Objective: Alterations of the olfactory function in patients affected by COVID-19 often have an early onset and a variable duration ranging from a few weeks to months. The aim of this study was to evaluate olfactory dysfunction persistence after recovery from COVID-19, and potential related clinical-demographic conditions. Patients and Methods: A total of 76 patients recovered from COVID-19 from at least 20 days with olfactory dysfunction during the infection were included in the study. For the subjective evaluation of olfactory function, a visual analogic scale (VAS) was used. The objective evaluation was performed with the use of the Sniffin' Sticks test. Results: Objective assessment of olfactory function revealed that 48 (63.16%) patients were found to be normosmic (TDI ≥ 30.5), 26 (34.21%) were hyposmic (TDI from 30.5 to 16.5) and two (2.63%) were anosmic (TDI ≤ 16.5) at the time of the evaluation. These results did not show a significant difference between subjective and objective tests (p = 0.45). Most patients recovered their sense of smell within the first two months after recovery while a portion (22.2%) still experienced olfactory alterations 4-6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients who had not recovered their sense of smell had a significantly longer period of SARSCoV- 2 positivity compared to patients that fully recovered (36.07 ± 7.78 days vs. 29 ± 7.89 days; p = 0.04). Conclusions: Our results suggest that the duration of the infection negatively correlates with the recovery of olfactory function.

Evaluation of olfactory dysfunction persistence after COVID-19: a prospective study / Bianco, M. R.; Ralli, M.; Minni, A.; Greco, A.; De Vincentiis, M.; Allegra, E.. - In: EUROPEAN REVIEW FOR MEDICAL AND PHARMACOLOGICAL SCIENCES. - ISSN 1128-3602. - 26:3(2022), pp. 1042-1048. [10.26355/eurrev_202202_28014]

Evaluation of olfactory dysfunction persistence after COVID-19: a prospective study

Ralli M.
Secondo
;
Minni A.;Greco A.;De Vincentiis M.
Penultimo
;
2022

Abstract

Objective: Alterations of the olfactory function in patients affected by COVID-19 often have an early onset and a variable duration ranging from a few weeks to months. The aim of this study was to evaluate olfactory dysfunction persistence after recovery from COVID-19, and potential related clinical-demographic conditions. Patients and Methods: A total of 76 patients recovered from COVID-19 from at least 20 days with olfactory dysfunction during the infection were included in the study. For the subjective evaluation of olfactory function, a visual analogic scale (VAS) was used. The objective evaluation was performed with the use of the Sniffin' Sticks test. Results: Objective assessment of olfactory function revealed that 48 (63.16%) patients were found to be normosmic (TDI ≥ 30.5), 26 (34.21%) were hyposmic (TDI from 30.5 to 16.5) and two (2.63%) were anosmic (TDI ≤ 16.5) at the time of the evaluation. These results did not show a significant difference between subjective and objective tests (p = 0.45). Most patients recovered their sense of smell within the first two months after recovery while a portion (22.2%) still experienced olfactory alterations 4-6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients who had not recovered their sense of smell had a significantly longer period of SARSCoV- 2 positivity compared to patients that fully recovered (36.07 ± 7.78 days vs. 29 ± 7.89 days; p = 0.04). Conclusions: Our results suggest that the duration of the infection negatively correlates with the recovery of olfactory function.
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
Bianco_Evaluation of olfactory_2022.pdf

accesso aperto

Note: https://www.europeanreview.org/article/28014
Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 443.12 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
443.12 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri PDF

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1636043
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 3
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact