RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 The usefulness of a quantitative olfactory test for the detection of COVID-19
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.01.20.21250173
DO 10.1101/2021.01.20.21250173
A1 Lessa, Marcos A
A1 Cotta-Pereira, Stella M
A1 Ferreira, Frederico A
A1 Castiñeiras, Therezinha Marta P P
A1 Galliez, Rafael M
A1 Faffe, Débora S
A1 Leitão, Isabela de C
A1 Mariani, Diana
A1 Nascimento, Erica R
A1 Lessa, Flávia S
A1 Succi, Isabela Brasil
A1 Pedreira, Carlos A
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/26/2021.01.20.21250173.abstract
AB Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, olfactory dysfunction (anosmia or hyposmia) has been reported by many patients and recognized as a prevalent and early symptom of infection. This finding has been associated with viral-induced olfactory neuron dysfunction rather than the nasal congestion typically found in cold- or flu-like states. In literature, the prevalence of anosmia varies from 15% to 85%, and the studies, in general, were based on the subjective evaluation of patients’ self-reports of loss of smell (yes or no question). In the present study, we quantitatively evaluated olfactory dysfunction and the prevalence of fever in symptomatic patients suspected of having COVID-19 using a scratch-and-sniff olfactory test and infrared temperature testing with RT-PCR as the gold-standard comparator method to diagnose COVID-19 infection.Methods Outpatients had their forehead temperature checked with an infrared non-contact thermometer (temperature guns). After that, they received two olfactory smell identification test (SIT) cards (u-Smell-it™; CT, USA) that each had 5 scent windows and were asked to scratch with a pencil and sniff each of the 10 small circles containing the microencapsulated fragrances and mark the best option on a response card. Nasopharyngeal swabs were then collected for Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) to determine if the patients were positive or negative for COVID-19 infection. We considered the number of ‘hits’ (correct answers) ≤ 5 as positive for loss of smell (LOS) in the olfactory test; ≥ 6 hits was considered negative for LOS (i.e. normal olfactory function). All data were analyzed using Excel and Matlab software.Results In the present study, 165 patients were eligible for the olfactory test and nasopharyngeal swab collection RT-PCR. Five patients were excluded because of inconclusive PCR results (n=2) and missing data (n=3). A total of 160 patients completed all the protocols. The RT-PCR positivity rate for COVID-19 was 27.5% (n=44), and PCR+ patients scored significantly worse in the olfactory test (5.5±3.5) compared to RT-PCR-patients (8.2±1.8, p<0.001). 0/44 PCR+ patients presented with a fever (≥37.8°C). In contrast an olfactory SIT had a specificity of 94.8% (95% CI, 89.1 – 98.1), sensitivity of 47.7% (95% CI, 32.7 – 63.3), accuracy of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.75 – 0.87), positive predictive value of 77.8% (95% CI, 59.6 – 88.8), negative predictive value of 82.7% (85% CI, 78.7 – 86.7), and odds ratio of 16.7.Conclusion Our results suggest that temperature checking failed to detect COVID-19 infection, while an olfactory test may be useful to help identify COVID-19 infection in symptomatic patients.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialThis work was approved by the local Institutional Research Board and National Commission of Ethics in Research (CEP/CONEP system). However, the registration on the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC) and trial ID are pending due to bureaucratic issues.Funding StatementGrants from CNPq supported this work - Brazilian National Research Council and FAPERJ - Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Rio de JaneiroAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The local ethics committee approved the study from Clementino Fraga Filho University Hospital (CAAE: 30161620.0.0000.5257). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data from this paper will be available at the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC) https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/welcome#menu