Comparative Analysis of the Clinical Presentation of Individuals Who Test Positive or Negative for SARS-CoV-2: Results from a Test Street Study.

The common cold, the flu, and the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have many symptoms in common. As such, without testing for severe-acute-respiratory-syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), it is difficult to conclude whether or not one is infected with SARS-CoV-2. The aim of the current study was to compare the presence and severity of COVID-19-related symptoms among those who tested positive or negative for the beta variant of SARS-CoV-2 (B.1.351) and identify the clinical presentation with the greatest likelihood of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. n = 925 individuals that were tested for SARS-CoV-2 at Dutch mass testing sites (i.e., test streets) were invited to complete a short online survey. The presence and severity of 17 COVID-19-related symptoms were assessed. In addition, mood, health correlates, and quality of life were assessed for the week before the test. Of the sample, n = 88 tested positive and n = 837 tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 reported experiencing a significantly greater number, as well as greater overall symptom severity, compared to individuals who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. A binary logistic regression analysis revealed that increased severity levels of congestion, coughing, shivering, or loss of smell were associated with an increase in the odds of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, whereas an increase in the severity levels of runny nose, sore throat, or fatigue were associated with an increase in the odds of testing negative for SARS-CoV-2. No significant differences in mood or health correlates were found between those who tested positive or negative for SARS-CoV-2, except for a significantly higher stress score among those who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. In conclusion, individuals that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 experienced a significantly greater number and more severe COVID-19-related symptoms compared to those who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Experiencing shivering and loss of smell may be the best indicators for increased likelihood of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2.

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.

Hyposmia correlates with axial signs and gait disorder in Parkinson's disease: an Italian Olfactory Identification Test study.

BACKGROUND: Olfactory dysfunction is a non-motor symptom and an important biomarker of Parkinson's disease (PD) because of its high prevalence (> 90%). Whether hyposmia correlates with motor symptoms is unclear. In the present study, we aim to investigate the relationship between olfactory impairment with both motor and non-motor features and disease variables (disease duration, stage, and severity). METHODS: One-hundred fifty-four PD patients were evaluated. Odor identification ability was tested using Italian Olfactory Identification Test (IOIT). A comprehensive spectrum of motor and non-motor features was assessed. Cognitive function was investigated through MMSE. Patients were divided into 3 different clinical phenotypes using UPDRS-III: tremor-dominant type (TDT), akinetic-rigid type (ART), and mixed type (MXT). RESULTS: Three of the 33 IOIT items were most frequently misidentified: basil (74.3%), coffee (66.9%), and mushroom (59.6%). Hyposmia was found in 93%. Hyposmic patients were older than controls (p = 0.01). Hoehn & Yahr (H&Y) score of 2 or greater was associated with higher probability of being hyposmic (OR = 5.2, p = 0.01). IOIT score did not significantly differ between TDT, ART, and MXT of analyzed PD patients. Performance to IOIT inversely correlated with age (p < 0.01), disease duration (p = 0.01), and H&Y score of 2 or higher (p < 0.01). Clinical features that associated with higher IOIT score were freezing of gait (FOG) (p < 0.001) and camptocormia (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, IOIT scores showed a positive correlation with axial motor signs, but not with non-motor symptoms. IOIT may be a useful tool not only for supporting PD diagnosis but also for providing prognostic information about motor function.

Diagnosed and subjectively perceived long-term effects of COVID-19 infection on olfactory function assessed by supervised machine learning.

Loss of olfactory function is a typical acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptom, at least in early variants of SARS-CoV2. The time that has elapsed since the emergence of COVID-19 now allows for assessing the long-term prognosis of its olfactory impact. Participants (n = 722) of whom n = 464 reported having had COVID-19 dating back with a mode of 174 days were approached in a museum as a relatively unbiased environment. Olfactory function was diagnosed by assessing odor threshold and odor identification performance. Subjects also rated their actual olfactory function on an 11-point numerical scale [0,…10]. Neither the frequency of olfactory diagnostic categories nor olfactory test scores showed any COVID-19-related effects. Olfactory diagnostic categories (anosmia, hyposmia, or normosmia) were similarly distributed among former patients and controls (0.86%, 18.97%, and 80.17% for former patients and 1.17%, 17.51%, and 81.32% for controls). Former COVID-19 patients, however, showed differences in their subjective perception of their own olfactory function. The impact of this effect was substantial enough that supervised machine learning algorithms detected past COVID-19 infections in new subjects, based on reduced self-awareness of olfactory performance and parosmia, while the diagnosed olfactory function did not contribute any relevant information in this context. Based on diagnosed olfactory function, results suggest a positive prognosis for COVID-19-related olfactory loss in the long term. Traces of former infection are found in self-perceptions of olfaction, highlighting the importance of investigating the long-term effects of COVID-19 using reliable and validated diagnostic measures in olfactory testing.

Disparities in Olfactory Dysfunction in African Americans.

OBJECTIVES: To examine olfactory performance in African Americans (AA) and Whites by comparing individual scent scores on objective olfactory tests to assess potential racial-ethnic differences of scent detection. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of healthy participants, age 18+ years, and without sinonasal inflammatory disease from June 2021 to April 2022. Included participants self-identified as AA or White. Patients were recruited from outpatient clinics at University of Kansas Medical Center, and the local community. Two smelling tests were employed: Affordable Rapid Olfactory Measurement Array (AROMA) and Sniffin' Sticks (SST-12). Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) was used for self-reported olfactory function . Pearson correlation and chi-square tests were used to detect statistical significance. RESULTS: Our sample included 102 (46 AA and 56 Whites) participants. AROMA and SST-12 scores were significantly correlated in AA (P < .01, Pearson's Rho = .642) and Whites (P < .05, Pearson's Rho = .297). Mean scores on AROMA were significantly lower for AAs: 64.2 and Whites: 75.5 (P < .01). On AROMA, AA less accurately identified the scents of Licorice, Orange, Lavender, Cinnamon, Clove, and Rosemary (P < .05). Similarly, SST-12 mean scores for AAs: 84.2 were also lower than Whites: 89.9 (P < .01). On SST-12, AA less accurately identified the scent of pineapple Based on SST-12 scoring criteria, 60.9% of AA and 30.4% of Whites were classified as hyposmic (P < .05). SNOT-22 Smell scores were equivalent for both groups. CONCLUSION: On both tests of olfaction, AA performed worse than Whites and a greater proportion of AA were considered hyposmic compared to Whites. This is a discrepancy with self-reported olfaction, which showed no difference between Whites and AA. AA performed significantly worse than their White counterparts on several scents, with possible implications regarding cultural appropriateness of scents used in olfactory testing.

Persistence of SARS-CoV-2 Antigens in the Nasal Mucosa of Eight Patients with Inflammatory Rhinopathy for over 80 Days following Mild COVID-19 Diagnosis.

The nasal mucosa is the main gateway for entry, replication and elimination of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the pathogen that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome (COVID-19). The presence of the virus in the epithelium causes damage to the nasal mucosa and compromises mucociliary clearance. The aim of this study was to investigate the presence of SARS-CoV-2 viral antigens in the nasal mucociliary mucosa of patients with a history of mild COVID-19 and persistent inflammatory rhinopathy. We evaluated eight adults without previous nasal diseases and with a history of COVID-19 and persistent olfactory dysfunction for more than 80 days after diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Samples of the nasal mucosa were collected via brushing of the middle nasal concha. The detection of viral antigens was performed using immunofluorescence through confocal microscopy. Viral antigens were detected in the nasal mucosa of all patients. Persistent anosmia was observed in four patients. Our findings suggest that persistent SARS-CoV-2 antigens in the nasal mucosa of mild COVID-19 patients may lead to inflammatory rhinopathy and prolonged or relapsing anosmia. This study sheds light on the potential mechanisms underlying persistent symptoms of COVID-19 and highlights the importance of monitoring patients with persistent anosmia and nasal-related symptoms.

Proof-of-concept: SCENTinel 1.1 rapidly discriminates COVID-19-related olfactory disorders.

It is estimated that 20%-67% of those with COVID-19 develop olfactory disorders, depending on the SARS-CoV-2 variant. However, there is an absence of quick, population-wide olfactory tests to screen for olfactory disorders. The purpose of this study was to provide a proof-of-concept that SCENTinel 1.1, a rapid, inexpensive, population-wide olfactory test, can discriminate between anosmia (total smell loss), hyposmia (reduced sense of smell), parosmia (distorted odor perception), and phantosmia (odor sensation without a source). Participants were mailed a SCENTinel 1.1 test, which measures odor detection, intensity, identification, and pleasantness, using one of 4 possible odors. Those who completed the test (N = 287) were divided into groups based on their self-reported olfactory function: quantitative olfactory disorder only (anosmia or hyposmia, N = 135), qualitative olfactory disorder only (parosmia and/or phantosmia; N = 86), and normosmia (normal sense of smell; N = 66). SCENTinel 1.1 accurately discriminates quantitative olfactory disorders, qualitative olfactory disorders, and normosmia groups. When olfactory disorders were assessed individually, SCENTinel 1.1 discriminates between hyposmia, parosmia, and anosmia. Participants with parosmia rated common odors less pleasant than those without parosmia. We provide proof-of-concept that SCENTinel 1.1, a rapid smell test, can discriminate quantitative and qualitative olfactory disorders, and is the only direct test to rapidly discriminate parosmia.

Loss of olfactory sensitivity is an early and reliable marker for COVID-19.

Detection of early and reliable symptoms is important in relation to limiting the spread of an infectious disease. For COVID-19, the most specific symptom is either losing or experiencing reduced olfactory functions. Anecdotal evidence suggests that olfactory dysfunction is also one of the earlier symptoms of COVID-19, but objective measures supporting this notion are currently missing. To determine whether olfactory loss is an early sign of COVID-19, we assessed available longitudinal data from a web-based interface enabling individuals to test their sense of smell by rating the intensity of selected household odors. Individuals continuously used the interface to assess their olfactory functions and at each login, in addition to odor ratings, recorded their symptoms and results from potential COVID-19 test. A total of 205 COVID-19-positive individuals and 156 pseudo-randomly matched control individuals lacking positive test provided longitudinal data which enabled us to assess olfactory functions in relation to their test result date. We found that odor intensity ratings started to decline in the COVID-19 group as early as 6 days prior to the test result date (±1.4 days). Symptoms, such as sore throat, aches, and runny nose appear around the same point in time; however, with a lower predictability of a COVID-19 diagnosis. Our results suggest that olfactory sensitivity loss is an early symptom but does not appear before other related COVID-19 symptoms. Olfactory loss is, however, more predictive of a COVID-19 diagnosis than other early symptoms.

Revealing the mystery of persistent smell loss in Long COVID patients.

COVID-19 is hopefully approaching its end in many countries as herd immunity develops and weaker strains of SARS-CoV-2 dominate. However, a new concern occurs over the long-term effects of COVID-19, collectively called "Long COVID", as some symptoms of the nervous system last even after patients recover from COVID-19. This review focuses on studies of anosmia, i.e., impairment of smell, which is the most common sensory defect during the disease course and is caused by olfactory dysfunctions. It remains mysterious how the olfactory functions are affected since the virus can't invade olfactory receptor neurons. We describe several leading hypotheses about the mystery in hope to provide insights into the pathophysiology and treatment strategies for anosmia.

Olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19, new insights from a cohort of 353 patients: The ANOSVID study.

Olfactory disorders (OD) pathogenesis, underlying conditions, and prognostic in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain partially described. ANOSVID is a retrospective study in Nord Franche-Comté Hospital (France) that included COVID-19 patients from March 1 2020 to May 31 2020. The aim was to compare COVID-19 patients with OD (OD group) and patients without OD (no-OD group). A second analysis compared patients with anosmia (high OD group) and patients with hyposmia or no OD (low or no-OD group). The OD group presented less cardiovascular and other respiratory diseases compared to the no-OD group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.536 [0.293-0.981], p = 0.041 and OR = 0.222 [0.056-0.874], p = 0.037 respectively). Moreover, history of malignancy was less present in the high OD group compared with the low or no-OD group (OR = 0.170 [0.064-0.455], p < 0.001). The main associated symptoms (OR > 5) with OD were loss of taste (OR = 24.059 [13.474-42.959], p = 0.000) and cacosmia (OR = 5.821 [2.246-15.085], p < 0.001). Most of all ORs decreased in the second analysis, especially for general, digestive, and ENT symptoms. Only two ORs increased: headache (OR = 2.697 [1.746-4.167], p < 0.001) and facial pain (OR = 2.901 [1.441-5.842], p = 0.002). The high OD group had a higher creatinine clearance CKD than the low or no-OD group (89.0 ± 21.1 vs. 81.0 ± 20.5, p = 0.040). No significant difference was found concerning the virological, radiological, and severity criteria. OD patients seem to have less comorbidity, especially better cardiovascular and renal function. Associated symptoms with OD were mostly neurological symptoms. We did not find a significant relationship between OD and less severity in COVID-19 possibly due to methodological bias.

Testing for anosmia and ageusia in patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 in Saudi Arabia.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the role of objective olfactory dysfunction (OD) and gustatory dysfunction (GD) testing among patients with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who presented with respiratory symptoms. METHODS: A prospective, blinded, observational study was conducted in the emergency units of two tertiary hospitals. Participants were asked to identify scents in the pocket smell test (PST) and flavors in four different solutions in the gustatory dysfunction test (GDT). We assessed the level of agreement between objective findings and self-reported symptoms. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of chemosensory dysfunction for diagnosing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. RESULTS: Of 250 participants, 74 (29.6%) were SARS-CoV-2-positive. There was slight agreement between self-reported symptoms and objective findings (kappa = 0.13 and 0.10 for OD and GD, respectively). OD assessed by the PST was independently associated with COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio = 1.89, 95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.46). This association was stronger when OD was combined with objective GD, cough, and fever (adjusted odds ratio = 7.33, 95% confidence interval, 1.17-45.84). CONCLUSIONS: Neither the PST nor GDT alone are useful screening tools for COVID-19. However, a diagnostic scale based on objective OD, GD, fever, and cough may help triage patients with suspected COVID-19.

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.

Performance of formal smell testing and symptom screening for identifying SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Altered sense of smell is a commonly reported COVID-19 symptom. The performance of smell testing to identify SARS-CoV-2 infection status is unknown. We measured the ability of formal smell testing to identify SARS-CoV-2 infection and compared its performance with symptom screening. METHODS: A convenience sample of emergency department patients with COVID-19 symptom screening participated in smell testing using an eight odor Pocket Smell Test (PST). Participants received a SARS-CoV-2 viral PCR test after smell testing and completed a health conditions survey. Descriptive analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve models compared the accuracy of smell testing versus symptom screening in identifying SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-five patients completed smell testing and 87 (29.5%) had a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Twenty-eight of the SARS-CoV-2 positive patients (32.2%) and 49 of the SARS-CoV-2 negative patients (23.6%) reported at least one of seven screening symptoms (OR = 1.54, P = 0.13). SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were more likely to have hyposmia (≤5 correctly identified odors) than SARS-CoV-2 negative patients (56.1% vs. 19.3%, OR = 5.36, P<0.001). Hyposmia was 52.9% (95% CI 41.9%-63.7%) sensitive and 82.7% (95% CI 76.9%-87.6%) specific for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Presence of ≥1 screening symptom was 32.2% (95% CI 22.6%-43.1%) sensitive and 76.4% (70.1%-82.0%) specific for SARS-CoV-2 infection. The ROC curve for smell testing had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.74 (95% CI 0.67-0.80). The ROC curve for symptom screening had lower discriminatory accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 infection (AUC = 0.55, 95% CI 0.49-0.61, P<0.001) than the smell testing ROC curve. CONCLUSION: Smell testing was superior to symptom screening for identifying SARS-CoV-2 infection in our study.

"Anosmia" the mysterious collateral damage of COVID-19.

COVID-19 pandemic spreads worldwide, with more than 100 million positive cases and more than 2 million deaths. From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, several otolaryngologists described many cases of a sudden loss of smell (anosmia) associated with the disease with or without additional symptoms. Anosmia is often the first and sometimes the only sign in the asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19. Still, this disorder is underestimated, and it is not life-threatening. However, it significantly decreases the quality of life. This olfactory dysfunction continues in several cases even after the nasopharyngeal swab was negative. The occurrence of anosmia can be used as a screening tool for COVID-19 patients and can be used to identify these patients to accomplish the isolation and tracking procedures. In this review, we highlighted the possible mechanisms of anosmia in COVID-19 patients, major pathologies and features of anosmia, implications of anosmia in early diagnosis of COVID-19, evaluation of the smell function during COVID-19, and management and treatment options of COVID-19 anosmia.

Neurological outcomes 1 year after COVID-19 diagnosis: A prospective longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Neurological sequelae from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may persist after recovery from acute infection. Here, the aim was to describe the natural history of neurological manifestations over 1 year after COVID-19. METHODS: A prospective, multicentre, longitudinal cohort study in COVID-19 survivors was performed. At a 3-month and 1-year follow-up, patients were assessed for neurological impairments by a neurological examination and a standardized test battery including the assessment of hyposmia (16-item Sniffin' Sticks test), cognitive deficits (Montreal Cognitive Assessment < 26) and mental health (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist 5). RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were evaluated 1 year after COVID-19, out of which 76 (94%) patients completed a 3-month and 1-year follow-up. Patients were 54 (47-64) years old and 59% were male. New and persistent neurological disorders were found in 15% (3 months) and 12% (10/81; 1 year). Symptoms at 1-year follow-up were reported by 48/81 (59%) patients, including fatigue (38%), concentration difficulties (25%), forgetfulness (25%), sleep disturbances (22%), myalgia (17%), limb weakness (17%), headache (16%), impaired sensation (16%) and hyposmia (15%). Neurological examination revealed findings in 52/81 (64%) patients without improvement over time (3 months, 61%, p = 0.230) including objective hyposmia (Sniffin' Sticks test <13; 51%). Cognitive deficits were apparent in 18%, whereas signs of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorders were found in 6%, 29% and 10% respectively 1 year after infection. These mental and cognitive disorders had not improved after the 3-month follow-up (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that a significant patient number still suffer from neurological sequelae including neuropsychiatric symptoms 1 year after COVID-19 calling for interdisciplinary management of these patients.

Olfactory sensory and perceptual evaluation in newborn infants: A systematic review.

Fetuses are able to process olfactory stimuli present in the womb and continue to show a preference for these odors for months after birth. Despite the accumulated knowledge about their early ability to perceive odors, there is a lack of validated scales for odor response in newborns. The evaluation of reactions of the olfactory system to environmental stimuli in infants has been defined by methodological theoretical approaches of experimental and clinical assessment tools. These approaches are mainly based on psychophysical approaches and predominantly use behavioral and physiological measures. Examples can be found in studies describing early abilities of newborn babies for behaviors or heart rate variability showing memory of maternal food preferences or mother's breast milk. This systematic review aimed to determine whether validated odor assessment tools can be feasibly used in studies. Particularly in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic and evidence of associated olfactory impairment resulting from SARS-COV-2 infection, the study is also motivated by the need for tools to assess olfactory function in neonates.

[Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 in children]. / Nevrologicheskie proyavleniya COVID-19 u detei.

The neurological symptoms of COVID-19 in children (in Dyurtyuli area, Republic of Bashkortostan) are analyzed and brief review of the literature is undertaken in the paper. 137 children underwent swab test for COVID-19. The disease was diagnosed in 9 of them. Only respiratory symptoms were observed in 3 children, a combination of respiratory with anosmia or/and headache - in 3, asymptomatic form - in another 3. A case of a 7-years old girl suffering from COVID-19 with respiratory symptoms as well as anosmia and headache is presented. According to the review of the literature, COVID - 19 in children is usually milder than in adults, but in some cases may lead to neurological consequences. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome may lead to the development symptoms of encephalopathy (altered mental status, headache) and stroke. Autoimmune complications such as Gillian-Barre syndrome develop simultaneously or after resolving of the infectious process. The development of viral meningoencephalitis in COVID-19 is questionable.

Implementing a COVID-19 specialist smell clinic: experience at the Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh Teaching Hospitals (WWL), NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: It is clear that a proportion of patients continue to suffer long-lasting symptoms following acute infection with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Persistent olfactory dysfunction is one of the commonest complaints reported in the condition colloquially known as long COVID (now known as post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC)). The prevalence, risk factors and clinical course of long COVID olfactory dysfunction are not yet well understood. At present, the main stay of treatment is olfactory training. Quantitative olfactory testing and impacts on patient quality of life have not been widely studied. This study describes our experiences at Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh Teaching Hospitals, UK (WWL) of establishing a COVID-19 smell clinic, along with preliminary data on patient demographics, baseline smell test scores and quality of life questionnaire scores before olfactory training. METHODS: We piloted a COVID-19 smell clinic. We recorded patient demographics and clinical characteristics then performed clinical assessment of each patient. Quantitative measurements of olfactory dysfunction were recorded using the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). We measured the impact of olfactory dysfunction on patient quality of life using the validated English Olfactory Disorders Questionnaire (eODQ). RESULTS: 20 patients participated in the clinic. 4 patients were excluded from analysis due to missing data. Median age was 35 years. 81% (n=13) of the participants were female. 50% (n=8) of patients suffered with a combination of anosmia/ageusia and parosmia, whilst 43% (n=7) of patients suffered with anosmia/ageusia without parosmia. Almost all the patients registered UPSIT scores in keeping with impaired olfaction. Patient scores ranged from 22 to 35, with the median score at 30. All patients reported that their olfactory dysfunction had an impact on their quality of life. The median eODQ score reported was 90, with scores ranging from 42 to 169 out of a maximum of 180. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated that it is simple and feasible to set up a COVID-19 smell clinic. The materials are inexpensive, but supervised completion of the UPSIT and eODQ is time-consuming. Patients demonstrate reduced olfaction on quantitative testing and experience significant impacts on their quality of life as a result. More research is needed to demonstrate if olfactory training results in measurable improvements in smell test scores and quality of life.

Predictive symptoms for COVID-19 in the community: REACT-1 study of over 1 million people.

BACKGROUND: Rapid detection, isolation, and contact tracing of community COVID-19 cases are essential measures to limit the community spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We aimed to identify a parsimonious set of symptoms that jointly predict COVID-19 and investigated whether predictive symptoms differ between the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) lineage (predominating as of April 2021 in the US, UK, and elsewhere) and wild type. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We obtained throat and nose swabs with valid SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results from 1,147,370 volunteers aged 5 years and above (6,450 positive cases) in the REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-1 (REACT-1) study. This study involved repeated community-based random surveys of prevalence in England (study rounds 2 to 8, June 2020 to January 2021, response rates 22%-27%). Participants were asked about symptoms occurring in the week prior to testing. Viral genome sequencing was carried out for PCR-positive samples with N-gene cycle threshold value < 34 (N = 1,079) in round 8 (January 2021). In univariate analysis, all 26 surveyed symptoms were associated with PCR positivity compared with non-symptomatic people. Stability selection (1,000 penalized logistic regression models with 50% subsampling) among people reporting at least 1 symptom identified 7 symptoms as jointly and positively predictive of PCR positivity in rounds 2-7 (June to December 2020): loss or change of sense of smell, loss or change of sense of taste, fever, new persistent cough, chills, appetite loss, and muscle aches. The resulting model (rounds 2-7) predicted PCR positivity in round 8 with area under the curve (AUC) of 0.77. The same 7 symptoms were selected as jointly predictive of B.1.1.7 infection in round 8, although when comparing B.1.1.7 with wild type, new persistent cough and sore throat were more predictive of B.1.1.7 infection while loss or change of sense of smell was more predictive of the wild type. The main limitations of our study are (i) potential participation bias despite random sampling of named individuals from the National Health Service register and weighting designed to achieve a representative sample of the population of England and (ii) the necessary reliance on self-reported symptoms, which may be prone to recall bias and may therefore lead to biased estimates of symptom prevalence in England. CONCLUSIONS: Where testing capacity is limited, it is important to use tests in the most efficient way possible. We identified a set of 7 symptoms that, when considered together, maximize detection of COVID-19 in the community, including infection with the B.1.1.7 lineage.

Possible Use of Phytochemicals for Recovery from COVID-19-Induced Anosmia and Ageusia.

The year 2020 became the year of the outbreak of coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, which escalated into a worldwide pandemic and continued into 2021. One of the unique symptoms of the SARS-CoV-2 disease, COVID-19, is the loss of chemical senses, i.e., smell and taste. Smell training is one of the methods used in facilitating recovery of the olfactory sense, and it uses essential oils of lemon, rose, clove, and eucalyptus. These essential oils were not selected based on their chemical constituents. Although scientific studies have shown that they improve recovery, there may be better combinations for facilitating recovery. Many phytochemicals have bioactive properties with anti-inflammatory and anti-viral effects. In this review, we describe the chemical compounds with anti- inflammatory and anti-viral effects, and we list the plants that contain these chemical compounds. We expand the review from terpenes to the less volatile flavonoids in order to propose a combination of essential oils and diets that can be used to develop a new taste training method, as there has been no taste training so far. Finally, we discuss the possible use of these in clinical settings.