Olfactory function and viral recovery in COVID‐19

Background Olfactory and taste disorders were reported in up to 30%–80% of COVID‐19 patients. The purpose of our study was to objectively assess smell impairment in COVID‐19 patients and to correlate olfactory function with viral recovery. Methods Between 15 and 30 April 2020, hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection underwent an objective assessment of olfactory function with the Smell Identification subtest of the Sniffin’ Sticks Test (SI‐SST). Association between viral recovery and SI‐SST performance was evaluated. Results 51 patients were enrolled (49% males, mean age 66.2 ± 14.6 years). At the time of test administration, 45% were clinically recovered and 39% were virus‐free. Objective hyposmia/anosmia was found in 45% of the patients. Subjective olfactory disorders showed no association with the clinical or viral recovery status of the patients. On the contrary, none of the patients with anosmia and the 5% of hyposmic patients at test had viral recovery. The relative risk for hyposmic patients to be still positive at swab test was 10.323 (95% CI 1.483–71.869, p 10.5 predicts viral clearance with 79% sensitivity and 87% specificity (AUC = 0.883). Conclusion Hyposmia is part of COVID‐19 symptoms; however, only objectively assessed olfactory function is associated with viral recovery. SI‐SST is an easy and safe instrument, and further large multicentric studies should assess its value to predict infection and recovery.
We conducted a prospective cross‐sectional study in consecutive hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection to assess smell impairment and determine whether olfactory deficit could be a marker of active infection. Patients were asked about subjective olfactory and taste disorders and underwent an objective assessment of olfactory function with the Smell Identification subtest of the Sniffin’ Sticks Test. Besides confirming that olfactory deficits are present in about half of the patients, study main finding showed that none of the patients with anosmia and the 5.8% of the patients with hyposmia showed a viral recovery. The relative risk for hyposmic patients to be still positive at swab test was 10.323 (95% CI 1.483–71.869, p