Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-20201343

RESUMO

ObjectivesThe multifaceted manifestation of COVID-19 requires longitudinal characterization of symptoms, to aid with screening and disease management. MethodsPhone interviews and follow-ups were completed with 112 mostly mild COVID-19 RT-PCR-positive adult patients, over a six-months period. ResultsMore than one symptom at disease onset was experienced by [~]70% of the patients. About 40% of the patients experienced fever, dry cough, headache, or muscle ache as the first symptom. Fatigue, if reported, usually was the first to appear. Smell and taste changes were experienced 3.9 {+/-} 5.4 and 4.6 {+/-} 5.7 days (mean {+/-} SD) after disease onset and emerged as first symptom in 15% and 18% of patients, respectively. 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 smell recovery correlated with smell change severity. Cough, taste change and smell change persisted after negative RT-PCR tests (in 20%, 26% and 29% of the patients in total). At six-months follow-up, 46% of the patients had at least one unresolved symptom, most commonly fatigue (21%), chemosensory changes (14%) or breath difficulty (9%). ConclusionsMore than one symptom typically occurred at disease onset. Chemosensory changes and cough persisted after negative RT-PCR in a quarter of the patients. Almost half of the patients reported at least one unresolved symptom at six-months follow up, mainly fatigue, smell changes and breath difficulty. Our findings highlight the prevalence of long-lasting effects of COVID-19.

2.
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-20164327

RESUMO

BackgroundClinical diagnosis of COVID-19 poses an enormous challenge to early detection and prevention of COVID-19, which is of crucial importance for pandemic containment. Cases of COVID-19 may be hard to distinguish clinically from other acute viral diseases, resulting in an overwhelming load of laboratory screening. Sudden onset of taste and smell loss emerge as hallmark of COVID-19. The optimal ways for including these symptoms in the screening of suspected COVID-19 patients should now be established. MethodsWe performed a case-control study on patients that were PCR-tested for COVID-19 (112 positive and 112 negative participants), recruited during the first wave (March 2020 - May 2020) of COVID-19 pandemic in Israel. Patients were interviewed by phone regarding their symptoms and medical history and were asked to rate their olfactory and gustatory ability before and during their illness on a 1-10 scale. Prevalence and degrees of symptoms were calculated, and odds ratios were estimated. Symptoms-based logistic-regression classifiers were constructed and evaluated on a hold-out set. ResultsChanges in smell and taste occurred in 68% (95% CI 60%-76%) and 72% (64%-80%), of positive patients, with 24 (11-53 range) and 12 (6-23) respective odds ratios. The ability to smell was decreased by 0.5{+/-}1.5 in negatives, and by 4.5{+/-}3.6 in positives, and to taste by 0.4{+/-}1.5 and 4.9{+/-}3.8, respectively (mean {+/-} SD). A penalized logistic regression classifier based on 5 symptoms (degree of smell change, muscle ache, lack of appetite, fever, and a negatively contributing sore throat), has 66% sensitivity, 97% specificity and an area under the ROC curve of 0.83 (AUC) on a hold-out set. A classifier based on degree of smell change only is almost as good, with 66% sensitivity, 97% specificity and 0.81 AUC. Under the assumption of 8% positives among those tested, the predictive positive value (PPV) of this classifier is 0.68 and negative predictive value (NPV) is 0.97. ConclusionsSelf-reported quantitative olfactory changes, either alone or combined with other symptoms, provide a specific and powerful tool for clinical diagnosis of COVID-19. The applicability of this tool for prioritizing COVID-19 laboratory testing is facilitated by a simple calculator presented here.

3.
Richard C. Gerkin; Kathrin Ohla; Maria Geraldine Veldhuizen; Paule V. Joseph; Christine E. Kelly; Alyssa J. Bakke; Kimberley E. Steele; Michael C. Farruggia; Robert Pellegrino; Marta Y. Pepino; Cédric Bouysset; Graciela M. Soler; Veronica Pereda-Loth; Michele Dibattista; Keiland W. Cooper; Ilja Croijmans; Antonella Di Pizio; M. Hakan Ozdener; Alexander W. Fjaeldstad; Cailu Lin; Mari A. Sandell; Preet B. Singh; V. Evelyn Brindha; Shannon B. Olsson; Luis R. Saraiva; Gaurav Ahuja; Mohammed K. Alwashahi; Surabhi Bhutani; Anna D'Errico; Marco A. Fornazieri; Jérôme Golebiowski; Liang-Dar Hwang; Lina Öztürk; Eugeni Roura; Sara Spinelli; Katherine L. Whitcroft; Farhoud Faraji; Florian Ph.S Fischmeister; Thomas Heinbockel; Julien W. Hsieh; Caroline Huart; Iordanis Konstantinidis; Anna Menini; Gabriella Morini; Jonas K. Olofsson; Carl M. Philpott; Denis Pierron; Vonnie D. C. Shields; Vera V. Voznessenskaya; Javier Albayay; Aytug Altundag; Moustafa Bensafi; María Adelaida Bock; Orietta Calcinoni; William Fredborg; Christophe Laudamiel; Juyun Lim; Johan N. Lundström; Alberto Macchi; Pablo Meyer; Shima T. Moein; Enrique Santamaría; Debarka Sengupta; Paloma Paloma Domínguez; Hüseyin Yanık; Sanne Boesveldt; Jasper H. B. de Groot; Caterina Dinnella; Jessica Freiherr; Tatiana Laktionova; Sajidxa Mariño; Erminio Monteleone; Alexia Nunez-Parra; Olagunju Abdulrahman; Marina Ritchie; Thierry Thomas-Danguin; Julie Walsh-Messinger; Rashid Al Abri; Rafieh Alizadeh; Emmanuelle Bignon; Elena Cantone; Maria Paola Cecchini; Jingguo Chen; Maria Dolors Guàrdia; Kara C. Hoover; Noam Karni; Marta Navarro; Alissa A. Nolden; Patricia Portillo Mazal; Nicholas R. Rowan; Atiye Sarabi-Jamab; Nicholas S. Archer; Ben Chen; Elizabeth A. Di Valerio; Emma L. Feeney; Johannes Frasnelli; Mackenzie Hannum; Claire Hopkins; Hadar Klein; Coralie Mignot; Carla Mucignat; Yuping Ning; Elif E. Ozturk; Mei Peng; Ozlem Saatci; Elizabeth A. Sell; Carol H. Yan; Raul Alfaro; Cinzia Cecchetto; Gérard Coureaud; Riley D. Herriman; Jeb M. Justice; Pavan Kumar Kaushik; Sachiko Koyama; Jonathan B. Overdevest; Nicola Pirastu; Vicente A. Ramirez; S. Craig Roberts; Barry C. Smith; Hongyuan Cao; Hong Wang; Patrick Balungwe; Marius Baguma; Thomas Hummel; John E. Hayes; Danielle R. Reed; Masha Y. Niv; Steven D. Munger; Valentina Parma.
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-20157263

RESUMO

BackgroundCOVID-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. MethodsThis 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. ResultsBoth 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 negligible 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. ConclusionsAs 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 (4

4.
Valentina Parma; Kathrin Ohla; Maria G. Veldhuizen; Masha Y. Niv; Christine E. Kelly; Alyssa J. Bakke; Keiland W. Cooper; Cédric Bouysset; Nicola Pirastu; Michele Dibattista; Rishemjit Kaur; Marco Tullio Liuzza; Marta Y. Pepino; Veronika Schöpf; Veronica Pereda-Loth; Shannon B Olsson; Richard C Gerkin; Paloma Rohlfs Domínguez; Javier Albayay; Michael C. Farruggia; Surabhi Bhutani; Alexander W Fjaeldstad; Ritesh Kumar; Anna Menini; Moustafa Bensafi; Mari Sandell; Iordanis Konstantinidis; Antonella Di Pizio; Federica Genovese; Lina Öztürk; Thierry Thomas-Danguin; Johannes Frasnelli; Sanne Boesveldt; Özlem Saatci; Luis R. Saraiva; Cailu Lin; Jérôme Golebiowski; Liang-Dar Hwang; Mehmet Hakan Ozdener; Maria Dolors Guàrdia; Christophe Laudamiel; Marina Ritchie; Jan Havlícek; Denis Pierron; Eugeni Roura; Marta Navarro; Alissa A. Nolden; Juyun Lim; KL Whitcroft; Lauren R. Colquitt; Camille Ferdenzi; Evelyn V. Brindha; Aytug Altundag; Alberto Macchi; Alexia Nunez-Parra; Zara M. Patel; Sébastien Fiorucci; Carl M. Philpott; Barry C. Smith; Johan N Lundström; Carla Mucignat; Jane K. Parker; Mirjam van den Brink; Michael Schmuker; Florian Ph.S Fischmeister; Thomas Heinbockel; Vonnie D.C. Shields; Farhoud Faraji; Enrique Enrique Santamaría; William E.A. Fredborg; Gabriella Morini; Jonas K. Olofsson; Maryam Jalessi; Noam Karni; Anna D'Errico; Rafieh Alizadeh; Robert Pellegrino; Pablo Meyer; Caroline Huart; Ben Chen; Graciela M. Soler; Mohammed K. Alwashahi; Olagunju Abdulrahman; Antje Welge-Lüssen; Pamela Dalton; Jessica Freiherr; Carol H. Yan; Jasper H. B. de Groot; Vera V. Voznessenskaya; Hadar Klein; Jingguo Chen; Masako Okamoto; Elizabeth A. Sell; Preet Bano Singh; Julie Walsh-Messinger; Nicholas S. Archer; Sachiko Koyama; Vincent Deary; S. Craig Roberts; Hüseyin Yanik; Samet Albayrak; Lenka Martinec Novákov; Ilja Croijmans; Patricia Portillo Mazal; Shima T. Moein; Eitan Margulis; Coralie Mignot; Sajidxa Mariño; Dejan Georgiev; Pavan K. Kaushik; Bettina Malnic; Hong Wang; Shima Seyed-Allaei; Nur Yoluk; Sara Razzaghi; Jeb M. Justice; Diego Restrepo; Julien W Hsieh; Danielle R. Reed; Thomas Hummel; Steven D Munger; John E Hayes.
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-20090902

RESUMO

Recent anecdotal and scientific reports have provided evidence of a link between COVID-19 and chemosensory impairments such as anosmia. However, these reports have downplayed or failed to distinguish potential effects on taste, ignored chemesthesis, generally lacked quantitative measurements, were mostly restricted to data from single countries. Here, we report the development, implementation and initial results of a multi-lingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in three distinct chemosensory modalities (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) before and during COVID-19. In the first 11 days after questionnaire launch, 4039 participants (2913 women, 1118 men, 8 other, ages 19-79) reported a COVID-19 diagnosis either via laboratory tests or clinical assessment. Importantly, smell, taste and chemesthetic function were each significantly reduced compared to their status before the disease. Difference scores (maximum possible change {+/-}100) revealed a mean reduction of smell (-79.7 {+/-} 28.7, mean {+/-} SD), taste (-69.0 {+/-} 32.6), and chemesthetic (-37.3 {+/-} 36.2) function during COVID-19. Qualitative changes in olfactory ability (parosmia and phantosmia) were relatively rare and correlated with smell loss. Importantly, perceived nasal obstruction did not account for smell loss. Furthermore, chemosensory impairments were similar between participants in the laboratory test and clinical assessment groups. These results show that COVID-19-associated chemosensory impairment is not limited to smell, but also affects taste and chemesthesis. The multimodal impact of COVID-19 and lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...