Subjective Perception of Recovery and Measured Olfactory Function in COVID-19 Patients.

This cross-sectional study aimed to investigate self-rated olfactory dysfunction in relation to measured olfactory function after partial or complete subjective recovery in individuals with a history of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. A total of 186 individuals (aged 5-62 years) with a history of COVID-19 infection were included. Visual analogue scale (VAS) ratings for olfactory function (before, during, and after infection) and age-appropriate psychophysical olfactory test scores (odor threshold and odor identification: "Sniffin' Sticks" for adults and both "Sniffin' Sticks" and "U-Sniff" for children) were determined. Participants were assigned to four "age groups" and three "recovery classes" (incomplete recovery, complete recovery, no smell loss). Surprisingly, there were no significant differences in odor threshold and adult identification scores between the "recovery classes". However, children with "incomplete recovery" had lower identification scores than those with "complete recovery" (p = 0.033) and those with "no smell loss" (p = 0.022). The pediatric age groups had significantly higher VAS ratings during and after COVID-19 compared to older participants. Older individuals experienced greater magnitude of changes in their sense of smell after COVID-19 infection, but those with parosmia were 3.5 times more likely to report "incomplete recovery" of olfaction after COVID-19. The general prognosis for olfactory recovery after COVID-19 is good but appears to be particularly confounded by the presence of parosmia, leading patients to subjectively report incomplete olfactory recovery. Although it is of high significance to monitor recovery using validated psychophysical olfactory tests, subjective measures of olfaction help provide specific insight, especially for qualitative olfactory dysfunction.

FamilyCoviDD19: results of a cross-sectional study-long-term outcomes of infected and uninfected household members.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to compare long-term physical and mental health outcome between SARS-CoV-2 infected and uninfected household members to differentiate between infection-related and pandemic-related outcomes after about two and a half years of the pandemic. Furthermore, possible differences in the outcome of adults and children and young people (CYP) were of interest. DESIGN: In a cross-sectional study design, we compared the long-term physical and mental health outcome of between infected and uninfected as well as between adult and CYP (household members). SETTING: The FamilyCoviDD19 study-a serology study in households-was initially conducted to evaluate virus transmission in a close contact setting focusing on households with children and adolescents in Germany. At least 1 year after initial infection in the respective households, a follow-up took place in which the prevalence and type of possible long-term consequences were surveyed on the basis of self-reported information on physical and mental health. PARTICIPANT: In this study, a total of 533 household members of 146 families participated and responded to our survey, including 296 (55.5%) adults and 237 (44.5%) CYP. RESULT: The difference in frequency of reported symptoms between infected and uninfected individuals was very moderate, suggesting that the vast majority of reported symptoms were not attributable to a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, regardless of age and infection status, this study showed overall high rates of self-reported symptoms with CYP having fewer long-term sequelae than adults one year after infection. Furthermore, over 50% of those reporting symptoms were not affected in their daily life, with CYPs reporting an even lower percentage compared with adults. CONCLUSION: CYP are at reduced risk not only to develop symptomatic infection or severe disease courses (previous analyses) but also to develop infection-associated long-term sequelae (this study). Independent of infection CYP reported high rates of neurocognitive, pain, somatic and mood symptoms, which makes the influence of the pandemic itself-including pandemic control measures-decisive.