Natural trajectory of recovery of COVID-19 associated olfactory loss.

IMPORTANCE: Prevalence of post-viral olfactory loss has increased dramatically due to the frequency and severity of olfactory dysfunction associated with infection by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. OBJECTIVE: To determine the trajectory of COVID-19 olfactory loss over a six-month period. A key secondary objective is to assess predictive factors associated with the recovery of olfaction. DESIGN: Longitudinal repeated-measures study that enrolled from May 5, 2020 to February 2, 2021, with the last date of data collection on June 15, 2021. SETTING: Barnes-Jewish HealthCare/Washington University School of Medicine facilities (Saint Louis, Missouri, USA). PARTICIPANTS: Individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time polymerase chain reaction on nasopharyngeal swab and indicated olfactory loss on COVID-19 screening questionnaire. Individuals were excluded if they had previously diagnosed history of olfactory loss, neurodegenerative disorders, <18 years of age, admitted to hospital service, unable to read, write, and understand English, or lacked computer or internet access. INTERVENTIONS/EXPOSURES: Watch and wait for spontaneous recovery. MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S): Participants completed olfactory assessments every 30 days for six months. Each assessment consisted of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), an objective "scratch-and-sniff" test, and Clinical Global Impressions (CGI), a subjective Likert rating scale. RESULTS: The mean age was 41 years old (SD = 16). 39 (80 %) were female and 42 (86 %) white. At baseline assessment of objective olfaction, 18 (36 %) participants had anosmia or severe hyposmia. Subjective, complete recovery at six months was 81 % (95 % CI 74 % to 88 %). Likelihood of recovery was associated with age <50 years (aHR = 8.1 (95 % CI 1.1 to 64.1)) and mild olfactory loss at baseline (UPSIT = 30-33 for males and 31-34 for females) (aHR 6.2 (95 % CI 1.2 to 33.0)). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The trajectory of olfactory recovery among adults with COVID-19 olfactory loss illustrated rapid recovery within 2-3 weeks of infection, and by six months 81 % had recovered based on self-report. Age <50 years old and mild severity of olfactory loss at baseline were associated with increased likelihood of recovery of olfaction. These findings can be used to inform shared decision-making with patients.

Efficacy of Combined Visual-Olfactory Training With Patient-Preferred Scents as Treatment for Patients With COVID-19 Resultant Olfactory Loss: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The number of olfactory dysfunction cases has increased dramatically because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Identifying therapies that aid and accelerate recovery is essential. Objective: To determine the efficacy of bimodal visual-olfactory training and patient-preferred scents vs unimodal olfactory training and physician-assigned scents in COVID-19 olfactory loss. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a randomized, single-blinded trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design (bimodal, patient preferred; unimodal, physician assigned; bimodal, physician assigned; unimodal, patient preferred) and an independent control group. Enrollment occurred from February 1 to May 27, 2021. Participants were adults 18 to 71 years old with current olfactory loss defined as University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) score less than 34 for men and less than 35 for women and duration of 3 months or longer. Olfactory loss was initially diagnosed within 2 weeks of COVID-19 infection. Interventions: Participants sniffed 4 essential oils for 15 seconds with a 30-second rest in between odors for 3 months. Participants in the physician-assigned odor arms trained with rose, lemon, eucalyptus, and clove. Participants randomized to the patient-preferred arms chose 4 of 24 available scents. If assigned to the bimodal arm, participants were shown digital images of the essential oil they were smelling. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was postintervention change in UPSIT score from baseline; measures used were the UPSIT (validated, objective psychometric test of olfaction), Clinical Global Impressions Impression-Improvement (CGI-I; self-report improvement scale), and Olfactory Dysfunction Outcomes Rating (ODOR; olfaction-related quality-of-life questionnaire). Results: Among the 275 enrolled participants, the mean (SD) age was 41 (12) years, and 236 (86%) were female. The change in UPSIT scores preintervention to postintervention was similar between the study arms. The marginal mean difference for change in UPSIT scores preintervention to postintervention between participants randomized to patient-preferred vs physician-assigned olfactory training was 0.73 (95% CI, -1.10 to 2.56), and between participants randomized to bimodal vs unimodal olfactory training was 1.10 (95% CI, -2.92 to 0.74). Five (24%) participants in the control arm had clinically important improvement on UPSIT compared with 18 (53%) in the bimodal, patient-preferred arm for a difference of 29% (95% CI, 4%-54%). Four (19%) participants in the control group self-reported improvement on CGI-I compared with 12 (35%) in the bimodal, patient-preferred arm for a difference of 16% (95% CI, -7% to 39%). The mean change in ODOR score preintervention to postintervention was 11.6 points (95% CI, 9.2-13.9), which was not deemed clinically important nor significantly different between arms. Conclusions and Relevance: Based on the change in UPSIT scores, this randomized clinical trial did not show any difference between intervention arms, but when exploring within-patient change in UPSIT as well as self-reported impression of improvement, active interventions were associated with larger improvement than controls with a potential advantage of bimodal intervention. While not definitive, these results suggest that patients with COVID-19 olfactory loss may benefit from bimodal visual-olfactory training with patient-preferred scents. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04710394.

Post-acute sensory neurological sequelae in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection: the COVID-PN observational cohort study.

ABSTRACT: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can cause neurological sequelae after the resolution of symptomatic COVID-19 illness, but the occurrence of peripheral neuropathy symptoms and cranial nerve dysfunction is unknown. This study aimed to characterize the occurrence and severity of pain and peripheral neuropathy symptoms in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. An observational cohort study included adults tested for a SARS-CoV-2 infection at an academic medical center (assigned as CV+ or control, based on test results). Thirty to 90 days after the index SARS-CoV-2 test, patients completed a web-based questionnaire assessing pain, peripheral neuropathy-related sensory symptoms, and symptoms in the distribution of cranial nerves (current symptoms, symptoms at testing and 2 weeks thereafter). Univariate analyses compared the outcomes between the groups. Multivariable analysis was used to determine the odds for neuropathy symptoms after adjusting for key baseline variables. A total of 1556 participants were included: 542 CV+ patients and 1014 control subjects. CV+ patients reported a higher occurrence of peripheral neuropathy symptoms in the extremities anytime within 90 days postinfection (28.8% vs 12.9%, odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval] = 2.72 [2.10-3.54]), as well as such symptoms persisting up to 90 days after infection (6.1% vs 1.9%, OR = 3.39 [1.91-6.03]). The occurrence of pain in the extremities was higher in the CV+ group (24.2% vs 9.8%, OR = 2.95 [2.21-3.91]). SARS-CoV-2 infection was also associated with higher occurrence of peripheral neuropathy symptoms, after adjusting for the history of chronic pain and neuropathy (OR = 3.19 [2.37-4.29]). The results suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection was independently associated with an increased risk of pain and peripheral neuropathy symptoms.

Development and Psychometric Validation of the Olfactory Dysfunction Outcomes Rating.

Importance: Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is an increasingly common and morbid condition, especially given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the ability to reproducibly measure smell loss-associated quality of life (QOL) and its response to treatment is paramount. Objective: To develop and validate a concise and visually appealing smell loss-associated QOL patient-reported outcome measure for OD. Design, Setting, and Participants: A secondary analysis of comments to an online survey by 1000 patients with olfactory dysfunction published in 2013 was used as the primary source to generate items of the Olfactory Dysfunction Outcomes Rating (ODOR). In addition, 30 patients with OD enrolled in 2 clinical studies at a tertiary care medical center (Washington University) were asked to identify their main concerns associated with smell loss. And finally, 4 otolaryngologists reviewed the items generated from the online survey and the patients' interviews to identify any additional items. Prospective study design was used for data collection from the 30 patients and 4 otolaryngologists. Prospective study design was used for survey validation. Validation of the ODOR was performed with 283 patients enrolled in several prospective studies at a single institution that completed the ODOR as an outcome measure. Main Outcomes and Measures: Item generation and selection were the outcomes of ODOR development. The psychometric and clinimetric measures evaluated for validation were internal consistency, test-retest reliability, face and content validity, concurrent validity, and discriminant validity. Minimal clinically important difference was also determined. Results: The ODOR is a 28-item instrument with each item scored as either no difficulty or very rarely bothered (0) to complete difficulty or very frequently bothered (4) with a total instrument score range of 0 to 112 points. Higher scores indicate higher degree of dysfunction and limitation. Validation in the cohort of 283 patients (mean [SD] age, 47.0 [14.4] years; 198 female participants [73%]; 179 White participants [80%]) revealed that the instrument has high internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.968), test-retest reliability (r = 0.90 [95% CI, 0.81-0.95]), face validity, content validity, concurrent validity (r = 0.87 [95% CI, 0.80-0.91] compared with the Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders-Negative Statements; ρ = -0.76 [95% CI, -0.81 to -0.71] compared with a patient-reported symptom severity scale), and divergent validity (mean score difference, -33.9 [95% CI, -38.3 to -29.6] between normosmic patients and hyposmic/anosmic patients). The minimal clinically important difference was 15 points. The estimated time for survey completion was approximately 5 minutes. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey creation and validation study, the ODOR was shown to be a novel, concise, reliable, and valid patient-reported outcome measure of OD-associated QOL. It can be used to measure physical problems, functional limitations, and emotional consequences associated with OD and how they change after a given intervention, which is clinically applicable and particularly pertinent given the growing burden of OD associated with COVID-19.

Efficacy and Safety of Saline Nasal Irrigation Plus Theophylline for Treatment of COVID-19-Related Olfactory Dysfunction: The SCENT2 Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Recent studies suggest that theophylline added to saline nasal irrigation (SNI) can be an effective treatment for postviral olfactory dysfunction (OD), a growing public health concern during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of theophylline added to SNI compared with placebo for COVID-19-related OD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This triple-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2 randomized clinical trial was conducted virtually between March 15 and August 31, 2021. Adults residing in Missouri or Illinois were recruited during this time period if they had OD persisting for 3 to 12 months following suspected COVID-19 infection. Data analysis was conducted from October to December 2021. Interventions: Saline sinus rinse kits and bottles of identical-appearing capsules with either 400 mg of theophylline (treatment) or 500 mg of lactose powder (control) were mailed to consenting study participants. Participants were instructed to dissolve the capsule contents into the saline rinse and use the solution to irrigate their nasal cavities in the morning and at night for 6 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the difference in the rate of responders between the treatment and the control arms, defined as a response of at least slightly better improvement in the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale posttreatment. Secondary outcome measures included changes in the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), the Questionnaire for Olfactory Disorders, the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey on general health, and COVID-19-related questions. Results: A total of 51 participants were enrolled in the study; the mean (SD) age was 46.0 (13.1) years, and 36 (71%) participants were women. Participants were randomized to SNI with theophylline (n = 26) or to SNI with placebo (n = 25). Forty-five participants completed the study. At the end of treatment, 13 (59%) participants in the theophylline arm reported at least slight improvement in the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (responders) compared with 10 (43%) in the placebo arm (absolute difference, 15.6%; 95% CI, -13.2% to 44.5%). The median difference for the UPSIT change between baseline and 6 weeks was 3.0 (95% CI, -1.0 to 7.0) for participants in the theophylline arm and 0.0 (95% CI, -2.0 to 6.0) for participants in the placebo arm. Mixed-model analysis revealed that the change in UPSIT scores through study assessments was not statistically significantly different between the 2 study arms. Eleven (50%) participants in the theophylline arm and 6 (26%) in the placebo arm had a change of 4 or more points in UPSIT scores from baseline to 6 weeks. The difference in the rate of responders as measured by the UPSIT was 24% (95% CI, -4% to 52%) in favor of theophylline. Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial suggests that the clinical benefit of theophylline nasal irrigations on olfaction in participants with COVID-19-related OD is inconclusive, though suggested by subjective assessments. Larger studies are warranted to investigate the efficacy of this treatment more fully. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04789499.

Smell Changes and Efficacy of Nasal Theophylline (SCENT) irrigation: A randomized controlled trial for treatment of post-viral olfactory dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intranasal theophylline saline irrigation on olfactory recovery in patients with post-viral olfactory dysfunction (PVOD). METHODS: Between May 2019 and April 2020, we conducted a double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of adults with 6-36 months of PVOD. Patients were randomized to nasal theophylline saline irrigation or placebo saline irrigation twice a day for 6 weeks. The primary outcome was the Global Rating of Smell Change. Secondary outcomes were changes in the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) and Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders-Negative Statements (QOD-NS). RESULTS: Twenty-two patients (n = 12, theophylline; n = 10, placebo) completed the study. Slightly more patients in the theophylline group (33%) reported improved smell compared to the placebo group (30%, difference 3.3%, 95% CI -35.6% to 42.3%). The median differences in pre- and post-treatment UPSIT and QOD-NS change between the two groups were 1 (95% CI -3 to 5) and -10 (95% CI -15 to -4), respectively in favor of theophylline. Three patients receiving theophylline and 2 receiving placebo had clinically meaningful improvements on the UPSIT (difference 5%, 95% CI -30% to 40%). There were no adverse events, and serum theophylline levels were undetectable in 10/10 patients. CONCLUSIONS: While safe, there were no clinically meaningful differences in olfactory change between the two groups except for olfaction-related quality of life, which was better with theophylline. The imprecise estimates suggest future trials will need substantially larger sample sizes or treatment modifications, such as increasing the theophylline dose, to observe larger treatment effects.

Efficacy of Bimodal Visual-Olfactory Training in Patients with COVID-19 resultant Hyposmia or Anosmia Using Patient-Preferred Scents (VOLT Trial - Visual-OLfactory Training)

IMPACT: Olfactory dysfunction is a defining symptom of COVID-19 infection. As the number of total, confirmed COVID-19 cases approaches 7 million in the United States, it is estimated that there will be up to 500,000 new cases of chronically diminished smell. We offer a promising treatment. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The primary aim is to explore the main effects and interaction of bimodal visual-olfactory training and patient-preferred scents on olfactory training in patients with post-COVID-19 hyposmia or anosmia. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The study will utilize a 2x2 factorial design. The two effects we will explore are unimodal versus bimodal training and conventional versus patient-preferred odors. All 4 arms will undergo 12 weeks of olfactory training. Participants will be assessed pre and post-intervention. Measurements of olfactory function include the objective smell identification test and subjective measures including the Clinical Global Impression Scale and Olfactory Dysfunction Outcomes Rating. Individuals eligible for the study include men and women between 18 and 70 years of age with olfactory dysfunction of at least 3 months duration initially diagnosed within 2 weeks of a COVID-19 infection. Of note, we will enroll nationally. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We anticipate that the bimodal, patient-preferred scents training group will have the greatest improvement in smell scores, number of responders, and patient-reported sense of smell and health-related quality of life due to an additive interaction between the bimodal visual-olfactory and patient-preferred interventions. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: The pathophysiology of COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction is mediated through damage to the peripheral and central olfactory pathways. This suggests that interventions most likely to be efficacious target both pathways, as olfactory training does.

At-Home Screening Tool for Anosmia

IMPACT: By developing and validating a simple and cost-effective at-home screening tool for loss of smell, we can efficiently detect infection with COVID-19, neuropsychiatric disease such as Alzheimer’s, and post-operative smell loss. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To develop and validate a feasible and cost-effective screening tool for olfactory dysfunction (OD) using common household items. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The study has two phases. In the Development phase, 120 participants with self-reported smell changes will complete a survey with a list of 45 household items to smell. Item reduction to develop the NASAL Short Smell Test will occur by measuring content validity, factor analysis, and internal consistency. In the Validation phase, 200 participants with self-reported smell changes will take the NASAL Short Smell Test at baseline and again at three weeks. In both phases, the validated University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) will be used as the gold standard. Measures of performance as well as test-retest reliability and sensitivity to change will be measured. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We anticipate that the majority of participants will have at least half of the items in their household and will report ability to smell for each. Measures of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and UPSIT score correlations will allow us to evaluate performance of each item. Item reduction will allow us to create the NASAL Short Smell Test, in which a handful of common items will be used to create a screening tool for smell loss. The Validation phase will allow us to measure discriminative performance of this tool as well as test-retest reliability and sensitivity to change, which we expect to be at least comparable to the validated UPSIT. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Current tools for diagnosis of OD are costly, time-consuming, and often require a clinician to evaluate. The validation of the simple at-home NASAL Short Smell Test to screen for OD will allow us to detect infection with COVID-19, neuropsychiatric disease, or post-operative smell loss quickly and efficiently.

Development and Validation of a Novel At-home Smell Assessment.

IMPORTANCE: Current tools for diagnosis of olfactory dysfunction (OD) are costly, time-consuming, and often require clinician administration. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a simple screening assessment for OD using common household items. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This fully virtual diagnostic study included adults with self-reported OD from any cause throughout the US. Data were collected from December 2020 to April 2021 and analyzed from May 2021 to July 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Participants with self-reported olfactory dysfunction took a survey assessing smell perception of 45 household items and completed the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) smell questionnaire, the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), and the 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36). Psychometric and clinimetric analyses were used to consolidate 45 household items into 2 short Novel Anosmia Screening at Leisure (NASAL) assessments, NASAL-7 (range, 0-14; lower score indicating greater anosmia) and NASAL-3 (range, 0-6; lower score indicating greater anosmia). RESULTS: A total of 115 participants were included in the study, with a median (range) age of 42 (19-70) years, 92 (80%) women, and 97 (84%) White individuals. There was a moderate correlation between the UPSIT and NASAL-7 scores and NASAL-3 scores (NASAL-7: ρ = 0.484; NASAL-3: ρ = 0.404). Both NASAL-7 and NASAL-3 had moderate accuracy in identifying participants with anosmia as defined by UPSIT (NASAL-7 area under the receiver operating curve [AUC], 0.706; 95% CI, 0.551-0.862; NASAL-3 AUC, 0.658; 95% CI, 0.503-0.814). Scoring 7 or less on the NASAL-7 had 70% (95% CI, 48%-86%) sensitivity and 53% (95% CI, 43%-63%) specificity in discriminating participants with anosmia from participants without. Scoring 2 or less on the NASAL-3 had 57% (95% CI, 36%-76%) sensitivity and 78% (95% CI, 69%-85%) specificity in discriminating participants with anosmia from participants without. There was moderate agreement between UPSIT-defined OD categories and those defined by NASAL-7 (weighted κ = 0.496; 95% CI, 0.343-0.649) and those defined by NASAL-3 (weighted κ = 0.365; 95% CI, 0.187-0.543). The agreement with self-reported severity of olfactory dysfunction as measured by CGI-S and the NASAL-7 and NASAL-3 was moderate, with a weighted κ of 0.590 (95% CI, 0.474-0.707) for the NASAL-7 and 0.597 (95% CI, 0.481-0.712) for the NASAL-3. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this diagnostic study suggest that NASAL-7 and NASAL-3, inexpensive and brief patient-reported assessments, can be used to identify individuals with OD. As the burden of COVID-19-associated OD increases, these assessments may prove beneficial as screening and diagnostic tools. Future work will explore whether the NASAL assessments are sensitive to change and how much of a change is clinically important.

Patients' Views of Shared Decision-making and Decisional Conflict in Otolaryngologic Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: A patient's decision to undergo surgery may be fraught with uncertainty and decisional conflict. The unpredictable nature of the COVID-19 pandemic warrants further study into factors associated with patient decision-making. Objective: To assess decisional conflict and patient-specific concerns for people undergoing otolaryngologic surgery during the pandemic. Design, Setting, Participants: This prospective cross-sectional survey study was conducted via telephone from April 22 to August 31, 2020. English-speaking adults scheduled for surgery from a single academic surgical center were invited to participate. Individuals who were non-English speaking, lacked autonomous medical decision-making capacity, scheduled for emergent surgery, or had a communication disability were excluded. For race and ethnicity reporting, participants were classified dichotomously as White according to the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or non-White as a collective term including Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, or Pacific Islander race and ethnicity. Exposures: The SURE Questionnaire (sure of myself, understand information, risks/benefits ratio, and encouragement) was used to screen for decisional conflict, with a total score greater than or equal to 3 indicating clinically significant decisional conflict. Participants were asked to share their specific concerns about having surgery. Main Outcome and Measures: Decisional conflict and patient demographic data were assessed via bivariate analyses, multivariable logistic regression and conjunctive consolidation. Patient-specific concerns were qualitatively analyzed for summative themes. Results: Of 444 patients screened for eligibility, 182 (40.9%) respondents participated. The median age was 60.5 years (interquartile range, 48-70 years). The racial and ethnic identity of the participants was classified as binary White (84% [153 of 182]) and non-White (16% [29 of 182]). The overall prevalence of decisional conflict was 19% (34 of 182). Decisional conflict was more prevalent among non-White than White participants (proportion difference 18.8%, 95% CI, 0.6%-37.0% and adjusted odds ratio 3.0; 95% CI, 1.2-7.4). Combining information from multiple variables through conjunctive consolidation, the group with the highest rate of decisional conflict was non-White patients with no college education receiving urgent surgery (odds ratio, 10.8; 95% CI, 2.6-45.0). Intraoperative and postoperative concerns were the most common themes expressed by participants. There was a clinically significant difference in the proportion of participants who screened positive for decisional conflict (30%) and expressed postoperative concerns than those who screened negative for decisional conflict (17%) (proportion difference, 13%; 95% CI, 1%-25%). Among patients reporting concerns about COVID-19, most screened positive for decisional conflict. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cross-sectional survey study suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with decisional conflict in patients undergoing otolaryngologic surgery. Consistent discussion of risks and benefits is essential. The role of race and ethnicity in decisional conflict warrants further study.

Cohort study protocol to characterize the incidence and severity of neuropathic pain in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in patients experiencing symptoms that include neurological dysfunction. As many viral infections are associated with neuropathy, the aim of the study is to characterize the incidence and severity of neuropathic pain in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A cohort study will be conducted in adult (≥18 years) patients who were tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at Washington University/Barnes-Jewish Hospital. Participants who are deceased, with incomplete test results, or who cannot be contacted will be excluded. Approximately 1320 participants will be recruited in a 1:2 ratio of those with a positive-to-negative SARS-CoV-2 test result. Each participant will be invited to complete a survey to assess their symptoms related to neuropathy, 30 to 90 days after their initial SARS-CoV-2 test. Survey responses, demographics, and clinical data from the electronic health record will be used for analysis. The primary outcome is the incidence of new symptoms of neuropathic pain. The self-reported DN4 and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory questionnaires (Appendix 1, http://links.lww.com/PR9/A103) will be used for neuropathic pain screening and severity assessment, respectively. Exploratory analyses will be performed to investigate other potential clinical endpoints and trends. RESULTS/CONCLUSION: Similar to previous coronavirus infections, an increased incidence of new-onset neuropathic pain after COVID-19 disease is expected, along with an increase in the severity experienced by patients with COVID-19 with pre-existing chronic pain. Comprehensive understanding of how COVID-19 affects the nervous system can provide a better framework for managing pain in this disease.

Acute Symptoms of Mild to Moderate COVID-19 Are Highly Heterogeneous Across Individuals and Over Time.

BACKGROUND: The symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appear to be heterogenous, and the typical course of these symptoms is unknown. Our objectives were to characterize the common trajectories of COVID-19 symptoms and to assess how symptom course predicts other symptom changes as well as clinical deterioration. METHODS: One hundred sixty-two participants with acute COVID-19 responded to surveys up to 31 times for up to 17 days. Several statistical methods were used to characterize the temporal dynamics of these symptoms. Because 9 participants showed clinical deterioration, we explored whether these participants showed any differences in symptom profiles. RESULTS: Trajectories varied greatly between individuals, with many having persistently severe symptoms or developing new symptoms several days after being diagnosed. A typical trajectory was for a symptom to improve at a decremental rate, with most symptoms still persisting to some degree at the end of the reporting period. The pattern of symptoms over time suggested a fluctuating course for many patients. Participants who showed clinical deterioration were more likely to present with higher reports of severity of cough and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: The course of symptoms during the initial weeks of COVID-19 is highly heterogeneous and is neither predictable nor easily characterized using typical survey methods. This has implications for clinical care and early-treatment clinical trials. Additional research is needed to determine whether the decelerating improvement pattern seen in our data is related to the phenomenon of patients reporting long-term symptoms and whether higher symptoms of diarrhea in early illness presages deterioration.