Literature DB >> 32447049

Anosmia in COVID-19 patients.

D Hornuss1, B Lange2, N Schröter3, S Rieg1, W V Kern1, D Wagner4.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32447049      PMCID: PMC7242197          DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.05.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Microbiol Infect        ISSN: 1198-743X            Impact factor:   8.067


× No keyword cloud information.
To the Editor: Coronaviruses (CoVs)—including SARS-CoV-2, the cause of the current pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)—have a propensity for neuroinvasion [1,2]; olfactorial neurons are currently being discussed as a portal of entry for neuroinvasion and the spread of CoVs after infection of neural cells from the CNS to the periphery via a transneural route [1]. A quarter of admitted COVID-19 patients report a disturbance to their sense of smell [3], which may be related to this capability. We hypothesized that loss of smell is often not noted subjectively and that the proportion of affected patients is higher than 25%. Burghart Sniffin’ Sticks®, a widely used screening test for smelling disorders, was used according to the manufacturer's specifications in a prospective cross-sectional study to objectify the magnitude of the smelling disorder caused by SARS-CoV-2 [4,5]. The proportion of anosmia in patients with a positive PCR result for SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swaps or sputum was compared in those reporting a loss of smell, in those who did not, and in uninfected controls. The study was approved by the university hospital ethical committee (No. 184/20), and written informed consent was obtained from all study participants. We tested 45 consecutive hospitalized COVID-19 patients and 45 uninfected controls (age (median years ± STD) 56 ± 16.9 and 54 ± 18.3, respectively). Controls consenting to the study were inpatients from non-COVID wards (n = 17, 38%), healthcare workers (n = 21; 47%) and healthy subjects working in administration (n = 7; 16%). All controls were untested for SARS-CoV-2, but none of them or their household members had been diagnosed with COVID-19 and none developed clinical COVID-19 symptoms within the subsequent 3 weeks. They correctly identified a median of 11 out of 12 odours of Sniffin’ Sticks, none was anosmic, 12/45 (27%, 95%CI 14–41%, age 63 ± 19.6) were hyposmic, and 33 (73%, 95%CI 58–85%, age 49 ± 10.2) were normosmic. A higher percentage of COVID-19 patients (18/45, 40%) were diagnosed with anosmia (p < 0.001); COVID-19 patients smell on average four fewer sticks than uninfected controls (Supplementary Material Fig. S1). The Sniffin’ Stick test was more sensitive in detecting anosmia in comparison to self-reporting or taking a medical history: 44% of anosmic and 50% of hyposmic patients did not report having smelling problems (Table 1 ). The clinical picture, laboratory test results, and outcome at day 15, or by counting the worst outcome during the hospital stay defined by a rating on a 6-point ordinal scale was similar in patients with and without anosmia or hyposmia.
Table 1

Characteristics and results of COVID-19 patients

AllWith anosmiaaWith hyposmiaWith normosmia
All (n, %, 95%CI)4518 (40%; 25–55%)20 (44%, 29–60%)7 (15%, 5–25%)
Sex (n)Female20884
Male2510123
Age (median ± STD)Years56 ± 16.956.5 ± 17.958 ± 17.549 ± 10.2
Symptoms (n, %)Temp ≥ 38.5°C35 (78%)12 (34%)16 (46%)7 (20%)
Cough28 (62%)14 (50%)10 (36%)4 (14%)
Headache10 (22%)6 (60%)4 (40%)0
Shortness of Breath20 (44%)13 (65%)5 (25%)2 (10%)
Laboratory values (mean ± STD)bLeukocytes (Ths/μL]5.6 ± 2.86.3 ± 3.35.5 ± 1.94.3 ± 3.8
Lymphocytes (Ths/μL)1.1 ± 0.70.8 ± 0.61.1 ± 0.81.4 ± 0.8
CRP (mg/L)49 ± 5060 ± 4246 ± 4919 ± 75
PCT (ng/mL)0.12 ± 1.30.13 ± 0.10.17 ± 2.00.1 ± 0.1
IL6 (pg/mL)26 ± 4416 ± 3427 ± 5147 ± 44
LDH (U/L)284 ± 181294 ± 258271 ± 148249 ± 75
Sniffin test (median)Correctly identified odoursc83911
Report of impaired smelling (n, %, 95CI)dyes22 (49%)10 (45%, 24–68%)10 (45%, 24–68%)2 (10%, 1–29%)
no23 (51%)8 (34%, 16–57%)10 (43%, 23–65%)5 (21%, 7–43%)
Time course (days; median ± STD)First symptom to first positive PCR result2 ± 4.22 ± 4.11.5 ± 3.72 ± 4
First symptom to reported impaired smelling5 ± 3.046.5 ± 32.5 ± 2.75.5 ± 2.5
First symptoms to Sniffin test10 ± 5.111 ± 48.5 ± 4.512 ± 7.5
First positive PCR result to Sniffin test4 ± 4.63.5 ± 3.94 ± 4.45 ± 6.3

COVID-19 patients diagnosed with Sniffin’ sticks as normosmic, hyposmic or anosmic (correctly identifying 11–12, 7–10, and 0–6 odours of Sniffin’ sticks, respectively) are shown. STD, standard deviation; 95%CI, 95% confidence interval; PCR, polymerase chain reaction.

p < 0.001, χ2 test with null hypothesis that anosmia in COVID-19 is the same as in controls.

±2 days from the day of testing, n = 33–41.

Linear regression analysis adjusted for age and sex shows that COVID-19 patients on average smell four fewer sticks than uninfected controls.

At the day of testing.

Characteristics and results of COVID-19 patients COVID-19 patients diagnosed with Sniffin’ sticks as normosmic, hyposmic or anosmic (correctly identifying 11–12, 7–10, and 0–6 odours of Sniffin’ sticks, respectively) are shown. STD, standard deviation; 95%CI, 95% confidence interval; PCR, polymerase chain reaction. p < 0.001, χ2 test with null hypothesis that anosmia in COVID-19 is the same as in controls. ±2 days from the day of testing, n = 33–41. Linear regression analysis adjusted for age and sex shows that COVID-19 patients on average smell four fewer sticks than uninfected controls. At the day of testing. Hyposmia and anosmia are symptoms often noticed by COVID-19 patients [3]. Using a quantitative and objective test, almost half of the patients were found to be anosmic, and another 40% were hyposmic. Still, in our cohort only 49% of patients reported a smelling dysfunction, which is more than in a recently published survey [3], but significantly less than diagnosed by the Sniffin’ test. Thus, the magnitude of the olfactory dysfunction in COVID patients is underreported, with more than 80% of COVID-19 patients having hyposmia or anosmia, in comparison to the uninfected controls where no participant was anosmic and 27% were hyposmic. In a large German community sample (n = 7267) a similarly low percentage of anosmia (5%) has been reported using the same test; however, the 12-stick test cannot distinguish properly between hyposmia and normosmia [5], and thus the high percentage of 44% of our COVID-19 patients with hyposmia needs to be interpreted carefully. Patients were not tested after having been discharged, but telephone interviews even with patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 showed that not all patients had returned to normal ability to smell 15 days after the start of the first symptoms, although no other symptoms persisted. Olfactorial neurons are discussed as a portal of entry for neuroinvasion by CoVs, which may be transferred to the central nervous system via a synapse-connected route [2]. Still it is unclear whether olfactory sensory neurons are directly involved in the pathogenesis of smelling loss in COVID-19. Given the large proportion of affected patients, the wide distribution of the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors in the brain, the observation that HCoV are able to induce direct neuronal injury within brainstem cardiorespiratory centres in experimental animal models [2], and the increasing evidence that SARS-CoV 2 is also causing neurological complications, the clinical presentation of COVID-19 patients with deterioration at around 1 week and the acute respiratory failure may be related to the neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV-2. In conclusion, all COVID-19 patients should be interviewed and if possible tested for olfactory disorders that often occur in COVID-19. Some patients have presented solely with this symptom, and primary physicians and otolaryngologist need to be aware of this putative presentation. Our study shows that anosmia and hyposmia often occur unnoticed in COVID-19 patients, and that for those patients an objective and quantifiable test is required. Anosmia is not a predictor of a severe COVID-19 manifestation.

Authors contribution

Writing – original draft: DW and DH; writing – review and editing: DH, BL, NS, SR, WK, DW; conceptualization: DW; investigation: DH; methodology: BL; formal analysis: BL; resources: NS; funding acquisition: NS; project administration: DW and WK; supervision: WK and DW.

Transparency declaration

The authors report no disclosures of conflict of interest relevant to this letter. This work was supported by the Berta-Ottenstein Programme for Clinician Scientists, Faculty of Medicine, , to NS.
  54 in total

1.  Clinical effects of intranasal corticosteroids on nasal symptoms in subjects with chronic rhinitis during COVID-19.

Authors:  Can Tuzer; Pelin Karadag; Ozan Yegit; Deniz Eyice; Nida Oztop; Ali Can; Semra Demir; Raif Coskun; Derya Erdogdu Unal; Muge Olgac; Suna Buyukozturk; Bahattin Colakoglu; Aslı Gelincik
Journal:  Allergy Asthma Proc       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 2.587

2.  Clinical Symptoms in Hospitalized and Self-Quarantined Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Northwestern Greece - Association with Olfactory and Gustatory Dysfunction.

Authors:  Athina Zarachi; Vasileios Pezoulas; Ioannis Komnos; Aikaterini Lianou; Orestis Milionis; Eleutherios Klouras; Konstantinos Katsikatsos; Dimitrios Fotiadis; Ioannis Kastanioudakis; Charalampos Milionis; Angelos Liontos
Journal:  Maedica (Bucur)       Date:  2022-06

3.  Changes in smell and taste perception related to COVID-19 infection: a case-control study.

Authors:  Camilla Cattaneo; Ella Pagliarini; Sara Paola Mambrini; Elena Tortorici; Roberto Mené; Camilla Torlasco; Elisa Perger; Gianfranco Parati; Simona Bertoli
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 4.996

Review 4.  Prospects of Biosensors Based on Functionalized and Nanostructured Solitary Materials: Detection of Viral Infections and Other Risks.

Authors:  Sanjeev Kumar; Ritika Sharma; Akanksha Gupta; Prashant Singh; Susheel Kalia; Pankaj Thakur; Vinod Kumar
Journal:  ACS Omega       Date:  2022-06-22

Review 5.  Neurologic Manifestations of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection.

Authors:  Avindra Nath
Journal:  Continuum (Minneap Minn)       Date:  2021-08-01

6.  Prevalence of Chemosensory Dysfunction in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Reveals Significant Ethnic Differences.

Authors:  Christopher S von Bartheld; Molly M Hagen; Rafal Butowt
Journal:  ACS Chem Neurosci       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 4.418

7.  The incidence of anosmia in patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID 19 infection in India: An observational study.

Authors:  Vinod Kumar; Sapna Singla; Nishkarsh Gupta; Sachidanand Jee Bharati; Rakesh Garg; Anuja Pandit; Saurabh Vig; Seema Mishra; Sushma Bhatnagar
Journal:  J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2021-04-10

8.  Neurological outcome and quality of life 3 months after COVID-19: A prospective observational cohort study.

Authors:  Verena Rass; Ronny Beer; Alois Josef Schiefecker; Mario Kofler; Anna Lindner; Philipp Mahlknecht; Beatrice Heim; Victoria Limmert; Sabina Sahanic; Alex Pizzini; Thomas Sonnweber; Ivan Tancevski; Christoph Scherfler; Laura Zamarian; Rosa Bellmann-Weiler; Günter Weiss; Atbin Djamshidian; Stefan Kiechl; Klaus Seppi; Judith Loeffler-Ragg; Bettina Pfausler; Raimund Helbok
Journal:  Eur J Neurol       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 6.288

9.  TextEssence: A Tool for Interactive Analysis of Semantic Shifts Between Corpora.

Authors:  Denis Newman-Griffis; Venkatesh Sivaraman; Adam Perer; Eric Fosler-Lussier; Harry Hochheiser
Journal:  Proc Conf       Date:  2021-06

10.  Objective sensory testing methods reveal a higher prevalence of olfactory loss in COVID-19 positive patients compared to subjective methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mackenzie E Hannum; Vicente A Ramirez; Sarah J Lipson; Riley D Herriman; Aurora K Toskala; Cailu Lin; Paule V Joseph; Danielle R Reed
Journal:  medRxiv       Date:  2020-07-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.