-
Bulletin of the National Research Centre 2022In 2019, a viral and respiratory pathology called COVID-19 emerged in Wuhan, China, and spread to other continents. Its main symptoms include fever, cough, dyspnea,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In 2019, a viral and respiratory pathology called COVID-19 emerged in Wuhan, China, and spread to other continents. Its main symptoms include fever, cough, dyspnea, myalgia, anorexia and respiratory distress in the most severe cases, which can lead to death. Furthermore, manifestations in the oral cavity such as ageusia and dysgeusia, as well as lesions in other regions of the oral cavity, can be observed.
MAIN BODY
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to critically assess the clinical evidence on the use of photobiomodulation (PBMT) and antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) for the treatment of oral lesions in patients infected with Sars-Cov-2. The literature extracted from electronic databases such as PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, and Google Scholar was screened for eligibility, and relevant articles were included. The review is limited to manuscripts published in English, Spanish and Portuguese language between December 2019 and October 2021. A total of 5 articles with 11 cases retracting PBMT and aPDT as therapeutic strategies for the regression of oral lesions and painful symptoms. The results show favoring the associated use of PBMT with aPDT ( = 0.004), and the isolated use of PBMT with the result of significant " = 0.005" and good confidence interval (7.18, 39.20) in ulcerative lesions, herpetic, aphthous, erythematous, petechiae and necrotic areas.
CONCLUSIONS
PBMT and aPDT could be effective in the treatment of oral lesions of patients infected with Sars-Cov-2 in a short period of time; however, more long-term randomized clinical trials studies are needed to define the therapeutic strategy.
PubMed: 35601476
DOI: 10.1186/s42269-022-00830-z -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Aug 2022Dry eye disease (DED) is a multifactorial disease that causes ocular discomfort and visual impairment on a damaged ocular surface. Lifitegrast, a novel T-cell integrin... (Review)
Review
Dry eye disease (DED) is a multifactorial disease that causes ocular discomfort and visual impairment on a damaged ocular surface. Lifitegrast, a novel T-cell integrin antagonist, was approved in the United States in July 2016 as a 5% (50 mg/mL) ophthalmic solution for DED management. Currently, no meta-analysis and systemic review based on relevant studies have been conducted. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lifitegrast in patients with DED. We systematically searched Embase, Medline, PubMed, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies evaluating lifitegrast effects on symptomatic DED. Then, inferior corneal staining score, total corneal staining score (TCSS), nasal lissamine staining score (NLSS), total lissamine staining score, ocular discomfort score (ODS), eye discomfort score (visual analog scale (VAS) score), eye dryness score (EDS), ocular surface disease index score (OSDI-S), and tear break-up time (TBUT) were assessed. Clinical global impression and safety profiles were also evaluated. The studies were pooled in a random-effects model. We included five RCTs, one case-control study, and four longitudinal or retrospective studies, comprising 3197 participants. In the meta-analysis, lifitegrast was superior to the placebo because it improved TCSS, NLSS, TBUT, ODS, eye discomfort score, EDS, and OSDI-Sin DED. However, lifitegrast showed higher risks for ocular and non-ocular treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) overall or at a mild or moderate level. Nonetheless, its incidence of adverse events slightly differed from that in the placebo, especially instillation site discomforts and dysgeusia, thereby considered safe and tolerable. Claims of withdrawal during follow-up caused by TEAEs were extremely rare. Lifitegrast improves DED, although dysgeusia, installation site pain, and irritation may be a concern for some. Overall, most of the adverse events are tolerable. Lifitegrast can alleviate refractory DED and improves patients' quality of life.
PubMed: 36078948
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11175014 -
Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) Jun 2021The study objective was to examine the association between phentermine/topiramate therapy and weight loss and adverse events in adults with overweight or obesity by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The study objective was to examine the association between phentermine/topiramate therapy and weight loss and adverse events in adults with overweight or obesity by meta-analysis and systematic review.
METHODS
Medical Subject Headings and free-text terms were selected to search for eligible trials in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase up to April 18, 2020. The quality of randomized controlled trials was evaluated by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effect models.
RESULTS
Phentermine/topiramate therapy resulted in an average weight loss of 7.73 kg (95% CI: 6.60-8.85) in general compared with placebo. The weight loss was related to the dose of phentermine/topiramate. Compared with placebo, the average weight loss was 3.55 kg (95% CI: 2.22-4.88) for 3.75/23 mg, 7.27 kg (95% CI: 6.40-8.13) for 7.5/46 mg, and 8.25 kg (95% CI: 6.92-9.79) for 15/92 mg. For phentermine/topiramate participants in different weight-loss subgroups, the weight loss of participants with ≥5%, ≥10%, and ≥15% baseline weight loss was 3.18 (95% CI: 2.75-3.67), 5.32 (95% CI: 4.53-6.25), and 5.65 (95% CI: 3.55-9.01), respectively. Compared with placebo, the adverse events associated with the treatment mainly included dysgeusia (odds ratio [OR] = 8.86, 95% CI: 5.65-13.89), paresthesia (OR = 8.51, 95% CI: 6.20-11.67), dry mouth (OR = 6.71, 95% CI: 5.03-8.94), disturbance in attention (OR = 4.48, 95% CI: 2.39-8.41), irritability (OR = 4.10, 95% CI: 2.29-7.33), hypoesthesia (OR = 3.81, 95% CI: 1.32-11.00), constipation (OR = 2.43, 95% CI: 2.02-2.93), and dizziness (OR = 2.26, 95% CI: 1.72-2.98). Phentermine/topiramate also reduced waist circumference, blood pressure, blood sugar levels, and lipid levels.
CONCLUSIONS
Phentermine/topiramate has considerable benefit in reducing body weight, and the efficacy was closely related to the dosage. However, it increased the risk of nervous system-related adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Blood Pressure; Body Weight; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Fructose; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Obesity; Overweight; Phentermine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Topiramate; Treatment Outcome; Weight Loss
PubMed: 33864346
DOI: 10.1002/oby.23152 -
JAMA Network Open Oct 2023Hyponatremia and the syndrome of inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone (SIADH) are associated with significant mortality and morbidity. The effectiveness and...
IMPORTANCE
Hyponatremia and the syndrome of inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone (SIADH) are associated with significant mortality and morbidity. The effectiveness and safety of oral urea for SIADH are still debated.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of urea for the treatment of SIADH.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
A systematic search of Medline and Embase was conducted for controlled and uncontrolled studies of urea for SIADH in adult patients. The primary outcome was serum sodium concentration after treatment. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients with osmotic demyelination syndrome (ODS), intracranial pressure, and resource use such as length of stay.
FINDINGS
Twenty-three studies involving 537 patients with SIADH were included, of which 462 were treated with urea. The pooled mean baseline serum sodium was 125.0 mmol/L (95% CI, 122.6-127.5 mmol/L). The median treatment duration with oral urea was 5 days. Urea increased serum sodium concentration by a mean of 9.6 mmol/L (95% CI, 7.5-11.7 mmol/L). The mean increase in serum sodium after 24 hours was 4.9 mmol/L (95% CI, 0.5-9.3 mmol/L). Adverse events were few, mainly consisting of distaste or dysgeusia, and no case of ODS was reported. Resource use was too infrequently reported to be synthesized.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review of the use of urea in SIADH and despite the lack of randomized clinical trials, lower-quality evidence was identified that suggests that urea may be an effective, safe, and inexpensive treatment modality that warrants further exploration.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Urea; Inappropriate ADH Syndrome; Vasopressins; Demyelinating Diseases; Sodium
PubMed: 37902751
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.40313 -
Radiotherapy and Oncology : Journal of... Apr 2021An intact sense of taste provides pleasure, supports sustenance and alerts the body to toxins. Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients who receive radiotherapy (RT) are... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
An intact sense of taste provides pleasure, supports sustenance and alerts the body to toxins. Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients who receive radiotherapy (RT) are high-risk for developing radiation-induced taste dysfunction. Advances in RT offer opportunities for taste-preserving strategies by reducing dose to the gustatory organs-at-risk.
METHODS
PubMed, Medline and EMBASE were searched for publications reporting on taste, RT and HNC. Randomised trials, cohort studies and cross-sectional studies were included.
RESULTS
31 studies were included in this review. Meta-analysed prevalence of acute taste dysfunction following RT was approximately 96% (95% CI 64 to 100%) by objective measures and 79% (95% CI 65 to 88%) by subjective measures, with the majority of patients showing at least partial recovery. Long-term dysfunction was seen in ~25% of patients. Taste dysfunction was associated with sequalae including weight loss and reduced quality-of-life (QoL). Taste dysfunction was more common when the oral cavity, and specifically the anterior two-thirds of the tongue, was irradiated, suggesting a dose constraint for taste preservation might be feasible. Proton beam therapy and customised bite blocks reduced dose to the gustatory field and subsequent loss of taste.
CONCLUSIONS
Taste dysfunction following RT is common and negatively affects patients' nutritional status and QoL. Decisions about treatment strategies, including choice of RT modality, dose distribution across the gustatory field and the use of adjuncts like bite blocks may be beneficial. However, evidence is limited. There is a pressing need for randomised studies or large prospective cohort studies with sufficient adjustment for confounders.
Topics: Cross-Sectional Studies; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Radiotherapy; Taste Disorders
PubMed: 33545253
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.01.021 -
International Journal of... 2022With the global epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), vaccination rates are increasing globally. This study evaluated the relevant clinical manifestations of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
With the global epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), vaccination rates are increasing globally. This study evaluated the relevant clinical manifestations of vaccinated COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
We searched carefully in 11 databases such as PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Ovid, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Wan Fang Data, Sinomed, VIP Database, and Reading Showing Database up to 26 March 2022. To search for articles that have described the characteristics of vaccinated patients including epidemiological and clinical symptoms. Statistical analysis of the extracted data using STATA 14.0.
RESULTS
A total of 58 articles and 263,708 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients were included. Most of the patients in the vaccinated group had more asymptomatic infection and fewer severe illnesses. There were significant differences in ethnicity, and strain infected with COVID-19, and comorbidities (hyperlipidemia, diabetes, obesity, kidney disease, immunocompromised, cardiovascular disease, and tumor) and symptoms (fever, cough, gastrointestinal symptoms, neurological symptoms, and dysgeusia/anosmia) between vaccinated group and unvaccinated group. Oxygen support, use of steroid, days in hospital, hospital treatment, ICU treatment, death, and poor prognosis were also significantly different.
CONCLUSION
Compared with the vaccinated group, patients in the unvaccinated group had a more severe clinical manifestations. Vaccines are also protective for infected people.
Topics: Humans; Cardiovascular Diseases; China; COVID-19; Neoplasms; Research Design
PubMed: 36412572
DOI: 10.1177/03946320221141802 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2023Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. It... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care (SoC) compared to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 or preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 15 May 2023. This is a LSR. We conduct update searches every two months and make them publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in postexposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from low-income countries and low- to middle-income countries, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds.
MAIN RESULTS
As of 15 May 2023, we included two RCTs with 2510 participants with mild and mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo. All trial participants were without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at high risk for progression to severe disease. Randomization coincided with the Delta wave for outpatients and Omicron wave for inpatients. Outpatient trial participants and 73% of inpatients were unvaccinated. Symptom onset in outpatients was no more than five days before randomisation and prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 were not allowed. We excluded two studies due to concerns with research integrity. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Three studies are currently awaiting classification. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 in outpatient settings Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence) and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement of clinical status, quality of life, or viral clearance. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with moderate to severe COVID-19 in inpatient settings We are uncertain whether nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC reduces all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.86; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.58; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 14 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement or worsening of clinical status and quality of life. We did not include data for safety outcomes due to insufficient and inconsistent information. Subgroup analyses for equity For outpatients, the outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity regarding age (less than 65 years versus 65 years or greater) and ethnicity. There were no subgroup differences for age or ethnicity. For inpatients, the outcome 'all-cause mortality' was investigated for equity regarding age (65 years or less versus greater than 65 years). There was no difference between subgroups of age. No further equity-related subgroups were reported, and no subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence suggests nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death in high-risk, unvaccinated COVID-19 outpatients infected with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence of the safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Very low-certainty evidence exists regarding the effects of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on all-cause mortality and viral clearance in mildly to moderately affected, mostly unvaccinated COVID-19 inpatients infected with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Insufficient and inconsistent information prevents the assessment of safety outcomes. No reliable differences in effect size and direction were found regarding equity aspects. There is no available evidence supporting the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are continually updating our search and making search results available on the OSF platform.
Topics: Humans; Aged; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Ritonavir; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 38032024
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015395.pub3 -
European Archives of... Aug 2021These days, the gold standard procedure for otosclerosis treatment is stapes surgery. The endoscopic approach of the procedure is gaining popularity as endoscopic ear... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
These days, the gold standard procedure for otosclerosis treatment is stapes surgery. The endoscopic approach of the procedure is gaining popularity as endoscopic ear surgery develops across the globe. The main objective of this study is to gather and compile well-documented and reliable data regarding surgical outcomes for the endoscopic approach to stapes surgery up to this date.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Publications in English were searched in the PUBMED/MEDLINE database and were systematically reviewed. A total of 16 articles were reviewed according to the inclusion criteria, obtaining a total of 573 patients managed surgically for otosclerosis, using an endoscopic approach. Data were systematically extracted and compared across variables.
RESULTS
Data were obtained as follows: mean age of 43 years; female proportion of 60%; 3 mm endoscope diameter of 51%, 4 mm of 39%; titanium piston-type prostheses of 52% and Teflon of 48%; length of the prosthesis (mode) was 4.5 mm; 0.6 mm diameter of the piston of 81% and 0.4 mm of 19%; mean surgical time was 55 min. Hearing results, mean preoperative air-bone gap (ABG) 31 dB; mean postoperative ABG 9 dB; ABG improvement of 22 dB; an ABG closure rate to 20 dB or less of 92% and an ABG closure rate to 10 dB or less of 77%. Complication rates: intraoperative tympanic membrane perforation of 5%; postoperative vertigo of 11%; postoperative dysgeusia of 10%; reported a postoperative neurosensorial hearing loss of 0.2%; reported gusher phenomenon of one case (0.2%).
CONCLUSION
Endoscopic stapes surgery is completely achievable using 0º angle and 4-mm-diameter sinus surgery endoscope. Instrument availability should not be an obstacle to the development of this type of surgery in any otolaryngology department. Audiological outcomes are comparable to microscopic approaches.
Topics: Adult; Endoscopy; Female; Humans; Ossicular Prosthesis; Otosclerosis; Retrospective Studies; Stapes; Stapes Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33001293
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-020-06388-8 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Dec 2020Many head and neck cancer patients who receive radiation therapy experience radiation-induced dysgeusia (RID), which has no standard treatment. The only supplement... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Many head and neck cancer patients who receive radiation therapy experience radiation-induced dysgeusia (RID), which has no standard treatment. The only supplement controlled clinical trials have evaluated for the treatment of RID is zinc. However, the results of these and other studies investigating the use of zinc for RID have been inconsistent. To assess the validity of zinc as a treatment for RID, we conducted a systematic literature search and performed a meta-analysis to determine the extent to which zinc affects RID incidence and the degree to which ongoing RID responds to zinc.
METHODS
We searched the Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies investigating the use of zinc-based therapy for RID in head and neck cancer patients treated with radiation that were published between January 1, 2003, and November 9, 2017. Using American Society of Clinical Oncology criteria, we selected studies with a high level of evidence for inclusion in the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Of the 32 full-text articles eligible for inclusion, three were included in the final review and meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that, compared with placebo, zinc reduces the incidence of RID (risk ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.92) but does not improve taste acuity more rapidly following radiation therapy (risk ratio, 2.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-6.88).
CONCLUSION
Our findings indicate that zinc-based therapy reduces the incidence of RID but has a minimal effect on ongoing RID. Our findings also highlight the need for additional evidence-based research on this topic.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dysgeusia; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Longitudinal Studies; Prospective Studies; Radiation Injuries; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Zinc
PubMed: 32642950
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-020-05578-8 -
Mayo Clinic Proceedings Aug 2020To estimate the prevalence of olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions (OGDs) among patients infected with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the prevalence of olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions (OGDs) among patients infected with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the preprint server MedRxiv from their inception until May 11, 2020, using the terms anosmia or hyposmia or dysosmia or olfactory dysfunction or olfaction disorder or smell dysfunction or ageusia or hypogeusia or dysgeusia or taste dysfunction or gustatory dysfunction or neurological and COVID-19 or 2019 novel coronavirus or 2019-nCoV or SARS-CoV-2. The references of included studies were also manually screened. Only studies involving patients with diagnostic-confirmed COVID-19 infection were included. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies with data from 8438 patients with test-confirmed COVID-19 infection from 13 countries were included. The pooled proportions of patients presenting with olfactory dysfunction and gustatory dysfunction were 41.0% (95% CI, 28.5% to 53.9%) and 38.2% (95% CI, 24.0% to 53.6%), respectively. Increasing mean age correlated with lower prevalence of olfactory (coefficient = -0.076; P=.02) and gustatory (coefficient = -0.073; P=.03) dysfunctions. There was a higher prevalence of olfactory dysfunctions with the use of objective measurements compared with self-reports (coefficient = 2.33; P=.01). No significant moderation of the prevalence of OGDs by sex was observed.
CONCLUSION
There is a high prevalence of OGDs among patients infected with COVID-19. Routine screening for these conditions could contribute to improved case detection in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. However, to better inform population screening measures, further studies are needed to establish causality.
Topics: Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; COVID-19 Testing; Clinical Laboratory Techniques; Coronavirus Infections; Global Health; Humans; Olfaction Disorders; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Prevalence; SARS-CoV-2; Taste Disorders
PubMed: 32753137
DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.05.030