Long-Term Taste and Smell Outcomes After COVID-19

Importance

Self-report surveys suggest that long-lasting taste deficits may occur after SARS-CoV-2 infection, influencing nutrition, safety, and quality of life. However, self-reports of taste dysfunction are inaccurate, commonly reflecting deficits due to olfactory not taste system pathology; hence, quantitative testing is needed to verify the association of post-COVID-19 condition with taste function.

Objective

To use well-validated self-administered psychophysical tests to investigate the association of COVID-19 with long-term outcomes in taste and smell function.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This nationwide cross-sectional study included individuals with and without a prior history of COVID-19 recruited from February 2020 to August 2023 from a social media website (Reddit) and bulletin board advertisements. In the COVID-19 cohort, there was a mean of 395 days (95% CI, 363-425 days) between diagnosis and testing.

Exposure

History of COVID-19.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The 53-item Waterless Empirical Taste Test (WETT) and 40-item University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) were used to assess taste and smell function. Total WETT and UPSIT scores and WETT subtest scores of sucrose, citric acid, sodium chloride, caffeine, and monosodium glutamate were assessed for groups with and without a COVID-19 history. The association of COVID-19 with taste and smell outcomes was assessed using analysis of covariance, χ2, and Fisher exact probability tests.

Results

Tests were completed by 340 individuals with prior COVID-19 (128 males [37.6%] and 212 females [62.4%]; mean [SD] age, 39.04 [14.35] years) and 434 individuals with no such history (154 males [35.5%] and 280 females [64.5%]; mean (SD) age, 39.99 [15.61] years). Taste scores did not differ between individuals with and without previous COVID-19 (total WETT age- and sex-adjusted mean score, 33.41 [95% CI, 32.37-34.45] vs 33.46 [95% CI, 32.54-34.38]; P = .94). In contrast, UPSIT scores were lower in the group with previous COVID-19 than the group without previous COVID-19 (mean score, 34.39 [95% CI, 33.86-34.92] vs 35.86 [95% CI, 35.39-36.33]; P < .001]); 103 individuals with prior COVID-19 (30.3%) and 91 individuals without prior COVID-19 (21.0%) had some degree of dysfunction (odds ratio, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.18-2.27]). The SARS-CoV-2 variant present at the time of infection was associated with smell outcomes; individuals with original untyped and Alpha variant infections exhibited more loss than those with other variant infections; for example, total to severe loss occurred in 10 of 42 individuals with Alpha variant infections (23.8%) and 7 of 52 individuals with original variant infections (13.5%) compared with 12 of 434 individuals with no COVID-19 history (2.8%) (P < .001 for all).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, taste dysfunction as measured objectively was absent 1 year after exposure to COVID-19 while some smell loss remained in nearly one-third of individuals with this exposure, likely explaining taste complaints of many individuals with post-COVID-19 condition. Infection with earlier untyped and Alpha variants was associated with the greatest degree of smell loss.

Development of parallel forms of a brief smell identification test useful for longitudinal testing

Although there are numerous brief odor identification tests available for quantifying the ability to smell, none are available in multiple parallel forms that can be longitudinally administered without potential confounding from knowledge of prior test items. Moreover, empirical algorithms for establishing optimal test lengths have not been generally applied. In this study, we employed and compared eight machine learning algorithms to develop a set of four brief parallel smell tests employing items from the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test that optimally differentiated 100 COVID-19 patients from 132 healthy controls. Among the algorithms, linear discriminant analysis (LDA) achieved the best overall performance. The minimum number of odorant test items needed to differentiate smell loss accurately was identified as eight. We validated the sensitivity of the four developed tests, whose means and variances did not differ from one another (Bradley-Blackwood test), by sequential testing an independent group of 32 subjects that included persons with smell dysfunction not due to COVID-19. These eight-item tests clearly differentiated the olfactory compromised subjects from normosmics, with areas under the ROC curve ranging from 0.79 to 0.83. Each test was correlated with the overall UPSIT scores from which they were derived. These brief smell tests can be used separately or sequentially over multiple days in a variety of contexts where longitudinal olfactory testing is needed.

The 8-item NHANES pocket smell test®: Normative data

This study provides normative data useful for interpreting scores from the Pocket Smell Test® (PST®), a brief "scratch & sniff" neuropsychological olfactory screening test comprised of 8 items from the 40-item University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT®). We combined 3,485 PST® scores from the 2013 to 2014 National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) of persons 40 years of age and older with equivalent PST® items extracted from an UPSIT® database of 3,900 persons ranging in age from 5 to 99 years. Decade-related age- and gender-adjusted percentile normative data were established across the entire age spectrum. Cut-points for defining clinically useful categories of anosmia, probable microsmia, and normosmia were determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses. An age-related decline in test scores was evident for both sexes after the age of 40 years, with women outperforming men. Based on the ROC analyses, subjects scoring 3 or less (AUC = 0.81) defines anosmia. Regardless of sex, a score of 7 or 8 on the N-PST® signifies normal function (AUC of 0.71). Probable microsmia is classified as scores extending from 3 to 6. These data provide an accurate means for interpreting PST® scores within a number of clinical and applied settings.

Prognostic indicators and outcomes of hospitalised COVID-19 patients with neurological disease: An individual patient data meta-analysis

Background

Neurological COVID-19 disease has been reported widely, but published studies often lack information on neurological outcomes and prognostic risk factors. We aimed to describe the spectrum of neurological disease in hospitalised COVID-19 patients; characterise clinical outcomes; and investigate factors associated with a poor outcome.

Methods

We conducted an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of hospitalised patients with neurological COVID-19 disease, using standard case definitions. We invited authors of studies from the first pandemic wave, plus clinicians in the Global COVID-Neuro Network with unpublished data, to contribute. We analysed features associated with poor outcome (moderate to severe disability or death, 3 to 6 on the modified Rankin Scale) using multivariable models.

Results

We included 83 studies (31 unpublished) providing IPD for 1979 patients with COVID-19 and acute new-onset neurological disease. Encephalopathy (978 [49%] patients) and cerebrovascular events (506 [26%]) were the most common diagnoses. Respiratory and systemic symptoms preceded neurological features in 93% of patients; one third developed neurological disease after hospital admission. A poor outcome was more common in patients with cerebrovascular events (76% [95% CI 67–82]), than encephalopathy (54% [42–65]). Intensive care use was high (38% [35–41]) overall, and also greater in the cerebrovascular patients. In the cerebrovascular, but not encephalopathic patients, risk factors for poor outcome included breathlessness on admission and elevated D-dimer. Overall, 30-day mortality was 30% [27–32]. The hazard of death was comparatively lower for patients in the WHO European region.

Interpretation

Neurological COVID-19 disease poses a considerable burden in terms of disease outcomes and use of hospital resources from prolonged intensive care and inpatient admission; preliminary data suggest these may differ according to WHO regions and country income levels. The different risk factors for encephalopathy and stroke suggest different disease mechanisms which may be amenable to intervention, especially in those who develop neurological symptoms after hospital admission.

A follow-up on quantitative and qualitative olfactory dysfunction and other symptoms in patients recovering from COVID-19 smell loss

BACKGROUND

Sudden smell loss is a specific early symptom of COVID-19, which, prior to the emergence of Omicron, had estimated prevalence of ~40% to 75%. Chemosensory impairments affect physical and mental health, and dietary behavior. Thus, it is critical to understand the rate and time course of smell recovery. The aim of this cohort study was to characterize smell function and recovery up to 11 months post COVID-19 infection.

METHODS

This longitudinal survey of individuals suffering COVID-19-related smell loss assessed disease symptoms and gustatory and olfactory function. Participants (n=12,313) who completed an initial survey (S1) about respiratory symptoms, chemosensory function and COVID-19 diagnosis between April and September 2020, were invited to complete a follow-up survey (S2). Between September 2020 and February 2021, 27.5% participants responded (n=3,386), with 1,468 being diagnosed with COVID-19 and suffering co-occurring smell and taste loss at the beginning of their illness.

RESULTS

At follow-up (median time since COVID-19 onset ~200 days), ~60% of women and ~48% of men reported less than 80% of their pre-illness smell ability. Taste typically recovered faster than smell, and taste loss rarely persisted if smell recovered. Prevalence of parosmia and phantosmia was ~10% of participants in S1 and increased substantially in S2: ~47% for parosmia and ~25% for phantosmia. Persistent smell impairment was associated with more symptoms overall, suggesting it may be a key marker of long-COVID illness. The ability to smell during COVID-19 was rated slightly lower by those who did not eventually recover their pre-illness ability to smell at S2.

CONCLUSIONS

While smell ability improves for many individuals who lost it during acute COVID-19, the prevalence of parosmia and phantosmia increases substantially over time. Olfactory dysfunction is associated with broader persistent symptoms of COVID-19, and may last for many months following acute COVID-19. Taste loss in the absence of smell loss is rare. Persistent qualitative smell symptoms are emerging as common long-term sequelae; more research into treatment options is strongly warranted given that even conservative estimates suggest millions of individuals may experience parosmia following COVID-19. Healthcare providers worldwide need to be prepared to treat post COVID-19 secondary effects on physical and mental health.

Recent Smell Loss Is the Best Predictor of COVID-19 Among Individuals With Recent Respiratory Symptoms

In a preregistered, cross-sectional study, we investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19 using a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n = 4148) or negative (C19-; n = 546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified univariate and multivariate predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean ± SD, C19+: -82.5 ± 27.2 points; C19-: -59.8 ± 37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both univariate and multivariate models (ROC AUC = 0.72). Additional variables provide negligible model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms (e.g., fever). Olfactory recovery within 40 days of respiratory symptom onset was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since respiratory symptom onset. We find that quantified smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19 amongst those with symptoms of respiratory illness. To aid clinicians and contact tracers in identifying individuals with a high likelihood of having COVID-19, we propose a novel 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss, the ODoR-19. We find that numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (4 < OR < 10). Once independently validated, this tool could be deployed when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable.

Prevalence and reversibility of smell dysfunction measured psychophysically in a cohort of COVID-19 patients

Background

Considerable evidence suggests that smell dysfunction is common in coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19). Unfortunately, extant data on prevalence and reversibility over time are highly variable, coming mainly from self‐report surveys prone to multiple biases. Thus, validated psychophysical olfactory testing is sorely needed to establish such parameters.

Methods

One hundred severe acute respiratory syndrome‒coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2)‐positive patients were administered the 40‐item University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) in the hospital near the end of the acute phase of the disease. Eighty‐two were retested 1 or 4 weeks later at home. The data were analyzed using analysis of variance and mixed‐effect regression models.

Results

Initial UPSIT scores were indicative of severe microsmia, with 96% exhibiting measurable dysfunction; 18% were anosmic. The scores improved upon retest (initial test: mean, 21.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 20.84‐23.09; retest: mean, 31.13; 95% CI, 30.16‐32.10; p < 0.0001); no patient remained anosmic. After 5 weeks from COVID‐19 symptom onset, the test scores of 63% of the retested patients were normal. However, the mean UPSIT score at that time continued to remain below that of age‐ and sex‐matched healthy controls (p < 0.001). Such scores were related to time since symptom onset, sex, and age.

Conclusion

Smell loss was extremely common in the acute phase of a cohort of 100 COVID‐19 patients when objectively measured. About one third of cases continued to exhibit dysfunction 6 to 8 weeks after symptom onset. These findings have direct implications for the use of olfactory testing in identifying SARS‐CoV‐2 carriers and for counseling such individuals with regard to their smell dysfunction and its reversibility.

Smell dysfunction: a biomarker for COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is responsible for the largest pandemic since the 1918 influenza A virus subtype H1N1 influenza outbreak. The symptoms presently recognized by the World Health Organization are cough, fever, tiredness, and difficulty breathing. Patient-reported smell and taste loss has been associated with COVID-19 infection, yet no empirical olfactory testing on a cohort of COVID-19 patients has been performed.

METHODS

The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), a well-validated 40-odorant test, was administered to 60 confirmed COVID-19 inpatients and 60 age- and sex-matched controls to assess the magnitude and frequency of their olfactory dysfunction. A mixed effects analysis of variance determined whether meaningful differences in test scores existed between the 2 groups and if the test scores were differentially influenced by sex.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine (98%) of the 60 patients exhibited some smell dysfunction (mean [95% CI] UPSIT score: 20.98 [19.47, 22.48]; controls: 34.10 [33.31, 34.88]; p < 0.0001). Thirty-five of the 60 patients (58%) were either anosmic (15/60; 25%) or severely microsmic (20/60; 33%); 16 exhibited moderate microsmia (16/60; 27%), 8 mild microsmia (8/60; 13%), and 1 normosmia (1/60; 2%). Deficits were evident for all 40 UPSIT odorants. No meaningful relationships between the test scores and sex, disease severity, or comorbidities were found.

CONCLUSION

Quantitative smell testing demonstrates that decreased smell function, but not always anosmia, is a major marker for SARS-CoV-2 infection and suggests the possibility that smell testing may help, in some cases, to identify COVID-19 patients in need of early treatment or quarantine.

The best COVID-19 predictor is recent smell loss: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has heterogeneous manifestations, though one of the most common symptoms is a sudden loss of smell (anosmia or hyposmia). We investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19.

METHODS

This preregistered, cross-sectional study used a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n=4148) or negative (C19-; n=546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified singular and cumulative predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery.

RESULTS

Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean±SD, C19+: -82.5±27.2 points; C19-: -59.8±37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both single and cumulative feature models (ROC AUC=0.72), with additional features providing no significant model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms, such as fever or cough. Olfactory recovery within 40 days was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since illness onset.

CONCLUSIONS

As smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19, we developed the ODoR-19 tool, a 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss. Numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (10<OR<4), especially when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable.

Smell dysfunction: a biomarker for COVID-19

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome‐coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), is responsible for the largest pandemic since the 1918 influenza A virus subtype H1N1 influenza outbreak. The symptoms presently recognized by the World Health Organization are cough, fever, tiredness, and difficulty breathing. Patient‐reported smell and taste loss has been associated with COVID‐19 infection, yet no empirical olfactory testing on a cohort of COVID‐19 patients has been performed.

Methods

The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), a well‐validated 40‐odorant test, was administered to 60 confirmed COVID‐19 inpatients and 60 age‐ and sex‐matched controls to assess the magnitude and frequency of their olfactory dysfunction. A mixed effects analysis of variance determined whether meaningful differences in test scores existed between the 2 groups and if the test scores were differentially influenced by sex.

Results

Fifty‐nine (98%) of the 60 patients exhibited some smell dysfunction (mean [95% CI] UPSIT score: 20.98 [19.47, 22.48]; controls: 34.10 [33.31, 34.88]; p < 0.0001). Thirty‐five of the 60 patients (58%) were either anosmic (15/60; 25%) or severely microsmic (20/60; 33%); 16 exhibited moderate microsmia (16/60; 27%), 8 mild microsmia (8/60; 13%), and 1 normosmia (1/60; 2%). Deficits were evident for all 40 UPSIT odorants. No meaningful relationships between the test scores and sex, disease severity, or comorbidities were found.

Conclusion

Quantitative smell testing demonstrates that decreased smell function, but not always anosmia, is a major marker for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and suggests the possibility that smell testing may help, in some cases, to identify COVID‐19 patients in need of early treatment or quarantine.