-
Cureus Sep 2022Few studies have thoroughly evaluated the neuro-invasive effect of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, which may contribute to a... (Review)
Review
Few studies have thoroughly evaluated the neuro-invasive effect of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, which may contribute to a wide range of sequelae from mild long-term effects like headaches and fatigue to severe events like stroke and arrhythmias. Our study aimed to evaluate the long-term neurological effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among patients discharged from the hospital. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the long-term neurocognitive effects of COVID-19. Post-COVID-19 neurological sequelae were defined as persistent symptoms of headache, fatigue, myalgia, anosmia, dysgeusia, sleep disturbance, issues with concentration, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), suicidality, and depression long after the acute phase of COVID-19. Data from observational studies describing post-COVID-19 neurocognitive sequelae and severity of COVID-19 from September 1, 2019, to the present were extracted following the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol with a consensus of three independent reviewers. A systematic review was performed for qualitative evaluation and a meta-analysis was performed for quantitative analysis by calculating log odds of COVID-19 neurocognitive sequelae. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were obtained and forest plots were created using random effects models. We found seven studies, out of which three were used for quantitative synthesis of evidence. Of the 3,304 post-COVID-19 patients identified, 50.27% were male with a mean age of 56 years; 20.20% had post-COVID-19 symptoms more than two weeks after the acute phase of infection. Among persistence symptoms, neurocognitive symptoms like headache (27.8%), fatigue (26.7%), myalgia (23.14%), anosmia (22.8%), dysgeusia (12.1%), sleep disturbance (63.1%), confusion (32.6%), difficulty to concentrate (22%), and psychiatric symptoms like PTSD (31%), feeling depressed (20%), and suicidality (2%) had a higher prevalence. In meta-analysis, COVID-19 patients with severe symptoms had higher odds of headache (pooled OR: 4.53; 95% CI: 2.37-8.65; p<0.00001; I: 0%) and myalgia (pooled OR: 3.36; 95% CI: 2.71-4.17; p<0.00001; I: 0%). Anosmia, fatigue, and dysgeusia had higher but non-significant odds following COVID-19. Although we had sufficient data for headache and fatigue to identify higher rates and associations following COVID-19, we could not establish relationships with other post-COVID-19 neurocognitive séqueles. Long-term follow-up may mitigate the neurocognitive effects among COVID-19 patients as these symptoms are also associated with a poor quality of life.
PubMed: 36321004
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.29694 -
Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) Nov 2023There is no comprehensive review of the evidence to support omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) as a relatively safe and tolerable intervention. This study aimed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
There is no comprehensive review of the evidence to support omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) as a relatively safe and tolerable intervention. This study aimed to provide a meta-analytic and comprehensive review on the adverse effects of all kinds of ω-3 PUFA supplementation reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in human subjects. A systematic review of RCTs published between 1987 and 2023 was carried out based on searches of 8 electronic databases. All RCTs that compared the adverse effects of ω-3 PUFAs containing eicosapentaenoic acid, docosahexaenoic acid, or both compared with controls (a placebo or a standard treatment) were included. The primary outcome was the adverse effects related to ω-3 PUFA prescription. A total of 90 RCTs showed that the ω-3 PUFA group, when compared with the placebo, had significantly higher odds of occurrence of diarrhea (odds ratio [OR] = 1.257, P = 0.010), dysgeusia (OR = 3.478, P < 0.001), and bleeding tendency (OR = 1.260, P = 0.025) but lower rates of back pain (OR = 0.727, P < 0.001). The subgroup analysis showed that the prescription ω-3 PUFA products (RxOME3FAs) had higher ω-3 PUFA dosages than generic ω-3 PUFAs (OME3FAs) (3056.38 ± 1113.28 mg/d compared with 2315.92 ± 1725.61 mg/d), and studies on RxOME3FAs performed more standard assessments than OME3FAs on adverse effects (63% compared with 36%). There was no report of definite ω-3 PUFA-related serious adverse events. The subjects taking ω-3 PUFAs were at higher odds of experiencing adverse effects; hence, comprehensive assessments of the adverse effects may help to detect minor/subtle adverse effects associated with ω-3 PUFAs. This study was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42023401169.
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; Eicosapentaenoic Acid; Fatty Acids, Unsaturated; Dietary Supplements
PubMed: 37567449
DOI: 10.1016/j.advnut.2023.08.003 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Clinical Nutrition ESPEN Jun 2024Among the side effects of chemotherapy, there is dysgeusia, which is an alteration or damage to the taste perception that negatively impacts the biopsychosocial sphere...
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE
Among the side effects of chemotherapy, there is dysgeusia, which is an alteration or damage to the taste perception that negatively impacts the biopsychosocial sphere of the patient. Therefore, it is important to recognize and manage it appropriately. The objective of this study is to identify clinical pharmacological strategies to reduce dysgeusia in chemotherapy patients.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines between February and May 2023, utilizing PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and the British Nursing Database. Methodological quality and bias risk assessment were performed using the JBI framework, while evidence certainty was evaluated using the Oxford OCEBM methodology.
RESULTS
Out of 1225 consulted records, 12 articles were included. The results underscore the efficacy of diverse pharmacological interventions in mitigating dysgeusia among chemotherapy patients. These include zinc supplementation with a daily dosage ranging between 50 and 220 mg (p ≤ 0.005), lactoferrin at 250 mg thrice daily (p < 0.001), delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol at 2 mg per day (p < 0.05), and cannabidiol at 150 mg per day (p = 0.04). All studies analysed showed a low risk of bias. The zinc and Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinoid treatment proved particularly promising, compared to the other treatments considered, where sample sizes were smaller and the placebo effect was not always clear.
CONCLUSION
Among the various pharmacological strategies identified, those that appear most promising concern the integration of zinc and Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinoid. Future studies should further explore the treatments identified in this review to expand the evidence base in this relatively underexplored field.
PubMed: 38900642
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2024.05.026 -
F1000Research 2021: The present study aimed to determine the global prevalence of anosmia and dysgeusia in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and to assess their association... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Anosmia and dysgeusia in SARS-CoV-2 infection: incidence and effects on COVID-19 severity and mortality, and the possible pathobiology mechanisms - a systematic review and meta-analysis.
: The present study aimed to determine the global prevalence of anosmia and dysgeusia in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and to assess their association with severity and mortality of COVID-19. Moreover, this study aimed to discuss the possible pathobiological mechanisms of anosmia and dysgeusia in COVID-19. : Available articles from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and preprint databases (MedRxiv, BioRxiv, and Researchsquare) were searched on November 10th, 2020. Data on the characteristics of the study (anosmia, dysgeusia, and COVID-19) were extracted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess research quality. Moreover, the pooled prevalence of anosmia and dysgeusia were calculated, and the association between anosmia and dysgeusia in presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was assessed using the Z test. : Out of 32,142 COVID-19 patients from 107 studies, anosmia was reported in 12,038 patients with a prevalence of 38.2% (95% CI: 36.5%, 47.2%); whereas, dysgeusia was reported in 11,337 patients out of 30,901 COVID-19 patients from 101 studies, with prevalence of 36.6% (95% CI: 35.2%, 45.2%), worldwide. Furthermore, the prevalence of anosmia was 10.2-fold higher (OR: 10.21; 95% CI: 6.53, 15.96, < 0.001) and that of dysgeusia was 8.6-fold higher (OR: 8.61; 95% CI: 5.26, 14.11, < 0.001) in COVID-19 patients compared to those with other respiratory infections or COVID-19 like illness. To date, no study has assessed the association of anosmia and dysgeusia with severity and mortality of COVID-19. : Anosmia and dysgeusia are prevalent in COVID-19 patients compared to those with the other non-COVID-19 respiratory infections. Several possible mechanisms have been hypothesized; however, future studies are warranted to elucidate the definitive mechanisms of anosmia and dysgeusia in COVID-19. PROSPERO CRD42020223204.
Topics: Anosmia; COVID-19; Dysgeusia; Humans; Incidence
PubMed: 33824716
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.28393.1