[The neurology of COVID-19]. / La neurología de COVID-19.

The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 are reminiscent of those of acute respiratory distress syndrome induced by cytokine release syndrome and secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis that is observed in patients with other coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Neurologists face the challenge of assessing patients with pre-existing neurological diseases who have contracted SARS-CoV-2, patients with COVID-19 who present neurological emergencies, and patients who are carriers of the virus and have developed secondary neurological complications, either during the course of the disease or after it. Some authors and recent literature reports suggest that the presence of neurological manifestations in patients who are carriers of SARS-CoV-2 may be associated with a greater severity of the disease.

Las manifestaciones clínicas de COVID-19 recuerdan las del síndrome de insuficiencia respiratoria aguda inducido por el síndrome de liberación de citocinas y la linfohistiocitosis hemofagocitica observada en pacientes con otros coronavirus como SARS-CoV y MERS-CoV. Los neurólogos tienen el reto de evaluar pacientes con enfermedades neurológicas preexistentes que contraen SARS-CoV-2, pacientes con COVID-19 que presentan emergencias neurológicas y pacientes portadores del virus que desarrollan complicaciones neurológicas secundarias, durante el curso de la enfermedad o posterior a la misma. Algunos autores y reportes en la literatura recientes sugieren que las manifestaciones neurológicas en pacientes portadores de SARS-CoV-2 pueden asociarse con mayor gravedad de la enfermedad.

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.

Neurological and Neuropsychiatric Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Albeit primarily a disease of respiratory tract, the 2019 coronavirus infectious disease (COVID-19) has been found to have causal association with a plethora of neurological, neuropsychiatric and psychological effects. This review aims to analyze them with a discussion of evolving therapeutic recommendations. METHODS: PubMed and Google Scholar were searched from 1 January 2020 to 30 May 2020 with the following key terms: "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2", "pandemic", "neuro-COVID", "stroke-COVID", "epilepsy-COVID", "COVID-encephalopathy", "SARS-CoV-2-encephalitis", "SARS-CoV-2-rhabdomyolysis", "COVID-demyelinating disease", "neurological manifestations", "psychosocial manifestations", "treatment recommendations", "COVID-19 and therapeutic changes", "psychiatry", "marginalised", "telemedicine", "mental health", "quarantine", "infodemic" and "social media". A few newspaper reports related to COVID-19 and psychosocial impacts have also been added as per context. RESULTS: Neurological and neuropsychiatric manifestations of COVID-19 are abundant. Clinical features of both central and peripheral nervous system involvement are evident. These have been categorically analyzed briefly with literature support. Most of the psychological effects are secondary to pandemic-associated regulatory, socioeconomic and psychosocial changes. CONCLUSION: Neurological and neuropsychiatric manifestations of this disease are only beginning to unravel. This demands a wide index of suspicion for prompt diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 to prevent further complications and mortality.

Les impacts neurologiques et neuropsychiatriques d'une infection à la COVID-19. CONTEXTE: Bien qu'il s'agisse principalement d'une maladie des voies respiratoires, la maladie infectieuse à coronavirus apparue en 2019 (COVID-19) s'est avérée avoir un lien de causalité avec une pléthore d'impacts d'ordre neurologique, neuropsychiatrique et psychologique. Cette étude entend donc analyser ces impacts tout en discutant l'évolution des recommandations thérapeutiques se rapportant à cette maladie. MÉTHODES: Les bases de données PubMed et Google Scholar ont été interrogées entre les 1er janvier et 30 mai 2020. Les termes clés suivants ont été utilisés : « COVID-19 ¼, « SRAS ­ CoV-2 ¼, « Pandémie ¼, « Neuro ­ COVID ¼, « AVC ­ COVID ¼, « Épilepsie ­ COVID ¼, « COVID ­ encéphalopathie ¼, « SRAS ­ CoV-2 ­ encéphalite ¼, « SRAS ­ CoV-2 ­ rhabdomyolyse ¼, « COVID ­ maladie démyélinisante ¼, « Manifestations neurologiques ¼, « Manifestations psychosociales ¼, « Recommandations thérapeutiques ¼, « COVID-19 et changement thérapeutiques ¼, « Psychiatrie ¼, « Marginalisés ¼, « Télémédecine ¼, « Santé mentale ¼, « Quarantaine ¼, « Infodémique ¼ et « Médias sociaux ¼. De plus, quelques articles de journaux relatifs à la pandémie de COVID-19 et à ses impacts psychosociaux ont également été ajoutés en fonction du contexte. RÉSULTATS: Il appert que les manifestations neurologiques et neuropsychiatriques des infections à la COVID-19 sont nombreuses. Les caractéristiques cliniques d'une implication des systèmes nerveux central et périphérique sautent désormais aux yeux. Ces caractéristiques ont fait l'objet d'une brève analyse systématique à l'aide de publications scientifiques. En outre, la plupart des impacts d'ordre psychologique de cette pandémie se sont révélés moins apparents que les changements réglementaires, socioéconomiques et psychosociaux. CONCLUSION: Les manifestations neurologiques et neuropsychiatriques de cette maladie ne font que commencer à être élucidées. Cela exige donc une capacité accrue de vigilance en vue d'un diagnostic rapide, et ce, afin de prévenir des complications additionnelles et une mortalité accrue.

Neurological Manifestations in COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Growing evidence showed that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection may present with neurological manifestations. This review aimed to determine the neurological manifestations and complications in COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that included cohort and case series/reports involving a population of patients confirmed with COVID-19 infection and their neurologic manifestations. We searched the following electronic databases until April 18, 2020: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and World Health Organization database (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020180658). RESULTS: From 403 articles identified, 49 studies involving a total of 6,335 confirmed COVID-19 cases were included. The random-effects modeling analysis for each neurological symptom showed the following proportional point estimates with 95% confidence intervals: "headache" (0.12; 0.10-0.14; I2 = 77%), "dizziness" (0.08; 0.05-0.12; I2 = 82%), "headache and dizziness" (0.09; 0.06-0.13; I2 = 0%), "nausea" (0.07; 0.04-0.11; I2 = 79%), "vomiting" (0.05; 0.03-0.08; I2 = 74%), "nausea and vomiting" (0.06; 0.03-0.11; I2 = 83%), "confusion" (0.05; 0.02-0.14; I2 = 86%), and "myalgia" (0.21; 0.18-0.25; I2 = 85%). The most common neurological complication associated with COVID-19 infection was vascular disorders (n = 23); other associated conditions were encephalopathy (n = 3), encephalitis (n = 1), oculomotor nerve palsy (n = 1), isolated sudden-onset anosmia (n = 1), Guillain-Barré syndrome (n = 1), and Miller-Fisher syndrome (n = 2). Most patients with neurological complications survived (n = 14); a considerable number of patients died (n = 7); and the rest had unclear outcomes (n = 12). CONCLUSION: This review revealed that neurologic involvement may manifest in COVID-19 infection. What has initially been thought of as a primarily respiratory illness has evolved into a wide-ranging multi-organ disease.

Neurological and Psychiatric Manifestations of Post-COVID-19 Conditions.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the factors associated with neurological manifestations of post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) conditions. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data from 440 patients who visited our post-COVID-19 clinic more than 4 weeks after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. We analyzed the prevalence of different neurological symptoms (brain fog, memory impairment, headache, and dizziness) and assessed the associated factors. RESULTS: Brain fog was the most common symptom, observed in 170 patients (38.6%), followed by headaches (n = 137, 31.1%), dizziness (n = 128, 29%), and memory impairment (n = 104, 23.6%). Brain fog was associated with hyposmia or hypogeusia (odds ratio [OR], 2.54; P < 0.001), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) (OR, 1.06; P < 0.001), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety (OR, 1.09; P = 0.037). Memory impairment was associated with sleep problems (OR, 2.83; P < 0.001), FSS (OR, 1.05; P < 0.001), and age (OR, 1.02; P = 0.015). Headache was associated with sleep problems (OR, 2.28; P = 0.001), sex (OR, 1.68; P = 0.042), and FSS (OR, 1.04; P < 0.001). Dizziness was associated with sleep problems (OR, 2.88; P < 0.001), and FSS (OR, 1.04; P < 0.001). The incidence of brain fog (P < 0.001), memory impairment (P < 0.001), dizziness (P = 0.007), and headache (P = 0.045) accompanied by hyposmia and hypogeusia was higher in patients with the aforementioned symptoms than in those without. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that there is a relationship between neurological symptoms and other clinical factors, such as fatigue, depression, anxiety, hyposmia, and hypogeusia.

Recovery from Covid-19 smell loss: Two-years of follow up.

OBJECTIVE: To report long-term patterns of recovery and non-recovery in a large nationwide cohort of subjects with COVID-19 associated smell loss. STUDY DESIGN: Prospectively, longitudinal questionnaires. SETTING: Web-based national survey. METHODS: A longitudinal survey of adults with COVID-19 and/or sudden change in smell or taste since January 1, 2020 was launched April 10, 2020. Participants were queried again in late May 2022 regarding recovery. Data from respondents with >2 years since loss were analyzed and compared to recovery status of those more recently effected. RESULTS: 1103 responded to the survey of whom 946 met inclusion criteria. Among the 267 respondents for whom at least 2 years of follow up was available, 38.2 % reported full recovery, 54.3 % partial, and 7.5 % no recovery. For the entire cohort (all with ≥3 months since smell loss), 38.7 % reported complete recovery, 51.0 % reported partial recovery (ranging from mild complaints to severe phantosmia or dysosmia), and 10.3 % reported no improvement at all. Complete recovery of smell function was significantly higher in those under 40 years old (45.6 % compared to 32.9 % in those over 40). CONCLUSION: Although the vast majority of subjects who do recover do so within the first 3 months, long-term spontaneous recovery can occur. Rates of recovery do not seem to differ depending on when during the pandemic the loss first occurred.

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.

Anosmia: Brighton Collaboration case definition and guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data.

This is a Brighton Collaboration case definition of anosmia to be used in the evaluation of adverse events following immunization, and for epidemiologic studies for the assessment of background incidence or hypothesis testing. The case definition was developed by a group of experts convened by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) in the context of active development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. The case definition format of the Brighton Collaboration was followed to develop a consensus definition and defined levels of certainty, after an exhaustive review of the literature and expert consultation. The document underwent peer review by the Brighton Collaboration Network and by two expert reviewers prior to submission.

The incidence and impact of anosmia on daily life after COVID-19 infection: A cross-sectional study in a tertiary center in Saudi Arabia.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of olfactory dysfunction's (OD) on patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) and evaluate the risk factors associated with it. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed patients who tested positive for COVID-19 over a period of 4 months (May-July 2020) and experienced OD and mild illness. Selected patients were given 2 scales Olfactory Disorders Negative Statement (QOD-NS) and Sino-nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22). RESULTS: A total of 256 patients were enrolled, out of which 196 had anosmia after COVID-19 infection. More than 75% of the participants were aged between 20-40 years and 64.3% were women. The mean score of the patients was 25.13 (SD 19.6) on the SNOT-22, while it was 4.9 (SD 4.85) on the QOD-NS. There was no association between anosmia and other comorbidities and factors (age, smoking history, allergic rhinitis history, asthma, and so on). Only 39% of patients who had anosmia after COVID-19 recovered in less than 4 months. CONCLUSION: Olfactory dysfunction is a common symptom of COVID-19 infection and it can take more than 4 months to recover. Nevertheless, this cohort reports a moderate impact on their quality of life due to anosmia.

Anosmia, ageusia, and other COVID-19-like symptoms in association with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, across six national digital surveillance platforms: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple voluntary surveillance platforms were developed across the world in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, providing a real-time understanding of population-based COVID-19 epidemiology. During this time, testing criteria broadened and health-care policies matured. We aimed to test whether there were consistent associations of symptoms with SARS-CoV-2 test status across three surveillance platforms in three countries (two platforms per country), during periods of testing and policy changes. METHODS: For this observational study, we used data of observations from three volunteer COVID-19 digital surveillance platforms (Carnegie Mellon University and University of Maryland Facebook COVID-19 Symptom Survey, ZOE COVID Symptom Study app, and the Corona Israel study) targeting communities in three countries (Israel, the UK, and the USA; two platforms per country). The study population included adult respondents (age 18-100 years at baseline) who were not health-care workers. We did logistic regression of self-reported symptoms on self-reported SARS-CoV-2 test status (positive or negative), adjusted for age and sex, in each of the study cohorts. We compared odds ratios (ORs) across platforms and countries, and we did meta-analyses assuming a random effects model. We also evaluated testing policy changes, COVID-19 incidence, and time scales of duration of symptoms and symptom-to-test time. FINDINGS: Between April 1 and July 31, 2020, 514 459 tests from over 10 million respondents were recorded in the six surveillance platform datasets. Anosmia-ageusia was the strongest, most consistent symptom associated with a positive COVID-19 test (robust aggregated rank one, meta-analysed random effects OR 16·96, 95% CI 13·13-21·92). Fever (rank two, 6·45, 4·25-9·81), shortness of breath (rank three, 4·69, 3·14-7·01), and cough (rank four, 4·29, 3·13-5·88) were also highly associated with test positivity. The association of symptoms with test status varied by duration of illness, timing of the test, and broader test criteria, as well as over time, by country, and by platform. INTERPRETATION: The strong association of anosmia-ageusia with self-reported positive SARS-CoV-2 test was consistently observed, supporting its validity as a reliable COVID-19 signal, regardless of the participatory surveillance platform, country, phase of illness, or testing policy. These findings show that associations between COVID-19 symptoms and test positivity ranked similarly in a wide range of scenarios. Anosmia, fever, and respiratory symptoms consistently had the strongest effect estimates and were the most appropriate empirical signals for symptom-based public health surveillance in areas with insufficient testing or benchmarking capacity. Collaborative syndromic surveillance could enhance real-time epidemiological investigations and public health utility globally. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Health Research, Alzheimer's Society, Wellcome Trust, and Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness.

Physiological discrimination and correlation between olfactory and gustatory dysfunction in long-term COVID-19.

The spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus produces a new disease termed COVID-19, the underlying physiological mechanisms of which are still being understood. Characteristic of the infection is the compromising of taste and smell. There is a persistent need to discriminate the dysfunctions and correlation between taste and smell, which are probably epiphenomena of other concealed conditions. Anosmic and ageusic long-term COVID-19 patients were re-evaluated after 1 year using a Volabolomic approach with an e-nose recording system coupled with olfactometric and gustometric tests. Here a range of sensory arrangements was found, from normal taste and smell to complete losses. The following patterns of olfactory threshold (OT)-taste threshold-olfactory uni- and cross-modal perception were found anosmia-severe hypogeusia-anosmia; hyposmia-hypogeusia-severe hyposmia; normosmia-ageusia-hyposmia; severe hyposmia -normogeusia-normosmia. There is a strong correlation between OT and olfactory uni- and cross-modal perception, a moderate correlation between olfactory and taste threshold and no correlation between OT and taste threshold. In conclusion, this study provides evidence for the feasibility of testing the chemical senses to directly objectify function in order to discriminate taste from olfactory impairment. Furthermore, it allows to hypothesize a long-term effect of the virus due to neuroinvasion through, probably, the olfactory system with injury in the related multisensory areas of taste and smell.

Magnetic resonance imaging findings in COVID-19-related anosmia.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mostly manifests with fever, shortness of breath, and cough, has also been found to cause some neurological symptoms, such as anosmia and ageusia. The aim of the study was to present the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of patients with anosmia-hyposmia symptoms and to discuss potential mechanisms in light of these findings. METHODS: Of the 2412 patients diagnosed with COVID-19-related pneumonia (RT-PCR at least once + clinically confirmed) between March and December 2020, 15 patients underwent olfactory MRI to investigate the cause of ongoing anosmia/ hyposmia symptoms were included in the study. RESULTS: Eleven (73.3%) patients were female and four (26.7%) were male. A total of eight patients (53.3%) showed thickening in the olfactory cleft region, where the olfactory epithelium is located. In nine patients (60%), enhancement was observed in the olfactory cleft region. Diffusion-weighted imaging showed restricted diffusion in three patients (20%) (corpus callosum splenium in one patient, thalamus mediodorsal nucleus in one patient, and mesencephalon in one patient). DISCUSSION: This study revealed that there is a relationship between anosmia and MRI findings. Larger studies can enlighten the pathophysiological mechanism and shed light on both diagnosis and new treatments.

Mechanistic Understanding of the Olfactory Neuroepithelium Involvement Leading to Short-Term Anosmia in COVID-19 Using the Adverse Outcome Pathway Framework.

Loss of the sense of smell (anosmia) has been included as a COVID-19 symptom by the World Health Organization. The majority of patients recover the sense of smell within a few weeks postinfection (short-term anosmia), while others report persistent anosmia. Several studies have investigated the mechanisms leading to anosmia in COVID-19; however, the evidence is scattered, and the mechanisms remain poorly understood. Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, we aim here to evaluate the current knowledge and uncertainties regarding the mechanisms leading to short-term anosmia following SARS-CoV-2 infection. We applied an adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework, well established in toxicology, to propose a sequence of measurable key events (KEs) leading to short-term anosmia in COVID-19. Those KEs are (1) SARS-CoV-2 Spike proteins binding to ACE-2 expressed by the sustentacular (SUS) cells in the olfactory epithelium (OE); (2) viral entry into SUS cells; (3) viral replication in the SUS cells; (4) SUS cell death; (5) damage to the olfactory sensory neurons and the olfactory epithelium (OE). This AOP-aligned approach allows for the identification of gaps where more research should be conducted and where therapeutic intervention could act. Finally, this AOP gives a frame to explain several disease features and can be linked to specific factors that lead to interindividual differences in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Phantosmia May Predict Long-Term Measurable Olfactory Dysfunction After COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Persistent olfactory dysfunction (OD) after 6 months caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported with a variable prevalence worldwide. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of long-term OD and identify predisposing factors. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted on 100 adults with COVID-19. Olfactory function was assessed with the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test and a symptom survey at the onset of disease and 30 days later. Patients with persistent quantitative OD at the second assessment were reevaluated after 1 year. Demographic variables, symptoms, and the degree of smell loss were analyzed. RESULTS: Participants included 100 patients. The mean age was 42.2 ± 15.6 years, 55 (55%) were female, and 56 (56%) were outpatients. Baseline smell loss was identified in 75/100 (75%) patients, decreasing to 39/95 (40%) after 1 month, and persisting in 29 patients after 1 year. Phantosmia at baseline was the only risk factor identified for persistent OD after 1 year (relative risk 2.51; 95% confidence interval 1.53-4.12; p < 0.001). Regardless of the outcome in smell function, a significant decline in olfaction was associated with the presence of phantosmia at 1 month (ß = -12.39; 95% CI -19.82 to -4.95; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 (2019-2020 variants) produced a highly frequent OD that persisted in 29% of the patients after 1 year. The presence of phantosmia at baseline and 1 month was associated with a worse evolution, but phantosmia may interfere with the performance in an identification smell test. A longer follow-up is required in these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Laryngoscope, 132:2445-2452, 2022.

Intranasal Corticosteroid Treatment on Recovery of Long-Term Olfactory Dysfunction Due to COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Olfactory dysfunction is a recognized manifestation in patients infected with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). This investigation aimed to assess the effect of mometasone furoate intranasal spray on the improvement of smell dysfunction in post-COVID-19 patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized placebo-controlled trial included 80 non-hospitalized adult patients who had persistent anosmia or severe microsmia for more than 4 weeks due to COVID-19 infection. The participants were randomly allocated to the intervention or placebo group to receive mometasone furoate nasal spray or sodium chloride intranasal spray during 4 weeks of follow-up, respectively. The patients' olfactory dysfunction was assessed in terms of visual analog scale (VAS), and smell test score according to the modified version of the University of Pennsylvania smell identification test for the Iranian population. RESULTS: A total of 70 participants completed the follow-up period and were analyzed in this study. By comparing the olfactory scores including smell test and VAS scores, no significant differences were found between case and control groups at baseline, 2, and 4 weeks intervals. However, the change of both olfactory scores at pre to post-treatment intervals and 2-4 weeks was significantly higher in the mometasone group relative to the placebo group. At post-treatment, the frequency of anosmia was 22.9% reduced in the case group compared to the control group. CONCLUSION: Overall, there was no significant difference in olfactory dysfunction between the two groups during follow-up. However, based on the significant between-group difference in terms of olfactory scores changes, it seems that the nasal corticosteroids may be a positive effect on the recovery process of patients who received more than 2 weeks. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Laryngoscope, 132:2209-2216, 2022.

COCOS trial: COrticosteroids for COVID-19-induced loss of Smell-protocol for a single-centred, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Hyposmia and anosmia are common in COVID-19. Most patients regain normal smell within 4 weeks, but severe loss of smell persists roughly in 20% after 2 months and may last up to a year or longer. These persistent smell disorders greatly influence daily life. It is hypothesised that COVID-19 induces inflammation around the olfactory nerve and in the olfactory pathway, leading to smell disorders. Corticosteroids might reduce this local inflammatory response and improve smell. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a single-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial to determine the efficacy of a short high-dose treatment of oral prednisolone for persistent loss of smell after COVID-19 in the early phase. We will include 116 patients with persistent (>4 weeks) loss of smell within 12 weeks of COVID-19 diagnosis, based on a positive PCR/antigen test. One group receives 40 mg of prednisolone for 10 days and the other group receives matching placebo treatment. In addition, all patients will perform smell training for 12 weeks. The primary outcome is objective olfactory function measured by means of sniffin' sticks test. Secondary outcomes are objective gustatory function by means of taste strips test and subjective taste and smell ability, trigeminal sensations, quality of life and nasal symptoms, measured by three questionnaires. These outcomes will be measured at inclusion before treatment and 12 weeks later. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Institutional Review Board of the University Medical Center Utrecht approved the research protocol (21-635/G-D, October 2021). The trial results will be shared in peer-reviewed medical journals and scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL9635. EUCTR2021-004021-71-NL.

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.

Chemosensory loss in COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus quickly spread globally, infecting over half a billion individuals, and killing over 6 million*. One of the more unusual symptoms was patients' complaints of sudden loss of smell and/or taste, a symptom that has become more apparent as the virus mutated into different variants. Anosmia and ageusia, the loss of smell and taste, respectively, seem to be transient for some individuals, but for others persists even after recovery from the infection. Causes for COVID-19-associated chemosensory loss have undergone several hypotheses. These include non-functional or destroyed olfactory neurons and gustatory receptors or of their supporting cells, disruption of the signaling protein Neuropilin-1, and disruption in the interaction with semaphorins, key molecules in the gustatory and olfactory axon guidance. The current paper will review these hypotheses and chart out potential therapeutic avenues.