Background: Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions are early symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Between 20–80% of infected individuals report subjective altered sense of smell and/or taste during infection. Up to 2/3 of previously infected experience persistent olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunction after 6 months. The aim of this study was to examine subjective and psychophysical olfactory and gustatory function in non-hospitalized individuals with acute COVID-19 up to 6 months after infection. Methods: Individuals aged 18-80-years with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test no older than 10 days, were eligible. Only individuals able to visit the outpatient examination facilities were included. Gustatory function was tested with the Burgharts Taste Strips and olfactory function was examined with the Brief Smell Identifications test (Danish version). Subjective symptoms were examined through an online questionnaire at inclusion, day 30, 90 and 180 after inclusion. Results: Fifty-eight SARS-CoV-2 positive and 56 negative controls were included. 58.6% (34/58) of SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals vs. 8.9% (5/56) of negative controls reported subjective olfactory dysfunction at inclusion. For gustatory dysfunction, 46.5% (27/58) of positive individuals reported impairment compared to 8.9% (5/56) of negative controls. In psychophysical tests, 75.9% (46/58) had olfactory dysfunction and 43.1% (25/58) had gustatory dysfunction among the SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals at inclusion. Compared to negative controls, SARS-CoV-2 infected had significantly reduced olfaction and gustation. Previously infected individuals continued to report lower subjective sense of smell 30 days after inclusion, whereafter the difference between the groups diminished. However, after 180 days, 20.7% (12/58) positive individuals still reported reduced sense of smell and taste. Conclusion: Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions are prevalent symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but there is inconsistency between subjective reporting and psychophysical test assessment of especially olfaction. Most individuals regain normal function after 30 days, but approximately 20% report persistent olfactory and gustatory dysfunction 6 months after infection.

A large proportion of patients exhibit persistently reduced pulmonary diffusion capacity after COVID-19. It is unknown whether this is due to a post-COVID restrictive lung disease and/or pulmonary vascular disease. The aim of the current study was to investigate the association between initial COVID-19 severity and haemoglobin-corrected diffusion capacity to carbon monoxide (DLco) reduction at follow-up. Furthermore, to analyse if DLco reduction could be linked to pulmonary fibrosis (PF) and/or thromboembolic disease within the first months after the illness, a total of 67 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from March to December 2020 were included across three severity groups: 12 not admitted to hospital (Group I), 40 admitted to hospital without intensive care unit (ICU) admission (Group II), and 15 admitted to hospital with ICU admission (Group III). At first follow-up, 5 months post SARS-CoV-2 positive testing/4 months after discharge, lung function testing, including DLco, high-resolution CT chest scan (HRCT) and ventilation-perfusion (VQ) single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/CT were conducted. DLco was reduced in 42% of the patients; the prevalence and extent depended on the clinical severity group and was typically observed as part of a restrictive pattern with reduced total lung capacity. Reduced DLco was associated with the extent of ground-glass opacification and signs of PF on HRCT, but not with mismatched perfusion defects on VQ SPECT/CT. The severity-dependent decline in DLco observed early after COVID-19 appears to be caused by restrictive and not pulmonary vascular disease.

Background: Long-term follow-up studies of COVID-19 olfactory and gustatory disorders (OGDs) are scarce. OGD, parosmia, and dysgeusia affect health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the ability to detect potential hazards. Methods: In this study, 29 patients reporting OGD 1 month after severe-to-critical COVID-19 were tested at 3–6 months and retested at 12 months in case of hyposmia/anosmia. We used Sniffin Sticks Threshold, Discrimination, and Identification (TDI) test, Sniffin Sticks Identification Test (SIT16), Brief Smell Identification Test (BSIT), taste strips, and HRQoL. The patients were part of the prospective SECURe cohort. Results: Overall, 28% OD (TDI), 12% GD, 24% parosmia, and 24% dysgeusia (questionnaire) at 3–6 months (n = 29) and 28% OD (TDI), 38% parosmia, and 25% dysgeusia (questionnaire) at 12 months (n = 8) were observed. OGD decreased HRQoL: For 13%, it had a negative effect on daily life and, for 17%, it affected nutrition, 17% reported decreased mood, and 87–90% felt unable to navigate everyday life using their sense of smell and taste. A comparison of SIT16 and BSIT to TDI found sensitivity/specificity values of 75%/100% and 88%/86%. Conclusion s : This is the first study to examine TDI, SIT16, BSIT, taste strips, and HRQoL up to 1 year after severe-to-critical COVID-19. The patients suffering from prolonged OGD, parosmia, and dysgeusia experienced severely decreasing HRQoL. We recommend including ear–nose–throat specialists in multidisciplinary post-COVID clinics.

Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are considered the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 testing but are technically challenging to perform and associated with discomfort. Alternative specimens for viral testing, such as oropharyngeal swabs (OPS) and nasal swabs, may be preferable, but strong evidence regarding their diagnostic sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 testing is still missing. We conducted a head-to-head prospective study to compare the sensitivity of NPS, OPS and nasal swabs specimens for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing. Adults with an initial positive SARS-CoV-2 test were invited to participate. All participants had OPS, NPS and nasal swab performed by an otorhinolaryngologist. We included 51 confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive participants in the study. The sensitivity was highest for OPS at 94.1% (95% CI, 87 to 100%) compared to NPS at 92.5% (95% CI, 85 to 99%) (p = 1.00) and lowest for nasal swabs at 82.4% (95% CI, 72 to 93%) (p = 0.07). Combined OPS/NPS was detected in 100% of cases, while the combined OPS/nasal swab increased the sensitivity significantly to 96.1% (95% CI, 90 to 100%) compared to that of the nasal swab alone (p = 0.03). The mean Ct value for NPS was 24.98 compared to 26.63 for OPS (p = 0.084) and 30.60 for nasal swab (p = 0.002). OPS achieved a sensitivity comparable to NPS and should be considered an equivalent alternative for SARS-CoV-2 testing.