Background: Healthcare workers are at the forefront of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and are at high risk for both the contraction and subsequent spread of virus. Understanding the role of anosmia as an early symptom of infection may improve monitoring and management of SARS-CoV2 infection. Methodology:We conducted a systematic review of the literature of SARS-CoV2 infection/COVID-19 and anosmia to help inform management of anosmia in healthcare works. We report a case series of healthcare workers, who presented with a loss of sense of smell secondary to COVID-19 infection to demonstrate management principles. RT-PCR was used to confirm COVID-19 positivity and psychophysical testing of olfaction was performed using the British version of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test, UPSIT. Results:The systematic literature search returned 31 articles eligible for inclusion in the study and informed our recommendations for clinical assessment and management. All three healthcare professionals who presented with loss of sense of smell subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Psychophysical testing of olfaction using the UPSIT confirmed mild and moderate microsmia in two, respectively, and normosmia at day 17 in one. Conclusions:Olfactory (± gustatory) dysfunction is indicative of COVID-19 infection and thus has important implications in the context of healthcare workers, or key workers in general, who work in close contact with others if not recognised as suffering from COVID. This leads to a potentially higher likelihood of spreading the virus. In conjunction with our literature review these findings have helped with creating recommendations on the assessment and management of olfactory dysfunction during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, both for healthcare workers and patients.

Background: Olfactory dysfunction is a cardinal symptom of COVID-19 infection, however, studies assessing long-term olfactory dysfunction are limited and no randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) of early olfactory training have been conducted. Methodology: We conducted a prospective, multi-centre study consisting of baseline psychophysical measurements of smell and taste function. Eligible participants were further recruited into a 12-week RCT of olfactory training versus control (safety information). Patient-reported outcomes were measured using an electronic survey and BSIT at baseline and 12 weeks. An additional 1-year follow-up was open to all participants. Results: 218 individuals with a sudden loss of sense of smell of at least 4-weeks were recruited. Psychophysical smell loss was observed in only 32.1%; 63 participants were recruited into the RCT. The absolute difference in BSIT improvement after 12 weeks was 0.45 higher in the intervention arm. 76 participants completed 1-year follow-up; 10/19 (52.6%) of participants with an abnormal baseline BSIT test scored below the normal threshold at 1-year, and 24/29 (82.8%) had persistent parosmia. Conclusions: Early olfactory training may be helpful, although our findings are inconclusive. Notably, a number of individuals who completed the 1-year assessment had persistent smell loss and parosmia at 1-year. As such, both should be considered important entities of long-Covid and further studies to improve management are highly warranted.

No abstract