(1) Background. Post-COVID-19 syndrome is defined as the persistence of symptoms after confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. (2) Methods. ANOSVID is an observational retrospective study in Nord Franche-Comté Hospital in France that included adult COVID-19 patients confirmed by RT-PCR from 1 March 2020 to 31 May 2020. The aim was to describe patients with post-COVID-19 syndrome with persistent symptoms (PS group) and to compare them with the patients without persistent symptoms (no-PS group). (3) Results. Of the 354 COVID-19 patients, 35.9% (n = 127) reported persistence of at least one symptom after a mean of 289.1 ± 24.5 days after symptom onset. Moreover, 115 patients reported a recurrence of symptoms after recovery, and only 12 patients reported continuous symptoms. The mean age of patients was 48.6 years (19–93) ± 19.4, and 81 patients (63.8%) were female. Patients in the PS group had a longer duration of symptoms of initial acute SARS-CoV-2 infection than patients in the no-PS group (respectively, 57.1 ± 82.1 days versus 29.7 ± 42.1 days, p < 0.001). A majority of patients (n = 104, 81.9%) reported three or more symptoms. The most prevalent persistent symptoms were loss of smell (74.0%, n = 94), fatigue (53.5%, n = 68), loss of taste (31.5%, n = 40), and dyspnea (30.7%, n = 39). These were followed by pain symptoms (26.8% (n = 34), 26.0% (n = 33), 24.4% (n = 31); headache, arthralgia, and myalgia, respectively). More than half of patients reporting persistent symptoms (58%, n = 73) were healthcare workers (HCWs). Among outpatients, this population was more present in the PS group than the no-PS group ((86.6%) n = 71/82 versus (72.2%) n = 109/151, p = 0.012). Post-COVID-19 syndrome was more frequent in patients with a past history of chronic rhinosinusitis (8.7% (n = 11%) versus 1.3% (n = 3), p < 0.001). No significant difference was found regarding clinical characteristics and outcome, laboratory, imaging findings, and treatment received in the two groups. (4) Conclusions. More than a third of our COVID-19 patients presented persistent symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly through loss of smell, loss of taste, fatigue, and dyspnea, with a high prevalence in HCWs among COVID-19 outpatients.

Background: Both SARS-CoV-2 and influenza virus share similarities such as clinical features and outcome, laboratory, and radiological findings. Methods: Literature search was done using PubMed to find MEDLINE indexed articles relevant to this study. As of 25 November 2020, the search has been conducted by combining the MeSH words “COVID-19” and “Influenza”. Results: Eighteen articles were finally selected in adult patients. Comorbidities such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and obesity were significantly higher in COVID-19 patients, while pulmonary diseases and immunocompromised conditions were significantly more common in influenza patients. The incidence rates of fever, vomiting, ocular and otorhinolaryngological symptoms were found to be significantly higher in influenza patients when compared with COVID-19 patients. However, neurologic symptoms and diarrhea were statistically more frequent in COVID-19 patients. The level of white cell count and procalcitonin was significantly higher in influenza patients, whereas thrombopenia and elevated transaminases were significantly more common in COVID-19 patients. Ground-grass opacities, interlobular septal thickening, and a peripheral distribution were more common in COVID-19 patients than in influenza patients where consolidations and linear opacities were described instead. COVID-19 patients were significantly more often transferred to intensive care unit with a higher rate of mortality. Conclusions: This study estimated differences of COVID-19 and influenza patients which can help clinicians during the co-circulation of the two viruses.

Background The outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) continues to constitute an international public health concern. Few data are available on the duration and prognostic factors of the disease. We aimed to study the recovery time among a Tunisian cohort of COVID-19 confirmed patients and identify the prognostic factors. Methods A retrospective, nationwide study was conducted from March 2 to May 8, 2020, recruiting all patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19, by RT-PCR methods, in Tunisia. Data were collected via phone call interview. Kaplan-Meir Methods and Cox proportional hazards regression models were, respectively, used to study the recovery time and estimate its prognostic factors. Results One thousand and thirty patients with COVID-19 (aged 43.2 ± 18.2 years, 526 female (51.1%)) were enrolled. Among them 141 (14.8%) were healthcare professionals. Out of 173 patients (17.8%) admitted to the hospital, 47 were admitted in an intensive care unit. Among 827 patients who didn’t require specialized care, 55.5% were self-isolated at home, while the rest were in specialized centers. Six hundred and two patients were symptomatic. A total of 634 (61.6%) patients have recovered and 45 (4.4%) patients died. The median duration of illness was estimated to be 31 days (95% CI: [29–32]). Older age (HR = 0.66, CI:[0.46–0.96], P = 0.031) and symptoms (HR = 0.61, CI:[0.43–0.81], P = 0.021) were independently associated with a delay in recovery time. Being a healthcare professional (HR = 1.52, CI: [1.10–2.08], P = 0.011) and patients in home isolation compared to isolation centers (HR = 2.99, CI: [1.85–4.83], P < 10¯3) were independently associated with faster recovery time. Conclusion The duration of illness was estimated to be 1 month. However, this long estimated duration of illness may not equate to infectiousness. A particular attention must to be paid to elderly and symptomatic patients with closer monitoring.

Background Describing transmission dynamics of the outbreak and impact of intervention measures are critical to planning responses to future outbreaks and providing timely information to guide policy makers decision. We estimate serial interval (SI) and temporal reproduction number (Rt) of SARS-CoV-2 in Tunisia. Methods We collected data of investigations and contact tracing between March 1, 2020 and May 5, 2020 as well as illness onset data during the period February 29–May 5, 2020 from National Observatory of New and Emerging Diseases of Tunisia. Maximum likelihood (ML) approach is used to estimate dynamics of Rt. Results Four hundred ninety-one of infector-infectee pairs were involved, with 14.46% reported pre-symptomatic transmission. SI follows Gamma distribution with mean 5.30 days [95% Confidence Interval (CI) 4.66–5.95] and standard deviation 0.26 [95% CI 0.23–0.30]. Also, we estimated large changes in Rt in response to the combined lockdown interventions. The Rt moves from 3.18 [95% Credible Interval (CrI) 2.73–3.69] to 1.77 [95% CrI 1.49–2.08] with curfew prevention measure, and under the epidemic threshold (0.89 [95% CrI 0.84–0.94]) by national lockdown measure. Conclusions Overall, our findings highlight contribution of interventions to interrupt transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Tunisia.

Background. Long-term evolution data of olfactory disorders (OD) in COVID-19 are limited. Method. ANOSVID is a retrospective study in Nord Franche-Comté Hospital (France) that included COVID-19 patients from the first wave. The aim was to describe OD evolution, especially in patients with persistent OD (p-OD group) in comparison with patients with resolved OD (r-OD group). Results. Among 354 COVID-19 patients, 229 reported OD were included. Eighty-five percent of patients (n = 195) recovered from their OD within 90 days. However, 9.5 months (in average) after symptoms onset, OD were persisting in 93 patients (40.6%) and resolved in 136 patients (59.4%). In the p-OD group (n = 93), the mean age was 51.4 years (19–98) ± 20.2, and 65 patients (69.9%) were female; the three main comorbidities in the p-OD group were: asthma (20.4%, n = 19), allergic rhinitis (19.4%, n = 18), and arterial hypertension (16.1%, n = 15). Eleven patients (12%) presented anosmia, and 82 patients (88%) presented hyposmia. Asthma was more described in p-OD group than r-OD group (19 (20.4%) versus 10 (7.4%), p = 0.006). Cacosmia was more described in p-OD group than r-OD group (27 (29.0%) versus 18 (13.2%), p = 0.005). There was no significant difference between the two groups concerning other comorbidities and symptoms, clinical, biological, and imaging findings, and outcome or about the impact of OD on the quality of life of the patients between the p-OD group and r-OD group. sQOD-NS brief version score was 10.7 ± 5.89 and 12.0 ± 6.03, respectively (p = 0.137). Conclusion. Forty-one percent of patients with OD reported OD persistence 9.5 months after COVID-19 (hyposmia in 88% of cases). Asthma and cacosmia could be predictive factors of OD persistence.

Olfactory disorders (OD) pathogenesis, underlying conditions, and prognostic in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) remain partially described. ANOSVID is a retrospective study in Nord Franche‐Comté Hospital (France) that included COVID‐19 patients from March 1 2020 to May 31 2020. The aim was to compare COVID‐19 patients with OD (OD group) and patients without OD (no‐OD group). A second analysis compared patients with anosmia (high OD group) and patients with hyposmia or no OD (low or no‐OD group). The OD group presented less cardiovascular and other respiratory diseases compared to the no‐OD group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.536 [0.293–0.981], p = 0.041 and OR = 0.222 [0.056–0.874], p = 0.037 respectively). Moreover, history of malignancy was less present in the high OD group compared with the low or no‐OD group (OR = 0.170 [0.064–0.455], p < 0.001). The main associated symptoms (OR > 5) with OD were loss of taste (OR = 24.059 [13.474–42.959], p = 0.000) and cacosmia (OR = 5.821 [2.246–15.085], p < 0.001). Most of all ORs decreased in the second analysis, especially for general, digestive, and ENT symptoms. Only two ORs increased: headache (OR = 2.697 [1.746–4.167], p < 0.001) and facial pain (OR = 2.901 [1.441–5.842], p = 0.002). The high OD group had a higher creatinine clearance CKD than the low or no‐OD group (89.0 ± 21.1 vs. 81.0 ± 20.5, p = 0.040). No significant difference was found concerning the virological, radiological, and severity criteria. OD patients seem to have less comorbidity, especially better cardiovascular and renal function. Associated symptoms with OD were mostly neurological symptoms. We did not find a significant relationship between OD and less severity in COVID‐19 possibly due to methodological bias.

Background: The outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) continues to constitute an international public health concern. Few data are available on the duration and prognostic factors of the disease. We aimed to study the recovery time among a Tunisian cohort of COVID-19 confirmed patients and identify the prognostic factors.Methods: A retrospective, nationwide study was conducted from March 2 to May 8, 2020, recruiting all patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19, by RT-PCR methods, in Tunisia. Data were collected via phone call interview. Kaplan-Meir Methods and Cox proportional hazards regression models were, respectively, used to study the recovery time and estimate its prognostic factors.Results: One thousand thirty patients with COVID-19 (aged 43.2 ± 18.2 years, 526 female (51.1%)) were enrolled. Among them 141 (14.8%) were healthcare professionals. Out of 173 patients (17.8%) admitted to the hospital, 47 were admitted in an intensive care unit. Among 827 patients who didn’t require specialized care, 55.5% were self-isolated at home, while the rest were in specialized centers. Six hundred two patients were symptomatic. A total of 634 (61.6 %) patients have recovered and 45 (4.4 %) patients died. The median duration of illness was estimated to be 31 days (95% CI: [29 - 32]). Older age (HR=0.66, CI:[ 0.46-0.96], P=0.031) and symptoms (HR=0.61, CI:[ 0.43-0.81], P=0.021) were independently associated with a delay in recovery time. Being a healthcare professional (HR=1.52, CI :[1.10-2.08], P=0.011) and patients in home isolation compared to isolation centers (HR=2.99, CI :[1.85-4.83], P<10¯³) were independently associated with faster recovery time. Conclusion: The duration of illness was estimated to be one month. However, this long estimated duration of illness may not equate to infectiousness. A particular attention must to be paid to elderly and symptomatic patients with closer monitoring.

Background Describing transmission dynamics of the outbreak and impact of intervention measures are critical to planning responses to future outbreaks and providing timely information to guide policy makers decision. We estimate serial interval (SI) and temporal reproduction number (Rt) of SARS-CoV-2 in Tunisia. Methods We collected data of investigations and contact tracing between March 1, 2020 and May 5, 2020 as well as illness onset data during the period February 29-May 5, 2020 from National Observatory of New and Emerging Diseases of Tunisia. Maximum likelihood (ML) approach is used to estimate dynamics of Rt. Results 491 of infector-infectee pairs were involved, with 14.46% reported pre-symptomatic transmission. SI follows Gamma distribution with mean 5.30 days [95% CI 4.66–5.95] and standard deviation 0.26 [95% CI 0.23–0.30]. Also, we estimated large changes in Rt in response to the combined lockdown interventions. The Rt moves from 3.18 [95% CI 2.73–3.69] to 1.77 [95% CI 1.49–2.08] with curfew prevention measure, and under the epidemic threshold (0.89 [95% CI 0.84–0.94]) by national lockdown measure. Conclusions Overall, our findings highlight contribution of interventions to interrupt transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Tunisia.