Long-Term Taste and Smell Outcomes After COVID-19.

Importance: Self-report surveys suggest that long-lasting taste deficits may occur after SARS-CoV-2 infection, influencing nutrition, safety, and quality of life. However, self-reports of taste dysfunction are inaccurate, commonly reflecting deficits due to olfactory not taste system pathology; hence, quantitative testing is needed to verify the association of post-COVID-19 condition with taste function. Objective: To use well-validated self-administered psychophysical tests to investigate the association of COVID-19 with long-term outcomes in taste and smell function. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide cross-sectional study included individuals with and without a prior history of COVID-19 recruited from February 2020 to August 2023 from a social media website (Reddit) and bulletin board advertisements. In the COVID-19 cohort, there was a mean of 395 days (95% CI, 363-425 days) between diagnosis and testing. Exposure: History of COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 53-item Waterless Empirical Taste Test (WETT) and 40-item University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) were used to assess taste and smell function. Total WETT and UPSIT scores and WETT subtest scores of sucrose, citric acid, sodium chloride, caffeine, and monosodium glutamate were assessed for groups with and without a COVID-19 history. The association of COVID-19 with taste and smell outcomes was assessed using analysis of covariance, χ2, and Fisher exact probability tests. Results: Tests were completed by 340 individuals with prior COVID-19 (128 males [37.6%] and 212 females [62.4%]; mean [SD] age, 39.04 [14.35] years) and 434 individuals with no such history (154 males [35.5%] and 280 females [64.5%]; mean (SD) age, 39.99 [15.61] years). Taste scores did not differ between individuals with and without previous COVID-19 (total WETT age- and sex-adjusted mean score, 33.41 [95% CI, 32.37-34.45] vs 33.46 [95% CI, 32.54-34.38]; P = .94). In contrast, UPSIT scores were lower in the group with previous COVID-19 than the group without previous COVID-19 (mean score, 34.39 [95% CI, 33.86-34.92] vs 35.86 [95% CI, 35.39-36.33]; P < .001]); 103 individuals with prior COVID-19 (30.3%) and 91 individuals without prior COVID-19 (21.0%) had some degree of dysfunction (odds ratio, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.18-2.27]). The SARS-CoV-2 variant present at the time of infection was associated with smell outcomes; individuals with original untyped and Alpha variant infections exhibited more loss than those with other variant infections; for example, total to severe loss occurred in 10 of 42 individuals with Alpha variant infections (23.8%) and 7 of 52 individuals with original variant infections (13.5%) compared with 12 of 434 individuals with no COVID-19 history (2.8%) (P < .001 for all). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, taste dysfunction as measured objectively was absent 1 year after exposure to COVID-19 while some smell loss remained in nearly one-third of individuals with this exposure, likely explaining taste complaints of many individuals with post-COVID-19 condition. Infection with earlier untyped and Alpha variants was associated with the greatest degree of smell loss.

Development of parallel forms of a brief smell identification test useful for longitudinal testing.

Although there are numerous brief odor identification tests available for quantifying the ability to smell, none are available in multiple parallel forms that can be longitudinally administered without potential confounding from knowledge of prior test items. Moreover, empirical algorithms for establishing optimal test lengths have not been generally applied. In this study, we employed and compared eight machine learning algorithms to develop a set of four brief parallel smell tests employing items from the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test that optimally differentiated 100 COVID-19 patients from 132 healthy controls. Among the algorithms, linear discriminant analysis (LDA) achieved the best overall performance. The minimum number of odorant test items needed to differentiate smell loss accurately was identified as eight. We validated the sensitivity of the four developed tests, whose means and variances did not differ from one another (Bradley-Blackwood test), by sequential testing an independent group of 32 subjects that included persons with smell dysfunction not due to COVID-19. These eight-item tests clearly differentiated the olfactory compromised subjects from normosmics, with areas under the ROC curve ranging from 0.79 to 0.83. Each test was correlated with the overall UPSIT scores from which they were derived. These brief smell tests can be used separately or sequentially over multiple days in a variety of contexts where longitudinal olfactory testing is needed.

The 8-item NHANES pocket smell test®: Normative data.

This study provides normative data useful for interpreting scores from the Pocket Smell Test® (PST®), a brief "scratch & sniff" neuropsychological olfactory screening test comprised of 8 items from the 40-item University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT®). We combined 3,485 PST® scores from the 2013 to 2014 National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) of persons 40 years of age and older with equivalent PST® items extracted from an UPSIT® database of 3,900 persons ranging in age from 5 to 99 years. Decade-related age- and gender-adjusted percentile normative data were established across the entire age spectrum. Cut-points for defining clinically useful categories of anosmia, probable microsmia, and normosmia were determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses. An age-related decline in test scores was evident for both sexes after the age of 40 years, with women outperforming men. Based on the ROC analyses, subjects scoring 3 or less (AUC = 0.81) defines anosmia. Regardless of sex, a score of 7 or 8 on the N-PST® signifies normal function (AUC of 0.71). Probable microsmia is classified as scores extending from 3 to 6. These data provide an accurate means for interpreting PST® scores within a number of clinical and applied settings.

Prevalence and reversibility of smell dysfunction measured psychophysically in a cohort of COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Considerable evidence suggests that smell dysfunction is common in coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Unfortunately, extant data on prevalence and reversibility over time are highly variable, coming mainly from self-report surveys prone to multiple biases. Thus, validated psychophysical olfactory testing is sorely needed to establish such parameters. METHODS: One hundred severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-positive patients were administered the 40-item University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) in the hospital near the end of the acute phase of the disease. Eighty-two were retested 1 or 4 weeks later at home. The data were analyzed using analysis of variance and mixed-effect regression models. RESULTS: Initial UPSIT scores were indicative of severe microsmia, with 96% exhibiting measurable dysfunction; 18% were anosmic. The scores improved upon retest (initial test: mean, 21.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 20.84-23.09; retest: mean, 31.13; 95% CI, 30.16-32.10; p < 0.0001); no patient remained anosmic. After 5 weeks from COVID-19 symptom onset, the test scores of 63% of the retested patients were normal. However, the mean UPSIT score at that time continued to remain below that of age- and sex-matched healthy controls (p < 0.001). Such scores were related to time since symptom onset, sex, and age. CONCLUSION: Smell loss was extremely common in the acute phase of a cohort of 100 COVID-19 patients when objectively measured. About one third of cases continued to exhibit dysfunction 6 to 8 weeks after symptom onset. These findings have direct implications for the use of olfactory testing in identifying SARS-CoV-2 carriers and for counseling such individuals with regard to their smell dysfunction and its reversibility.

Smell dysfunction: a biomarker for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is responsible for the largest pandemic since the 1918 influenza A virus subtype H1N1 influenza outbreak. The symptoms presently recognized by the World Health Organization are cough, fever, tiredness, and difficulty breathing. Patient-reported smell and taste loss has been associated with COVID-19 infection, yet no empirical olfactory testing on a cohort of COVID-19 patients has been performed. METHODS: The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), a well-validated 40-odorant test, was administered to 60 confirmed COVID-19 inpatients and 60 age- and sex-matched controls to assess the magnitude and frequency of their olfactory dysfunction. A mixed effects analysis of variance determined whether meaningful differences in test scores existed between the 2 groups and if the test scores were differentially influenced by sex. RESULTS: Fifty-nine (98%) of the 60 patients exhibited some smell dysfunction (mean [95% CI] UPSIT score: 20.98 [19.47, 22.48]; controls: 34.10 [33.31, 34.88]; p < 0.0001). Thirty-five of the 60 patients (58%) were either anosmic (15/60; 25%) or severely microsmic (20/60; 33%); 16 exhibited moderate microsmia (16/60; 27%), 8 mild microsmia (8/60; 13%), and 1 normosmia (1/60; 2%). Deficits were evident for all 40 UPSIT odorants. No meaningful relationships between the test scores and sex, disease severity, or comorbidities were found. CONCLUSION: Quantitative smell testing demonstrates that decreased smell function, but not always anosmia, is a major marker for SARS-CoV-2 infection and suggests the possibility that smell testing may help, in some cases, to identify COVID-19 patients in need of early treatment or quarantine.