More Than Smell - COVID-19 Is Associated With Severe Impairment of Smell,Taste, and Chemesthesis

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, and generally lacked quantitative measurements. Here, we report the development, implementation, and initial results of a multilingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in 3 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, and 8 others, aged 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 +/- standard deviation), 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 the lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus strain 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms

Developing a core outcome set for clinical trials in olfactory disorders: a COMET initiative

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Evaluating the effectiveness of the management of Olfactory Dysfunction (OD) has been limited by a paucity of high-quality randomised and/or controlled trials. A major barrier is heterogeneity of outcomes in such studies. Core outcome sets (COS) –standardized sets of outcomes that should be measured/reported as determined by consensus—would help overcome this problem and facilitate future meta-analyses and/or systematic reviews (SRs). We set out to develop a COS for interventions for patients with OD. METHODS: A long-list of potential outcomes was identified by a steering group utilising a literature review, thematic analysis of a wide range of stakeholders’ views and systematic analysis of currently available Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). A subsequent e-Delphi process allowed patients and healthcare practitioners to individually rate the outcomes in terms of importance on a 9-point Likert scale. RESULTS: After 2 rounds of the iterative eDelphi process, the initial outcomes were distilled down to a final COS including subjective questions (visual analogue scores, quantitative and qualitative), quality of life measures, psychophysical testing of smell, baseline psychophysical testing of taste, and presence of side effects along with the investigational medicine/device and patient’s symptom log. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of these core outcomes in future trials will increase the value of research on clinical interventions for OD. We include recommendations regarding the outcomes that should be measured, although future work will be required to further develop and revalidate existing outcome measures