RESUMO
The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the prevalence of people suffering from olfactory disorders. In the absence of quick, population-wide olfactory tests, we developed SCENTinel, a rapid, inexpensive smell test to assess odor detection, intensity, and identification ability, which can discriminate anosmia (e.g., total smell loss) from normosmia (e.g., normal sense of smell) using a single odor. A new version, SCENTinel 1.1, extends the original test with one of four possible odors and a hedonic subtest ("how pleasant is the odor"). The purpose of this study was to determine if SCENTinel 1.1 can discriminate other types of olfactory disorders common to COVID-19, such as hyposmia (e.g., reduced sense of smell), parosmia (e.g., distorted odor perception), and phantosmia (e.g., odor sensation without an odor source). Participants (N=381) were divided into three groups based on their self-reported olfactory function: quantitative smell disorder (anosmia or hyposmia, N=135), qualitative smell disorder (parosmia and/or phantosmia; n=86), and normosmia (N=66). SCENTinel 1.1 classifies anosmia and normosmia groups with high sensitivity (AUC=0.94), similar to SCENTinel 1.0 (AUC=0.95). SCENTinel 1.1 also accurately discriminates quantitative from qualitative (AUC=0.76), and normosmia (AUC=0.84), and normosmia from qualitative (AUC=0.73) groups. We also considered a subset of participants who only reported one type of olfactory disorder. SCENTinel 1.1 discriminates hyposmia from parosmia (AUC=0.89), and anosmia (AUC=0.78); as well as parosmia from anosmia (AUC=0.82). Participants with parosmia had a significantly lower hedonic score than those without parosmia, indicating odor distortions are unpleasant. SCENTinel 1.1 is a rapid smell test that can discriminate quantitative (anosmia, hyposmia) and qualitative (parosmia, phantosmia) olfactory disorders, and it is among the only direct tests to rapidly screen for parosmia.
RESUMO
Chemosensory scientists have been skeptical that reports of COVID-19 taste loss are genuine, in part because before COVID-19, taste loss was rare and often confused with smell loss. Therefore, to establish the predicted prevalence rate of taste loss in COVID-19 patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 376 papers published in 2020-2021, with 241 meeting all inclusion criteria. Additionally, we explored how methodological differences (direct vs. self-report measures) may affect these estimates. We hypothesized that direct prevalence measures of taste loss would be the most valid because they avoid the taste/smell confusion of self-report. The meta-analysis showed that, among 138,897 COVID-19-positive patients, 39.2% reported taste dysfunction (95% CI: 35.34-43.12%), and the prevalence estimates were slightly but not significantly higher from studies using direct (n = 18) versus self-report (n = 223) methodologies (Q = 0.57, df = 1, p = 0.45). Generally, males reported lower rates of taste loss than did females and taste loss was highest in middle-aged groups. Thus, taste loss is a bona fide symptom COVID-19, meriting further research into the most appropriate direct methods to measure it and its underlying mechanisms.
RESUMO
How much pleasure we take in eating is more than just how much we enjoy the taste of food. Food involvement - the amount of time we spend on food beyond the immediate act of eating and tasting - is key to the human food experience. We took a biological approach to test whether food-related behaviors, together capturing food involvement, have genetic components and are partly due to inherited variation. We collected data via an internet survey from a genetically informative sample of 419 adult twins (114 monozygotic twin pairs, 31 dizygotic twin pairs, and 129 singletons). Because we conducted this research during the pandemic, we also ascertained how many participants had experienced COVID-19-associated loss of taste and smell. Since these respondents had previously participated in research in person, we measured their level of engagement to evaluate the quality of their online responses. Additive genetics explained 16-44% of the variation in some measures of food involvement, most prominently various aspects of cooking, suggesting some features of the human food experience may be inborn. Other features reflected shared (early) environment, captured by respondents twin status. About 6% of participants had a history of COVID-19 infection, many with transitory taste and smell loss, but all but one had recovered before the survey. Overall, these results suggest that people may have inborn as well as learned variations in their involvement with food. We also learned to adapt to research during a pandemic by considering COVID-19 status and measuring engagement in online studies of human eating behavior.
RESUMO
BackgroundCOVID-19 has heterogeneous manifestations, though one of the most common symptoms is a sudden loss of smell (anosmia or hyposmia). We investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19. MethodsThis preregistered, cross-sectional study used a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n=4148) or negative (C19-; n=546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified singular and cumulative predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. ResultsBoth C19+ and C19-groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean{+/-}SD, C19+: -82.5{+/-}27.2 points; C19-: -59.8{+/-}37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both single and cumulative feature models (ROC AUC=0.72), with additional features providing negligible model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms, such as fever or cough. Olfactory recovery within 40 days was reported for [~]50% of participants and was best predicted by time since illness onset. ConclusionsAs smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19, we developed the ODoR-19 tool, a 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss. Numeric ratings [≤]2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (4
RESUMO
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has currently infected over 6.5 million people worldwide. In response to the pandemic, numerous studies have tried to identify causes and symptoms of the disease. Emerging evidence supports recently acquired anosmia (complete loss of smell) and hyposmia (partial loss of smell) as symptoms of COVID-19, but studies of olfactory dysfunction show a wide range of prevalence, from 5% to 98%. We undertook a search of Pubmed/Medline and Google Scholar with the keywords "COVID-19," "smell," and/or "olfaction." We included any study that quantified olfactory loss as a symptom of COVID-19. Studies were grouped and compared based on the type of method used to measure smell loss--subjective measures such as self-reported smell loss versus objective measures using rated stimuli--to determine if prevalence rate differed by method type. For each study, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated from point estimates of olfactory disturbance rates. We identified 34 articles quantifying anosmia as a symptom of COVID-19, collected from cases identified from January 16 to April 30, 2020. The pooled prevalence estimate of smell loss was 77% when assessed through objective measurements (95% CI of 61.4-89.2%) and 45% with subjective measurements (95% CI of 31.1-58.5%). Objective measures are a more sensitive method to identify smell loss as a result of infection with SARS-CoV-2; the use of subjective measures, while expedient during the early stages of the pandemic, underestimates the true prevalence of smell loss.
RESUMO
Recent anecdotal and scientific reports have provided evidence of a link between COVID-19 and chemosensory impairments such as anosmia. However, these reports have downplayed or failed to distinguish potential effects on taste, ignored chemesthesis, generally lacked quantitative measurements, were mostly restricted to data from single countries. Here, we report the development, implementation and initial results of a multi-lingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in three distinct chemosensory modalities (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) before and during COVID-19. In the first 11 days after questionnaire launch, 4039 participants (2913 women, 1118 men, 8 other, ages 19-79) reported a COVID-19 diagnosis either via laboratory tests or clinical assessment. Importantly, smell, taste and chemesthetic function were each significantly reduced compared to their status before the disease. Difference scores (maximum possible change {+/-}100) revealed a mean reduction of smell (-79.7 {+/-} 28.7, mean {+/-} SD), taste (-69.0 {+/-} 32.6), and chemesthetic (-37.3 {+/-} 36.2) function during COVID-19. Qualitative changes in olfactory ability (parosmia and phantosmia) were relatively rare and correlated with smell loss. Importantly, perceived nasal obstruction did not account for smell loss. Furthermore, chemosensory impairments were similar between participants in the laboratory test and clinical assessment groups. These results show that COVID-19-associated chemosensory impairment is not limited to smell, but also affects taste and chemesthesis. The multimodal impact of COVID-19 and lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms.
