Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 47
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 17(4): e0266912, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1785208

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Altered sense of smell is a commonly reported COVID-19 symptom. The performance of smell testing to identify SARS-CoV-2 infection status is unknown. We measured the ability of formal smell testing to identify SARS-CoV-2 infection and compared its performance with symptom screening. METHODS: A convenience sample of emergency department patients with COVID-19 symptom screening participated in smell testing using an eight odor Pocket Smell Test (PST). Participants received a SARS-CoV-2 viral PCR test after smell testing and completed a health conditions survey. Descriptive analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve models compared the accuracy of smell testing versus symptom screening in identifying SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-five patients completed smell testing and 87 (29.5%) had a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Twenty-eight of the SARS-CoV-2 positive patients (32.2%) and 49 of the SARS-CoV-2 negative patients (23.6%) reported at least one of seven screening symptoms (OR = 1.54, P = 0.13). SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were more likely to have hyposmia (≤5 correctly identified odors) than SARS-CoV-2 negative patients (56.1% vs. 19.3%, OR = 5.36, P<0.001). Hyposmia was 52.9% (95% CI 41.9%-63.7%) sensitive and 82.7% (95% CI 76.9%-87.6%) specific for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Presence of ≥1 screening symptom was 32.2% (95% CI 22.6%-43.1%) sensitive and 76.4% (70.1%-82.0%) specific for SARS-CoV-2 infection. The ROC curve for smell testing had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.74 (95% CI 0.67-0.80). The ROC curve for symptom screening had lower discriminatory accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 infection (AUC = 0.55, 95% CI 0.49-0.61, P<0.001) than the smell testing ROC curve. CONCLUSION: Smell testing was superior to symptom screening for identifying SARS-CoV-2 infection in our study.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Anosmia/diagnosis , COVID-19/diagnosis , Humans , Mass Screening , SARS-CoV-2 , Smell
2.
Dev Psychobiol ; 63(7): e22201, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1482123

ABSTRACT

Fetuses are able to process olfactory stimuli present in the womb and continue to show a preference for these odors for months after birth. Despite the accumulated knowledge about their early ability to perceive odors, there is a lack of validated scales for odor response in newborns. The evaluation of reactions of the olfactory system to environmental stimuli in infants has been defined by methodological theoretical approaches of experimental and clinical assessment tools. These approaches are mainly based on psychophysical approaches and predominantly use behavioral and physiological measures. Examples can be found in studies describing early abilities of newborn babies for behaviors or heart rate variability showing memory of maternal food preferences or mother's breast milk. This systematic review aimed to determine whether validated odor assessment tools can be feasibly used in studies. Particularly in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic and evidence of associated olfactory impairment resulting from SARS-COV-2 infection, the study is also motivated by the need for tools to assess olfactory function in neonates.


Subject(s)
Infant, Newborn/physiology , Smell , Anosmia/diagnosis , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/physiopathology , Humans , Infant, Newborn, Diseases/diagnosis , Odorants , Smell/physiology
3.
Zh Nevrol Psikhiatr Im S S Korsakova ; 121(8): 67-70, 2021.
Article in Russian | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1464108

ABSTRACT

The neurological symptoms of COVID-19 in children (in Dyurtyuli area, Republic of Bashkortostan) are analyzed and brief review of the literature is undertaken in the paper. 137 children underwent swab test for COVID-19. The disease was diagnosed in 9 of them. Only respiratory symptoms were observed in 3 children, a combination of respiratory with anosmia or/and headache - in 3, asymptomatic form - in another 3. A case of a 7-years old girl suffering from COVID-19 with respiratory symptoms as well as anosmia and headache is presented. According to the review of the literature, COVID - 19 in children is usually milder than in adults, but in some cases may lead to neurological consequences. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome may lead to the development symptoms of encephalopathy (altered mental status, headache) and stroke. Autoimmune complications such as Gillian-Barre syndrome develop simultaneously or after resolving of the infectious process. The development of viral meningoencephalitis in COVID-19 is questionable.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Anosmia/diagnosis , Anosmia/virology , COVID-19/diagnosis , Child , Female , Headache/diagnosis , Headache/virology , Humans
4.
PLoS Med ; 18(9): e1003777, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1440982

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Rapid detection, isolation, and contact tracing of community COVID-19 cases are essential measures to limit the community spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We aimed to identify a parsimonious set of symptoms that jointly predict COVID-19 and investigated whether predictive symptoms differ between the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) lineage (predominating as of April 2021 in the US, UK, and elsewhere) and wild type. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We obtained throat and nose swabs with valid SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results from 1,147,370 volunteers aged 5 years and above (6,450 positive cases) in the REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-1 (REACT-1) study. This study involved repeated community-based random surveys of prevalence in England (study rounds 2 to 8, June 2020 to January 2021, response rates 22%-27%). Participants were asked about symptoms occurring in the week prior to testing. Viral genome sequencing was carried out for PCR-positive samples with N-gene cycle threshold value < 34 (N = 1,079) in round 8 (January 2021). In univariate analysis, all 26 surveyed symptoms were associated with PCR positivity compared with non-symptomatic people. Stability selection (1,000 penalized logistic regression models with 50% subsampling) among people reporting at least 1 symptom identified 7 symptoms as jointly and positively predictive of PCR positivity in rounds 2-7 (June to December 2020): loss or change of sense of smell, loss or change of sense of taste, fever, new persistent cough, chills, appetite loss, and muscle aches. The resulting model (rounds 2-7) predicted PCR positivity in round 8 with area under the curve (AUC) of 0.77. The same 7 symptoms were selected as jointly predictive of B.1.1.7 infection in round 8, although when comparing B.1.1.7 with wild type, new persistent cough and sore throat were more predictive of B.1.1.7 infection while loss or change of sense of smell was more predictive of the wild type. The main limitations of our study are (i) potential participation bias despite random sampling of named individuals from the National Health Service register and weighting designed to achieve a representative sample of the population of England and (ii) the necessary reliance on self-reported symptoms, which may be prone to recall bias and may therefore lead to biased estimates of symptom prevalence in England. CONCLUSIONS: Where testing capacity is limited, it is important to use tests in the most efficient way possible. We identified a set of 7 symptoms that, when considered together, maximize detection of COVID-19 in the community, including infection with the B.1.1.7 lineage.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , Models, Biological , Ageusia/diagnosis , Ageusia/etiology , Ageusia/virology , Anosmia/diagnosis , Anosmia/etiology , Anosmia/virology , Appetite , Area Under Curve , COVID-19/virology , Chills/diagnosis , Chills/etiology , Chills/virology , Communicable Disease Control , Cough/diagnosis , Cough/etiology , Cough/virology , England , False Positive Reactions , Female , Fever/diagnosis , Fever/etiology , Fever/virology , Humans , Male , Mass Screening , Myalgia/diagnosis , Myalgia/etiology , Myalgia/virology , Pharyngitis/diagnosis , Pharyngitis/etiology , Pharyngitis/virology , Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , State Medicine
5.
J Laryngol Otol ; 135(9): 839-843, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1397806

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess olfactory dysfunction in patients at six months after confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 infection. METHODS: Coronavirus disease 2019 positive patients were assessed six months following diagnosis. Patient data were recoded as part of the adapted International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium Protocol. Olfactory dysfunction was assessed using the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were included. At six months after coronavirus disease 2019 diagnosis, 64.3 per cent of patients (n = 36) were normosmic, 28.6 per cent (n = 16) had mild to moderate microsmia and 7 per cent (n = 4) had severe microsmia or anosmia. There was a statistically significant association between older age and olfactory dysfunction. Hospital or intensive care unit admission did not lead to worse olfactory outcomes compared to those managed in the out-patient setting. CONCLUSION: At six months after coronavirus disease 2019 diagnosis, approximately two-thirds of patients will be normosmic. This study is the first to describe six-month outcomes for post-coronavirus disease 2019 patients in terms of olfactory dysfunction.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Olfaction Disorders/etiology , Anosmia/diagnosis , Anosmia/etiology , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Olfaction Disorders/diagnosis , Smell , Time Factors
6.
Int J Mol Sci ; 22(16)2021 Aug 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1360776

ABSTRACT

The year 2020 became the year of the outbreak of coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, which escalated into a worldwide pandemic and continued into 2021. One of the unique symptoms of the SARS-CoV-2 disease, COVID-19, is the loss of chemical senses, i.e., smell and taste. Smell training is one of the methods used in facilitating recovery of the olfactory sense, and it uses essential oils of lemon, rose, clove, and eucalyptus. These essential oils were not selected based on their chemical constituents. Although scientific studies have shown that they improve recovery, there may be better combinations for facilitating recovery. Many phytochemicals have bioactive properties with anti-inflammatory and anti-viral effects. In this review, we describe the chemical compounds with anti- inflammatory and anti-viral effects, and we list the plants that contain these chemical compounds. We expand the review from terpenes to the less volatile flavonoids in order to propose a combination of essential oils and diets that can be used to develop a new taste training method, as there has been no taste training so far. Finally, we discuss the possible use of these in clinical settings.


Subject(s)
Ageusia/drug therapy , Ageusia/virology , Anosmia/drug therapy , Anosmia/virology , COVID-19/drug therapy , Phytochemicals/therapeutic use , Ageusia/metabolism , Anosmia/diagnosis , Anosmia/metabolism , COVID-19/complications , Humans , Phytochemicals/pharmacology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
7.
Arch Pharm Res ; 44(7): 725-740, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1321878

ABSTRACT

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the severity of coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is likely to be distinguished by variations in loss of smell (LOS). Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis of 45 articles that include a total of 42,120 COVID-19 patients from 17 different countries to demonstrate that severely ill or hospitalized COVID-19 patients have a lesser chance of experiencing LOS than non-severely ill or non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients (odds ratio = 0.527 [95% CI 0.373-0.744; p < 0.001] and 0.283 [95% CI 0.173-0.462; p < 0.001], respectively). We also proposed a possible mechanism underlying the association of COVID-19 severity with anosmia, which may explain why patients without sense of smell develop severe COVID-19. Variations in LOS according to the severity of COVID-19 is a global phenomenon, with few exceptions. Since severely ill patients have a lower rate of anosmia, patients without anosmia should be monitored more closely in the early stages of COVID-19, for early diagnosis of severity of illness. An understanding of how the severity of COVID-19 infection and LOS are associated has profound implications for the clinical management and mitigation strategies for the disease.


Subject(s)
Anosmia/etiology , COVID-19/complications , Odorants , Olfactory Perception , Smell , Anosmia/diagnosis , Anosmia/physiopathology , Anosmia/psychology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , Early Diagnosis , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Predictive Value of Tests , Prognosis , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Severity of Illness Index
8.
Laryngoscope ; 131(10): 2312-2318, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1318729

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlations between the severity and duration of olfactory dysfunctions (OD), assessed with psychophysical tests, and the viral load on the rhino-pharyngeal swab determined with a direct method, in patients affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Patients underwent psychophysical olfactory assessment with Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center test and determination of the normalized viral load on nasopharyngeal swab within 10 days of the clinical onset of COVID-19. RESULTS: Sixty COVID-19 patients were included in this study. On psychophysical testing, 12 patients (20% of the cohort) presented with anosmia, 11 (18.3%) severe hyposmia, 13 (18.3%) moderate hyposmia, and 10 (16.7%) mild hyposmia with an overall prevalence of OD of 76.7%. The overall median olfactory score was 50 (interquartile range [IQR] 30-72.5) with no significant differences between clinical severity subgroups. The median normalized viral load detected in the series was 2.56E+06 viral copies/106 copies of human beta-2microglobulin mRNA present in the sample (IQR 3.17E+04-1.58E+07) without any significant correlations with COVID-19 severity. The correlation between viral load and olfactory scores at baseline (R2  = 0.0007; P = .844) and 60-day follow-up (R2  = 0.0077; P = .519) was weak and not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of OD does not seem to be useful in identifying subjects at risk for being super-spreaders or who is at risk of developing long-term OD. Similarly, the pathogenesis of OD is probably related to individual factors rather than to viral load and activity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 131:2312-2318, 2021.


Subject(s)
Anosmia/diagnosis , COVID-19/complications , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Severity of Illness Index , Viral Load/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Anosmia/virology , COVID-19/virology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Prospective Studies
9.
Nat Commun ; 12(1): 3664, 2021 06 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1275911

ABSTRACT

A central problem in the COVID-19 pandemic is that there is not enough testing to prevent infectious spread of SARS-CoV-2, causing surges and lockdowns with human and economic toll. Molecular tests that detect viral RNAs or antigens will be unable to rise to this challenge unless testing capacity increases by at least an order of magnitude while decreasing turnaround times. Here, we evaluate an alternative strategy based on the monitoring of olfactory dysfunction, a symptom identified in 76-83% of SARS-CoV-2 infections-including those with no other symptoms-when a standardized olfaction test is used. We model how screening for olfactory dysfunction, with reflexive molecular tests, could be beneficial in reducing community spread of SARS-CoV-2 by varying testing frequency and the prevalence, duration, and onset time of olfactory dysfunction. We find that monitoring olfactory dysfunction could reduce spread via regular screening, and could reduce risk when used at point-of-entry for single-day events. In light of these estimated impacts, and because olfactory tests can be mass produced at low cost and self-administered, we suggest that screening for olfactory dysfunction could be a high impact and cost-effective method for broad COVID-19 screening and surveillance.


Subject(s)
Anosmia/diagnosis , COVID-19/etiology , COVID-19/transmission , Anosmia/epidemiology , Anosmia/virology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Communicable Disease Control , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Mass Screening/economics , Mass Screening/methods , Models, Theoretical , Prevalence , Time Factors , Viral Load
10.
Int Immunopharmacol ; 98: 107871, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1267705

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to evaluate the usage of mometasone furoate nasal spray in the recovery of patients with severe microsmia or anosmia induced by COVID-19. This was a prospective clinical trial on non-hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 (>18 years) who had severe microsmia or anosmia within two weeks. The subjects were randomly assigned to the mometasone furoate group (100 mcg twice daily) or sodium chloride group (0.9%); both groups also received olfactory training for 4 weeks. The primary outcome was the improvement of the olfactory score at the end of the study. Visual analog scale (VAS) and the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) were used to assess primary outcome. A total of 80 patients were recruited, 77 of them completed the study and were analyzed. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of demographics and baseline clinical characteristics. The olfactory scores (based on VAS) at weekly intervals showed a significant difference between the two groups (P:0.318, <0.001, <0.001, <0.001, respectively). The analyses also showed significant within-group differences from baseline. Nevertheless, the changes were not significant between the two groups (P: 0.444, 0.402, 0.267, 0.329). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the UPSIT results (p > 0.239). However, a significant between-group difference was noted in the severity of loss of smell (P < 0.001). Compared to olfactory training, mometasone furoate nasal spray combination with olfactory training showed a higher improvement in severe chronic anosmia by COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Anosmia/drug therapy , COVID-19/complications , Mometasone Furoate/administration & dosage , Smell/drug effects , Administration, Intranasal , Adult , Anosmia/diagnosis , Anosmia/etiology , Anosmia/physiopathology , COVID-19/diagnosis , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Iran , Male , Mometasone Furoate/adverse effects , Nasal Sprays , Prospective Studies , Recovery of Function , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
12.
J Med Virol ; 93(3): 1548-1555, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1196475

ABSTRACT

During this coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, physicians have the important task of risk stratifying patients who present with acute respiratory illnesses. Clinical presentation of COVID-19, however, can be difficult to distinguish from other respiratory viral infections. Thus, identifying clinical features that are strongly associated with COVID-19 in comparison to other respiratory viruses can aid risk stratification and testing prioritization especially in situations where resources for virological testing and resources for isolation facilities are limited. In our retrospective cohort study comparing the clinical presentation of COVID-19 and other respiratory viral infections, we found that anosmia and dysgeusia were symptoms independently associated with COVID-19 and can be important differentiating symptoms in patients presenting with acute respiratory illness. On the other hand, laboratory abnormalities and radiological findings were not statistically different between the two groups. In comparing outcomes, patients with COVID-19 were more likely to need high dependency or intensive care unit care and had a longer median length of stay. With our findings, we emphasize that epidemiological risk factors and clinical symptoms are more useful than laboratory and radiological abnormalities in differentiating COVID-19 from other respiratory viral infections.


Subject(s)
Anosmia/pathology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/pathology , Dysgeusia/pathology , Adult , Ageusia/diagnosis , Ageusia/virology , Anosmia/diagnosis , Anosmia/virology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Dysgeusia/diagnosis , Dysgeusia/virology , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
13.
J Laryngol Otol ; 135(5): 426-435, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1196805

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to measure the duration and recovery rate of olfactory loss in patients complaining of recent smell loss as their prominent symptom during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak. METHOD: This was a prospective telephone follow-up observational study of 243 participants who completed an online survey that started on 12 March 2020. RESULTS: After a mean of 5.5 months from the loss of smell onset, 98.3 per cent of participants reported improvement with a 71.2 per cent complete recovery rate after a median of 21 days. The chance of complete recovery significantly decreased after 131 days from the onset of loss of smell (100 per cent sensitive and 97.7 per cent specific). Younger age and isolated smell loss were associated with a rapid recovery, whereas accompanying rhinological and gastrointestinal symptoms were associated with longer loss of smell duration. CONCLUSION: Smell loss, occurring as a prominent symptom during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, showed a favourable outcome. However, after 5.5 months from the onset, around 10 per cent of participants still complained of moderate or severe hyposmia.


Subject(s)
Anosmia/diagnosis , COVID-19/complications , Olfaction Disorders/etiology , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Iran/epidemiology , Olfaction Disorders/diagnosis , Pandemics , Pregnancy , Prospective Studies , Recovery of Function/physiology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Surveys and Questionnaires
15.
Am J Otolaryngol ; 42(5): 103033, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1171658

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Anosmia is a common debilitating symptom of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Currently, there is no satisfactory treatment of anosmia. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the therapeutic effect of nasal betamethasone drops in the recovery of olfaction in COVID-19-associated anosmia. METHODS: The study was designed as a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. In total, 276 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients who were presented to the outpatient clinic with anosmia were enrolled in the study. In the betamethasone group, 138 participants received nasal drops of betamethasone 3 times daily until recovery for a maximum of one month. Similar dose of 9% NaCl drops was administered to 138 participants in the placebo group. RESULTS: The median age of participants was 29 years (IQR 23-37). Among them, 198 (71.7%) were females. Ageusia was co-presented with anosmia in 234 (84.8%) of participants. In this study, 83% of participants had recovered from anosmia within 30 days, with a median recovery time of 13 days (IQR 8-18). Compared to placebo, nasal application of betamethasone drops has no significant effect on the recovery time of anosmia (hazard ratio 0.88; 95% CI 0.68-1.14; P = 0.31). CONCLUSION: The use of nasal betamethasone to facilitate the recovery time of acute anosmia is not advised. In addition, age, smoking status, the duration of anosmia at presentation, and the co-presentation of ageusia with anosmia are important determinant covariates for the recovery time of anosmia. Further clinical trials, which take these covariates into account, will need to be undertaken. The trail has been registered at ClinicalTrails.gov, NCT04569825.


Subject(s)
Anosmia/drug therapy , Anosmia/virology , Betamethasone/administration & dosage , COVID-19/complications , Glucocorticoids/administration & dosage , Administration, Intranasal , Adult , Anosmia/diagnosis , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Male , Recovery of Function , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
16.
J Occup Environ Med ; 63(4): e184-e186, 2021 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1153280

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an empirical olfactory test to identify COVID-19 cases during a workplace entrance screening. METHOD: An active screening for olfactory dysfunction using water and vinegar was conducted in April to June 2020 among 4120 meat packing workers in Latin America. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of the active olfactory screening examination were 41.2% and 85.3%, respectively, using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests as a gold standard. 10.6% of employees who tested positive for COVID-19 had an olfactory dysfunction as their only symptom. These individuals would not have been identified with standard workplace screening measures including temperature screening. CONCLUSION: Active screening for olfactory dysfunction may serve as a valuable tool to both identify potential COVID-19 infections and exclude those who do not have infection and should be a part of parallel algorithm combined with standard workplace entrance screening procedures.


Subject(s)
Anosmia/diagnosis , COVID-19/diagnosis , Mass Screening/methods , Workplace , Acetic Acid , Anosmia/physiopathology , COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Humans , Mass Screening/standards , Meat-Packing Industry , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Sensitivity and Specificity , Water
17.
PLoS One ; 16(3): e0248025, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1115309

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare workers (HCW) treating COVID-19 patients are at high risk for infection and may also spread infection through their contact with vulnerable patients. Smell loss has been associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, but it is unknown whether monitoring for smell loss can be used to identify asymptomatic infection among high risk individuals. In this study we sought to determine if tracking smell sensitivity and loss using an at-home assessment could identify SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCW. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed a prospective cohort study tracking 473 HCW across three months to determine if smell loss could predict SARS-CoV-2 infection in this high-risk group. HCW subjects completed a longitudinal, behavioral at-home assessment of olfaction with household items, as well as detailed symptom surveys that included a parosmia screening questionnaire, and real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction testing to identify SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our main measures were the prevalence of smell loss in SARS-CoV-2-positive HCW versus SARS-CoV-2-negative HCW, and timing of smell loss relative to SARS-CoV-2 test positivity. SARS-CoV-2 was identified in 17 (3.6%) of 473 HCW. HCW with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to report smell loss than SARS-CoV-2-negative HCW on both the at-home assessment and the screening questionnaire (9/17, 53% vs 105/456, 23%, P < .01). 6/9 (67%) of SARS-CoV-2-positive HCW reporting smell loss reported smell loss prior to having a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and smell loss was reported a median of two days before testing positive. Neurological symptoms were reported more frequently among SARS-CoV-2-positive HCW who reported smell loss compared to those without smell loss (9/9, 100% vs 3/8, 38%, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study of HCW, self-reported changes in smell using two different measures were predictive of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Smell loss frequently preceded a positive test and was associated with neurological symptoms.


Subject(s)
Anosmia/epidemiology , COVID-19/diagnosis , Health Personnel/trends , Adult , Anosmia/diagnosis , Anosmia/virology , Asymptomatic Infections/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Self Report , Smell/physiology , United States/epidemiology
18.
J Laryngol Otol ; 135(3): 224-228, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1104394

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 is a formidable virus, responsible for coronavirus disease 2019 and endowed with marked neurotropism. The damage it causes to the nervous system is manifold. The main neurological manifestation is anosmia. Olfactory damage is often transient, but there are no data reflecting an observational period of several months. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the trend of anosmia in patients affected by coronavirus disease 2019 in the eight months following diagnosis. METHODS: Fifty-five subjects who presented with symptoms suggestive of coronavirus disease 2019 and who developed anosmia, between the end of February and the beginning of March 2020, were investigated. The patients were interviewed after eight months to determine functional recovery and assess the degree of recovery. RESULTS: Ninety-one per cent of the population reported olfactory recovery and, of these, 53 per cent had total recovery after eight months. Females and younger age groups seem slightly advantaged in functional recovery. The elderly population appears to have excellent prospects for full functional recovery. CONCLUSION: Anosmia represents a frequent neurological manifestation during coronavirus disease 2019. Fortunately, it is transient in most cases, and only a small percentage of patients affected by it report long-term functional deficits.


Subject(s)
Anosmia/diagnosis , Anosmia/virology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Recovery of Function , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Anosmia/therapy , COVID-19/therapy , Europe , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , Sex Factors , Symptom Assessment , Time Factors , Young Adult
19.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 2: CD013665, 2021 02 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1095222

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The clinical implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection are highly variable. Some people with SARS-CoV-2 infection remain asymptomatic, whilst the infection can cause mild to moderate COVID-19 and COVID-19 pneumonia in others. This can lead to some people requiring intensive care support and, in some cases, to death, especially in older adults. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of smell or taste, and signs such as oxygen saturation are the first and most readily available diagnostic information. Such information could be used to either rule out COVID-19, or select patients for further testing. This is an update of this review, the first version of which published in July 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: For this review iteration we undertook electronic searches up to 15 July 2020 in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they included patients with clinically suspected COVID-19, or if they recruited known cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Studies were eligible when they recruited patients presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies in hospitalised patients were only included if symptoms and signs were recorded on admission or at presentation. Studies including patients 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 stage and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the Quality Assessment tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis whenever five or more primary studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 44 studies including 26,884 participants in total. Prevalence of COVID-19 varied from 3% to 71% with a median of 21%. There were three studies from primary care settings (1824 participants), nine studies from outpatient testing centres (10,717 participants), 12 studies performed in hospital outpatient wards (5061 participants), seven studies in hospitalised patients (1048 participants), 10 studies in the emergency department (3173 participants), and three studies in which the setting was not specified (5061 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild from severe COVID-19, so we present the results for all disease severities together. Fifteen studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because inclusion in the studies depended on the applicable testing and referral protocols, which included many of the signs and symptoms under study in this review. This may have especially influenced the sensitivity of those features used in referral protocols, such as fever and cough. Five studies only included participants with pneumonia on imaging, suggesting that this is a highly selected population. In an additional 12 studies, we were unable to assess the risk for selection bias. This makes it very difficult to judge the validity of the diagnostic accuracy of the signs and symptoms from these included studies. The applicability of the results of this review update improved in comparison with the original review. A greater proportion of studies included participants who presented to outpatient settings, which is where the majority of clinical assessments for COVID-19 take place. However, still none of the studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 84 signs and symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. Only cough (25 studies) and fever (7 studies) had a pooled sensitivity of at least 50% but specificities were moderate to low. Cough had a sensitivity of 67.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 59.8% to 74.1%) and specificity of 35.0% (95% CI 28.7% to 41.9%). Fever had a sensitivity of 53.8% (95% CI 35.0% to 71.7%) and a specificity of 67.4% (95% CI 53.3% to 78.9%). The pooled positive likelihood ratio of cough was only 1.04 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.11) and that of fever 1.65 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.93). Anosmia alone (11 studies), ageusia alone (6 studies), and anosmia or ageusia (6 studies) had sensitivities below 50% but specificities over 90%. Anosmia had a pooled sensitivity of 28.0% (95% CI 17.7% to 41.3%) and a specificity of 93.4% (95% CI 88.3% to 96.4%). Ageusia had a pooled sensitivity of 24.8% (95% CI 12.4% to 43.5%) and a specificity of 91.4% (95% CI 81.3% to 96.3%). Anosmia or ageusia had a pooled sensitivity of 41.0% (95% CI 27.0% to 56.6%) and a specificity of 90.5% (95% CI 81.2% to 95.4%). The pooled positive likelihood ratios of anosmia alone and anosmia or ageusia were 4.25 (95% CI 3.17 to 5.71) and 4.31 (95% CI 3.00 to 6.18) respectively, which is just below our arbitrary definition of a 'red flag', that is, a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5. The pooled positive likelihood ratio of ageusia alone was only 2.88 (95% CI 2.02 to 4.09). Only two studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms, mostly combining fever and cough with other symptoms. These combinations had a specificity above 80%, but at the cost of very low sensitivity (< 30%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The majority of individual signs and symptoms included in this review appear to have very poor diagnostic accuracy, although this should be interpreted in the context of selection bias and heterogeneity between studies. Based on currently available data, neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out COVID-19. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for COVID-19. The presence of fever or cough, given their high sensitivities, may also be useful to identify people for further testing. Prospective studies in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings, examining combinations of signs and symptoms to evaluate the syndromic presentation of COVID-19, are still urgently needed. Results from such studies could inform subsequent management decisions.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care , COVID-19/diagnosis , Primary Health Care , SARS-CoV-2 , Symptom Assessment , Ageusia/diagnosis , Ageusia/etiology , Anosmia/diagnosis , Anosmia/etiology , Arthralgia/diagnosis , Arthralgia/etiology , Bias , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cough/diagnosis , Cough/etiology , Diarrhea/diagnosis , Diarrhea/etiology , Dyspnea/diagnosis , Dyspnea/etiology , Fatigue/diagnosis , Fatigue/etiology , Fever/diagnosis , Fever/etiology , Headache/diagnosis , Headache/etiology , Humans , Myalgia/diagnosis , Myalgia/etiology , Outpatient Clinics, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Physical Examination , Selection Bias , Symptom Assessment/classification , Symptom Assessment/statistics & numerical data
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL