Search

Although there are numerous brief odor identification tests available for quantifying the ability to smell, none are available in multiple parallel forms that can be longitudinally administered without potential confounding from knowledge of prior test items. Moreover, empirical algorithms for establishing optimal test lengths have not been generally applied. In this study, we employed and compared eight machine learning algorithms to develop a set of four brief parallel smell tests employing items from the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test that optimally differentiated 100 COVID-19 patients from 132 healthy controls. Among the algorithms, linear discriminant analysis (LDA) achieved the best overall performance. The minimum number of odorant test items needed to differentiate smell loss accurately was identified as eight. We validated the sensitivity of the four developed tests, whose means and variances did not differ from one another (Bradley–Blackwood test), by sequential testing an independent group of 32 subjects that included persons with smell dysfunction not due to COVID-19. These eight-item tests clearly differentiated the olfactory compromised subjects from normosmics, with areas under the ROC curve ranging from 0.79 to 0.83. Each test was correlated with the overall UPSIT scores from which they were derived. These brief smell tests can be used separately or sequentially over multiple days in a variety of contexts where longitudinal olfactory testing is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Considerable evidence suggests that smell dysfunction is common in coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19). Unfortunately, extant data on prevalence and reversibility over time are highly variable, coming mainly from self‐report surveys prone to multiple biases. Thus, validated psychophysical olfactory testing is sorely needed to establish such parameters. Methods: One hundred severe acute respiratory syndrome‒coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2)‐positive patients were administered the 40‐item University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) in the hospital near the end of the acute phase of the disease. Eighty‐two were retested 1 or 4 weeks later at home. The data were analyzed using analysis of variance and mixed‐effect regression models. Results: Initial UPSIT scores were indicative of severe microsmia, with 96% exhibiting measurable dysfunction; 18% were anosmic. The scores improved upon retest (initial test: mean, 21.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 20.84‐23.09; retest: mean, 31.13; 95% CI, 30.16‐32.10; p < 0.0001); no patient remained anosmic. After 5 weeks from COVID‐19 symptom onset, the test scores of 63% of the retested patients were normal. However, the mean UPSIT score at that time continued to remain below that of age‐ and sex‐matched healthy controls (p < 0.001). Such scores were related to time since symptom onset, sex, and age. Conclusion: Smell loss was extremely common in the acute phase of a cohort of 100 COVID‐19 patients when objectively measured. About one third of cases continued to exhibit dysfunction 6 to 8 weeks after symptom onset. These findings have direct implications for the use of olfactory testing in identifying SARS‐CoV‐2 carriers and for counseling such individuals with regard to their smell dysfunction and its reversibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome‐coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), is responsible for the largest pandemic since the 1918 influenza A virus subtype H1N1 influenza outbreak. The symptoms presently recognized by the World Health Organization are cough, fever, tiredness, and difficulty breathing. Patient‐reported smell and taste loss has been associated with COVID‐19 infection, yet no empirical olfactory testing on a cohort of COVID‐19 patients has been performed. Methods: The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), a well‐validated 40‐odorant test, was administered to 60 confirmed COVID‐19 inpatients and 60 age‐ and sex‐matched controls to assess the magnitude and frequency of their olfactory dysfunction. A mixed effects analysis of variance determined whether meaningful differences in test scores existed between the 2 groups and if the test scores were differentially influenced by sex. Results: Fifty‐nine (98%) of the 60 patients exhibited some smell dysfunction (mean [95% CI] UPSIT score: 20.98 [19.47, 22.48]; controls: 34.10 [33.31, 34.88]; p < 0.0001). Thirty‐five of the 60 patients (58%) were either anosmic (15/60; 25%) or severely microsmic (20/60; 33%); 16 exhibited moderate microsmia (16/60; 27%), 8 mild microsmia (8/60; 13%), and 1 normosmia (1/60; 2%). Deficits were evident for all 40 UPSIT odorants. No meaningful relationships between the test scores and sex, disease severity, or comorbidities were found. Conclusion: Quantitative smell testing demonstrates that decreased smell function, but not always anosmia, is a major marker for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and suggests the possibility that smell testing may help, in some cases, to identify COVID‐19 patients in need of early treatment or quarantine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]