Evaluating long-term smell or taste dysfunction in mildly symptomatic COVID-19 patients: a 3-year follow-up study

INTRODUCTION

No studies have reported data on 3-year prevalence and recovery rates of self-reported COVID-19-related olfactory and gustatory dysfunction. The aim of the present study was to estimate the 3-year prevalence and recovery rate of self-reported COVID-19-related chemosensory dysfunction in a cohort of patients with antecedent mild COVID-19.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational study, measuring the prevalence of altered sense of smell or taste at follow-up and their variation from baseline, on adult patients consecutively assessed at Treviso and Trieste University Hospitals, who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by polymerase chain reaction during March 2020.

RESULTS

Overall, out of 403 respondents, 267 patients (66.3%) reported an altered sense of smell or taste (SNOT-22 > 0) at baseline, while 56 (13.9%), 29 (7.2%), and 21 (5.2%) reported such alterations at 6-24 months, 2 years, and 3 years, respectively. Among the 267 patients with COVID-19-associated smell or taste dysfunction at baseline, 246 (92.1%) reported complete resolution at 3 years. Of the patients who still experienced smell or taste dysfunction 2 years after COVID-19, 27.6% and 37.9% recovered completely and partially, respectively, at the 3-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Among subjects with antecedent mildly symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, the 3-year prevalence and recovery rate of COVID-19-related alteration in sense of smell or taste was 5% and 92%, respectively. In approximately two-thirds of patients experiencing chemosensory dysfunction still 2 years after COVID-19, it is still possible to observe a delayed complete or partial recovery after a period of 3 years, while the remaining one-third of individuals continues to have unchanged persistent chemosensory alteration.

Psychophysical assessment of olfactory and gustatory function in post-mild COVID-19 patients: A matched case-control study with 2-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to psychophysically evaluate the prevalence of smell and taste dysfunction 2 years after mildly symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection compared to that observed at 1-year follow-up and while considering the background of chemosensory dysfunction in the no-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) population.

METHOD

This is a prospective case-control study on 93 patients with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection and 93 matched controls. Self-reported olfactory and gustatory dysfunction was assessed by 22-item Sino-Nasal-Outcome Test (SNOT-22), item "Sense of smell or taste." Psychophysical orthonasal and retronasal olfactory function and gustatory performance were estimated using the extended Sniffin' Sticks test battery, 20 powdered tasteless aromas, and taste strips test, respectively. Nasal trigeminal sensitivity was assessed by sniffing a 70% solution of acetic acid.

RESULTS

The two psychophysical assessments of chemosensory function took place after a median of 409 days (range, 366-461 days) and 765 days (range, 739-800 days) from the first SARS-CoV-2-positive swab, respectively. At 2-year follow-up, cases exhibited a decrease in the prevalence of olfactory (27.9% vs. 42.0%; absolute difference, -14.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -21.8% to -2.6%; p = 0.016) and gustatory dysfunction (14.0% vs. 25.8%; absolute difference, -11.8%; 95% CI, -24.2% to 0.6%; p = 0.098). Subjects with prior COVID-19 were more likely than controls to have an olfactory dysfunction (27.9% vs. 10.8 %; absolute difference, 17.2%; 95% CI, 5.2% to 28.8%) but not gustatory dysfunction (14.0% vs. 9.7%; absolute difference, 4.3%; 95% CI, -5.8% to 14.4% p = 0.496) still 2 years after the infection. Overall, 3.2% of cases were still anosmic 2 years after the infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a proportion of subjects recovered from long-lasting smell/taste dysfunction more than 1 year after COVID-19, cases still exhibited a significant excess of olfactory dysfunction 2 years after SARS-CoV-2 infection when compared to matched controls.

Comparison between conventional and neuronavigated strategies to assess corticospinal responsiveness in unfatigued and fatigued knee-extensor muscles

In studying neuromuscular fatigability, researchers commonly use functional criteria to position and hold the transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) coil during testing sessions. This could influence the magnitude of corticospinal excitability and inhibition responses due to imprecise and unsteady positions of the coil. To reduce coil position and orientation variability, neuronavigated TMS (nTMS) could be used. We evaluated the accuracy of nTMS and a standardized function-guided procedure for maintaining TMS coil position both in unfatigued and fatigued knee extensors. Eighteen participants (10F/8M) volunteered in two identical and randomized sessions. Maximal and submaximal neuromuscular evaluations were performed with TMS three times before (PRE_1) and three times after (PRE_2) a 2 min resting session and one time immediately after (POST) a 2-min sustained maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC). The located "hotspot" [the location that evoked the largest motor-evoked potential (MEP) responses in the rectus femoris] was maintained either with or without nTMS. MEP, silent period (SP) and the distance between the "hotspot" and the actual coil position were recorded. A time × contraction intensity × testing session × muscle interaction was not observed for MEP, SP, and distance. Bland-Altman plots presented adequate agreements for MEP and SP. Spatial accuracy of TMS coil position over the motor cortex did not influence corticospinal excitability and inhibition in unfatigued and fatigued knee extensors. The variability in MEP and SP responses may be due to spontaneous fluctuations in corticospinal excitability and inhibition, and it is not altered by the spatial stability of the stimulation point.