Search

IntroductionThe current study evaluated the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), an autologous blood product with supraphysiologic concentrations of growth factors, in the treatment of prolonged coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related smell loss.MethodsThis multi-institutional, randomized controlled trial recruited patients with COVID-19 who had objectively measured smell loss (University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test [UPSIT] ≤ 33) between 6 and 12 months. Patients were randomized to three intranasal injections of either PRP or sterile saline into their olfactory clefts. The primary outcome measure was change in Sniffin' Sticks score (threshold, discrimination, and identification [TDI]) from baseline. The secondary end point measures included responder rate (achievement of a clinically significant improvement, ≥5.5 points TDI), change in individual TDI olfaction scores, and change in subjective olfaction via a visual analog scale.ResultsA total of 35 patients were recruited and 26 completed the study. PRP treatment resulted in a 3.67-point (95% CI: 0.05-7.29, p = 0.047) greater improvement in olfaction compared with the placebo group at 3 months and a higher response rate (57.1% vs 8.3%, odds ratio 12.5 [95% exact bootstrap confidence interval, 2.2-116.7]). There was a greater improvement in smell discrimination following PRP treatment compared with placebo but no difference in smell identification or threshold. There was no difference in subjective scores between PRP and placebo. No adverse effects were reported.ConclusionOlfactory function following COVID-19 can improve spontaneously after 6 months and can improve to a greater extent with PRP injection. These data build on the promise of PRP to be a safe potential treatment option for patients with COVID-19-related smell loss, and larger-powered studies will help further assess its efficacy.

BACKGROUND: The clinical course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) olfactory dysfunction remains poorly characterized, often limited by self-reported measures. Given the logistical challenges of psychophysical testing, understanding the longitudinal relationship between self-reported and quantitative measures can help accurately identify patients with persistent olfactory dysfunction. This study aimed to longitudinally correlate measured and subjective olfactory function in COVID-19 subjects. METHODS: A prospective, longitudinal study evaluating subjective and measured olfaction was conducted on ambulatory COVID-19 subjects. Olfaction scores were obtained using a visual analogue scale (VAS) (0 = anosmia, 10 = normosmia) and the validated 12-item Brief Smell Identification Test (BSIT). Weekly testing was performed until recovery (BSIT ≥ 9/12 and/or VAS = 10/10) or study completion. RESULTS: Eighty-six polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive COVID-19 subjects were recruited ≤3 days from diagnosis and 52 completed longitudinal testing. Among those with self-reported smell loss at recruitment, similar levels (75.8%) of objective (BSIT ≥ 9/12) and subjective recovery were obtained using a VAS cutoff ≥8, yet only 30.3% reported complete subjective recovery (VAS = 10). Median times to objective and complete subjective olfactory recovery were 12 ± 2.3 and 24 ± 3.5 days, respectively. Although both measures showed chemosensory improvement, the distributions of objective and full subjective olfactory recovery differed significantly (log rank test χ2 = 6.46, degrees of freedom [df] = 1, p = 0.011). Overall correlation between BSIT and VAS scores was moderate to strong across longitudinal follow-up (rs = 0.41-0.65). CONCLUSION: Self-reported and psychophysically measured COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction improve at similar levels and are moderately correlated longitudinally, yet there is a significant delay in complete subjective recovery. Psychophysical testing in conjunction with qualitative assessments may be considered for counseling and follow-up of patients with COVID-19 smell loss.

The association of smell and taste loss with COVID-19 has been well demonstrated with high prevalence rates. In certain cases, chemosensory loss may be the only symptom of COVID-19 and may linger while other symptoms have resolved. The significance of persistent smell and taste loss and its relationship to ongoing viral shedding has yet to be investigated. In this cross-sectional study, of the 316 laboratory test-confirmed COVID-19 cases at our institution, 46 had subsequent test-based confirmation of viral clearance with 2 consecutive negative RT-PCR test results (reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction). Olfactory dysfunction was reported by 50% of the patients (23 of 46), with 78% (18 of 23) having subjective persistent smell loss despite negative RT-PCR test results. These preliminary data demonstrate the persistence of self-reported smell loss despite otherwise clinical resolution and undetectable nasal viral RNA.

BackgroundRapid spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and concern for viral transmission by ambulatory patients with minimal to no symptoms underline the importance of identifying early or subclinical symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Two such candidate symptoms include anecdotally reported loss of smell and taste. Understanding the timing and association of smell/taste loss in COVID-19 may help facilitate screening and early isolation of cases.MethodsA single-institution, cross-sectional study evaluating patient-reported symptoms with a focus on smell and taste was conducted using an internet-based platform on adult subjects who underwent testing for COVID-19. Logistic regression was employed to identify symptoms associated with COVID-19 positivity.ResultsA total of 1480 patients with influenza-like symptoms underwent COVID-19 testing between March 3, 2020, and March 29, 2020. Our study captured 59 of 102 (58%) COVID-19-positive patients and 203 of 1378 (15%) COVID-19-negative patients. Smell and taste loss were reported in 68% (40/59) and 71% (42/59) of COVID-19-positive subjects, respectively, compared to 16% (33/203) and 17% (35/203) of COVID-19-negative patients (p < 0.001). Smell and taste impairment were independently and strongly associated with COVID-19 positivity (anosmia: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 10.9; 95% CI, 5.08-23.5; ageusia: aOR 10.2; 95% CI, 4.74-22.1), whereas sore throat was associated with COVID-19 negativity (aOR 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.50). Of patients who reported COVID-19-associated loss of smell, 74% (28/38) reported resolution of anosmia with clinical resolution of illness.ConclusionIn ambulatory individuals with influenza-like symptoms, chemosensory dysfunction was strongly associated with COVID-19 infection and should be considered when screening symptoms. Most will recover chemosensory function within weeks, paralleling resolution of other disease-related symptoms.

BackgroundRapid spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus has left many health systems around the world overwhelmed, forcing triaging of scarce medical resources. Identifying indicators of hospital admission for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients early in the disease course could aid the efficient allocation of medical interventions. Self-reported olfactory impairment has recently been recognized as a hallmark of COVID-19 and may be an important predictor of clinical outcome.MethodsA retrospective review of all patients presenting to a San Diego Hospital system with laboratory-confirmed positive COVID-19 infection was conducted with evaluation of olfactory and gustatory function and clinical disease course. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were performed to identify risk factors for hospital admission and anosmia.ResultsA total of 169 patients tested positive for COVID-19 disease between March 3 and April 8, 2020. Olfactory and gustatory data were obtained for 128 (75.7%) of 169 subjects, of which 26 (20.1%) of 128 required hospitalization. Admission for COVID-19 was associated with intact sense of smell and taste, increased age, diabetes, and subjective and objective parameters associated with respiratory failure. On adjusted analysis, anosmia was strongly and independently associated with outpatient care (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.74), whereas positive findings of pulmonary infiltrates and/or pleural effusion on chest radiograph (aOR 8.01; 95% CI, 1.12-57.49) was strongly and independently associated with admission.ConclusionNormosmia is an independent predictor of admission in COVID-19 cases. Smell loss in COVID-19 may be associated with a milder clinical course.

BackgroundOlfactory dysfunction is a prevalent problem with a significant impact on quality of life and increased mortality. Limited effective therapies exist. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous biologic product with anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects. This novel pilot study evaluated the role of PRP on olfactory neuroregeneration in patients with hyposmia.MethodsSeven patients who had olfactory loss greater than 6 months in duration, no evidence of sinonasal inflammatory disease, and no improvement with olfactory training and budesonide topical rinses were enrolled in this preliminary study. Patients received a single intranasal injection of PRP into the mucosa of the olfactory cleft. The Sniffin' Sticks olfactory test consisting of threshold, discrimination, and identification measurements (TDI) was administered at the beginning of the study and at 1 and 3 months.ResultsAll patients reported a subjective improvement of their smell shortly after injection but then stabilized. At 3-month post-treatment, two patients with functional anosmia (TDI  16 but  30) at 3-month follow-up. On average, patients with baseline TDI > 16 improved by 5.85 points with the most significant improvement in the threshold subcomponent. There were no adverse outcomes from intranasal PRP injections.ConclusionPRP appears safe for use in the treatment of olfactory loss, and preliminary data suggest possible efficacy, especially for those with moderate yet persistent loss. Further studies will help determine optimal frequency and duration of use.Level of evidence 2b