Abstract
Objective
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with olfactory dysfunction, but the evolution of the olfactory loss and timeline to recovery are largely unknown. This study examines changes in smell sensitivity in COVID-19–positive (COVID+) and COVID-19–negative (COVID–) viral illness during the initial weeks after infection.
Study Design
Cross-sectional cohort comparison.
Setting
National anonymous surveys.
Methods
Survey participants were queried about smell sensitivity and general health status at the time of COVID-19 testing and in the weeks that followed.
Results
In total, 375 (174 COVID+, 201 COVID–) participants completed the survey and 132 (62 COVID+, 70 COVID–) participants completed the 2-week follow-up survey. Normal smell in the COVID+ cohort was less frequent at the time of testing and at follow up (P < .05). Dynamic changes in smell sensitivity in the COVID+ cohort were more frequent in the initial weeks (P < .001). In those with normosmia at the start of infection, 38% of the COVID+ cohort reported worsening smell compared to only 8% in the COVID– cohort (P < .05). Recovery of overall health was associated with normosmia at the time of infection and improvement of smell sensitivity within weeks of infection.
Conclusion
The COVID+ cohort showed greater dynamic change in smell sensitivity and a higher rate of persistent olfactory dysfunction in the weeks after infection. Normal smell at the time of COVID-19 infection may still worsen before recovery. Overall health recovery after viral illness is associated with improvement in smell sensitivity and the absence of initial anosmia or hyposmia.
Keywords: smell, olfaction, recovery, COVID-19
Olfactory dysfunction is common, with a prevalence of 12.4% (13.3 million adults in the United States) found in the 2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) database based upon objective smell testing.1 Smell loss has significant impact on quality of life and can lead to depression from a lack of enjoyment in life, safety concerns (gas leak, fires, spoiled food), and malnutrition.2-4 The most common causes of olfactory dysfunction include nasal and sinus disorders, upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), age, head trauma, smoking, and neurodegenerative diseases.5
Acute decline in olfactory function from URTIs may be caused by either nasal congestion and obstruction or direct injury to the neurosensory cells required for olfaction. When concurrent nasal congestion creates a conductive pattern of olfactory loss, olfaction frequently recovers as the viral illness and its accompanying symptoms resolve. However, if a neurosensory insult to the olfactory cells has occurred, the olfactory dysfunction can persist following resolution of the URTI and is defined as postviral olfactory dysfunction (PVOD).6 PVOD may take months or years to recover and, in some cases, becomes permanent.7 PVOD is more common in women and during the fourth to eighth decades of life.6 The level of smell recovery has been associated with age, degree of initial smell loss, and duration of the smell loss.8
The actual incidence of acute olfactory dysfunction during and following a viral infection is largely unknown, likely due to the fact that patients do not report mild smell impairment when URTI symptoms dominate and do not seek medical care for PVOD until long after the acute URTI has resolved.9 The most common physiologic cause of olfactory dysfunction related to an acute URTI is the presence of mucosal edema and inflammation that obstruct odorants from reaching the olfactory cleft.9 However, when smell impairment persists after resolution of nasal inflammation, then direct damage to peripheral olfactory receptor cells is suspected. In an electron microscopy study, olfactory mucosa biopsies from postviral anosmics demonstrate a reduced number of intact ciliated olfactory receptor neurons.10 In addition to a peripheral olfactory insult, a central mechanism is also possible, such as functional reorganization of the piriform cortex, which integrates sensory odorant input with higher cortical information.7,11
Smell and taste loss have more recently been associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (COVID+),12 with up to 70% of affected patients reporting chemosensory changes.13,14 Similar to resolution of olfactory dysfunction that occurs with the common cold, recovery of COVID+ olfactory loss has generally been associated with recovery from other disease-related symptoms. The timing of olfactory function recovery was reported to occur less than 2 weeks after diagnosis in 1 study15 and within 3 weeks (median time 7 days) in another study.16 Information on recovery of olfactory loss from COVID-19 compared to non–COVID-19 (COVID–) URTIs is limited. Critical questions regarding smell loss in COVID-19 remain unanswered, including the temporal profile of recovery, predictors of long-term olfactory dysfunction, and the relationship between smell function recovery with overall health recovery.
The COVID-19 pandemic offers a unique opportunity to understand the evolution of olfactory dysfunction for this particular viral infection. We used a self-reported survey to evaluate smell sensitivity and overall health recovery. The global objective of this study is to examine changes in smell recovery at the time of COVID-19 testing and the immediate weeks that follow, as well as compare changes in COVID+ viral illness to a cohort with COVID– viral illness.
Methods
An anonymous survey (UCSF Coronavirus Symptom Survey; see Suppl. Figure S1 in the online version of the article) was created and posted on social media from March 31, 2020, to April 22, 2020 (initial survey) to recruit participants with COVID-19–related general symptoms and test results. Follow up surveys were emailed to participants from April 14, 2020 to May 2, 2020. Responses with positive or negative COVID-19 test results were used for analysis. Within the survey, participants were queried about demographics, estimated date of COVID-19 test, test results, and estimated time to and presence of general health recovery (ie, feeling over 90% back to baseline health). Participants were also asked about smell sensitivity level (completely absent, noticeably decreased, or normal) within the 2 weeks prior to the COVID-19 test (T0), as well as current smell level on the date of survey completion (T1) and on a follow-up survey 2 weeks later (T2) for a subset of participants who agreed to be contacted and completed a second survey. The Institutional Review Board at UCSF reviewed the study and granted exempt status (IRB 20-30530).
Smell Sensitivity Ratings
Smell sensitivity that was reported as completely absent was defined as anosmia, noticeably decreased as hyposmia, and normal as normosmia. Change in smell was analyzed from time of COVID-19 testing to time of the initial survey (T0-T1) and from the time of initial survey to the follow-up survey (T1-T2) by comparing rates of smell sensitivity categories between time points. Change from anosmia to hyposmia or normosmia was considered better, change from normosmia to hyposmia or anosmia was considered worse, and no change represented invariant smell ratings between time points. The participants were also grouped according to initial smell level at T0, and changes in smell at the next two time points (T1 and T2) were evaluated for both COVID+ and COVID– participants.
Statistical Analysis
The survey was built using the Research Electronic Data Capture platform hosted at UCSF (REDCap Consortium, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee), and data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp) and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 26 (SPSS, Inc). Demographic data were summarized using descriptive statistics and univariate analyses. The χ2 analyses were used for contingency analyses of COVID+ and COVID– cohorts. Univariate analysis was used to determine significant differences in categories of smell change (better, worse, or no change) and recovery of general health in COVID+ vs COVID– participants at T1 and T2. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to examine predictors for overall health recovery, including COVID-19 test result, smell sensitivity at the time of infection (T0), and initial smell change from the time of infection to the initial survey (T1-T0). For all statistical analyses, a P value of <.05 was considered significant.
Results
Study Participants and Intertemporal Intervals
The initial survey was completed by 375 participants. Of these, 174 reported a positive COVID-19 test result and 201 reported a negative result. COVID-19 testing was limited in the United States and only available for symptomatic patients during the time of survey distribution. Both groups demonstrated URTI symptoms, with 184 (91.5%) of the COVID– cohort and 167 (96%) of the COVID+ group reporting at least 2 URTI symptoms at the time leading up to COVID-19 testing (T0). The most common symptoms reported included fever, body ache, cough, and sore throat. Nasal congestion and/or rhinorrhea was reported in 59% of the COVID+ group and 49% of the COVID– group in the same initial time frame (P > .05). At the 2-week follow-up survey (T2), 132 participants responded (62 COVID+ and 70 COVID–). The mean age of participants was similar between cohorts ( Table 1 ). At the time of COVID test (T0), 42% of the COVID+ cohort reported hyposmia or anosmia compared to 19% of the COVID– group ( Table 1 ). The median time between T0 and T1 was 11 days with a range of 0 to 47 days. The median time between T1 and T2 was 14 days with a range of 13 to 20 days. The median time from T0 to T2 was 25 days with a range of 11 to 61 days. Based on the survey query about smell sensitivity in the 2 weeks prior to testing, the median time frame from symptoms to follow-up was estimated at 6 weeks. Ten (5.6%) of COVID+ and 4 (1.9%) of COVID– participants were hospitalized at some point during their illness.
Table 1.
Characteristic | COVID+ | COVID– | P value |
---|---|---|---|
Age, mean (SD), y | 38.4 (13) | 37.8 (11) | .60 |
Sex, female | 118 (66) | 165 (80) | .003b |
At time of infection | <.001b | ||
Anosmia | 41 (24) | 7 (4) | |
Hyposmia | 32 (18) | 31 (15) | |
Normosmia | 101 (58) | 163 (81) | |
General health recoveryc at T1 | 94 (53) | 123 (59) | .241 |
Time to health recovery at T1 | .002b | ||
<2 weeks | 44 (47) | 83 (67) | |
2-4 weeks | 50 (53) | 40 (33) |
Abbreviations: COVID+, coronavirus disease 2019 positive; COVID–, coronavirus disease 2019 negative; T1, the time of initial survey.
Values are presented as number (%) unless otherwise indicated.
P < .05 represents significance.
General health recovery is return to >90% of baseline.
Smell Loss and Recovery
Rates of normosmia at each time point differed significantly. At the time of COVID-19 testing (T0), 58% of COVID+ participants reported normosmia compared to 81% of COVID– participants (P < .001). At the time of the initial survey (T1), a stable percentage of the COVID+ (52%) and COVID– (86%) cohorts reported normosmia. By the time of the follow-up survey (T2), normosmia increased to 74% for the COVID+ cohort compared to 94% of the COVID– cohort (P < .005). Rates of normosmia were lower for the COVID+ cohort at all 3 points (P < .01; Table 2 ).
Table 2.
Normosmia, No. (%) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Characteristic | COVID+, No. | COVID–, No. | COVID+ | COVID– | χ2 | P value |
T0 (time of test) | 174 | 201 | 101 (58) | 163 (81) | 23.8 | <.001a |
T1 (time of survey) | 166 | 195 | 85 (52) | 168 (86) | 52.2 | <.001a |
T2 (time of follow-up) | 57 | 65 | 42 (74) | 61 (94) | 9.4 | .002a |
Abbreviations: COVID+, coronavirus disease 2019 positive; COVID–, coronavirus disease 2019 negative; No., number.
P < .05 represents significance.
Temporal dynamics of smell sensitivity at the time intervals between COVID test and initial survey (T0-T1) and initial survey to follow-up survey (T1-T2) for each participant were graded categorically as better, worse, or no change ( Table 3 ). At the T0 to T1 time interval, 26% were better and 25% were worse in the COVID+ cohort compared to 11% better and 6% worse in the COVID– cohort. Between T1 and T2, 39% of COVID+ and 20% of COVID– participants noted better smell ( Table 3 ). The distribution of smell sensitivity change (better or worse vs no change) at each time interval was different between the COVID+ and COVID– cohorts, with a larger proportion of the COVID+ cohort experiencing more dynamic changes in smell sensitivity over time (P < .001).
Table 3.
COVID+, No. (%) | COVID–, No. (%) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Time interval | Better | Same | Worse | Better | Same | Worse | P value |
T0-T1 | 44 (26) | 81 (49) | 41 (25) | 22 (11) | 161 (83) | 12 (6) | <.001b |
T1-T2 | 22(39) | 35 (61) | 0 (0) | 13 (20) | 51 (79) | 1 (1) | <.001b |
Abbreviations: COVID+, coronavirus disease 2019 positive; COVID–, coronavirus disease 2019 negative; No., number.
T0-T1: time interval from COVID-19 test to time of survey (n = 361). T1-T2: time interval from first survey to second survey (n = 125).
P < .05 represents significance.
Temporal dynamics of smell sensitivity based on initial state (anosmia, hyposmia, normosmia) at the time of COVID-19 testing (T0) revealed risk of normosmia degradation in the COVID+ cohort ( Figure 1 ). (1) Normosmia at T0: from T0 to T1, 38% of the COVID+ cohort reported worse smell compared to 8% of the COVID– cohort (P < .001). From T1 to T2, 21% of the COVID+ cohort reported better smell compared to 14% of the COVID– cohort (P > .05) ( Figure 1A ). (2) Hyposmia at T0: from T0 to T1, 47% reported better smell and 13% reported worse smell in the COVID+ cohort, while 55% reported better smell in the COVID– cohort (P > .05). From T1 to T2, 54% reported better smell in the COVID+ cohort, while 38% reported better smell and 8% reported worse smell in the COVID– cohort (P > .05) ( Figure 1B ). (3) Anosmia at T0: from T0 to T1, 79% of the COVID+ cohort reported better smell compared to 100% of the COVID– cohort (P > .05). From T1 to T2, data were not compared due to inadequate sample sizes ( Figure 1C ). Normosmia of the COVID+ cohort at the time of COVID-19 testing (T0) was the sole statistically significant factor of temporally dependent dynamic change in smell sensitivity.
General Health Recovery
Time to general health recovery was delayed in the COVID+ cohort. At the time of the initial survey (T1), 53% of the COVID+ and 59% of the COVID– cohorts reported overall general health recovery to >90% of baseline. Of these, 47% of the COVID+ cohort reported recovery within 2 weeks, compared to 67% of the COVID– cohort (P < .05; Table 1 ). On univariate analysis, initial smell level (anosmia vs hyposmia vs normosmia) was associated with general health recovery at T1 (χ2(2, N = 363) = 6.792, P = .034), with a higher proportion of those who reported health recovery also reporting normosmia at T0.
Initial state of normosmia and better smell sensitivity in the interval from T0 to T1 were associated with health recovery. Using multivariate analysis with logistic regression, anosmia or hyposmia at T0 was associated with the lack of general health recovery at T1, and better smell from T0 to T1 was positively associated with health recovery. COVID-19 test result and worse smell sensitivity were not associated with general health recovery ( Table 4 ). Based on this analysis, an individual with improved smell from T0 to T1 was 10.9 times more likely to report general health recovery at T1 relative to an individual with no smell change (P < .001). Inverted odds ratios demonstrated that if an individual reported anosmia or hyposmia at the time of testing at T0, they were 10 times less likely to have general health recovery at T1 relative to a participant with normosmia (P < .002).
Table 4.
Predictor | B | Wald | P value | Odds ratio (95% CI) |
---|---|---|---|---|
COVID-19 result | −0.1 | 0.16 | .693 | |
Smell level at T0 | <.001b | |||
Anosmia | −2.03 | 10.0 | .002b | 0.1 (0.4-0.5) |
Hyposmia | −2.36 | 20.7 | <.001b | 0.1 (0.03-0.3) |
Smell change T0-T1 | <.001b | |||
Better | 2.39 | 17.7 | <.001b | 10.9 (3.6-33.3) |
Worse | −0.59 | 3.0 | .085 | 0.6 (0.3-1.1) |
Abbreviation: COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019.
T0: time of COVID-19 test. T0-T1: time interval from COVID-19 test to time of survey.
P < .05 represents significance.
Discussion
This manuscript advances the understanding of COVID+ infection in 3 ways. First, while olfactory loss was common to both COVID+ and COVID– infections, COVID+ smell function evolution was found to be more dynamic in the initial weeks, principally due to delayed degradation of normosmia at the time of initial infection. Second, anosmia at the time of initial infection was associated with slower general health recovery. Third, recovery to better smell sensitivity from T0 to T1 was associated with earlier overall health recovery.
Changes in smell sensitivity evolved more dynamically in the COVID+ cohort. Half of the COVID+ cohort reported smell change between the time of COVID-19 testing and initial survey completion (approximately 11 days), in which one-fourth was worse and one-fourth was better with regard to olfactory sensitivity. Notably, within the COVID+ cohort who reported normal smell at the time of testing, 38% experienced worse smell sensitivity by the time of the survey. In contrast, very few COVID– participants reported worse smell within the same time frame. Furthermore, the rate of normosmia in the COVID+ cohort trailed the rate of normosmia in the COVID– cohort by 15% to 20% at both the time of COVID testing and the follow-up survey, although it is unknown whether this gap will close with longer follow-up or remain as a permanent sequela of COVID-19 infection. Consequently, the higher rate of dynamic changes in smell sensitivity and persistent olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 highlights potential differences in the mechanism of virally mediated olfactory dysfunction between COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 infection.
COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction may occur without nasal symptoms, such as nasal obstruction13,17 experienced during the common cold. This may be a differentiating feature of COVID-19 infection, as impaired olfaction and decreased nasal patency from mucosal edema are correlated18,19 in other viral-mediated infections. COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction may be a consequence of direct insult to the olfactory epithelial cells, which has been posited as an etiology of longer-term PVOD.9 It is known that SARS-CoV-2 viral entry into target cells depends on the viral spike protein. This protein binds with angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and is primed by TMPRSS2 protease activity. Both ACE2 and TMPRSS2 are expressed in nasal epithelium and implicated in the transmission and infection of COVID-19.20-22 Although ACE2 is not found on olfactory neurons, it is expressed on supporting cells and basal cells.23
Olfactory loss in COVID-19 infection has been reported to recover within weeks, which contradicts theories on olfactory neurosensory cell damage and PVOD typically associated with prolonged recovery on the order of months to years.7 Boscolo-Rizzo et al24 found that in 113 mildly symptomatic COVID+ patients with sudden altered smell or taste, 89% reported resolution or improvement in smell and taste 4 weeks later. Similarly, among 488 patients interviewed in Korea with sudden anosmia or ageusia, most recovered from these symptoms within 3 weeks.25 In contrast, a study using objective olfactory testing in 72 COVID+ patients with sudden chemosensory loss found 37% had persistent anosmia or hyposmia after 5 weeks26 and limited odor threshold detection compared to odorant identification, suggesting potential peripheral neurosensory damage.26 At the present time, the exact mechanism of injury associated with olfactory loss in COVID-19 and the prevalence of PVOD in COVID-19 are unknown and under active investigation.
The relationship between olfactory dysfunction and general health recovery was elaborated by examining initial smell sensitivity (anosmia, hyposmia, normosmia) and its change from T0 to T1. On univariate analysis, initial smell level was associated with the presence of overall health recovery, with a higher proportion of those with initial normal smell reporting health recovery by the time of the survey. On multivariate analysis, improvement in smell from T0 to T1 was found to be an independent predictor for general health recovery when controlling for COVID-19 test result and initial smell sensitivity. Normosmia at T0 was associated with general health recovery; hyposmia and anosmia were associated with lack of health recovery within the first few weeks of infection. These findings corroborate key findings of the Yan et al27 study, in which 74% of COVID+ patients with olfactory loss demonstrated both improvement in olfaction and improvement in other COVID-19 symptoms, and patients who did not experience improved olfaction also did not experience improvement in associated COVID-19 symptoms.
Findings from this study have patient care implications. Patients with COVID-19 infection should be counseled that olfactory loss may fluctuate in the initial weeks. Smell sensitivity may worsen during a COVID-19 infection even if smell sensitivity is initially normal. The rate of PVOD beyond the first 4 to 6 weeks after infection is approximately 25%. General health recovery is associated with normosmia and improvement of smell sensitivity.
The primary limitations of this study relate to self-reported symptoms and recall bias. Data from self-reported dates for testing and recall of symptoms were used for analysis. Studies have demonstrated only moderate accuracy on the order of 79% for anosmia and 65% for normosmia with self-reported smell function levels limiting interpretation of the survey data.28 Other sources of limitations are accuracy and variations of COVID-19 testing. Last, participants who completed the survey were mostly outpatients who did not require hospitalization and had Internet and social media access, thus limiting generalizability to all patients with COVID-19.
Larger prospective, longitudinal studies that include objective testing over an extended time period are needed to replicate and expand findings of this cross-sectional study. Future studies may focus on predictors for recovery of COVID-19 olfactory loss, the relationship between overall health recovery from COVID-19 infection and olfactory loss severity with its evolution toward normosmia, and identification of risk factors for patients more likely to suffer from COVID-19–associated PVOD.
Conclusion
In COVID+ and COVID– outpatient cohorts, the COVID+ cohort showed more dynamic change in smell sensitivity and higher rate of persistent olfactory dysfunction in the initial weeks after viral-mediated infection. Initial normosmia at the time COVID-19 infection may decline before recovery. Overall health recovery after viral illness was associated with improvement in smell sensitivity and the absence of initial anosmia or hyposmia.
Author Contributions
Patricia A. Loftus, data acquisition, data interpretation and analysis, manuscript writing; Lauren T. Roland, data acquisition, data interpretation and analysis, manuscript writing; Jose G. Gurrola II, study concept and design, data acquisition and interpretation and analysis; Steven W. Cheung, study concept and design, data interpretation and analysis, manuscript writing; Jolie L. Chang, study concept and design, data acquisition, data interpretation and analysis, manuscript writing.
Disclosures
Competing interests: Steven W. Cheung is a consultant to ProLynx LLC. Lauren T. Roland is a consultant to Tissium.
Sponsorships: None.
Funding source: None.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-opn-10.1177_2473974X20978133 for Temporal Profile of Olfactory Dysfunction in COVID-19 by Patricia A. Loftus, Lauren T. Roland, Jose G. Gurrola, Steven W. Cheung and Jolie L. Chang in OTO Open: The Official Open Access Journal of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation
Footnotes
Supplemental Material: Additional supporting information is available at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/2473974X20978133
References
- 1. Hoffman HJ, Rawal S, Li CM, Duffy VB. New chemosensory component in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES): first-year results for measured olfactory dysfunction. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2016;17(2):221-240. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Welge-Lüssen A. Re-establishment of olfactory and taste functions. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005;4:Doc06. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Pence TS, Reiter ER, DiNardo LJ, Costanzo RM. Risk factors for hazardous events in olfactory-impaired patients. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;140(10):951-955. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Schiffman SS, Wedral E. Contribution of taste and smell losses to the wasting syndrome. Age Nutr. 1996;7:106-120. [Google Scholar]
- 5. Bromley SM. Smell and taste disorders: a primary care approach. Am Fam Physician. 2000;61(2):427-438. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Welge-Lüssen A, Wolfensberger M. Olfactory disorders following upper respiratory tract infections. Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 2006;63:125-132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Pellegrino R, Walliczek-Dworschak U, Winter G, Hull D, Hummel T. Investigation of chemosensitivity during and after an acute cold. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2017;7(2):185-191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. London B, Nabet B, Fisher AR, White B, Sammel MD, Doty RL. Predictors of prognosis in patients with olfactory disturbance. Ann Neurol. 2008;63(2):159-166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Soler ZM, Patel ZM, Turner JH, Holbrook EH. A primer on viral-associated olfactory loss in the era of COVID-19. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2020;10(7):814-820. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Moran DT, Jafek BW, Eller PM, Rowley JC. Ultrastructural histopathology of human olfactory dysfunction. Microsc Res Tech. 1992;23:103-110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Gottfried JA. Central mechanisms of odour object perception. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010;11(9):628-641. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Vaira LA, Deiana G, Fois AG, et al. Objective evaluation of anosmia and ageusia in COVID-19 patients: single-center experience on 72 cases. Head Neck. 2020;42(6):1252-1258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Beltrán-Corbellini Á, Chico-García JL, Martínez-Poles J, et al. Acute-onset smell and taste disorders in the context of COVID-19: a pilot multicentre polymerase chain reaction based case-control study [published online May 16, 2020]. Eur J Neurol. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Roland LT, Gurrola JG, II, Loftus PA, Cheung SW, Chang JL. Smell and taste symptom-based predictive model for COVID-19 diagnosis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2020;19(7):832-838. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Yan CH, Faraji F, Prajapati DP, Ostrander BT, DeConde AS. Self-reported olfactory loss associates with outpatient clinical course in COVID-19. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2020;10(7):821-831. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Lee Y, Min P, Lee S, Kim SW. Prevalence and duration of acute loss of smell or taste in COVID-19 patients. J Korean Med Sci. 2020;35(18):e174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Lechien JR, Chiesa-Estomba CM, et al. Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions as a clinical presentation of mild-to-moderate forms of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a multicenter European study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;277(8):2251-2261. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Akerlund A, Bende M, Murphy C. Olfactory threshold and nasal mucosal changes in experimentally induced common cold. Acta Otolaryngol. 1995;115(1):88-92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Hummel T, Rothbauer C, Barz S, Grosser K, Pauli E, Kobal G. Olfactory function in acute rhinitis. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1998;855:616-624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Hoffmann M, Kleine-Weber H, Schroeder S, et al. SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and is blocked by a clinically proven protease inhibitor. Cell. 2020;181(2):271-280e8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Bertram S, Heurich A, Lavender H, et al. Influenza and SARS-coronavirus activating proteases TMPRSS2 and HAT are expressed at multiple sites in human respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35876. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Sungnak W, Huang N, Bécavin C, et al. SARS-CoV-2 entry factors are highly expressed in nasal epithelial cells together with innate immune genes. Nat Med. 2020;26:681-687. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Brann D, Tsukahara T, Weinreb C, et al. Non-neuronal expression of SARS-CoV-2 entry genes in the olfactory system suggests mechanisms underlying COVID-19-associated anosmia. Sci Adv. 2020;6(31):eabc5801. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Boscolo-Rizzo P, Borsetto D, Fabbris C, et al. Evolution of altered sense of smell or taste in patients with mildly symptomatic COVID-19. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;146(8):729-732. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Lee Y, Min P, Lee S, Kim SW. Prevalence and duration of acute loss of smell or taste in COVID-19 patients. J Korean Med Sci. 2020;35(18):e174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Le Bon SD, Pisarski N, Verbeke J, et al. Psychophysical evaluation of chemosensory functions 5 weeks after olfactory loss due to COVID-19: a prospective cohort study on 72 patients [published online August 4, 2020]. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Yan CH, Faraji F, Prajapati DP, Boone CE, DeConde AS. Association of chemosensory dysfunction and COVID-19 in patients presenting with influenza-like symptoms. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2020;10(7):806-813. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Lotsch J, Hummel T. Clinical usefulness of self-reported olfactory performance—a data science-based assessment of 6000 patients. Chem Senses. 2019;44(6):357-364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-opn-10.1177_2473974X20978133 for Temporal Profile of Olfactory Dysfunction in COVID-19 by Patricia A. Loftus, Lauren T. Roland, Jose G. Gurrola, Steven W. Cheung and Jolie L. Chang in OTO Open: The Official Open Access Journal of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation