard objective evaluation should be taken into consideration to evaluate OTD.

Taste loss as a distinct symptom of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Chemosensory scientists have been skeptical that reports of COVID-19 taste loss are genuine, in part because before COVID-19, taste loss was rare and often confused with smell loss. Therefore, to establish the predicted prevalence rate of taste loss in COVID-19 patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 376 papers published in 2020-2021, with 241 meeting all inclusion criteria. Additionally, we explored how methodological differences (direct vs. self-report measures) may affect these estimates. We hypothesized that direct prevalence measures of taste loss would be the most valid because they avoid the taste/smell confusion of self-report. The meta-analysis showed that, among 138,897 COVID-19-positive patients, 39.2% reported taste dysfunction (95% CI: 35.34-43.12%), and the prevalence estimates were slightly but not significantly higher from studies using direct (n = 18) versus self-report (n = 223) methodologies (Q = 0.57, df = 1, p = 0.45). Generally, males reported lower rates of taste loss than did females and taste loss was highest in middle-aged groups. Thus, taste loss is a bona fide symptom COVID-19, meriting further research into the most appropriate direct methods to measure it and its underlying mechanisms.

The D614G Virus Mutation Enhances Anosmia in COVID-19 Patients: Evidence from a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies from South Asia

The prevalence of chemosensory dysfunction in patients with COVID-19 varies greatly between populations. It is unclear whether such differences are due to factors at the level of the human host, or at the level of the coronavirus, or both. At the host level, the entry proteins which allow virus binding and entry have variants with distinct properties, and the frequency of such variants differs between ethnicities. At the level of the virus, the D614G mutation enhances virus entry to the host cell. Since the two virus strains (D614 and G614) coexisted in the first six months of the pandemic in most populations, it has been difficult to distinguish between contributions of the virus and contributions of the host for anosmia. To answer this question, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in South Asian populations when either the D614 or the G614 virus was dominant. We show that populations infected predominantly with the G614 virus had a much higher prevalence of anosmia (pooled prevalence of 31.8%) compared with the same ethnic populations infected mostly with the D614 virus strain (pooled anosmia prevalence of 5.3%). We conclude that the D614G mutation is a major contributing factor that increases the prevalence of anosmia in COVID-19, and that this enhanced effect on olfaction constitutes a previously unrecognized phenotype of the D614G mutation. The new virus strains that have additional mutations on the background of the D614G mutation can be expected to cause a similarly increased prevalence of chemosensory dysfunctions.

Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions in SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Among Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) manifestations, Olfactory (OD) and Gustatory (GD) Dysfunctions (OGD) have drawn considerable attention, becoming a sort of hallmark of the disease. Many have speculated on the pathogenesis and clinical characteristics of these disturbances; however, no definite answers have been produced on the topic. With this systematic review, we aimed to collect all the available evidence regarding the prevalence of OGD, the timing of their onset and their resolution, their rate of recovery and their role as diagnostic and prognostic tools for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

METHODS

A systematic review comprising all the observational studies that reported the prevalence and/or the longitudinal trajectories of OGD in COVID-19 patients, as self-reported by patients or measured through objective psychophysical tests.

RESULTS

After the selection process, 155 studies were included, with a total of 70,920 patients and 105,291 not-infected individuals. Prevalence reports were extremely variable across studies, with wide ranges for OD (0%-98%) and GD (0-89%) prevalence. OGD occurred early during the disease course and only rarely preceded other symptoms; out of 30 studies with a follow-up time of at least 20 days, only in 5 studies OGD fully resolved in more than 90% of patients. OGD had low sensitivity and high specificity for SARS-CoV-2 infection; accuracy of OD and GD for infection identification was higher than 80% in 10 out of 33 studies and in 8 out of 22 studies considered, respectively. 28 out of 30 studies that studied the association between OGD and disease severity found how OGD were associated with lower rates of severe pneumonia, hospitalization and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

OGD seem to be highly prevalent in SARS-CoV-2 infection. They occur early, concomitantly with other symptoms and often persist after recovery, in some cases for months; whether a full recovery eventually occurs in all cases is not clear yet. OGD are good predictors of SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with a milder disease course.

Incidence of Anosmia among Covid 19 patients in India

The pandemic COVID-19 has relentlessly caused havoc to human life since its outbreak in December 2019. The disease has been a challenge for all. The clinical manifestations of Covid-19 ranges from no symptoms at all to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Anosmia being one of the important clinical features of COVID-19 has always been overlooked by the Indian population. This formed the background for this study. Aim To identify the incidence of anosmia reported in COVID- 19 patients in India. Materials and Methods Literature search was carried out from January 2020 to March 2021 in databases like PUBMED and Google Scholar using the key words "ANOSMIA", "HYPOSMIA" and "OLFACTORY DYSFUNCTION" in conjunction with "COVID-19", "SARS-COV-2", and "CORONAVIRUS". Boolean operators were used to narrow and broaden the search. The search yielded sixteen eligible articles. Result The scrutiny of the 16 articles revealed an incidence range of anosmia from 9.2% to 82% and an average anosmia incidence rate of 30.19%. The cumulative incidence rate of anosmia in those studies where objective analysis was done is 52.2% and 16.4% for subjective analysis. Discussion The prevalence of anosmia in Indian population is found to be much lesser than that reported by European countries due to ethnicity or negligence. Objective evaluation of anosmia in COVID-19 patients increases the incidence of anosmia drastically. Hence objective evaluations such as UPIST, SNIFFING STICK test, etc. is to be promoted. This study also Emphasises the lack of common gold standard testing for olfaction like vision and hearing.

Olfactory and Gustatory Dysfunction in COVID-19 Patients from Northern India: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study

Olfactory dysfunction (OD) and gustatory dysfunction (GD) has been reported as one of the presenting symptoms amongst COVID-19 patients. However the literature available is disjunct on this aspect. This study is conducted to identify the prevalence of olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunction in patients with coronavirus disease in Northern part of India. It’s a cross-sectional observation study, conducted over 387 COVID-19 positive patients, at ENT dept of tertiary care hospital. A retrospective survey was conducted using a pre designed questionnaire and details of Olfactory and Gustatory dysfunction was collected. The patient’s demographic details, disease course and recovery time for olfactory (OD) and/or gustatory dysfunctions (GD) were collected. A total of 387 patients with COVID-19 completed the study. 228 (58.9%) patients suffered from influenza like illness (ILI) (fever, sore throat, dry cough, malaise, and myalgia). There was significant positive association seen between with ILI and OD and / or GD. 167/387 (43.15%) patients reported OD, and 153/387 (39.53%) reported GD. 43.71% and 50.3% patients had mild OD & GD respectively. Recovery rates for both OD and GD are high and almost similar, with 161 (96.4%) and 148 (96.73%) patients had complete recovery of smell and taste. Maximum recovery was noticed between 4 and 6 weeks. COVID-19 patients with habits have significantly high probability of developing OD &/or GD. There is a significant correlation between OD and GD and there is high probability that patients who reported to have OD will also have GD or vice versa. Prevalence of OD and GD in Indian population may not be as high as mentioned in western literature, however, both are frequent and early symptoms of COVID-19. Recent onset of these should be considered as red flag symptoms for COVID-19.

Anosmia and dysgeusia in SARS-CoV-2 infection: incidence and effects on COVID-19 severity and mortality, and the possible pathobiology mechanisms - a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The present study aimed to determine the global prevalence of anosmia and dysgeusia in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and to assess their association with severity and mortality of COVID-19. Moreover, this study aimed to discuss the possible pathobiological mechanisms of anosmia and dysgeusia in COVID-19. Methods: Available articles from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and preprint databases (MedRxiv, BioRxiv, and Researchsquare) were searched on November 10th, 2020. Data on the characteristics of the study (anosmia, dysgeusia, and COVID-19) were extracted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess research quality. Moreover, the pooled prevalence of anosmia and dysgeusia were calculated, and the association between anosmia and dysgeusia in presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was assessed using the Z test. Results: Out of 32,142 COVID-19 patients from 107 studies, anosmia was reported in 12,038 patients with a prevalence of 38.2% (95% CI: 36.5%, 47.2%); whereas, dysgeusia was reported in 11,337 patients out of 30,901 COVID-19 patients from 101 studies, with prevalence of 36.6% (95% CI: 35.2%, 45.2%), worldwide. Furthermore, the prevalence of anosmia was 10.2-fold higher (OR: 10.21; 95% CI: 6.53, 15.96, p < 0.001) and that of dysgeusia was 8.6-fold higher (OR: 8.61; 95% CI: 5.26, 14.11, p < 0.001) in COVID-19 patients compared to those with other respiratory infections or COVID-19 like illness. To date, no study has assessed the association of anosmia and dysgeusia with severity and mortality of COVID-19. Conclusion: Anosmia and dysgeusia are prevalent in COVID-19 patients compared to those with the other non-COVID-19 respiratory infections. Several possible mechanisms have been hypothesized; however, future studies are warranted to elucidate the definitive mechanisms of anosmia and dysgeusia in COVID-19. Protocol registration: PROSPERO CRD42020223204.