Cargando…

Prevalence of acute olfactory dysfunction differs between variants of SARS-CoV-2—results from chemosensitive testing in wild type, VOC alpha (B.1.1.7) and VOC delta (B.1617.2)

BACKGROUND: Olfactory dysfunction is one of the leading symptoms of COVID-19. Previous data suggest a different prevalence between the wild type virus and its subsequent variants. Here, we report on a prospective study to psychophysically compare olfactory function in acute SARS-CoV-2 infection betw...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hintschich, Constantin A., Vielsmeier, Veronika, Bohr, Christopher, Hagemann, Jan, Klimek, Ludger
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9243797/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35767061
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-022-07431-6
_version_ 1784738392756453376
author Hintschich, Constantin A.
Vielsmeier, Veronika
Bohr, Christopher
Hagemann, Jan
Klimek, Ludger
author_facet Hintschich, Constantin A.
Vielsmeier, Veronika
Bohr, Christopher
Hagemann, Jan
Klimek, Ludger
author_sort Hintschich, Constantin A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Olfactory dysfunction is one of the leading symptoms of COVID-19. Previous data suggest a different prevalence between the wild type virus and its subsequent variants. Here, we report on a prospective study to psychophysically compare olfactory function in acute SARS-CoV-2 infection between wild type, VOC alpha and VOC delta. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2 was confirmed by reverse-transcription quantitative real-time PCR and virus variants were differentiated by high-sensitive next-generation sequencing. Home-quarantined were sent a validated and blinded smell identification test. A detailed instruction ensured correct self-administration. RESULTS: A total of 125 patients were included in study. Patients with the wild type of SARS-CoV-2 self-evaluated their olfactory function significant lower on the visual analog score compared patients with the VOCs alpha or delta (4.1 ± 1.5 vs. 6.8 ± 2.9 and 7.3 ± 0.9; p < 0.001). Likewise, a significant difference of the prevalence of psychophysically confirmed hyposmia (wild type: 73%; alpha: 41%; delta 48%; p < 0.01) and smell test score (48 ± 25% vs. 70 ± 23% and 67 ± 18%; p < 0.01) could be seen between wild type on one side and VOCs alpha and delta on the other side. CONCLUSION: In this study, both self-reports and psychophysical testing revealed a significant higher prevalence of olfactory impairment in the wild type of SARS-CoV-2 compared to the VOCs alpha and delta.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9243797
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92437972022-06-30 Prevalence of acute olfactory dysfunction differs between variants of SARS-CoV-2—results from chemosensitive testing in wild type, VOC alpha (B.1.1.7) and VOC delta (B.1617.2) Hintschich, Constantin A. Vielsmeier, Veronika Bohr, Christopher Hagemann, Jan Klimek, Ludger Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Short Communication BACKGROUND: Olfactory dysfunction is one of the leading symptoms of COVID-19. Previous data suggest a different prevalence between the wild type virus and its subsequent variants. Here, we report on a prospective study to psychophysically compare olfactory function in acute SARS-CoV-2 infection between wild type, VOC alpha and VOC delta. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2 was confirmed by reverse-transcription quantitative real-time PCR and virus variants were differentiated by high-sensitive next-generation sequencing. Home-quarantined were sent a validated and blinded smell identification test. A detailed instruction ensured correct self-administration. RESULTS: A total of 125 patients were included in study. Patients with the wild type of SARS-CoV-2 self-evaluated their olfactory function significant lower on the visual analog score compared patients with the VOCs alpha or delta (4.1 ± 1.5 vs. 6.8 ± 2.9 and 7.3 ± 0.9; p < 0.001). Likewise, a significant difference of the prevalence of psychophysically confirmed hyposmia (wild type: 73%; alpha: 41%; delta 48%; p < 0.01) and smell test score (48 ± 25% vs. 70 ± 23% and 67 ± 18%; p < 0.01) could be seen between wild type on one side and VOCs alpha and delta on the other side. CONCLUSION: In this study, both self-reports and psychophysical testing revealed a significant higher prevalence of olfactory impairment in the wild type of SARS-CoV-2 compared to the VOCs alpha and delta. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-06-29 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9243797/ /pubmed/35767061 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-022-07431-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Short Communication
Hintschich, Constantin A.
Vielsmeier, Veronika
Bohr, Christopher
Hagemann, Jan
Klimek, Ludger
Prevalence of acute olfactory dysfunction differs between variants of SARS-CoV-2—results from chemosensitive testing in wild type, VOC alpha (B.1.1.7) and VOC delta (B.1617.2)
title Prevalence of acute olfactory dysfunction differs between variants of SARS-CoV-2—results from chemosensitive testing in wild type, VOC alpha (B.1.1.7) and VOC delta (B.1617.2)
title_full Prevalence of acute olfactory dysfunction differs between variants of SARS-CoV-2—results from chemosensitive testing in wild type, VOC alpha (B.1.1.7) and VOC delta (B.1617.2)
title_fullStr Prevalence of acute olfactory dysfunction differs between variants of SARS-CoV-2—results from chemosensitive testing in wild type, VOC alpha (B.1.1.7) and VOC delta (B.1617.2)
title_full_unstemmed Prevalence of acute olfactory dysfunction differs between variants of SARS-CoV-2—results from chemosensitive testing in wild type, VOC alpha (B.1.1.7) and VOC delta (B.1617.2)
title_short Prevalence of acute olfactory dysfunction differs between variants of SARS-CoV-2—results from chemosensitive testing in wild type, VOC alpha (B.1.1.7) and VOC delta (B.1617.2)
title_sort prevalence of acute olfactory dysfunction differs between variants of sars-cov-2—results from chemosensitive testing in wild type, voc alpha (b.1.1.7) and voc delta (b.1617.2)
topic Short Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9243797/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35767061
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-022-07431-6
work_keys_str_mv AT hintschichconstantina prevalenceofacuteolfactorydysfunctiondiffersbetweenvariantsofsarscov2resultsfromchemosensitivetestinginwildtypevocalphab117andvocdeltab16172
AT vielsmeierveronika prevalenceofacuteolfactorydysfunctiondiffersbetweenvariantsofsarscov2resultsfromchemosensitivetestinginwildtypevocalphab117andvocdeltab16172
AT bohrchristopher prevalenceofacuteolfactorydysfunctiondiffersbetweenvariantsofsarscov2resultsfromchemosensitivetestinginwildtypevocalphab117andvocdeltab16172
AT hagemannjan prevalenceofacuteolfactorydysfunctiondiffersbetweenvariantsofsarscov2resultsfromchemosensitivetestinginwildtypevocalphab117andvocdeltab16172
AT klimekludger prevalenceofacuteolfactorydysfunctiondiffersbetweenvariantsofsarscov2resultsfromchemosensitivetestinginwildtypevocalphab117andvocdeltab16172