BACKGROUND: More than a year after recovering from COVID-19, a large proportion of individuals, many of whom work in the healthcare sector, still report olfactory dysfunctions. However, olfactory dysfunction was common already before the COVID-19 pandemic, making it necessary to also consider the existing baseline prevalence of olfactory dysfunction. To establish the adjusted prevalence of COVID-19 related olfactory dysfunction, we assessed smell function in healthcare workers who had contracted COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic using psychophysical testing.
METHODS: Participants were continuously tested for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies since the beginning of the pandemic. To assess the baseline rate of olfactory dysfunction in the population and to control for the possibility of skewed recruitment of individuals with prior olfactory dysfunction, consistent SARS-CoV-2 IgG naïve individuals were tested as a control group.
RESULTS: Fifteen months after contracting COVID-19, 37% of healthcare workers demonstrated a quantitative reduction in their sense of smell, compared to only 20% of the individuals in the control group. Fifty-one percent of COVID-19-recovered individuals reported qualitative symptoms, compared to only 5% in the control group. In a follow-up study 2.6 years after COVID-19 diagnosis, 24% of all tested recovered individuals still experienced parosmia.
CONCLUSIONS: In summary, 65% of healthcare workers experienced parosmia/hyposmia 15 months after contracting COVID-19. When compared to a control group, the prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in the population increased by 41 percentage points. Parosmia symptoms were still lingering two-and-a half years later in 24% of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals. Given the amount of time between infection and testing, it is possible that the olfactory problems may not be fully reversible in a plurality of individuals.

BACKGROUND: Smell disorders are commonly reported with COVID-19 infection. The smell-related issues associated with COVID-19 may be prolonged, even after the respiratory symptoms are resolved. These smell dysfunctions can range from anosmia (complete loss of smell) or hyposmia (reduced sense of smell) to parosmia (smells perceived differently) or phantosmia (smells perceived without an odor source being present). Similar to the difficulty that people experience when talking about their smell experiences, patients find it difficult to express or label the symptoms they experience, thereby complicating diagnosis. The complexity of these symptoms can be an additional burden for patients and health care providers and thus needs further investigation.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the smell disorder concerns of patients and to provide an overview for each specific smell disorder by using the longitudinal survey conducted in 2020 by the Global Consortium for Chemosensory Research, an international research group that has been created ad hoc for studying chemosensory dysfunctions. We aimed to extend the existing knowledge on smell disorders related to COVID-19 by analyzing a large data set of self-reported descriptive comments by using methods from natural language processing.
METHODS: We included self-reported data on the description of changes in smell provided by 1560 participants at 2 timepoints (second survey completed between 23 and 291 days). Text data from participants who still had smell disorders at the second timepoint (long-haulers) were compared with the text data of those who did not (non-long-haulers). Specifically, 3 aims were pursued in this study. The first aim was to classify smell disorders based on the participants\' self-reports. The second aim was to classify the sentiment of each self-report by using a machine learning approach, and the third aim was to find particular food and nonfood keywords that were more salient among long-haulers than those among non-long-haulers.
RESULTS: We found that parosmia (odds ratio [OR] 1.78, 95% CI 1.35-2.37; P<.001) as well as hyposmia (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.34-2.26; P<.001) were more frequently reported in long-haulers than in non-long-haulers. Furthermore, a significant relationship was found between long-hauler status and sentiment of self-report (P<.001). Finally, we found specific keywords that were more typical for long-haulers than those for non-long-haulers, for example, fire, gas, wine, and vinegar.
CONCLUSIONS: Our work shows consistent findings with those of previous studies, which indicate that self-reports, which can easily be extracted online, may offer valuable information to health care and understanding of smell disorders. At the same time, our study on self-reports provides new insights for future studies investigating smell disorders.

The prevalence of posttraumatic olfactory dysfunction in children after mild traumatic brain injury ranges from 3 to 58%, with potential factors influencing this variation, including traumatic brain injury severity and assessment methods. This prospective longitudinal study examines the association between mild traumatic brain injury and olfactory dysfunction in children. Seventy-five pediatric patients with mild traumatic brain injury and an age-matched healthy control group were enrolled. Olfactory function was assessed using the Sniffin\' Sticks battery, which focuses on olfactory threshold and odor identification. The study found that children with mild traumatic brain injury had impaired olfactory function compared with healthy controls, particularly in olfactory threshold scores. The prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in the patient group was 33% and persisted for 1 yr. No significant association was found between traumatic brain injury symptoms (e.g. amnesia, loss of consciousness) and olfactory dysfunction. The study highlights the importance of assessing olfactory function in children after mild traumatic brain injury, given its potential impact on daily life. Although most olfactory dysfunction appears transient, long-term follow-up is essential to fully understand the recovery process. The findings add valuable insights to the limited literature on this topic and urge the inclusion of olfactory assessments in the management of pediatric mild traumatic brain injury.

Parosmia is a qualitative olfactory dysfunction characterized by distortion of odor perception. Traditional treatments for parosmia include olfactory training and steroids. Some patients infected with COVID-19 have developed chronic parosmia as a result of their infection. Here, we present the case of a patient who developed parosmia after a COVID-19 infection that was not improved by traditional treatments but found significant improvement after hyperbaric oxygen therapy[A1].

The prevalence of olfactory dysfunction (OD) in people infected with the Omicron variant is substantially reduced compared with previous variants. However, 4 recent studies reported a greatly increased prevalence of OD with Omicron. We provide a likely explanation for these outlier studies and reveal a major methodological flaw. When the proportion of asymptomatic infections is large, studies on the prevalence of OD will examine and report predominantly on nonrepresentative cohorts, those with symptomatic subjects, thereby artificially inflating the prevalence of OD by up to 10-fold. Estimation of the true OD prevalence requires representative cohorts that include relevant fractions of asymptomatic cases.

Transient loss of smell is a common symptom of influenza and other upper respiratory infections. Loss of taste is possible but rare with these illnesses, and patient reports of \'taste loss\' typically arise from a taste / flavor confusion. Thus, initial reports from COVID-19 patients of loss of taste and chemesthesis (i.e., chemical somatosensation like warming or cooling) were met with skepticism until multiple studies confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections could disrupt these senses. Many studies have been based on self-report or on single time point assessments after acute illness was ended. Here, we describe intensive longitudinal data over 28 days from adults aged 18-45 years recruited in early 2021 (i.e., prior to the Delta and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 waves). These individuals were either COVID-19 positive or close contacts (per U.S. CDC criteria at the time of the study) in the first half of 2021. Upon enrollment, all participants were given nose clips, blinded samples of commercial jellybeans (Sour Cherry and Cinnamon), and scratch-n-sniff odor identification test cards (ScentCheckPro), which they used for daily assessments. In COVID-19 cases who enrolled on or before Day 10 of infection, Gaussian Process Regression showed two distinct measures of function - odor identification and odor intensity - declined relative to controls (exposed individuals who never developed COVID-19). Because enrollment began upon exposure, some participants became ill only after enrollment, which allowed us to capture baseline ratings, onset of loss, and recovery. Data from these four cases and four age- and sex- matched controls were plotted over 28 days to create panel plots. Variables included mean orthonasal intensity of four odors (ScentCheckPro), perceived nasal blockage, oral burn (Cinnamon jellybeans), and sourness and sweetness (Sour Cherry jellybeans). Controls exhibited stable ratings over time. By contrast, COVID-19 cases showed sharp deviations over time. Changes in odor intensity or odor identification were not explained by nasal blockage. No single pattern of taste loss or recovery was apparent, implying different taste qualities might recover at different rates. Oral burn was transiently reduced for some before recovering quickly, suggesting acute loss may be missed in datasets collected only after illness ends. Collectively, intensive daily testing shows orthonasal smell, oral chemesthesis and taste were each altered by acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. This disruption was dyssynchronous for different modalities, with variable loss and recovery rates across both modalities and individuals.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the recovery of olfactory function at six months in individuals infected with the coronavirus disease 2019 omicron variant, using psychophysical tests.
METHODS: A prospective case-control study that included severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 patients infected in February and March 2022 was conducted. Patients underwent the Sniffin\' Sticks test within 10 days of infection and again after at least 6 months. The olfactory scores were compared with those of a control group.
RESULTS: In all, 102 patients and 120 controls were enrolled in the study. At baseline, 26 patients (25.5 per cent) self-reported smell loss. The median threshold, discrimination and identification score was 33.6 (interquartile range, 12.5) for the cases and 36.5 (interquartile range, 4.38) for the controls (p < 0.001). Based on the threshold, discrimination and identification scores, 12 controls and 34 patients reported olfactory dysfunction (p < 0.001). Eighty cases underwent re-evaluation at six months; the median threshold, discrimination and identification score was 37.1 (interquartile range, 4.75) with no significant differences compared with the controls.
CONCLUSIONS: Six months after infection, the prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in patients did not differ significantly from the control population.

The aim of the study was to analyze objective and subjective olfactory/gustatory function in post-COVID-19 infection (PCI).
Patients with past PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection and persistent olfactory/gustatory complaints were investigated. Olfactory threshold and identification, gustatory detection, identification, and magnitude scaling were tested.
A total of 42 PCI subjects were compared to 41 age- and gender-matched controls with no COVID-19 history. All PCI tested had mild COVID-19 disease. Mean interval between COVID-19 confirmations to testing was 7.4 ± 3.1 months. PCI subjects complained of combined dysfunction in 85.7%, isolated olfactory or gustatory dysfunction in 7.1% each. Combined complaints were significantly higher in PCI (p < 0.001). Objective testing showed significantly higher prevalence of dysfunction in PCI versus controls for hyposmia (73.8%, 12.2%), anosmia (11.9%, 0%), odor identification (68.5%, 83.0%), hypogeusia (23% and 2.4%, respectively), and impaired magnitude scaling, (p < 0.05). All PCI subjects with hypogeusia had abnormal gustatory magnitude scaling.
While most PCI subjects complained of combined gustatory and olfactory dysfunction, objective testing showed in the majority an isolated single sense dysfunction, with a low level of agreement between subjective and objective findings. Abnormal objective results for all olfactory and gustatory functions tested may suggest a central rather than peripheral mechanism, although concomitant mechanisms cannot be excluded.

The aim of this study was to psychophysically evaluate the prevalence of smell and taste dysfunction 2 years after mildly symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection compared to that observed at 1-year follow-up and while considering the background of chemosensory dysfunction in the no-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) population.
This is a prospective case-control study on 93 patients with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection and 93 matched controls. Self-reported olfactory and gustatory dysfunction was assessed by 22-item Sino-Nasal-Outcome Test (SNOT-22), item \"Sense of smell or taste.\" Psychophysical orthonasal and retronasal olfactory function and gustatory performance were estimated using the extended Sniffin\' Sticks test battery, 20 powdered tasteless aromas, and taste strips test, respectively. Nasal trigeminal sensitivity was assessed by sniffing a 70% solution of acetic acid.
The two psychophysical assessments of chemosensory function took place after a median of 409 days (range, 366-461 days) and 765 days (range, 739-800 days) from the first SARS-CoV-2-positive swab, respectively. At 2-year follow-up, cases exhibited a decrease in the prevalence of olfactory (27.9% vs. 42.0%; absolute difference, -14.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -21.8% to -2.6%; p = 0.016) and gustatory dysfunction (14.0% vs. 25.8%; absolute difference, -11.8%; 95% CI, -24.2% to 0.6%; p = 0.098). Subjects with prior COVID-19 were more likely than controls to have an olfactory dysfunction (27.9% vs. 10.8 %; absolute difference, 17.2%; 95% CI, 5.2% to 28.8%) but not gustatory dysfunction (14.0% vs. 9.7%; absolute difference, 4.3%; 95% CI, -5.8% to 14.4% p = 0.496) still 2 years after the infection. Overall, 3.2% of cases were still anosmic 2 years after the infection.
Although a proportion of subjects recovered from long-lasting smell/taste dysfunction more than 1 year after COVID-19, cases still exhibited a significant excess of olfactory dysfunction 2 years after SARS-CoV-2 infection when compared to matched controls.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the prevalence of olfactory dysfunction (OD) at different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic by evaluating subjects diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Omicron wave with psychophysical tests and comparing the results with those obtained from patients infected during the D614G, Alpha and Delta waves and with those of a control group.
METHODS: The study included adult patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Depending on the time of diagnosis, the subjects were divided into four study groups: D614G; Alpha, Delta and Omicron variant groups. A group of uninfected individuals was used as control. All subjects underwent psychophysical evaluation of the olfactory function with the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center olfactory test (D614G and Alpha groups) or the extended version of the Sniffin\'Sticks test (Delta, Omicron and control groups).
RESULTS: 372 cases (134 D614G group, 118 Alpha group, 32 in Delta group and 88 Omicron group) were recruited and evaluated within 10 days of infection, alongside 80 controls. Patients self-reported olfactory loss in 72.4% of cases in the D614G group, in 75.4% of cases in the Alpha group, in 65.6% of cases in the Delta group and in 18.1% in the Omicron group. Psychophysical evaluation revealed a prevalence of OD: 80.6%, 83.0%, 65.6% and 36.3% in the D614G, Alpha, Delta and Omicron group respectively. The differences between the D614G, Alpha and Delta groups were not statistically significant. The Omicron group demonstrated a significantly lower prevalence of OD than the other variants but still significantly higher than the controls.
CONCLUSIONS: During the Omicron wave OD was less prevalent than during the D614G, Alpha and Delta periods. One-third of patients have reduced olfactory function on psychophysical evaluation during the Omicron wave. Our results should be considered with caution as the VOC has not been determined with certainty.