Cargando…
Olfactory function and viral recovery in COVID‐19
BACKGROUND: Olfactory and taste disorders were reported in up to 30%–80% of COVID‐19 patients. The purpose of our study was to objectively assess smell impairment in COVID‐19 patients and to correlate olfactory function with viral recovery. METHODS: Between 15 and 30 April 2020, hospitalized patient...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7994699/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33465295 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/brb3.2006 |
_version_ | 1783669808594681856 |
---|---|
author | Mazzoli, Marco Molinari, Maria Angela Tondelli, Manuela Giovannini, Giada Ricceri, Riccardo Ciolli, Ludovico Picchetto, Livio Meletti, Stefano |
author_facet | Mazzoli, Marco Molinari, Maria Angela Tondelli, Manuela Giovannini, Giada Ricceri, Riccardo Ciolli, Ludovico Picchetto, Livio Meletti, Stefano |
author_sort | Mazzoli, Marco |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Olfactory and taste disorders were reported in up to 30%–80% of COVID‐19 patients. The purpose of our study was to objectively assess smell impairment in COVID‐19 patients and to correlate olfactory function with viral recovery. METHODS: Between 15 and 30 April 2020, hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection underwent an objective assessment of olfactory function with the Smell Identification subtest of the Sniffin’ Sticks Test (SI‐SST). Association between viral recovery and SI‐SST performance was evaluated. RESULTS: 51 patients were enrolled (49% males, mean age 66.2 ± 14.6 years). At the time of test administration, 45% were clinically recovered and 39% were virus‐free. Objective hyposmia/anosmia was found in 45% of the patients. Subjective olfactory disorders showed no association with the clinical or viral recovery status of the patients. On the contrary, none of the patients with anosmia and the 5% of hyposmic patients at test had viral recovery. The relative risk for hyposmic patients to be still positive at swab test was 10.323 (95% CI 1.483–71.869, p < .0001). Logistic regression analysis showed an independent and significant correlation between viral clearance and SI‐SST scores (OR = 2.242; 95% CI 1.322–3.802, p < .003). ROC curve analysis confirmed that a SI‐SST > 10.5 predicts viral clearance with 79% sensitivity and 87% specificity (AUC = 0.883). CONCLUSION: Hyposmia is part of COVID‐19 symptoms; however, only objectively assessed olfactory function is associated with viral recovery. SI‐SST is an easy and safe instrument, and further large multicentric studies should assess its value to predict infection and recovery. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7994699 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-79946992021-03-26 Olfactory function and viral recovery in COVID‐19 Mazzoli, Marco Molinari, Maria Angela Tondelli, Manuela Giovannini, Giada Ricceri, Riccardo Ciolli, Ludovico Picchetto, Livio Meletti, Stefano Brain Behav Original Research BACKGROUND: Olfactory and taste disorders were reported in up to 30%–80% of COVID‐19 patients. The purpose of our study was to objectively assess smell impairment in COVID‐19 patients and to correlate olfactory function with viral recovery. METHODS: Between 15 and 30 April 2020, hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection underwent an objective assessment of olfactory function with the Smell Identification subtest of the Sniffin’ Sticks Test (SI‐SST). Association between viral recovery and SI‐SST performance was evaluated. RESULTS: 51 patients were enrolled (49% males, mean age 66.2 ± 14.6 years). At the time of test administration, 45% were clinically recovered and 39% were virus‐free. Objective hyposmia/anosmia was found in 45% of the patients. Subjective olfactory disorders showed no association with the clinical or viral recovery status of the patients. On the contrary, none of the patients with anosmia and the 5% of hyposmic patients at test had viral recovery. The relative risk for hyposmic patients to be still positive at swab test was 10.323 (95% CI 1.483–71.869, p < .0001). Logistic regression analysis showed an independent and significant correlation between viral clearance and SI‐SST scores (OR = 2.242; 95% CI 1.322–3.802, p < .003). ROC curve analysis confirmed that a SI‐SST > 10.5 predicts viral clearance with 79% sensitivity and 87% specificity (AUC = 0.883). CONCLUSION: Hyposmia is part of COVID‐19 symptoms; however, only objectively assessed olfactory function is associated with viral recovery. SI‐SST is an easy and safe instrument, and further large multicentric studies should assess its value to predict infection and recovery. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-01-19 /pmc/articles/PMC7994699/ /pubmed/33465295 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/brb3.2006 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Brain and Behavior published by Wiley Periodicals LLC This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Mazzoli, Marco Molinari, Maria Angela Tondelli, Manuela Giovannini, Giada Ricceri, Riccardo Ciolli, Ludovico Picchetto, Livio Meletti, Stefano Olfactory function and viral recovery in COVID‐19 |
title | Olfactory function and viral recovery in COVID‐19 |
title_full | Olfactory function and viral recovery in COVID‐19 |
title_fullStr | Olfactory function and viral recovery in COVID‐19 |
title_full_unstemmed | Olfactory function and viral recovery in COVID‐19 |
title_short | Olfactory function and viral recovery in COVID‐19 |
title_sort | olfactory function and viral recovery in covid‐19 |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7994699/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33465295 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/brb3.2006 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mazzolimarco olfactoryfunctionandviralrecoveryincovid19 AT molinarimariaangela olfactoryfunctionandviralrecoveryincovid19 AT tondellimanuela olfactoryfunctionandviralrecoveryincovid19 AT giovanninigiada olfactoryfunctionandviralrecoveryincovid19 AT ricceririccardo olfactoryfunctionandviralrecoveryincovid19 AT ciolliludovico olfactoryfunctionandviralrecoveryincovid19 AT picchettolivio olfactoryfunctionandviralrecoveryincovid19 AT melettistefano olfactoryfunctionandviralrecoveryincovid19 |