Self-Rated Smell Ability Enables Highly Specific Predictors of COVID-19 Status: A Case-Control Study in Israel

Using SCENTinel® to predict SARS-CoV-2 infection: insights from a community sample during dominance of Delta and Omicron variants

Introduction

Based on a large body of previous research suggesting that smell loss was a predictor of COVID-19, we investigated the ability of SCENTinel®, a newly validated rapid olfactory test that assesses odor detection, intensity, and identification, to predict SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community sample.

Methods

Between April 5, 2021, and July 5, 2022, 1,979 individuals took one SCENTinel® test, completed at least one physician-ordered SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, and endorsed a list of self-reported symptoms.

Results

Among the of SCENTinel® subtests, the self-rated odor intensity score, especially when dichotomized using a previously established threshold, was the strongest predictor of SARS-CoV-2 infection. SCENTinel® had high specificity and negative predictive value, indicating that those who passed SCENTinel® likely did not have a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Predictability of the SCENTinel® performance was stronger when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant was dominant rather than when the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant was dominant. Additionally, SCENTinel® predicted SARS-CoV-2 positivity better than using a self-reported symptom checklist alone.

Discussion

These results indicate that SCENTinel® is a rapid assessment tool that can be used for population-level screening to monitor abrupt changes in olfactory function, and to evaluate spread of viral infections like SARS-CoV-2 that often have smell loss as a symptom.

Effects of genetics on odor perception: Can a quick smell test effectively screen everyone?

SCENTinel, a rapid smell test designed to screen for olfactory disorders, including anosmia (no ability to smell an odor) and parosmia (distorted sense of smell), measures 4 components of olfactory function: detection, intensity, identification, and pleasantness. Each test card contains one of 9 odorant mixtures. Some people born with genetic insensitivities to specific odorants (i.e. specific anosmia) may fail the test if they cannot smell an odorant but otherwise have a normal sense of smell. However, using odorant mixtures has largely been found to prevent this from happening. To better understand whether genetic differences affect SCENTinel test results, we asked genetically informative adult participants (twins or triplets, N = 630; singletons, N = 370) to complete the SCENTinel test. A subset of twins (n = 304) also provided a saliva sample for genotyping. We examined data for differences between the 9 possible SCENTinel odors; effects of age, sex, and race on SCENTinel performance, test-retest variability; and heritability using both structured equation modeling and SNP-based statistical methods. None of these strategies provided evidence for specific anosmia for any of the odors, but ratings of pleasantness were, in part, genetically determined (h2 = 0.40) and were nominally associated with alleles of odorant receptors (e.g. OR2T33 and OR1G1; P < 0.001). These results provide evidence that using odorant mixtures protected against effects of specific anosmia for ratings of intensity but that ratings of pleasantness showed effects of inheritance, possibly informed by olfactory receptor genotypes.

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

Transient loss of smell is a common symptom of influenza and other upper respiratory infections. Loss of taste is possible but rare with these illnesses, and patient reports of 'taste loss' typically arise from a taste / flavor confusion. Thus, initial reports from COVID-19 patients of loss of taste and chemesthesis (i.e., chemical somatosensation like warming or cooling) were met with skepticism until multiple studies confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections could disrupt these senses. Many studies have been based on self-report or on single time point assessments after acute illness was ended. Here, we describe intensive longitudinal data over 28 days from adults aged 18-45 years recruited in early 2021 (i.e., prior to the Delta and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 waves). These individuals were either COVID-19 positive or close contacts (per U.S. CDC criteria at the time of the study) in the first half of 2021. Upon enrollment, all participants were given nose clips, blinded samples of commercial jellybeans (Sour Cherry and Cinnamon), and scratch-n-sniff odor identification test cards (ScentCheckPro), which they used for daily assessments. In COVID-19 cases who enrolled on or before Day 10 of infection, Gaussian Process Regression showed two distinct measures of function - odor identification and odor intensity - declined relative to controls (exposed individuals who never developed COVID-19). Because enrollment began upon exposure, some participants became ill only after enrollment, which allowed us to capture baseline ratings, onset of loss, and recovery. Data from these four cases and four age- and sex- matched controls were plotted over 28 days to create panel plots. Variables included mean orthonasal intensity of four odors (ScentCheckPro), perceived nasal blockage, oral burn (Cinnamon jellybeans), and sourness and sweetness (Sour Cherry jellybeans). Controls exhibited stable ratings over time. By contrast, COVID-19 cases showed sharp deviations over time. Changes in odor intensity or odor identification were not explained by nasal blockage. 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 datasets collected only after illness ends. Collectively, intensive daily testing shows orthonasal smell, oral chemesthesis and taste were each altered by acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. This disruption was dyssynchronous for different modalities, with variable loss and recovery rates across both modalities and individuals.

Text-based predictions of COVID-19 diagnosis from self-reported chemosensory descriptions

BACKGROUND

There is a prevailing view that humans' capacity to use language to characterize sensations like odors or tastes is poor, providing an unreliable source of information.

METHODS

Here, we developed a machine learning method based on Natural Language Processing (NLP) using Large Language Models (LLM) to predict COVID-19 diagnosis solely based on text descriptions of acute changes in chemosensation, i.e., smell, taste and chemesthesis, caused by the disease. The dataset of more than 1500 subjects was obtained from survey responses early in the COVID-19 pandemic, in Spring 2020.

RESULTS

When predicting COVID-19 diagnosis, our NLP model performs comparably (AUC ROC ~ 0.65) to models based on self-reported changes in function collected via quantitative rating scales. Further, our NLP model could attribute importance of words when performing the prediction; sentiment and descriptive words such as "smell", "taste", "sense", had strong contributions to the predictions. In addition, adjectives describing specific tastes or smells such as "salty", "sweet", "spicy", and "sour" also contributed considerably to predictions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that the description of perceptual symptoms caused by a viral infection can be used to fine-tune an LLM model to correctly predict and interpret the diagnostic status of a subject. In the future, similar models may have utility for patient verbatims from online health portals or electronic health records.

Low to moderate genetic influences on the rapid smell test SCENTinel™

SCENTinel™ - a rapid, inexpensive smell test that measures odor detection, intensity, identification, and pleasantness - was developed for population-wide screening of smell function. SCENTinel™ was previously found to screen for multiple types of smell disorders. However, the effect of genetic variability on SCENTinel™ test performance is unknown, which could affect the test's validity. This study assessed performance of SCENTinel™ in a large group of individuals with a normal sense of smell to determine the test-retest reliability and the heritability of SCENTinel™ test performance. One thousand participants (36 [IQR 26-52] years old, 72% female, 80% white) completed a SCENTinel™ test at the 2021 and 2022 Twins Days Festivals in Twinsburg, OH, and 118 of those completed a SCENTinel™ test on each of the festival's two days. Participants comprised 55% percent monozygotic twins, 13% dizygotic twins, 0.4% triplets, and 36% singletons. We found that 97% of participants passed the SCENTinel™ test. Test-retest reliability ranged from 0.57 to 0.71 for SCENTinel™ subtests. Broad-sense heritability, based on 246 monozygotic and 62 dizygotic twin dyads, was low for odor intensity (r=0.03) and moderate for odor pleasantness (r=0.4). Together, this study suggests that SCENTinel™ is a reliable smell test with only moderate heritability effects, which further supports its utility for population-wide screening for smell function.

Associations between Depression and Self-Reported COVID-19 Symptoms among Adults: Results from Two Population-Based Seroprevalence Studies in Switzerland

(1) Mental health may modulate the perceived risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, it is unclear how psychological symptoms may distort symptom perception of COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 infection. We assessed whether depressive symptoms predicted self-reported COVID-19 symptoms, independently of serologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. (2) Participants (aged 20-64) in the Geneva (N = 576) and Ticino (N = 581) Swiss regions completed the Patient Health Questionnaire before being tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies and recalled COVID-19-compatible symptoms on two occasions: April-July 2020 (baseline), and January-February 2021 (follow-up). We estimated prevalence ratios for COVID-19 symptoms by depression scores in interaction with serological status. (3) At baseline, in Geneva, higher depression predicted higher probability of reporting systemic, upper airways, and gastro-intestinal symptoms, and fever and/or cough; in Ticino, higher depression predicted systemic, upper airways, and gastro-intestinal symptoms, fever and/or cough, dyspnea, and headache. At follow-up, in Geneva, higher depression predicted higher probability of reporting systemic symptoms and dyspnea; in Ticino, higher depression predicted higher probability of reporting systemic and upper airways symptoms, dyspnea and headache (all p values < 0.05). (4) We found positive associations between depressive symptoms and COVID-19-compatible symptoms, independently of seropositivity. Mental wellbeing has relevant public health implications because it modulates self-reported infection symptoms that inform testing, self-medication, and containment measures, including quarantine and isolation.

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.

Treatment strategies for postviral olfactory dysfunction: A systematic review

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been associated with a dramatic increase in postviral olfactory dysfunction (PVOD) among patients who are infected. A contemporary evidence-based review of current treatment options for PVOD is both timely and relevant to improve patient care. Objective: This review seeks to impact patient care by qualitatively reviewing available evidence in support of medical and procedural treatment options for PVOD. Systematic evaluation of data quality and of the level of evidence was completed to generate current treatment recommendations. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify primary studies that evaluated treatment outcomes for PVOD. A number of medical literature data bases were queried from January 1998 to May 2020, with completion of subsequent reference searches of retrieved articles to identify all relevant studies. Validated tools for the assessment of bias among both interventional and observational studies were used to complete quality assessment. The summary level of evidence and associated outcomes were used to generate treatment recommendations. Results: Twenty-two publications were identified for qualitative review. Outcomes of alpha-lipoic acid, intranasal and systemic corticosteroids, minocycline, zinc sulfate, vitamin A, sodium citrate, caroverine, intranasal insulin, theophylline, and Gingko biloba are reported. In addition, outcomes of traditional Chinese acupuncture and olfactory training are reviewed. Conclusion: Several medical and procedural treatments may expedite the return of olfactory function after PVOD. Current evidence supports olfactory training as a first-line intervention. Additional study is required to define specific treatment recommendations and expected outcomes for PVOD in the setting of COVID-19.

COVID-19: Why Do People Refuse Vaccination? The Role of Social Identities and Conspiracy Beliefs: Evidence from Nationwide Samples of Polish Adults

In the present research, we focus on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, and empirically examine how different forms of social identity (defensive vs. secure national identity and identification with all humanity) and conspiracy beliefs are associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. In two cross-sectional nationwide surveys (Study 1, n = 432, and Study 2, n = 807), we found that willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 was negatively linked to national narcissism, but positively related to a secure national identification, that is, national identification without the narcissistic component. In both studies, we also found that the relationship between narcissistic (vs. secure) national identity and unwillingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 was mediated by COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy beliefs. These effects were present even when we accounted for basic demographics (Studies 1 and 2) and identification with all humanity (Study 2), which had been found to be a significant predictor of health behaviors during COVID-19. In line with previous research, identification with all humanity was positively associated with the willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19. We discuss the implications for understanding the role of the way in which people identify with their national and supranational groups in antiscience attitudes and (mal)adaptive behaviors during COVID-19 pandemic.

Self-Reported Olfactory Dysfunction and Diet Quality: Findings from the 2011-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)

We identified associations between self-reported olfactory dysfunction (OD) and dietary attributes in participants aged ≥40 years (n = 6,356) from the nationally representative 2011–2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The chemosensory questionnaire and 24-h dietary recalls were administered by trained interviewers. OD was defined as self-report of either smell problems in the last year, worse smell relative to age 25, or perceiving phantom odors. Dietary outcomes included Healthy Eating Index 2015 score (HEI) with adequacy and moderation components (higher scores indicated higher diet quality), dietary diversity, energy density, and intake of major food groups. Survey-weighted linear regression models estimated OD–diet associations, adjusting for socio-demographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors. Adjusted mean difference (95% CI) between those with versus without OD, showed that adults with OD had significantly lower HEI moderation score (−0.67 (−1.22, −0.11)) and diets higher in energy density (0.06 (0.00, 0.11)), and percent energy from saturated fat (0.47 (0.12, 0.81)), total fat (0.96 (0.22, 1.70)), and added sugar (1.00 (0.33, 1.66)). Age and sex-stratified analyses showed that younger females (40–64 years) primarily accounted for the associations with diet quality and total/saturated fat intake. These findings inform dietary screening and recommendations for adults who report OD, including those experiencing transient or persistent smell loss with COVID-19.

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.

Self-reported olfactory and gustatory dysfunction and psychophysical testing in screening for Covid-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

A substantial proportion of coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19) patients demonstrate olfactory and gustatory dysfunction (OGD). Self‐reporting for OGD is widely used as a predictor of COVID‐19. Although psychophysical assessment is currently under investigation in this role, the sensitivity of these screening tests for COVID‐19 remains unclear. In this systematic review we assess the sensitivity of self‐reporting and psychophysical tests for OGD.

Methods

A systematic search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception until February 16, 2021. Studies of suspected COVID‐19 patients with reported smell or taste alterations were included. Data were pooled for meta‐analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were reported in the outcomes.

Results

In the 50 included studies (42,902 patients), self‐reported olfactory dysfunction showed a sensitivity of 43.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37.8%‐50.2%), a specificity of 91.8% (95% CI, 89.0%‐93.9%), and a DOR of 8.74 (95% CI, 6.67‐11.46) for predicting COVID‐19 infection. Self‐reported gustatory dysfunction yielded a sensitivity of 44.9% (95% CI, 36.4%‐53.8%), a specificity of 91.5% (95% CI, 87.7%‐94.3%), and a DOR of 8.83 (95% CI, 6.48‐12.01). Olfactory psychophysical tests analysis revealed a sensitivity of 52.8% (95% CI, 25.5%‐78.6%), a specificity of 88.0% (95% CI, 53.7%‐97.9%), and a DOR of 8.18 (95% CI, 3.65‐18.36). One study used an identification test for gustatory sensations assessment.

Conclusion

Although demonstrating high specificity and DOR values, neither self‐reported OGD nor unvalidated and limited psychophysical tests were sufficiently sensitive in screening for COVID‐19. They were not suitable adjuncts in ruling out the disease.

The taste of the pandemic-contemporary review on the current state of research on gustation in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Subjectively perceived impairment of taste is a common and distinct symptom of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Large meta-analyses identified this symptom in approximately 50% of cases. However, this high prevalence is not supported by blinded and validated psychophysical gustatory testing, which showed a much lower prevalence in up to 26% of patients. This discrepancy may be due to misinterpretation of impaired retronasal olfaction as gustatory dysfunction. In addition, we hypothesized that COVID-19-associated hyposmia is involved in the decrease of gustatory function, as found for hyposmia of different origin. This indirect mechanism would be based on the central-nervous mutual amplification between the chemical senses, which fails in COVID-19-associated olfactory loss. However, further research is necessary on how severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) may directly impair the gustatory pathway as well as its subjective perception.

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.

Simple Disposable Odor Identification Tests for Predicting SARS-CoV-2 Positivity

Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is a common manifestation of COVID-19 and may be useful for screening. Survey-based olfactory evaluation tends to underestimate the prevalence of OD, while psychophysical olfactory testing during a pandemic has the disadvantage of being time consuming, expensive, and requiring standardized laboratory settings. We aimed to develop a quick, simple, affordable, and reliable test to objectively assess the prevalence and diagnostic accuracy of OD in COVID-19. The olfactory function of 64 COVID-19 inpatients and 34 controls was evaluated using a questionnaire and a simple disposable odor identification test (SDOIT) developed for this study. Four SDOIT models were assessed: 10-SDOIT, 9-SDOIT, 8-SDOIT, and 4-SDOIT, with 10, 9, 8 and 4 samples, respectively. We found a high frequency of self-reported OD in COVID-19 patients, with 32.8% and 42.2% reporting current and recent OD, respectively. Different SDOIT models revealed smell impairment in 54.7-64.1% of COVID-19 patients. The combination of either 10-SDOIT results and self-reported OD, or 8-SDOIT results and self-reported OD, were the best predictors of COVID-19, both with an AUC value of 0.87 (0.85 and 0.86 for the age-matched subjects). OD is a common symptom of COVID-19. A combination of self-reported smell deterioration and OD psychophysically evaluated using SDOIT appears to be a good predictor of COVID-19.

Onset, duration and unresolved symptoms, including smell and taste changes, in mild COVID-19 infection: a cohort study in Israeli patients

OBJECTIVES

To characterize longitudinal symptoms of mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients for a period of 6 months, to potentially aid in disease management.

METHODS

Phone interviews were conducted with 103 patients with mild COVID-19 in Israel over a 6-month period (April 2020 to October 2020). Patients were recruited via social media and word to mouth and were interviewed up to 4 times, depending on reports of their unresolved symptoms. Inclusion criteria required participants to be residents of Israel aged 18 years or older, with positive COVID-19 real-time PCR results and nonsevere symptoms. The onset, duration, severity and resolution of symptoms were analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 44% (45/103), 41% (42/103), 39% (40/103) and 38% (39/103) of patients experienced headache, fever, muscle ache and dry cough as the first symptom respectively. Smell and taste changes were experienced at 3.9 ± 5.4 and 4.6 ± 5.7 days (mean ± standard deviation (SD)) after disease onset respectively. Among prevalent symptoms, fever had the shortest duration (5.8 ± 8.6 days), and taste and smell changes were the longest-lasting symptoms (17.2 ± 17.6 and 18.9 ± 19.7 days; durations censored at 60 days). Longer recovery of the sense of smell correlated with the extent of smell change. At the 6-month follow-up, 46% (47/103) of the patients had at least one unresolved symptom, most commonly fatigue (22%, 23/103), smell and taste changes (15%, 15/103 and 8%, 8/103 respectively) and breathing difficulties (8%, 8/103).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-lasting effects of mild COVID-19 manifested in almost half of the participants reporting at least one unresolved symptom after 6 months.

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.