Course of symptoms for loss of sense of smell and taste over time in one thousand forty-one healthcare workers during the Covid-19 pandemic: Our experience

Targeting the mammalian target of rapamycin pathway in neurological manifestations of Covid-19

The diverse and severe nature of neurological manifestations associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has garnered increasing attention. Exploring the potential to decrease neurological complications in Covid-19 patients involves targeting the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway as a therapeutic strategy. The mTOR pathway, widely recognised for its central role in essential cellular processes like synthesising proteins, facilitating autophagy, and modulating immune responses, has implications in various neurological disorders. Drawing parallels between these disorders and the observed neurological complications in Covid-19, we present a comprehensive review on the current understanding of mTOR signalling in the context of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and neuroinflammation.

A double-blinded randomised controlled trial of vitamin A drops to treat post-viral olfactory loss: study protocol for a proof-of-concept study for vitamin A nasal drops in post-viral olfactory loss (APOLLO)

BACKGROUND

Smell loss is a common problem with an estimated 5% of the population having no functioning sense of smell. Viral causes of smell loss are the second most common cause and the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is estimated to have caused 20,000 more people this year to have a lasting loss of smell. Isolation, depression, anxiety, and risk of danger from hazards such as toxic gas and spoiled food are all negative impacts. It also affects appetite with weight loss/gain in two-thirds of those affected. Phantosmia or smell distortion can also occur making most foods seem unpalatable. Smell training has been tried with good results in the immediate post-viral phase. Evidence behind treatment with steroids has not shown to have proven effectiveness. With this, a key problem for patients and their clinicians is the lack of proven effective therapeutic treatment options. Based on previous studies, there is some evidence supporting the regenerative potential of retinoic acid, the metabolically active form of vitamin A in the regeneration of olfactory receptor neurons. It is based on this concept that we have chosen vitamin A as our study comparator.

AIM

To undertake a two-arm randomised trial of intranasally delivered vitamin A vs no intervention to determine proof of concept.

METHODS/DESIGN

The study will compare 10,000 IU once daily Vitamin A self-administered intranasal drops versus peanut oil drops (placebo) delivered over 12 weeks in patients with post-viral olfactory loss. Potentially eligible patients will be recruited from the Smell & Taste Clinic and via the charity Fifth Sense. They will be invited to attend the Brain Imaging Centre at the University of East Anglia on two occasions, 3 months apart. If they meet the eligibility criteria, they will be consented to enter the study and randomised to receive vitamin A drops or no treatment in a 2:1 ratio. MRI scanning will enable volumetric measurement of the OB and ROS; fMRI will then be conducted using an olfactometer to deliver pulsed odours-phenethylalcohol (rose-like) and hydrogen sulphide (rotten eggs). Participants will also perform a standard smell test at both visits as well as complete a quality-of-life questionnaire. Change in OB volume will be the primary outcome measure.

DISCUSSION

We expect the outputs of this study to enable a subsequent randomised controlled trial of Vitamin A versus placebo. With PPI input we will make the outputs publicly available using journals, conferences, and social media via Fifth Sense. We have already prepared a draft RCT proposal in partnership with the Norwich Clinical Trials Unit and plan to develop this further in light of the findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registry 39523. Date of registration in the primary registry: 23rd February 2021.

Olfactory Disorders Questionnaire: Scaling severity of quality-of-life impact

BACKGROUND

The Olfactory Disorders Questionnaire (ODQ) is widely used for patients suffering from olfactory disorders to depict the impact on quality of life. The aim of this study was to scale and produce reference values for patients ODQ score according to Becks Depression Inventory (BDI) severity.

METHODS

In this prospective study, a cross-sectional anonymous survey was created, which combined EQ-5D-5L, BDI and ODQ. Correlation was calculated between the three questionnaires. Receiver operator characteristic curves were created to produce cut-off values for ODQ scores based on three BDI categories (mild, borderline clinical and moderate-to-severe depression).

RESULTS

Of the 578 who responded to the survey, 445 completed all sections and were included in the study. Majority were female (n = 327,73.5%), median age group 55-70 years (n = 193,43.4%). There was a strong correlation between BDI score and total ODQ score. There was a clear gradient in total ODQ score for each BDI classification; those with mild depression had the lowest mean ODQ score (101.8, range 39-168), those with moderate-to-severe depression had the highest (138.24, range 74-177). Due to overlapping of confidence intervals we were unable to grade the ODQ score.

CONCLUSION

The study was unable to generate reference values for the ODQ due to lower numbers of patients with borderline clinical to extreme depression. However, we were able to appreciate the general trend, that the higher the ODQ score, the higher the risk of depression. These findings should guide clinical practice to ensure appropriate care and support is provided for those with olfactory dysfunction.

[Interpretation of the 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology expert consensus on the treatment of postinfectious olfactory dysfunction]

Respiratory tract viruses are the second leading cause of olfactory dysfunction. Between 2019 to 2022, the world has been plagued by the problem of olfaction caused by the COVID-19. As we learn more about the impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2（SARS-CoV-2）, with the recognition that olfactory dysfunction is a key symptom of this disease process, there is a greater need than ever for evidence-based management of postinfectious olfactory dysfunction（PIOD）. The Clinical Olfactory Working Group has proposed theconsensus on the roles of PIOD. This paper is the detailed interpretation of the consensus.

Taste loss as a distinct symptom of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chemosensory scientists have been skeptical that reports of COVID-19 taste loss are genuine, in part because before COVID-19 taste loss was rare and often confused with smell loss. Therefore, to establish the predicted prevalence rate of taste loss in COVID-19 patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 376 papers published in 2020-2021, with 235 meeting all inclusion criteria. Drawing on previous studies and guided by early meta-analyses, we explored how methodological differences (direct vs. self-report measures) may affect these estimates. We hypothesized that direct measures of taste are at least as sensitive as those obtained by self-report and that the preponderance of evidence confirms taste loss is a symptom of COVID-19. The meta-analysis showed that, among 138,015 COVID-19-positive patients, 36.62% reported taste dysfunction (95% confidence interval: 33.02%-40.39%), and the prevalence estimates were slightly but not significantly higher from studies using direct (n = 15) versus self-report (n = 220) methodologies (Q = 1.73, df = 1, P = 0.1889). Generally, males reported lower rates of taste loss than did females, and taste loss was highest among middle-aged adults. Thus, taste loss is likely a bona fide symptom of COVID-19, meriting further research into the most appropriate direct methods to measure it and its underlying mechanisms.

A follow-up on quantitative and qualitative olfactory dysfunction and other symptoms in patients recovering from COVID-19 smell loss

BACKGROUND

Sudden smell loss is a specific early symptom of COVID-19, which, prior to the emergence of Omicron, had estimated prevalence of ~40% to 75%. Chemosensory impairments affect physical and mental health, and dietary behavior. Thus, it is critical to understand the rate and time course of smell recovery. The aim of this cohort study was to characterize smell function and recovery up to 11 months post COVID-19 infection.

METHODS

This longitudinal survey of individuals suffering COVID-19-related smell loss assessed disease symptoms and gustatory and olfactory function. Participants (n=12,313) who completed an initial survey (S1) about respiratory symptoms, chemosensory function and COVID-19 diagnosis between April and September 2020, were invited to complete a follow-up survey (S2). Between September 2020 and February 2021, 27.5% participants responded (n=3,386), with 1,468 being diagnosed with COVID-19 and suffering co-occurring smell and taste loss at the beginning of their illness.

RESULTS

At follow-up (median time since COVID-19 onset ~200 days), ~60% of women and ~48% of men reported less than 80% of their pre-illness smell ability. Taste typically recovered faster than smell, and taste loss rarely persisted if smell recovered. Prevalence of parosmia and phantosmia was ~10% of participants in S1 and increased substantially in S2: ~47% for parosmia and ~25% for phantosmia. Persistent smell impairment was associated with more symptoms overall, suggesting it may be a key marker of long-COVID illness. The ability to smell during COVID-19 was rated slightly lower by those who did not eventually recover their pre-illness ability to smell at S2.

CONCLUSIONS

While smell ability improves for many individuals who lost it during acute COVID-19, the prevalence of parosmia and phantosmia increases substantially over time. Olfactory dysfunction is associated with broader persistent symptoms of COVID-19, and may last for many months following acute COVID-19. Taste loss in the absence of smell loss is rare. Persistent qualitative smell symptoms are emerging as common long-term sequelae; more research into treatment options is strongly warranted given that even conservative estimates suggest millions of individuals may experience parosmia following COVID-19. Healthcare providers worldwide need to be prepared to treat post COVID-19 secondary effects on physical and mental health.

Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 illness is highly variable, ranging from infection with no symptoms through to pneumonia and life-threatening consequences. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of sense of smell (anosmia) or taste (ageusia), can help flag early on if the disease is present. Such information could be used either to rule out COVID-19 disease, or to identify people who need to go for COVID-19 diagnostic tests. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We undertook electronic searches up to 10 June 2021 in the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We used artificial intelligence text analysis to conduct an initial classification of documents. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible if they included people with clinically suspected COVID-19, or recruited known cases with COVID-19 and also controls without COVID-19 from a single-gate cohort. Studies were eligible when they recruited people presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies that included people who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract, and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 checklist, and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Analyses were restricted to prospective studies only. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis whenever five or more primary prospective studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 90 studies; for this update we focused on the results of 42 prospective studies with 52,608 participants. Prevalence of COVID-19 disease varied from 3.7% to 60.6% with a median of 27.4%. Thirty-five studies were set in emergency departments or outpatient test centres (46,878 participants), three in primary care settings (1230 participants), two in a mixed population of in- and outpatients in a paediatric hospital setting (493 participants), and two overlapping studies in nursing homes (4007 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild COVID-19 disease from COVID-19 pneumonia, so we present the results for both conditions together. Twelve studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because they used a high level of preselection to decide whether reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was needed, or because they enrolled a non-consecutive sample, or because they excluded individuals while they were part of the study base. We rated 36 of the 42 studies as high risk of bias for the index tests because there was little or no detail on how, by whom and when, the symptoms were measured. For most studies, eligibility for testing was dependent on the local case definition and testing criteria that were in effect at the time of the study, meaning most people who were included in studies had already been referred to health services based on the symptoms that we are evaluating in this review. The applicability of the results of this review iteration improved in comparison with the previous reviews. This version has more studies of people presenting to ambulatory settings, which is where the majority of assessments for COVID-19 take place. Only three studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 96 symptoms or combinations of signs and symptoms. Evidence on individual signs as diagnostic tests was rarely reported, so this review reports mainly on the diagnostic value of symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. RT-PCR was the most often used reference standard (40/42 studies). Only cough (11 studies) had a summary sensitivity above 50% (62.4%, 95% CI 50.6% to 72.9%)); its specificity was low (45.4%, 95% CI 33.5% to 57.9%)). Presence of fever had a sensitivity of 37.6% (95% CI 23.4% to 54.3%) and a specificity of 75.2% (95% CI 56.3% to 87.8%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of cough was 1.14 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.25) and that of fever 1.52 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.10). Sore throat had a summary positive likelihood ratio of 0.814 (95% CI 0.714 to 0.929), which means that its presence increases the probability of having an infectious disease other than COVID-19. Dyspnoea (12 studies) and fatigue (8 studies) had a sensitivity of 23.3% (95% CI 16.4% to 31.9%) and 40.2% (95% CI 19.4% to 65.1%) respectively. Their specificity was 75.7% (95% CI 65.2% to 83.9%) and 73.6% (95% CI 48.4% to 89.3%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of dyspnoea was 0.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.11) and that of fatigue 1.52 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.91), which means that the presence of fatigue slightly increases the probability of having COVID-19. Anosmia alone (7 studies), ageusia alone (5 studies), and anosmia or ageusia (6 studies) had summary sensitivities below 50% but summary specificities over 90%. Anosmia had a summary sensitivity of 26.4% (95% CI 13.8% to 44.6%) and a specificity of 94.2% (95% CI 90.6% to 96.5%). Ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 23.2% (95% CI 10.6% to 43.3%) and a specificity of 92.6% (95% CI 83.1% to 97.0%). Anosmia or ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 39.2% (95% CI 26.5% to 53.6%) and a specificity of 92.1% (95% CI 84.5% to 96.2%). The summary positive likelihood ratios of anosmia alone and anosmia or ageusia were 4.55 (95% CI 3.46 to 5.97) and 4.99 (95% CI 3.22 to 7.75) respectively, which is just below our arbitrary definition of a 'red flag', that is, a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5. The summary positive likelihood ratio of ageusia alone was 3.14 (95% CI 1.79 to 5.51). Twenty-four studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms, mostly combining olfactory symptoms. By combining symptoms with other information such as contact or travel history, age, gender, and a local recent case detection rate, some multivariable prediction scores reached a sensitivity as high as 90%.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most individual symptoms included in this review have poor diagnostic accuracy. Neither absence nor presence of symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out the disease. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for the presence of COVID-19. The presence of cough also supports further testing. There is currently no evidence to support further testing with PCR in any individuals presenting only with upper respiratory symptoms such as sore throat, coryza or rhinorrhoea. Combinations of symptoms with other readily available information such as contact or travel history, or the local recent case detection rate may prove more useful and should be further investigated in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. The diagnostic accuracy of symptoms for COVID-19 is moderate to low and any testing strategy using symptoms as selection mechanism will result in both large numbers of missed cases and large numbers of people requiring testing. Which one of these is minimised, is determined by the goal of COVID-19 testing strategies, that is, controlling the epidemic by isolating every possible case versus identifying those with clinically important disease so that they can be monitored or treated to optimise their prognosis. The former will require a testing strategy that uses very few symptoms as entry criterion for testing, the latter could focus on more specific symptoms such as fever and anosmia.

A German AWMF's S2e/realist synthesis and meta-narrative snapshot of craniomaxillofacial manifestations in COVID-19 patients: Rapid living update on 1 January 2021

PURPOSES

To execute a review answering the following question: "Among novel coronavirus disease (COVID19) patients, what are craniomaxillofacial (CMF) manifestations?" based on the RAMESES and the German Association of Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF)'s S2e guidelines.

METHODS

We performed a realist synthesis and meta-narrative review extracting data in English, French, German and Thai from PubMed/Medline, Embase, Biomed Central, Cochrane Library, and Thai Journals Online, until 1 January 2021. The primary outcome variable was CMF manifestations grouped into 5 categories: (1) mouth and throat, (2) nose, paranasal sinus, and skull base (3) ocular/orbital and periorbital tissue, (4) ear, and (5) craniofacial skin. Appropriate statistics was computed.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven original articles meeting the inclusion criteria were analysed; all were in English and indexed in PubMed/Medline. Hand searches of their references yielded a total of 101 articles for the review. Most data were in low level of evidence and focused on smell and taste disturbances and non-specific orofacial lesions. Iatrogenic complications may occur in this body region. Conservative measures remained effective and were usually enough for patient care.

CONCLUSION

Because SARS-CoV-2 infection is new and becomes the stringent worldwide pandemic within a short time period, most of the data on CMF symptoms are of low level evidence. Apart from taste and smell dysfunctions, non-specific CMF lesions can be found and treated conservatively. Treatment complications are possible. Dentists and CMF surgeons are privileged to examine the orofacial region and work closely with colleagues in other specialities to combat this pandemic.

Taste loss as a distinct symptom of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chemosensory scientists have been skeptical that reports of COVID-19 taste loss are genuine, in part because before COVID-19 taste loss was rare and often confused with smell loss. Therefore, to establish the predicted prevalence rate of taste loss in COVID-19 patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 376 papers published in 2020-2021, with 241 meeting all inclusion criteria. Drawing on previous studies and guided by early meta-analyses, we explored how methodological differences (direct vs. self-report measures) may affect these estimates. We hypothesized that direct measures of taste are at least as sensitive as those obtained by self-report and that the preponderance of evidence confirms taste loss is a symptom of COVID-19. The meta-analysis showed that, among 138,897 COVID-19-positive patients, 39.2% reported taste dysfunction (95% confidence interval: 35.34%-43.12%), and the prevalence estimates were slightly but not significantly higher from studies using direct (n = 18) versus self-report (n = 223) methodologies (Q = 0.57, df = 1, P = 0.45). Generally, males reported lower rates of taste loss than did females, and taste loss was highest among middle-aged adults. Thus, taste loss is likely a bona fide symptom of COVID-19, meriting further research into the most appropriate direct methods to measure it and its underlying mechanisms.

Exploring the Clinical Utility of Gustatory Dysfunction (GD) as a Triage Symptom Prior to Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) in the Diagnosis of COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of COVID-19 is made using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) but its sensitivity varies from 20 to 100%. The presence of gustatory dysfunction (GD) in a patient with upper respiratory tract symptoms might increase the clinical suspicion of COVID-19.

AIMS

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR-) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of using GD as a triage symptom prior to RT-PCR.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase were searched up to 20 June 2021. Studies published in English were included if they compared the frequency of GD in COVID-19 adult patients (proven by RT-PCR) to COVID-19 negative controls in case control or cross-sectional studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies.

RESULTS

21,272 COVID-19 patients and 52,298 COVID-19 negative patients were included across 44 studies from 21 countries. All studies were of moderate to high risk of bias. Patients with GD were more likely to test positive for COVID-19: DOR 6.39 (4.86-8.40), LR+ 3.84 (3.04-4.84), LR- 0.67 (0.64-0.70), pooled sensitivity 0.37 (0.29-0.47) and pooled specificity 0.92 (0.89-0.94). While history/questionnaire-based assessments were predictive of RT-PCR positivity (DOR 6.62 (4.95-8.85)), gustatory testing was not (DOR 3.53 (0.98-12.7)). There was significant heterogeneity among the 44 studies (I2 = 92%, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

GD is useful as a symptom to determine if a patient should undergo further testing, especially in resource-poor regions where COVID-19 testing is scarce. Patients with GD may be advised to quarantine while repeated testing is performed if the initial RT-PCR is negative.

FUNDING

None.

Dietary supplementation with monosodium glutamate with dietary balance such as protein, salt and sugar intake with increasing T1R3 taste receptor gene expression in healthy females

We previously showed that chemotherapy-induced dysgeusia was associated with lingual taste receptor gene expression, and monosodium glutamate (MSG) improved dysgeusia by upregulating taste 1 receptor 3(T1R3) gene expression. In recent years, decreased taste sensitivity has also been reported in some young people, and these are partly due to their disordered eating habits. From these background, we investigated the effects of MSG supplementation on taste receptor expression and dietary intake in healthy females. Fifteen young healthy volunteers were enrolled for the present crossover study and divided in two groups (dietary supplementation with MSG at 2.7 g / day or 0.27 g / day). The relative expression of T1R3, a subunit of both umami and sweet taste receptors, in the tongue was assessed by quantitative PCR analysis. Food intake was assessed by food frequency questionnaire (FFQg), and body composition was measured using Omron HBF-701. T1R3 expression levels in the tongue and taste sensitivity increased significantly in participants who consumed <10 g of MSG daily, whereas no alteration was observed in participants who consumed >10 g of MSG daily. Furthermore, protein, fat, and carbohydrate (PFC) balance and salt and sugar intake improved by MSG supplementation. In conclusion, MSG supplementation increased T1R3 expression in the tongue and improved dietary balance. J. Med. Invest. 68 : 315-320, August, 2021.

Taste loss as a distinct symptom of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Chemosensory scientists have been skeptical that reports of COVID-19 taste loss are genuine, in part because before COVID-19, taste loss was rare and often confused with smell loss. Therefore, to establish the predicted prevalence rate of taste loss in COVID-19 patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 376 papers published in 2020-2021, with 241 meeting all inclusion criteria. Additionally, we explored how methodological differences (direct vs. self-report measures) may affect these estimates. We hypothesized that direct prevalence measures of taste loss would be the most valid because they avoid the taste/smell confusion of self-report. The meta-analysis showed that, among 138,897 COVID-19-positive patients, 39.2% reported taste dysfunction (95% CI: 35.34-43.12%), and the prevalence estimates were slightly but not significantly higher from studies using direct (n = 18) versus self-report (n = 223) methodologies (Q = 0.57, df = 1, p = 0.45). Generally, males reported lower rates of taste loss than did females and taste loss was highest in middle-aged groups. Thus, taste loss is a bona fide symptom COVID-19, meriting further research into the most appropriate direct methods to measure it and its underlying mechanisms.

Barriers to effective health care for patients who have smell or taste disorders

Objectives

Smell/taste disturbances are a common but underrated, under‐researched and under treated sensory loss and an independent risk factor for reduced longevity. This study aimed to characterise the experience of patients with these disorders in seeking help.

Design

The study was designed by patients together with clinicians through a dedicated workshop and conducted as a cross‐sectional survey to capture experiences in public and private healthcare settings internationally.

Setting

Primary, secondary and tertiary care.

Participants

Any members of the public self‐reporting a smell/taste disorder were invited to participate.

Main outcome measures

The survey captured information including experience of getting consultations and referrals to medical professionals, treatments offered, costs incurred and related problems with mental health.

Results

Of 673 participants; 510 female, 160 male, three not stated, self‐reported aetiology included sinonasal disease (24%), idiopathic (24%) and post‐viral olfactory dysfunction (22%); true gustatory disorders were typically rare. Failure of medical professionals to recognise the problem was a key concern ‐ 64%, 76% and 47% of GPs, ENT specialists and Neurologists acknowledged, respectively. Other issues included repeated ineffective treatments, difficulties getting referrals to secondary/tertiary care, mental health problems (60%) and a mean personal cost of £421 to seeking advice and treatment. Whilst the participants were self‐selecting, however, they do represent those who are seeking help and intervention for their disorders.

Conclusion

There is an unmet need for these patients in accessing health care including a clear need to improve education of and engagement with the medical profession in Otorhinolaryngology, General Practice and other specialties, in order to remove the current barriers they face.

Human cell receptors: potential drug targets to combat COVID-19

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The World Health Organization (WHO) has announced that COVID-19 is a pandemic having a higher spread rate rather than the mortality. Identification of a potential approach or therapy against COVID-19 is still under consideration. Therefore, it is essential to have an insight into SARS-CoV-2, its interacting partner, and domains for an effective treatment. The present study is divided into three main categories, including SARS-CoV-2 prominent receptor and its expression levels, other interacting partners, and their binding domains. The first section focuses primarily on coronaviruses' general aspects (SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronaviruses (MERS-CoV)) their structures, similarities, and mode of infections. The second section discusses the host receptors which includes the human targets of coronaviruses like dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4), CD147, CD209L, Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2), and other miscellaneous targets (type-II transmembrane serine proteases (TTSPs), furin, trypsin, cathepsins, thermolysin, elastase, phosphatidylinositol 3-phosphate 5-kinase, two-pore segment channel, and epithelium sodium channel C-α subunit). The human cell receptor, ACE2 plays an essential role in the Renin-Angiotensin system (RAS) pathway and COVID-19. Thus, this section also discusses the ACE2 expression and risk of COVID-19 infectivity in various organs and tissues such as the liver, lungs, intestine, heart, and reproductive system in the human body. Absence of ACE2 protein expression in immune cells could be used for limiting the SARS-CoV-2 infection. The third section covers the current available approaches for COVID-19 treatment. Overall, this review focuses on the critical role of human cell receptors involved in coronavirus pathogenesis, which would likely be used in designing target-specific drugs to combat COVID-19.

Smell and Taste Loss Recovery Time in COVID-19 Patients and Disease Severity

A significant proportion of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 report a new onset of smell or taste loss. The duration of the chemosensory impairment and predictive factors of recovery are still unclear. We aimed to investigate the prevalence, temporal course and recovery predictors in patients who suffered from varying disease severity. Consecutive adult patients diagnosed to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 via reverse-transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) at two coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) Reference Hospitals were contacted to complete a survey reporting chemosensory loss, severity, timing and duration, nasal symptoms, smoking, allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, comorbidities and COVID-19 severity. In a cross-sectional study, we contacted 182 patients and 150 responded. Excluding the critically ill patients, 38% reported gustatory and 41% olfactory impairment (74% severe/anosmia). Most of the patients (88%) recovered their sense of smell by two months (median: 11.5 days; IQR: 13.3). For 23%, the olfactory loss lasted longer than a month. There were no significant differences in the prevalence and duration of chemosensory loss between groups of varying COVID-19 severity, and sexes (all p > 0.05). Moderate hyposmia resolved quicker than more severe loss (p = 0.04). Smell and taste loss are highly prevalent in COVID-19. Most patients recover fast, but nearly one out of ten have not recovered in two months.