Recovery from olfactory and gustatory dysfunction following COVID-19 acquired during Omicron BA.1 wave in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Despite alterations in the sense of smell and taste have dominated the symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the prevalence and the severity of self-reporting COVID-19 associated olfactory and gustatory dysfunction has dropped significantly with the advent of the Omicron BA.1 subvariant. However, data on the evolution of Omicron-related chemosensory impairment are still lacking. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to estimate the prevalence and the recovery rate of self-reported chemosensory dysfunction 6-month after SARS-CoV-2 infection acquired during the predominance of the Omicron BA.1 subvariant in Italy. METHODS: Prospective observational study based on the sino-nasal outcome tool 22 (SNOT-22), item "sense of smell or taste" and additional outcomes conducted in University hospitals and tertiary referral centers in Italy. RESULTS: Of 338 patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 completing the baseline survey, 294 (87.0 %) responded to the 6-month follow-up interview. Among them, 101 (34.4 %) and 4 (1.4 %) reported an altered sense of smell or taste at baseline and at 6 months, respectively. Among the 101 patients with COVID-19-associated smell or taste dysfunction during the acute phase of the disease, 97 (96.0 %) reported complete resolution at 6 months. The duration of smell or taste impairment was significantly shorter in vaccinated patients (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with that observed in subjects infected during the first wave of the pandemic, the recovery rate from chemosensory dysfunctions reported in the present series of patients infected during the predominance of the Omicron BA.1 subvariant was more favorable with a shorter duration being positively influenced by vaccination.

SARS-CoV-2 Effects on Psychophysical Olfactory Scores: Prospective Study With Evaluation Before and 60-Days After Infection.

The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the olfactory function in a series of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 and who had undergone psychophysical olfactory assessment prior to infection. Individuals unexposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent a psychophysical evaluation of smell with the Sniffin' Sticks test. The subjects were followed prospectively and included in the study if they developed SARS-CoV-2 infection with a second test 60 days after recovery. At the 60-day follow-up of the 41 included subjects, 2 (4.9%) self-reported persistent olfactory dysfunction (OD). The differences between TDI scores before and after infection were statistically significant (37 [interquartile range (IQR), 34.25-39.25] vs 34.75 [IQR, 32.25-38]; p = .021). Analyzing the individual olfactory domains, the differences were significant for threshold (T) (9.75 [IQR, 9-11.25] vs 8.25 [IQR, 7.25-10.25]; p = .009) but not for odor discrimination (D) (p = .443) and identification (I) (p = .159). SARS-CoV-2 causes a significant reduction in the olfactory function, in particular affecting the olfactory threshold, even in subjects who do not self-report an OD.

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.

Safety of day-case endoscopic sinus surgery in England: An observational study using an administrative dataset.

INTRODUCTION: As elective surgical services recover from the COVID-19 pandemic a movement towards day-case surgery may reduce waiting lists. However, evidence is needed to show that day-case surgery is safe for endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). The aim of this study was to investigate the safety of day-case ESS in England. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of administrative data. METHODS: We extracted data from the Hospital Episodes Statistics database for the 5 years from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2019. Patients undergoing elective ESS procedures aged ≥17 years were included. Exclusion criteria included malignant neoplasm, complex systemic disease and trans-sphenoidal pituitary surgery. The primary outcome was readmission within 30 days post-discharge. Multilevel, multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to compare outcomes for those operated on as day-cases and those with an overnight stay after adjusting for demographic, frailty, comorbidity and procedural covariates. RESULTS: Data were available for 49 223 patients operated on across 129 NHS hospital trusts. In trusts operating on more than 50 patients in the study period, rates of day-case surgery varied from 20.6% to 100%. Nationally, rates of day-case surgery increased from 64.0% in the financial year 2014/2015 to 78.7% in 2018/2019. Day-case patients had lower rates of 30-day emergency readmission (odds ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 0.81). Outcomes for patients operated on in trusts with ≥80% day-case rates compared with patients operated on in trusts with <50% rates of day-case surgery were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the view that ESS can safely be performed as day-case surgery in most cases, although it will not be suitable for all patients. There appears to be scope to increase rates of day-case ESS in some hospital trusts in England.

Interventions for the prevention of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Loss of olfactory function is well recognised as a symptom of COVID-19 infection, and the pandemic has resulted in a large number of individuals with abnormalities in their sense of smell. For many, the condition is temporary and resolves within two to four weeks. However, in a significant minority the symptoms persist. At present, it is not known whether early intervention with any form of treatment (such as medication or olfactory training) can promote recovery and prevent persisting olfactory disturbance. This is an update of the 2021 review with four studies added. OBJECTIVES: 1) To evaluate the benefits and harms of any intervention versus no treatment for people with acute olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection.  2) To keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach.  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the latest search was 20 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with COVID-19 related olfactory disturbance, which had been present for less than four weeks. We included any intervention compared to no treatment or placebo.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were the presence of normal olfactory function, serious adverse effects and change in sense of smell. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of parosmia, change in sense of taste, disease-related quality of life and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies with 691 participants. The studies evaluated the following interventions: intranasal corticosteroid sprays, intranasal corticosteroid drops, intranasal hypertonic saline and zinc sulphate.  Intranasal corticosteroid spray compared to no intervention/placebo We included three studies with 288 participants who had olfactory dysfunction for less than four weeks following COVID-19. Presence of normal olfactory function The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of intranasal corticosteroid spray on both self-rated recovery of olfactory function and recovery of olfactory function using psychophysical tests at up to four weeks follow-up (self-rated: risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.68; 1 study; 100 participants; psychophysical testing: RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.63; 1 study; 77 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Change in sense of smell The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of intranasal corticosteroid spray on self-rated change in the sense of smell (at less than 4 weeks: mean difference (MD) 0.5 points lower, 95% CI 1.38 lower to 0.38 higher; 1 study; 77 participants; at > 4 weeks to 3 months: MD 2.4 points higher, 95% CI 1.32 higher to 3.48 higher; 1 study; 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence, rated on a scale of 1 to 10, higher scores mean better olfactory function). Intranasal corticosteroids may make little or no difference to the change in sense of smell when assessed with psychophysical testing (MD 0.2 points, 95% CI 2.06 points lower to 2.06 points higher; 1 study; 77 participants; low-certainty evidence, 0- to 24-point scale, higher scores mean better olfactory function).  Serious adverse effects The authors of one study reported no adverse effects, but their intention to collect these data was not pre-specified so we are uncertain if these were systematically sought and identified. The remaining two studies did not report on adverse effects.  Intranasal corticosteroid drops compared to no intervention/placebo We included one study with 248 participants who had olfactory dysfunction for ≤ 15 days following COVID-19. Presence of normal olfactory function Intranasal corticosteroid drops may make little or no difference to self-rated recovery at > 4 weeks to 3 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.11; 1 study; 248 participants; low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes were assessed by this study.  Data on the use of hypertonic saline nasal irrigation and the use of zinc sulphate to prevent persistent olfactory dysfunction are included in the full text of the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence available on the efficacy and harms of treatments for preventing persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified a number of ongoing trials in this area. As this is a living systematic review we will update the data regularly, as new results become available.

Interventions for the treatment of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Olfactory dysfunction is a common consequence of COVID-19 infection and persistent symptoms can have a profound impact on quality of life. At present there is little guidance on how best to treat this condition. A variety of interventions have been suggested to promote recovery, including medication and olfactory training. However, it is uncertain whether any intervention is of benefit. This is an update of the 2021 review with one additional study added.  OBJECTIVES: 1) To evaluate the benefits and harms of any intervention versus no treatment for people with persisting olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection.  2) To keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach.  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the latest search was 20 October 2021.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with COVID-19 related olfactory disturbance that had persisted for at least four weeks. We included any intervention compared to no treatment or placebo.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were the recovery of sense of smell, disease-related quality of life and serious adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were the change in sense of smell, general quality of life, prevalence of parosmia and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies with 30 participants. The studies evaluated the following interventions: systemic corticosteroids plus intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant and palmitoylethanolamide plus luteolin.  Systemic corticosteroids plus intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant compared to no intervention We included a single RCT with 18 participants who had anosmia for at least 30 days following COVID-19 infection. Participants received a 15-day course of oral corticosteroids combined with nasal irrigation (consisting of an intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant solution) or no intervention. Psychophysical testing was used to assess olfactory function at 40 days. This is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Palmitoylethanolamide plus luteolin compared to no intervention We included a single RCT with 12 participants who had anosmia or hyposmia for at least 90 days following COVID-19 infection. Participants received a 30-day course of palmitoylethanolamide and luteolin or no intervention. Psychophysical testing was used to assess olfactory function at 30 days. This is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence available on the efficacy and harms of treatments for persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified a number of ongoing trials in this area. As this is a living systematic review we will update the data regularly, as new results become available.

Prognosis and persistence of smell and taste dysfunction in patients with covid-19: meta-analysis with parametric cure modelling of recovery curves.

OBJECTIVE: To clarify in patients with covid-19 the recovery rate of smell and taste, proportion with persistent dysfunction of smell and taste, and prognostic factors associated with recovery of smell and taste. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and medRxiv from inception to 3 October 2021. REVIEW METHODS: Two blinded reviewers selected observational studies of adults (≥18 years) with covid-19 related dysfunction of smell or taste. Descriptive prognosis studies with time-to-event curves and prognostic association studies of any prognostic factor were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers extracted data, evaluated study bias using QUIPS, and appraised evidence quality using GRADE, following PRISMA and MOOSE reporting guidelines. Using iterative numerical algorithms, time-to-event individual patient data (IPD) were reconstructed and pooled to retrieve distribution-free summary survival curves, with recovery rates reported at 30 day intervals for participants who remained alive. To estimate the proportion with persistent smell and taste dysfunction, cure fractions from Weibull non-mixture cure models of plateaued survival curves were logit transformed and pooled in a two stage meta-analysis. Conventional aggregate data meta-analysis was performed to explore unadjusted associations of prognostic factors with recovery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the proportions of patients remaining with smell or taste dysfunction. Secondary outcomes were the odds ratios of prognostic variables associated with recovery of smell and taste. RESULTS: 18 studies (3699 patients) from 4180 records were included in reconstructed IPD meta-analyses. Risk of bias was low to moderate; conclusions remained unaltered after exclusion of four high risk studies. Evidence quality was moderate to high. Based on parametric cure modelling, persistent self-reported smell and taste dysfunction could develop in an estimated 5.6% (95% confidence interval 2.7% to 11.0%, I2=70%, τ2=0.756, 95% prediction interval 0.7% to 33.5%) and 4.4% (1.2% to 14.6%, I2=67%, τ2=0.684, 95% prediction interval 0.0% to 49.0%) of patients, respectively. Sensitivity analyses suggest these could be underestimates. At 30, 60, 90, and 180 days, respectively, 74.1% (95% confidence interval 64.0% to 81.3%), 85.8% (77.6% to 90.9%), 90.0% (83.3% to 94.0%), and 95.7% (89.5% to 98.3%) of patients recovered their sense of smell (I2=0.0-77.2%, τ2=0.006-0.050) and 78.8% (70.5% to 84.7%), 87.7% (82.0% to 91.6%), 90.3% (83.5% to 94.3%), and 98.0% (92.2% to 95.5%) recovered their sense of taste (range of I2=0.0-72.1%, τ2=0.000-0.015). Women were less likely to recover their sense of smell (odds ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.72, seven studies, I2=20%, τ2=0.0224) and taste (0.31, 0.13 to 0.72, seven studies, I2=78%, τ2=0.5121) than men, and patients with greater initial severity of dysfunction (0.48, 0.31 to 0.73, five studies, I2=10%, τ2<0.001) or nasal congestion (0.42, 0.18 to 0.97, three studies, I2=0%, τ2<0.001) were less likely to recover their sense of smell. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of patients with covid-19 might develop long lasting change in their sense of smell or taste. This could contribute to the growing burden of long covid. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021283922.

Safety, tolerability and viral kinetics during SARS-CoV-2 human challenge in young adults.

Since its emergence in 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused hundreds of millions of cases and continues to circulate globally. To establish a novel SARS-CoV-2 human challenge model that enables controlled investigation of pathogenesis, correlates of protection and efficacy testing of forthcoming interventions, 36 volunteers aged 18-29 years without evidence of previous infection or vaccination were inoculated with 10 TCID50 of a wild-type virus (SARS-CoV-2/human/GBR/484861/2020) intranasally in an open-label, non-randomized study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04865237 ; funder, UK Vaccine Taskforce). After inoculation, participants were housed in a high-containment quarantine unit, with 24-hour close medical monitoring and full access to higher-level clinical care. The study's primary objective was to identify an inoculum dose that induced well-tolerated infection in more than 50% of participants, with secondary objectives to assess virus and symptom kinetics during infection. All pre-specified primary and secondary objectives were met. Two participants were excluded from the per-protocol analysis owing to seroconversion between screening and inoculation, identified post hoc. Eighteen (~53%) participants became infected, with viral load (VL) rising steeply and peaking at ~5 days after inoculation. Virus was first detected in the throat but rose to significantly higher levels in the nose, peaking at ~8.87 log10 copies per milliliter (median, 95% confidence interval (8.41, 9.53)). Viable virus was recoverable from the nose up to ~10 days after inoculation, on average. There were no serious adverse events. Mild-to-moderate symptoms were reported by 16 (89%) infected participants, beginning 2-4 days after inoculation, whereas two (11%) participants remained asymptomatic (no reportable symptoms). Anosmia or dysosmia developed more slowly in 15 (83%) participants. No quantitative correlation was noted between VL and symptoms, with high VLs present even in asymptomatic infection. All infected individuals developed serum spike-specific IgG and neutralizing antibodies. Results from lateral flow tests were strongly associated with viable virus, and modeling showed that twice-weekly rapid antigen tests could diagnose infection before 70-80% of viable virus had been generated. Thus, with detailed characterization and safety analysis of this first SARS-CoV-2 human challenge study in young adults, viral kinetics over the course of primary infection with SARS-CoV-2 were established, with implications for public health recommendations and strategies to affect SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Future studies will identify the immune factors associated with protection in those participants who did not develop infection or symptoms and define the effect of prior immunity and viral variation on clinical outcome.

Interventions for the prevention of persistent post‐COVID‐19 olfactory dysfunction

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions that have been used, or proposed, to prevent persisting olfactory dysfunction due to COVID‐19 infection. A secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.