-
The International Journal of... Jul 2023The current pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is accompanied with a rapid increase of reports and papers detailing its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The current pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is accompanied with a rapid increase of reports and papers detailing its neurological effects and symptoms. The virus infection causes respiratory illness named by the world health organization as corona virus 19 (COVID-19).This systematic review aims to study and summarize the different neurological manifestations of this virus. All articles published and indexed via Pubmed, Medline and Google Scholar databases between January 1st 2020 and February 28th 2021 that reported neurological symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 are reviewed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.We included data from 113 articles: eight prospective studies, 25 retrospective studies and the rest were case reports/series. COVID-19 can present with central nervous system manifestations, such as headache, encephalitis and encephalopathy, peripheral nervous system manifestations, such as anosmia, ageusia and Guillian Barre syndrome, and skeletal muscle manifestations, such as myalgia and myasthenia gravis. Our systematic review showed that COVID-19 can be manifested by a wide spectrum of neurological symptoms reported either in the early stage or within the course of the disease. However, a detailed comprehension of these manifestations is required and more studies are needed in order to improve our scientific knowledge and to develop preventive and therapeutic measures to control this pandemic.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Nervous System Diseases; Comprehension; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34433369
DOI: 10.1080/00207454.2021.1973000 -
Reviews in Medical Virology Nov 2022Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a novel disease caused by a newly identified virus Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing diverse... (Review)
Review
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a novel disease caused by a newly identified virus Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing diverse systemic manifestations. The oral cavity too is not spared and the symptoms appear either independently, concurrently, or sequentially. In view of the rising documented cases of oral lesions of COVID-19, this systematic review aims to assess the prevalence of oral manifestations in COVID-19 confirmed individuals. An extensive literature search was conducted in databases like Scopus, Pubmed/Medline, Livivo, Lilacs and Google Scholar and varied oral signs and symptoms were reported as per the PRISMA guidelines. Studies published in English language literature only were included and were subjected to the risk of bias using the Joana Briggs Institute Appraisal tools for prevalence studies, case series and case reports. In a two-phase selection, 34 studies were included: 21 observational, 3 case-series and 10 case reports. These observational studies included approximately 14,003 patients from 10 countries. In this review, we explored the most commonly encountered oral and dental manifestations in COVID-19 and identified that loss of taste acuity, xerostomia and anosmia were frequently reported. Elevated incidence of opportunistic infections like mucormycosis and aspergillosis were reported during the treatment due to prolonged intake of steroids. Immunosuppression and poor oral hygiene led to secondary manifestations like enanthematous lesions. However, it is not clear that oral signs and symptoms are due to COVID-19 infection itself or are the result of extensive treatment regimen followed [PROSPERO CRD42021258264].
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Prevalence
PubMed: 35271738
DOI: 10.1002/rmv.2345 -
Current Treatment Options in Neurology 2020To investigate the association between the olfactory dysfunction and the more typical symptoms (fever, cough, dyspnoea) within the Sars-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) in... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
To investigate the association between the olfactory dysfunction and the more typical symptoms (fever, cough, dyspnoea) within the Sars-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) in hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients.
RECENT FINDINGS
PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were reviewed from May 5, 2020, to June 1, 2020. Inclusion criteria included English, French, German, Spanish or Italian language studies containing original data related to COVID19, anosmia, fever, cough, and dyspnoea, in both hospital and non-hospital settings. Two investigators independently reviewed all manuscripts and performed quality assessment and quantitative meta-analysis using validated tools. A third author arbitrated full-text disagreements. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), 11 of 135 studies fulfilled eligibility. Anosmia was estimated less prevalent than fever and cough (respectively rate difference = - 0.316, 95% CI: - 0.574 to - 0.058, = - 2.404, < 0.016, = 11 and rate difference = - 0.249, 95% CI: - 0.402 to - 0.096, = - 3.185, < 0.001, = 11); the analysis between anosmia and dyspnoea was not significant (rate difference = - 0.008, 95% CI: - 0.166 to 0.150, Z = - 0.099, < 0.921, = 8). The typical symptoms were significantly more frequent than anosmia in hospitalized more critical patients than in non-hospitalized ones (respectively [(1) = 50.638 < 0.000, (1) = 52.520 < 0.000, (1) = 100.734 < 0.000).
SUMMARY
Patient with new onset olfactory dysfunction should be investigated for COVID-19. Anosmia is more frequent in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients than in hospitalized ones.
PubMed: 32874091
DOI: 10.1007/s11940-020-00641-5 -
PloS One 2023Persistent symptoms are reported in patients who survive the initial stage of COVID-19, often referred to as "long COVID" or "post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Persistent symptoms are reported in patients who survive the initial stage of COVID-19, often referred to as "long COVID" or "post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection" (PASC); however, evidence on their incidence is still lacking, and symptoms relevant to pain are yet to be assessed.
METHODS
A literature search was performed using the electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and CHINAL and preprint servers MedRχiv and BioRχiv through January 15, 2021. The primary outcome was pain-related symptoms such as headache or myalgia. Secondary outcomes were symptoms relevant to pain (depression or muscle weakness) and symptoms frequently reported (anosmia and dyspnea). Incidence rates of symptoms were pooled using inverse variance methods with a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. The source of heterogeneity was explored using meta-regression, with follow-up period, age and sex as covariates.
RESULTS
In total, 38 studies including 19,460 patients were eligible. Eight pain-related symptoms and 26 other symptoms were identified. The highest pooled incidence among pain-related symptoms was chest pain (17%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 11%-24%), followed by headache (16%, 95% CI, 9%-27%), arthralgia (13%, 95% CI, 7%-24%), neuralgia (12%, 95% CI, 3%-38%) and abdominal pain (11%, 95% CI, 7%-16%). The highest pooled incidence among other symptoms was fatigue (44%, 95% CI, 32%-57%), followed by insomnia (27%, 95% CI, 10%-55%), dyspnea (26%, 95% CI, 17%-38%), weakness (25%, 95% CI, 8%-56%) and anosmia (19%, 95% CI, 13%-27%). Substantial heterogeneity was identified (I2, 50-100%). Meta-regression analyses partially accounted for the source of heterogeneity, and yet, 53% of the symptoms remained unexplained.
CONCLUSIONS
The current meta-analysis may provide a complete picture of incidence in PASC. It remains unclear, however, whether post-COVID symptoms progress or regress over time or to what extent PASC are associated with age or sex.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome; Incidence; Anosmia; SARS-CoV-2; Headache; Dyspnea
PubMed: 38019841
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250909 -
American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy Jan 2023Nearly 40% of patients who experience smell loss during SARS-CoV-2 infection may develop qualitative olfactory dysfunction, most commonly parosmia. Our evidence-based... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Nearly 40% of patients who experience smell loss during SARS-CoV-2 infection may develop qualitative olfactory dysfunction, most commonly parosmia. Our evidence-based review summarizes the evolving literature and offers recommendations for the clinician on the management of patients experiencing parosmia associated with COVID-19.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search using independent queries in PubMed, Embase, Ovid, and Cochrane databases, then categorized articles according to themes that emerged regarding epidemiology, effect on quality of life, disease progression, prognosis, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of parosmia.
RESULTS
We identified 123 unique references meeting eligibility and performed title and abstract review with 2 independent reviewers, with 74 articles undergoing full-text review. An inductive approach to thematic development provided 7 central themes regarding qualitative olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19.
CONCLUSIONS
While other respiratory viruses are known to cause qualitative olfactory disturbances, the incidence of parosmia following COVID-19 is notable, and correlates negatively with age. The presence of parosmia predicts persistent quantitative olfactory dysfunction. Onset can occur months after infection, and symptoms may persist for well over 7 months. Affected patients report increased anxiety and decreased quality of life. Structured olfactory training with essential oils is the preferred treatment, where parosmia predicts recovery of aspects of quantitative smell loss when undergoing training. There is limited evidence that nasal corticosteroids may accelerate recovery of olfactory function. Patients should be prepared for the possibility that symptoms may persist for years, and providers should guide them to resources for coping with their psychosocial burden.
Topics: Humans; Anosmia; COVID-19; Olfaction Disorders; Quality of Life; SARS-CoV-2; Smell
PubMed: 35957578
DOI: 10.1177/19458924221120117 -
Academic Radiology Nov 2021Hyposmia/anosmia is common among patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Various imaging modalities have been used to assess olfactory dysfunction in...
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES
Hyposmia/anosmia is common among patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Various imaging modalities have been used to assess olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19. In this systematic review, we sought to categorize and summarize the imaging data in COVID-19-induced anosmia.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Eligible articles were included after a comprehensive review using online databases including Google scholar, Scopus, PubMed, Web of science and Elsevier. Duplicate results, conference abstracts, reviews, and studies in languages other than English were excluded.
RESULTS
In total, 305 patients undergoing MRI/functional MRI (177), CT of paranasal sinuses (129), and PET/CT or PET/MRI scans (14) were included. Out of a total of 218 findings reported on MRI, 80 were reported on early (≤ 1 month) and 85 on late (>1 month) imaging in relation to the onset of anosmia. Overall, OB morphology and T2-weighted or FLAIR signal intensity were normal in 68/218 (31.2%), while partial or complete opacification of OC was observed in 60/218 (27.5%). T2 hyperintensity in OB was detected in 11/80 (13.75%) and 18/85 (21.17%) on early and late imaging, respectively. Moreover, OB atrophy was reported in 1/80 (1.25%) on early and in 9/85 (10.58%) on late imaging. Last, among a total of 129 CT scans included, paranasal sinuses were evalualted in 88 (68.21%), which were reported as normal in most cases (77/88, [87.5%]).
CONCLUSION
In this systematic review, normal morphology and T2/FLAIR signal intensity in OB and OC obstruction were the most common findings in COVID-19-induced anosmia, while paranasal sinuses were normal in most cases. OC obstruction is the likely mechanism for olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19. Abnormalities in OB signal intensity and OB atrophy suggest that central mechanisms may also play a role in late stage in COVID-19-induced anosmia.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Olfaction Disorders; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34548231
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2021.08.010 -
The Laryngoscope Jun 2022Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is a common presenting symptom of COVID-19 infection. Radiological imaging of the olfactory structures in patients with COVID-19 and OD can... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Olfactory dysfunction (OD) is a common presenting symptom of COVID-19 infection. Radiological imaging of the olfactory structures in patients with COVID-19 and OD can potentially shed light on its pathogenesis, and guide clinicians in prognostication and intervention.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, SCOPUS were searched from inception to August 1, 2021. Three reviewers selected observational studies, case series, and case reports reporting radiological changes in the olfactory structures, detected on magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, or other imaging modalities, in patients aged ≥18 years with COVID-19 infection and OD, following preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines and a PROSPERO-registered protocol (CRD42021275211). We described the proportion of radiological outcomes, and used random-effects meta-analyses to pool the prevalence of olfactory cleft opacification, olfactory bulb signal abnormalities, and olfactory mucosa abnormalities in patients with and without COVID-19-associated OD.
RESULTS
We included 7 case-control studies (N = 353), 11 case series (N = 154), and 12 case reports (N = 12). The pooled prevalence of olfactory cleft opacification in patients with COVID-19 infection and OD (63%, 95% CI = 0.38-0.82) was significantly higher than that in controls (4%, 95% CI = 0.01-0.13). Conversely, similar proportions of cases and controls demonstrated olfactory bulb signal abnormalities (88% and 94%) and olfactory mucosa abnormalities (2% and 0%). Descriptive analysis found that 55.6% and 43.5% of patients with COVID-19 infection and OD had morphological abnormalities of the olfactory bulb and olfactory nerve, respectively, while 60.0% had abnormal olfactory bulb volumes.
CONCLUSION
Our findings implicate a conductive mechanism of OD, localized to the olfactory cleft, in approximately half of the affected COVID-19 patients. Laryngoscope, 132:1260-1274, 2022.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; COVID-19; Humans; Olfaction Disorders; Olfactory Bulb; Olfactory Mucosa; Smell
PubMed: 35318656
DOI: 10.1002/lary.30078 -
PloS One 2023The life quality of about two-thirds of patients with COVID-19 is affected by related olfactory dysfunctions. The negative impact of olfactory dysfunction ranged from...
Effect of any form of steroids in comparison with that of other medications on the duration of olfactory dysfunction in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review of randomized trials and quasi-experimental studies.
BACKGROUND
The life quality of about two-thirds of patients with COVID-19 is affected by related olfactory dysfunctions. The negative impact of olfactory dysfunction ranged from the decreased pleasure of eating to impaired quality of life. This research aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the effects of corticosteroid treatments by comparing that to other currently available treatments and interventions.
METHODS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist's 27-point checklist was used to conduct this review. PubMed (Public/Publisher MEDLINE), PubMed Central and EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database) databases were conveniently selected and Boolean search commands were used for a comprehensive literature search. Five core search terms were "effects of treatments", " COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction", "corticosteroids", "treatments" and "interventions". The reporting qualities of the included studies were appraised using JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) appraisal tools. The characteristics of the 21 experimental studies with a total sample (of 130,550) were aggregated using frequencies and percentages and presented descriptively. The main interventions and their effects on the duration of the COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction were narratively analyzed.
RESULTS
Among patients with COVID-19, the normal functions of the olfactory lobe were about 23 days earlier to gain with the treatments of fluticasone and triamcinolone acetonide nasal spray compared with that of mometasone furoate nasal spray and oral corticosteroid. The smell loss duration was reduced by fluticasone and triamcinolone acetonide nasal spray 9 days earlier than the inflawell syrup and 16 days earlier than the lavender syrup. The nasal spray of corticosteroids ended the COVID-19-related smell loss symptoms 2 days earlier than the zinc supplementation, about 47 days earlier than carbamazepine treatment and was more effective than palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) and luteolin and omega-3 supplementations and olfactory training. Treatment with oral corticosteroid plus olfactory training significantly improved Threshold, Discrimination and Identification (TDI) scores compared with olfactory training alone. A full dose of the COVID-19 vaccination was not uncertain to reduce the COVID-19-related smell loss duration.
CONCLUSION
Corticosteroid treatment is effective in reducing the duration of COVID-19-related smell loss and olfactory training, the basic, essential and effective intervention, should be used as a combination therapy.
Topics: Humans; Nasal Sprays; Anosmia; Quality of Life; Triamcinolone Acetonide; COVID-19; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Steroids; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Fluticasone
PubMed: 37531338
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288285 -
The Canadian Journal of Neurological... Jan 2021Growing evidence showed that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection may present with neurological manifestations. This review aimed to determine the neurological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Growing evidence showed that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection may present with neurological manifestations. This review aimed to determine the neurological manifestations and complications in COVID-19.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that included cohort and case series/reports involving a population of patients confirmed with COVID-19 infection and their neurologic manifestations. We searched the following electronic databases until April 18, 2020: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and World Health Organization database (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020180658).
RESULTS
From 403 articles identified, 49 studies involving a total of 6,335 confirmed COVID-19 cases were included. The random-effects modeling analysis for each neurological symptom showed the following proportional point estimates with 95% confidence intervals: "headache" (0.12; 0.10-0.14; I2 = 77%), "dizziness" (0.08; 0.05-0.12; I2 = 82%), "headache and dizziness" (0.09; 0.06-0.13; I2 = 0%), "nausea" (0.07; 0.04-0.11; I2 = 79%), "vomiting" (0.05; 0.03-0.08; I2 = 74%), "nausea and vomiting" (0.06; 0.03-0.11; I2 = 83%), "confusion" (0.05; 0.02-0.14; I2 = 86%), and "myalgia" (0.21; 0.18-0.25; I2 = 85%). The most common neurological complication associated with COVID-19 infection was vascular disorders (n = 23); other associated conditions were encephalopathy (n = 3), encephalitis (n = 1), oculomotor nerve palsy (n = 1), isolated sudden-onset anosmia (n = 1), Guillain-Barré syndrome (n = 1), and Miller-Fisher syndrome (n = 2). Most patients with neurological complications survived (n = 14); a considerable number of patients died (n = 7); and the rest had unclear outcomes (n = 12).
CONCLUSION
This review revealed that neurologic involvement may manifest in COVID-19 infection. What has initially been thought of as a primarily respiratory illness has evolved into a wide-ranging multi-organ disease.
Topics: Anosmia; Brain Diseases; COVID-19; Cerebral Hemorrhage; Cerebral Infarction; Cerebrovascular Disorders; Confusion; Dizziness; Encephalitis; Guillain-Barre Syndrome; Headache; Humans; Myalgia; Nausea; Oculomotor Nerve Diseases; SARS-CoV-2; Sinus Thrombosis, Intracranial; Vomiting
PubMed: 32665054
DOI: 10.1017/cjn.2020.146 -
Open Forum Infectious Diseases Jun 2020Olfactory dysfunction (OD) has been reported in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there are knowledge gaps about the severity, prevalence, etiology, and...
BACKGROUND
Olfactory dysfunction (OD) has been reported in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there are knowledge gaps about the severity, prevalence, etiology, and duration of OD in COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
Olfactory function was assessed in all participants using questionnaires and the butanol threshold test (BTT). Patients with COVID-19 and abnormal olfaction were further evaluated using the smell identification test (SIT), sinus imaging, and nasoendoscopy. Selected patients received nasal biopsies. Systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed items from January 1, 2020 to April 23, 2020 were searched. Studies that reported clinical data on olfactory disturbances in COVID-19 patients were analyzed.
RESULTS
We included 18 COVID-19 patients and 18 controls. Among COVID-19 patients, 12 of 18 (67%) reported olfactory symptoms and OD was confirmed in 6 patients by BTT and SIT. Olfactory dysfunction was the only symptom in 2 patients. Mean BTT score of patients was worse than controls ( = .004, difference in means = 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-2.9). Sinusitis and olfactory cleft obstruction were absent in most patients. Immunohistochemical analysis of nasal biopsy revealed the presence of infiltrative CD68 macrophages harboring severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen in the stroma. Olfactory dysfunction persisted in 2 patients despite clinical recovery. Systematic review showed that the prevalence of olfactory disturbances in COVID-19 ranged from 5% to 98%. Most studies did not assess olfaction quantitatively.
CONCLUSIONS
Olfactory dysfunction is common in COVID-19 and may be the only symptom. Coronavirus disease 2019-related OD can be severe and prolonged. Mucosal infiltration by CD68 macrophages expressing SARS-CoV-2 viral antigen may contribute to COVID-19-related OD.
PubMed: 32548209
DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa199