The close relationship between sudden loss of smell and COVID-19

Long-term smell loss experiences after COVID-19: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Sudden smell loss is one of the early symptoms of COVID-19. Although it is stated that the loss of smell and taste following COVID-19 improves within a few weeks, there are also cases that do not improve for a long time. The aim of this study is to reveal long-term smell loss experiences after COVID-19.

METHODS

A qualitative approach was adopted. We conducted semistructured interviews with 11 participants who had smell loss for at least 3 months. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and evaluated using a thematic analysis for qualitative data.

RESULTS

Nutrition and appetite, personal hygiene, threats to safety and emotional changes were the main themes created by the authors and were the areas where participant expressions focused. The participants used oral/nasal corticosteroid therapy for smell loss and received short-term olfactory training, but could not find a solution.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term smell loss problems, which were neglected during the pandemic period, should be carefully evaluated due to their negative effects. Understanding and focusing on the negative effects of loss of smell may contribute to the solution of long-term smell loss problems.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Eleven participants who experienced long-term loss of smell following COVID-19 contributed to the study. They enriched the study by describing the effects of their experiences. There was no other participation or contribution from the public to the research.

Upper Airway Mucociliary Clearance is Impaired in Dyspneic COVID-19 Patients

Covid-19 is transmitted mainly by respiratory droplets and as the upper airway mucosa is the first innate immune barrier, it is crucial to understand the effects of SARS-CoV-2 on this system. In the current study, we aimed to evaluate the nasal mucociliary clearance in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and their symptom development. Observational cross-sectional study. The nasal mucociliary clearance (NMC) time was evaluated by the saccharin test and the results were compared between patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (group 1) and controls (group 2, asymptomatic patients with a negative polymerase chain reaction test). We also compared the NMC time for each specific symptom suffered by participants in group 1 with the NMC time of the control group as well as with the patients in group 1 who were asymptomatic. There was a significant increase in NMC time in group 1 with dyspnea when compared to the control group (p = 0.032) and also when compared to patients who were infected were not dyspneic (p = 0.04). There were no differences in the clearance times when considering other symptoms. COVID-19 patients with dyspnea present with altered nasal mucociliary clearance.

Nasal and Parotid Blood Pool Activity Is Significantly Correlated with Metabolic Syndrome Components and Sleep Apnea

Background: Patients with metabolic syndrome components were frequently noted to have increased nasal and parotid activity on clinically referred scintigraphic whole-body blood pool scans. This increase in activity was not observed in patients without metabolic syndrome. Increased nasal blood pool activity in patients with elevated body mass indices (BMIs) has implications for (1) sleep apnea, (2) risk of nasal infection, and (3) possible impaired nasal lymphatic drainage of brain waste proteins. Methods: To follow-up this clinical observation, a retrospective study was performed on 200 patients having whole-body blood pool scans referred over a 3-year period. The whole-body blood pool scans were evaluated for an association between nose and parotid region of interest (ROI) to heart ROI maximum (max) pixel ratios as correlated with clinical conditions, including obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and sleep apnea. Continuous variables of BMI, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood glucose, and blood lipids were also correlated with these ratios. Results: A direct association of nose to heart max ratio (NHMR) with diabetes, sleep apnea, and hypertension was found with an increase in the ratio of +0.10 (P = 0.002), +0.13 (P = 0.0002), +0.08 (P = 0.0123), respectively. Correlation of NHMR with continuous variables had moderate correlation with BMI (r = 0.36, P < 0.0001), glucose (r = 0.27, P = 0.0001), HbA1c (r = 0.25, P = 0.0008) and less association with the number of diabetes medications (r = 0.22, P = 0.0021). Similar associations were found for parotid to heart max ratios but were weaker than the NHMR. Conclusions: Patients with metabolic syndrome components have significantly increased nasal and parotid activity on blood pool scans. These associations have implications for the treatment of sleep apnea, for nasal infections involving such agents as Covid-19, and for the risk of dementias related to decreased clearance of brain waste proteins through nasal turbinate lymphatics in patients with metabolic syndrome. If further studies support these findings, the nasal turbinates and the increased parasympathetic activity controlling their dilation could become a new therapeutic target.

Chest Computed Tomography Is an Efficient Method for Initial Diagnosis of COVID-19: An Observational Study

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease that can lead to pneumonia, pulmonary oedema, acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiple organ and system dysfunction, and death. This study aimed to verify the efficacy of chest computed tomography (CT) for the initial diagnosis of COVID-19. This observational, retrospective, cross-sectional study included 259 individuals who underwent clinical evaluation, blood collection, chest CT, and a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) diagnostic test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during their course of treatment at a reference hospital in Belém, Pará, Brazil between April and June 2020. Inclusion criteria were flu-like symptoms in adults of both sexes. Individuals with an inconclusive COVID-19 molecular test or who had artifacts in the chest CT images were excluded. Parametric data were analyzed using Student-t-test and non-parametric data were analyzed using average test and Fisher exact test. Participants were divided into two groups: Group 1 (COVID-19 positive), n = 211 (124 males, 87 females), 51.8 ± 17.9 years old and Group 2 (COVID-19 negative), n = 48 (22 males, 26 females), 47.6 ± 18.6 years old. Most frequent symptoms were cough [Group 1 n = 199 (94%)/Group 2 n = 46 (95%)], fever [Group 1 n = 154 (72%)/Group 2 n = 28 (58%)], myalgia [Group 1 n = 172 (81%)/Group 2 n = 38 (79%)], dyspnoea [Group 1 n = 169 (80%) / Group 2 n = 37 (77%)], headache [Group 1 n = 163 (77%)/Group 2 n = 32 (66%)], and anosmia [Group 1 n = 154 (73%)/Group 2 n = 29 (60%)]. Group 1 had a higher proportion of ground-glass opacity [Group 1 n = 175 (83%)/Group 2 n = 24 (50%), 0.00], vascular enhancement sign [Group 1 n = 128 (60%)/Group 2 n = 15 (31%), 0.00], septal thickening [Group 1 n = 99 (47%)/Group 2 n = 13 (27%), 0.01], crazy-paving pattern [Group 1 n = 98 (46%) / Group 2 n = 13 (27%), 0.01], consolidations [Group 1 n = 92 (43%)/Group 2 n = 8 (16%), 0.00], and CO-RADS 4 and 5 [Group 1 n = 163 (77.25%)/Group 2 n = 24 (50%), 0.00] categories in chest CT. Chest CT, when available, was found to be an efficient method for the initial diagnosis and better management of individuals with COVID-19.

Clinical characteristics and symptom duration among outpatients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Approximately 80% of people with COVID-19 do not require hospitalization. Studies examining the outpatient experience have not tracked symptoms to resolution leading to unknown expected symptom duration. Our objectives were to (1) determine symptom duration among patients with COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization and (2) identify potential risk factors associated with prolonged symptom duration.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study conducted across an academic healthcare system including adult patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 18th and April 28th, 2020 who were not hospitalized. Symptom duration encompassed time from patient-reported symptom onset as documented in the chart until documented symptom resolution. We calculated the median symptom duration and tested if demographics, comorbidities, or reported symptoms were associated with symptom duration.

KEY RESULTS

Of 294 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 178 (60.5%) had documented symptom resolution. The median [interquartile range (IQR)] symptom duration for included patients was 15 (8-24) days. No associations were found between comorbidities and symptom duration. Factors associated with prolonged symptom duration were presence vs lack of lower respiratory symptoms [median (IQR) 16.5 (10.75-33.5) vs 14.5 (7-21.75) days respectively, P < .001] and neurologic symptoms [median (IQR) 17 (9-28) vs 9.5 (4-17) days, P < .001] at disease onset.

CONCLUSIONS

The median symptom duration in outpatients is 15 days and over 25% of patients have symptoms longer than 21 days.

Efficacy of topical steroids for the treatment of olfactory disorders caused by COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of topical steroids on acute‐onset olfactory dysfunction in patients infected with COVID‐19.

Design and Setting

Systematic review and meta‐analysis of cohort studies.

Participants

Patients infected with COVID‐19.

Main outcome measures

PubMed, Embase, the Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane database and Google Scholar were searched for articles up to September 2021. We analysed studies comparing the improvement of olfactory dysfunction between topical steroid treatment and control groups (placebo or no treatment). In addition, we performed a subgroup analysis by study type.

Results

The improvement of olfactory score at 2 (standardised mean difference [SMD] = 0.7272, 95% confidence interval = [0.3851, 1.0692], p < .0001, I² = 62.1%) and 4 weeks post‐treatment (SMD = 1.0440 [0.6777, 1.4102], p < .0001, I² = 61.2%) was statistically greater in the treatment than control group. However, there was no significant difference (odds ratio [OR] = 1.4345 [0.9525, 2.1604], p = .0842, I² = 45.4%) in the incidence of fully recovery from anosmia/hyposmia between the treatment and control groups. In subgroup analysis, there were no significant differences in the improvement of olfactory score at 4 weeks post‐treatment (OR = 0.6177 [0.1309, 1.1045] vs. 0.1720 [0.8002, 1.5438], p = .0761) or the incidence of full recovery from anosmia/hyposmia (OR = 1.8478 [0.6092, 5.6053] vs. 1.3784 [0.8872, 2.1414], p = .8038) between randomised and non‐randomised controlled trials.

Conclusions

Although this meta‐analysis found that topical steroids improved the acute‐onset olfactory dysfunction caused by COVID‐19, there was no difference in the rate of full olfactory recovery between treated and control patients.

Chemosensory deficits are best predictor of serologic response among individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2

OBJECTIVE

Smell and taste alteration are closely linked to infection with SARS-CoV-2 and may be associated with a more indolent disease course. Serologic response rates among individuals with mild disease remains limited. We sought to identify whether chemosensory changes associated with COVID-19 were predictive of a serologic response.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

The sample consisted of 306 adults (≥18 years old) volunteering for convalescent plasma donation following perceived COVID-19 illness from April-June 2020. Documentation of COVID-19 PCR status, clinical symptoms at time of illness, and treatment course occurred at the time of serologic analysis, where we assessed chemosensory function using patient-perceived deficits. We implemented previously validated ELISA screening to determine serologic status regarding anti-Spike immunoglobulins. Statistical analysis using stepwise logistic models were employed to identify predictive factors of serologic response.

RESULTS

Of 306 patients undergoing serologic and chemosensory evaluation, 196 (64.1%) and 195 (63.7%) reported subjective olfactory and taste dysfunction, respectively, during the first two weeks of COVID-19 infection. In unadjusted models, the odds of developing suprathreshold IgG antibody titers were 1.98 times higher among those who reported altered smell (95% CI 1.14-3.42, p = 0.014) and 2.02 times higher among those with altered taste (95% CI 1.17-3.48, p = 0.011) compared to those with normal smell and taste. Multivariable logistic models adjusting for sex, age, race/ethnicity, symptom duration, smoking status and comorbidities index demonstrated that altered smell and taste remained significant predictors of positive anti-spike IgG response (smell OR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.05-3.44, p = 0.033; taste OR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.12-3.61, p = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

Subjective chemosensory dysfunction, as self-reported smell or taste deficiency, is highly predictive of serologic response following SARS-CoV-2 infection. This information may be useful for patient counseling. Additional longitudinal research should be performed to better understand the onset and duration of the serologic response in these patients.

High prevalence of long-term olfactory dysfunction confirmed by olfactory testing after a community COVID-19 outbreak

Purpose

The prevalence of long-term olfactory and gustatory dysfunction in participants suffering from sudden chemosensory loss due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unknown. Furthermore, evaluations of the reliability of participants’ self-reporting of olfactory function (SOF) and gustatory function (SGF) using extended objective psychophysical testing are missing.

Methods

In this population-based cohort study in a PCR-tested community in Thuringia, Germany, olfactory function was extensively examined 4 months after a COVID-19 outbreak using the “Sniffin Sticks” test battery to determine the TDI_a score, i.e., the sum of results obtained for threshold, discrimination, and identification scores averaged for both nasal sides. Gustatory function was assessed using the three-drop test resulting in the gustatory composite score (CS_g). The data were compared with SOF and SGF.

Results

Of 43 adult convalescents (median age: 68 years; 58% female) after SARS-CoV‑2 infection, 18 participants (42%) had olfactory complaints due to SOF, one participant (2%) complained of taste disturbance due to SGF. The TDI_a was 22.0 ± 5.9. Normosmia, hyposmia, and anosmia were seen in 17, 18, and eight participants, respectively. TDI_a correlated with SOF (r_s = −0.434, p = 0.004); CS_g was 23.5 ± 2.7. Normogeusia and hypogeusia were objectified in 39 and four participants, respectively. The prevalence of long-term olfactory dysfunction and gustatory dysfunction in the study group was 60.5 and 9.3%, respectively.

Conclusion

The SOF was reliable, especially for participants who felt a sudden chemosensory dysfunction during the outbreak. At 4 months after SARS-CoV‑2 infection, a high proportion of participants were dysosmic, whereas nearly all of them had normal taste function.

The Role of ACE2 Receptors of the Olfactory System in Anosmia in COVID-19: An Overview

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The latest data show that more than 211.7 million people were infected and more than 4.4 million deaths have been reported. The illness presents a wide range of symptoms, ranging from mild to severe. Mild symptoms include cough, fever, dyspnea, fatigue, myalgia and arthralgia, anosmia, and dysgeusia. Furthermore, this virus can affect the central nervous system (CNS) and present a range of mild to severe nervous symptoms, from headache and dysphoria to loss of consciousness, coma, paralysis, and acute cerebrovascular disease. The virus can enter nonneuronal cells of the olfactory epithelium and cause a complete loss of smell. Anosmia and hyposmia are commonly reported in clinics, and being asymptomatic or showing mild symptoms can be primary symptoms in early infected persons. Dysgeusia/hypogeusia is another symptom presented with anosmia/hyposmia. In this article, we reviewed the articles of anosmia and suggested a possible mechanism for this.

Olfactory dysfunction in SARS-CoV-2 infection: Focus on odorant specificity and chronic persistence

BACKGROUND

Smell dysfunction has been recognized as an early symptom of SARS-CoV-2 infection, often occurring before the onset of core symptoms of the respiratory tract, fever or muscle pain. In most cases, olfactory dysfunction is accompanied by reduced sense of taste, is partial (microsmia) and seems to normalize after several weeks, however, especially in cases of virus-induced complete smell loss (anosmia), there are indications of persisting deficits even 2 months after recovery from the acute disease, pointing towards the possibility of chronic or even permanent smell reduction for a significant part of the patient population. To date, we have no knowledge on the specificity of anosmia towards specific odorants or chemicals and about the longer-term timeline of its persistence or reversal.

METHODS

In this longitudinal study, 70 participants from a community in Lower Austria that had been tested positive for either IgG or IgM SARS-CoV-2 titers in June 2020 and a healthy control cohort (N = 348) underwent smell testing with a 12-item Cross-Cultural Smell Identification Test (CC-SIT), based upon items from the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). The test was performed in October 2020, i.e. 4 months after initial diagnosis via antibody testing. Results were analyzed using statistical tests for contingency for each smell individually in order to detect whether reacquisition of smell is dependent on specific odorant types.

RESULTS

For all odorants tested, except the odor "smoke", even 4 months or more after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, participants with a positive antibody titer had a reduced sense of smell when compared to the control group. On average, while the control cohort detected a set of 12 different smells with 88.0% accuracy, the antibody-positive group detected 80.0% of tested odorants. A reduction of accuracy of detection by 9.1% in the antibody-positive cohort was detected. Recovery of the ability to smell was particularly delayed for three odorants: strawberry (encoded by the aldehyde ethylmethylphenylglycidate), lemon (encoded by citronellal, a monoterpenoid aldehyde), and soap (alkali metal salts of the fatty acids plus odorous additives) exhibit a sensitivity of detection of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 of 31.0%, 41.0% and 40.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Four months or more after acute infection, smell performance of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients with mild or no symptoms is not fully recovered, whereby the ability to detect certain odors (strawberry, lemon and soap) is particularly affected, suggesting the possibility that these sensitivity to these smells may not only be lagging behind but may be more permanently affected.

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.

Predictive Value of Olfactory and Taste Symptoms in the Diagnosis of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the diagnostic value of various symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in screening for this disease.

METHODS

Two authors (working independently) comprehensively reviewed six databases (PubMed, Cochrane Database, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar) from their dates of inception until November 2020. The predictive value of patient-reported symptoms, including otolaryngologic and general symptoms, was evaluated in adults who underwent testing for COVID-19. True-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative data were extracted from each study. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (ver. 2).

RESULTS

Twenty-eight prospective and retrospective studies were included in the meta-analysis. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of a change in olfaction and/or taste was 10.20 (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.43-12.34). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.8. Olfactory and/or taste changes had a low sensitivity (0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.66) but moderate negative (0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.85] and positive (0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87) predictive values and a high specificity (0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96). Olfactory and/or taste changes had a higher diagnostic value than the other otolaryngologic symptoms, a higher DOR and specificity, and a similar or higher diagnostic value than the other general symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Among otolaryngologic symptoms, olfactory and/or taste dysfunction was the most closely associated with COVID-19 and its general symptoms, and should therefore be considered when screening for the disease.

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.

Olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19: a marker of good prognosis?

Introduction

In May 2020, the World Health Organization recognized olfactory dysfunction as a COVID-19 symptom. The presence of hyposmia/anosmia may be a marker of good prognosis in COVID-19.

Objective

To associate the presence of olfaction disorder to the clinical condition severity in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

Individuals with the flu syndrome caused by SARS-CoV-2, diagnosed from March to June 2020, were recruited. They were divided into three groups: mild flu syndrome, severe flu syndrome (admitted to hospital wards) and critical illness (admitted to the ICU). Inpatients were interviewed by telephone contact after hospital discharge and their medical records were also evaluated regarding complementary test results. Outpatients answered an electronic questionnaire containing only clinical information.

Results

A total of 261 patients participated in the study: 23.75% with mild flu syndrome, 57.85% with severe flu syndrome and 18.40% with critical illness. A total of 66.28% patients with COVID-19 had olfaction disorders. In approximately 56.58% of the individuals the smell alterations lasted between 9 days and 2 months. There was a significantly higher proportion of individuals with olfactory dysfunction in the group with mild flu syndrome than in the severe flu syndrome group (mild × severe – p < 0.001; Odds Ratio = 4.63; 95% CI [1.87–10.86]). This relationship was also maintained between patients with mild flu syndrome and critically-ill patients (mild × critical – p <  0.001; Odds Ratio = 9.28; 95% CI [3.52–25.53]).

Conclusion

Olfaction dysfunction was significantly more prevalent in patients with mild flu syndrome in COVID-19. It may be a predictor of a good prognosis for this infection. New population-based studies must be carried out to corroborate these findings.

Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 in the general population: systematic review

Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 are varied in the general population. This study aimed to systematize the literature regarding clinical manifestations of patients with confirmed COVID-19. A systematic review of the literature was conducted. A total of 8070 scientific productions were found in the databases. Among the studies, 184 met the initial inclusion criteria, with a total of 114,046 patients. After complete reading, 32 studies that did not report clinical manifestations were excluded. The 152 publications finally included a total of 41,409 individuals from at least 23 countries and 26 different clinical manifestations were reported. In percentage terms, 6 symptoms had a general prevalence greater than or equal to 25%, namely, fever (58.66%), cough (54.52%), dyspnea (30.82%), malaise (29.75%), fatigue (28.16%) and sputum/secretion (25.33%). Neurological symptoms (20.82%), dermatological manifestations (20.45%), anorexia (20.26%), myalgia (16.9%), sneezing (14.71%), sore throat (14.41%), rhinitis (14.29%), goosebumps (13.49%), headache (12.17%), chest pain (11.49%) and diarrhea (9.59%) were other common symptoms. Only one study reported dermatological manifestations. The least frequent sign/symptom was hemoptysis (1.65%). In studies with more than 100 patients, the 3 main symptoms were fever (57.93%), cough (54.21%), and dyspnea (30.64%). Dermatological manifestations do not appear among the main symptoms. The identification of all clinical manifestations of COVID-19 is essential for an early diagnosis and the adoption of preventive measures.

Prevalence of Chemosensory Dysfunction in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Reveals Significant Ethnic Differences

A significant proportion of people who test positive for COVID-19 have chemosensory deficits. However, the reported prevalence of these deficits in smell and taste varies widely, and the reason for the differences between studies is unclear. We determined the pooled prevalence of such chemosensory deficits in a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched the COVID-19 portfolio of the National Institutes of Health for studies that reported the prevalence of smell or taste deficits or both in patients diagnosed with COVID-19. One-hundred-four studies reporting on 38 198 patients qualified and were subjected to a systematic review and meta-analysis. Estimated random prevalence of olfactory dysfunction was 43.0%, that of taste dysfunction was 44.6%, and that of overall chemosensory dysfunction was 47.4%. We examined the effects of age, gender, disease severity, and ethnicity on chemosensory dysfunction. Prevalence of smell or taste dysfunction or both decreased with older age, male gender, and disease severity. Ethnicity was highly significant: Caucasians had a three times higher prevalence of chemosensory dysfunctions (54.8%) than Asians (17.7%). The finding of geographic differences points to two causes that are not mutually exclusive. A virus mutation (D614G) may cause differing infectivity, while at the host level genetic, ethnicity-specific variants of the virus-binding entry proteins may facilitate virus entry in the olfactory epithelium and taste buds. Both explanations have major implications for infectivity, diagnosis, and management of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective sensory testing methods reveal a higher prevalence of olfactory loss in COVID-19-positive patients compared to subjective methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has currently infected over 6.5 million people worldwide. In response to the pandemic, numerous studies have tried to identify causes and symptoms of the disease. Emerging evidence supports recently acquired anosmia (complete loss of smell) and hyposmia (partial loss of smell) as symptoms of COVID-19, but studies of olfactory dysfunction show a wide range of prevalence, from 5% to 98%. We undertook a search of Pubmed/Medline and Google Scholar with the keywords "COVID-19," "smell," and/or "olfaction." We included any study that quantified olfactory loss as a symptom of COVID-19. Studies were grouped and compared based on the type of method used to measure smell loss-subjective measures such as self-reported smell loss versus objective measures using rated stimuli-to determine if prevalence rate differed by method type. For each study, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated from point estimates of olfactory disturbance rates. We identified 34 articles quantifying anosmia as a symptom of COVID-19, collected from cases identified from January 16 to April 30, 2020. The pooled prevalence estimate of smell loss was 77% when assessed through objective measurements (95% CI of 61.4-89.2%) and 45% with subjective measurements (95% CI of 31.1-58.5%). Objective measures are a more sensitive method to identify smell loss as a result of infection with SARS-CoV-2; the use of subjective measures, while expedient during the early stages of the pandemic, underestimates the true prevalence of smell loss.