Skip to main content
The Egyptian Journal of Otolaryngology
Download PDF

SARS COV-2 and other viral etiology as a possible clue for the olfactory dilemma

The Egyptian Journal of Otolaryngology volume 38, Article number: 65 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Post-viral anosmia is responsible for more than 40% of cases of anosmia. Anosmia has been a neglected symptom in the primary healthcare setting until the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection highlighted new atypical symptoms of the disease, including anosmia, which has become one of the diagnostic symptoms of the disease, and epidemiological concern. We aimed to detect the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection within patients presented with anosmia and to test for other respiratory viruses in the negative COVID-19 patients. We also detected the recovery of anosmia and IgM/IgG against COVID-19. We prospectively included 60 outpatients with the major complaint of anosmia. Nasopharyngeal swabs were done for SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR, and if negative, PCR to other respiratory pathogens was tested. After one month, we inquired about the recovery of smell loss together with testing for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.

Results

Sixty patients were enrolled in the study. Forty-six patients (76.7%) were SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive and 14 (23.3%) were negative. Rhinovirus was the commonest isolated pathogen in the negative cases (5/14). Complete recovery of anosmia occurred in 34 patients (56.7%), while partial recovery in 24 (40.0%), and no recovery in 2 patients (3.3%). The median time to complete recovery was 10 days. 28.3% (13/46) of the patients showed negative antibody response for both IgG and IgM.

Conclusions

Sudden-onset anosmia is a symptom that is highly predictive of being COVID-19-infected. While recovery is expected within 2 weeks, some patients have no antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.

Background

Post-viral anosmia is responsible for more than 40% of cases of anosmia, especially in adults. There are more than 200 different types of viruses that produce common cold and upper respiratory tract infection, among them the coronaviruses, which are first characterized in the 1960s and are accounting for 10–15% of cases [1], Coronaviruses are a large family that results in a variety of diseases ranging from a common cold to massive public health concerns [2].

As of June 22th, 2021, more than 494,587,638 people worldwide have severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with 6,170,283 deaths [3]. Asian clinical studies reported that the common symptoms consist of fever, cough, difficult breathing, expectoration, muscle aches, joint pains, headache, diarrhea, and sore throat [4, 5]. The spread of the COVID-19 infection outside Asia has emphasized new atypical symptoms of the disease as many COVID-19-infected patients presented with anosmia and ageusia without fever, nasal congestion, or rhinorrhea. The British Rhinology Society and the European Rhinology Society released recommendations that loss of smell can be the presenting symptom or even the only symptom of contracting COVID-19 infection [6, 7].

Further studies were published regarding olfactory dysfunctions in COVID-19 patients reporting that its prevalence ranges from 19.4 to 98.33% [8]. A huge peer-reviewed report from UK and USA indicates that two-thirds of positive COVID-19 self-reported cases complained of loss of smell or taste [9]. Another systematic review states that 30% to 80% of confirmed COVID-19 patients complain of loss of smell or taste [10].

The manifestation of anosmia as a post-viral sequela is not a novel symptom in the field of otolaryngology as numerous viruses might cause post-viral olfactory dysfunction, so we aimed to detect the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection within patients presented with a major complaint of anosmia and to test for other upper respiratory viruses in the negative COVID-19-infected patients. We also detected the recovery of anosmia and the presence of IgM/IgG of COVID-19 after 1 month from the presentation.

Methods

After the study has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Ain Shams University Faculty of Medicine with reference number FMASU P45a/2020 on July 11th, 2020, patients were invited to participate.

Sixty patients presenting to the Triage and/or Otolaryngology clinics in Ain Shams University Hospitals with anosmia as the main complaint; underwent thorough history taking, clinical examination, subjective assessment of anosmia and rt-PCR to SARS-COV2 by using VIASURE SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time PCR kits (CerTest Biotec®, S.L., Spain); and if proven negative to COVID-19, PCR to other respiratory pathogens was tested using multiplex reverse-transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reactions (rRT-PCR) from the FTD® Respiratory Pathogens 33 multiplex tests (Fast Track Diagnostic FTD®, Luxembourg). This kit is used for detection of the following respiratory viruses: influenza A, influenza A subtype A (H1N1), influenza B, and influenza C; parainfluenza viruses 1, 2, 3, and 4; coronaviruses NL63, 229E, OC43, and HKU1; human metapneumoviruses A and B; rhinovirus; respiratory syncytial viruses A and B; adenovirus; enterovirus; parechovirus; human bocavirus. COVID-19-infected patients were managed according to the standard protocol of ***** University Hospitals. Follow-up after 1 month for the outcome of recovery of the smell sense (subjective assessment) and seroconversion by finger-prick rapid test for IgM/IgG of COVID-19 using Artron® COVID-19 IgG/IgM Antibody Test Kit (Artron Laboratories Inc., Canada), which is a test kit used for the qualitative detection of IgM and IgG against SARS-CoV-2 in human whole blood or serum with a combined sensitivity for both IgM and IgG of 91.40%, and a specificity of 97.88%

The following inclusion criteria have been considered: adults more than 18 years old and presenting with acute-onset anosmia.

The following exclusion criteria have been considered: patients with a history of smell loss before the epidemic; patients with a known history of chronic rhinosinusitis or sinonasal surgery; and patients with neurodegenerative diseases.

Statistical methods

Categorical variables are presented as numbers and percentages and intergroup differences as compared using the Pearson chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test. Normally distributed numerical data are presented as mean ± standard deviation and differences are compared using the independent-samples t test. Skewed numerical data are presented as median and interquartile range and differences are compared with the Mann-Whitney test. Time to event analysis is done using the Kaplan-Meier method. P values < 0.05 are considered statistically significant.

Data were analyzed using MedCalc© Statistical Software version 18.11.3 (MedCalc Software bvba, Ostend, Belgium; https://www.medcalc.org; 2019)

Result

Sixty patients fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and were enrolled in the study. Their age ranged from 18 to 54 years with a mean age of 34.1 ± 8.4. The males were 33 (55%), while the females were 27 (45%). All patients have subjectively had an excellent smell and taste sensation before their loss or diminution of smell or taste. No history of recent travel was reported by all the study population. The majority of the cases were without a history of smoking (86%). The prevalence of the associated symptoms in the study population is shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Prevalence of associated symptoms in the study population

Full size image
Table 1 Prevalence of associated symptoms in the study population
Full size table

The most common associated symptom was ageusia 52/60 (88.1%), followed by malaise 47/60 (78.3%), headache 38/60 (63.3%), and sore throat 27/60 (45.0%). Other symptoms compromise less than 40% (Table 1).

Analysis of anosmia showed that 48 (80.0%) of patients had a sudden onset, while 12 (20.0%) had gradual onset. Complete anosmia and ageusia were observed in 51 (85%), and 9 (15.0%) had only hyposmia or hypogeusia. The interquartile range of anosmia duration was 5.5 days (4.0 to 7.0). Complete recovery of anosmia occurred in 34 patients (56.7%). Partial recovery in 24 (40.0%), and no recovery in 2 patients (3.3%) (Table 2). Kaplan-Meier curve showed that the median time to complete or partial recovery is 5 days (95% CI = 5 to 7 days) (Fig. 2), while the median time to complete recovery is 10 days (95% CI = 7 to 30 days) (Fig. 3).

Table 2 Characteristics of anosmia
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Kaplan-Meier curve for time to complete or partial recovery of smell. Median time to complete or partial recovery = 5 days (95% CI = 5 to 7 days)

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Kaplan-Meier curve for time to complete recovery of smell. Median time to complete recovery = 10 days (95% CI = 7 to 30 days)

Full size image

Molecular testing by RT-PCR for COVID-19 was done through oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs for all patients. Forty-six (76.7%) were positive and 14 (23.3%) were negative. The mean cycle threshold at presentation (which indicates virulence of the virus) was 28.64 ± 6.40. After 1 month from the date of reporting smell loss, patients were subjected to a qualitative rapid test to detect IgM/IgG as shown in (Table 3). Negative samples for COVID-19 were tested by real-time multiplex PCR using FTD- respiratory 33 kit for the presence of a wide panel of respiratory pathogens (Table 4). Rhinovirus was the commonest isolated pathogen (5/14), followed by human parainfluenza (1/14), human adenovirus (1/14), and Enterovirus (1/14). Two bacterial pathogens were detected, while no pathogens could be detected in three patients.

Table 3 Results of laboratory workup
Full size table
Table 4 Results of PCR testing for negative COVID-19 patients
Full size table

Statistical analysis of associations of recovery of smell with clinical and biochemical variables showed that only fever is associated with a lower probability of complete recovery (unadjusted odds ratio = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.94, P value = 0.035) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Relation between fever at onset and occurrence of complete recovery of smell. Fever is associated with lower probability of complete recovery (unadjusted odds ratio = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.94, P value = 0.035)

Full size image

Discussion

This study describes 60 patients who complained of anosmia, and 46 (76.7%) of them were confirmed to be COVID-19 positive. The symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection may range from an asymptomatic state, or symptomatic (e.g., fever, cough, headache, sore throat), up to acute respiratory distress syndrome [2, 11, 12] anosmia or ageusia might be the only symptom of the disease [13] or even it could be a sign of reinfection with COVID-19 [14].

The prevalence of anosmia varies between different studies; however, the pooled prevalence of anosmia within the infected COVID-19 population in a recent systematic review (including 32,142 COVID-19 patients) was approximately 38.2% [15]. Salmon et al. found that 94% of patients presenting to them with anosmia (a total of 55 patients) without nasal symptoms or upper respiratory symptoms tested positive for COVID-19 [16]. Our results showed that 76.7% were COVID-19-positive. Moreover, on removing patients who complained of nasal symptoms, the percentage is 77.5%, also on removing patients who complained of any other upper respiratory symptom, the percentage is 70%. The variation between the two studies might be due to ethnic variation, and more studies with larger numbers of patients are required to assess the incidence of COVID-19 infection within patients presenting with anosmia. On the other hand, our study supports Zayet et al. [17] who stated that anosmia has a 77% positive predictive value for being COVID-19-positive.

Anosmia is not a new symptom in the otolaryngology practice, as trauma, viral infections other than SARS-CoV-2, neurodegenerative diseases were known causes for olfactory dysfunction [18]; hence, olfactory dysfunction is not only associated with SARS-CoV-2infection but also associated with different upper respiratory viral pathogens [1]. It was reported that anosmia was 10-fold higher with SARS-CoV-2 infection [19].

In the remaining COVID-19-negative 14 patients, we found that rhinoviruses were the most common viral pathogen detected in patients with anosmia. This finding is consistent with that of Suzuki et al. [1] who reported that rhinoviruses were detected in most of the patients who had post-viral olfactory anosmia. Those results reflect those reported previously, rhinoviruses were the most common respiratory pathogen that infected all age groups [20].

In our study, the most common associated symptom is ageusia (88.1%), followed by general symptoms: malaise (78.3%), headache (63.3%), then sore throat (45%), and cough (31.7%). Lechien et al .[21] also reported gustatory dysfunction was 89% in their study. Taste decreases with smell impairment regardless of the primary etiology [22]. Moreover, unlike other sensory modalities, taste and smell tend to show mutual fading, not compensatory mechanisms [23]. Headache and myalgia are the commonest general symptoms, while cough and sore throat were the commonest otolaryngologic manifestations associated with COVID-19 infection [2, 24,25,26]. No dyspnea was reported by any of our patients, as all of them were outpatients with the major complaint of anosmia without any respiratory distress.

Our study showed that 96.7% of the patients have recovered from anosmia (56.7% complete recovery, 40% partial recovery), while 3.3% (2 patients out of 60) showed no recovery at the end of the study follow-up (30 days); these results are in agreement with those obtained by Klopfenstein et al. [27] who reported that 98% of patients recovered within 28 days. We found the median time to complete recovery is 10 days (95% CI = 7 to 30 days). Also, it was found by Klopfenstein et al. [27] that the mean duration of anosmia was 8.9 days. It was suggested that recovery takes about 14 days, due to a reduction in viral load [28, 29]. By analyzing the association of recovery of smell with clinical and biochemical variables, we found that only fever is associated with a lower probability of complete recovery.

We detected the presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 after 1 month from the onset of anosmia. We found that IgM was predominantly negative (67.4% of the patients), IgG was positive in 56.5% of the patients. Benazzo et al. [30] reported that the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG titer reached 80% after 3 weeks from the symptom onset. Also, it was found that IgG will remain in the serum for a longer duration. Hence, it may indicate a previous infection [31].

We found that 28.3% (13/46) of the patients showed negative antibody response for both IgG and IgM. In agreement with Liu et al. [32], they noted that consistently 34.3% of their patients were negative for IgM, and 14.3% were negative for all antibodies. So, mild cases may fail to show antibody response to SARS-CoV-2, and further studies are required to characterize the serological response of those cases of mild COVID-19 disease especially those who predominantly presented with anosmia as a major complaint. They reported also that the titers of severe cases for the total antibody were higher than those found in mild cases.

Our study has several limitations. First, we used SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR using nasopharyngeal swabs which have a sensitivity of 56–83% [33] so one of the patients who tested negative may be infected with SARS-CoV-2 (false-negative), but we performed the RT-PCR panel of the upper respiratory viruses that came positive in 11 out of 14 negative patients. Second, objective assessment of smell or taste affection or recovery was not performed due to the high probability of being COVID-19 positive, but self-reporting is relatively accurate [34]. Especially, in case of interviewing the patient during the first visit, and after 1 month during the setting of performing the finger-prick test for the antibodies assessment. Third, we reported the outcome after one month so long-term follow-up is recommended. Fourth, we performed the antibody test only once after the infection instead of repeated measurements, and this was due to the limited availability of the test kits and also this was not the main objective of the study. Fifth, a limited number of patients enrolled in the study which was due to limited availability of resources, also anosmia being the only symptom that recovers within days was not a major motive for the affected patients to participate.

Variability among different studies may be due to dissimilarity in ethnicity, the number of studied populations, type of the population (age, hospitalized or not), method of assessment (subjective or objective), and the severity of the disease. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study in North Africa that assessed the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection within patients with a major complaint of anosmia during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. We recommend further studies regarding smell dysfunction as a clinical indicator of COVID-19 infection especially when the prevalence of COVID-19 decreases.

Conclusion

Sudden-onset anosmia is a symptom that is highly predictive of being COVID-19-infected. In a limited resource setting, in which testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection is not widely available, anosmia is a highly suspicious symptom that potentially necessitates self-isolation and may be used to screen asymptomatic carriers. COVID-19-related anosmia mostly recovers within 2 weeks.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

UK:

United Kingdom

USA:

United States of America

rt-PCR:

Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction

IgM:

Immunoglobulin M

IgG:

Immunoglobulin M

CI:

Confidence interval

References

  1. Suzuki M, Saito K, Min W-P et al (2007) Identification of viruses in patients with postviral olfactory dysfunction. Laryngoscope. 117(2):272–277. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlg.0000249922.37381.1e

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Guan W, Ni Z, Hu Y et al (2020) Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med. 382(18):1708–1720. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2002032

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard | WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard With Vaccination Data. https://covid19.who.int/. Accessed June 23, 2021.

  4. Young BE, Ong SWX, Kalimuddin S et al (2020) Epidemiologic features and clinical course of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Singapore. JAMA. 323(15):1488–1494. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.3204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Wan S, Xiang Y, Fang W et al (2020) Clinical features and treatment of COVID-19 patients in northeast Chongqing. J Med Virol. 92(7):797–806. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25783

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Anosmia as a potential marker of COVID-19 infection – an update. https://www.entuk.org/anosmia-potential-marker-covid-19-infection-–-update. Accessed June 23, 2021.

  7. Information for rhinologists on COVID-19 | European Rhinologic Society. https://www.europeanrhinologicsociety.org/?page_id=2143. Accessed June 23, 2021.

  8. Meng X, Deng Y, Dai Z, Meng Z (2020) COVID-19 and anosmia: a review based on up-to-date knowledge. Am J Otolaryngol - Head Neck Med Surg. 41(5):102581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102581

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Menni C, Valdes AM, Freidin MB et al (2020) Real-time tracking of self-reported symptoms to predict potential COVID-19. Nat Med. 26(7):1037–1040. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0916-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Tong JY, Wong A, Zhu D, Fastenberg JH, Tham T (2020) The prevalence of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg (United States). 163(1):3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599820926473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Teaima AA, Salem OM, Teama MAEM et al (2022) Patterns and clinical outcomes of olfactory and gustatory disorders in six months: prospective study of 1031 COVID-19 patients. Am J Otolaryngol. 43(1):103259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2021.103259

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mahmoud MS, Taha MS, Mansour OI et al (2022) Prevalence and outcomes of olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions in hospitalized SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. Egypt J Otolaryngol. 38(1):19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43163-022-00207-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Krajewska J, Krajewski W, Zub K, Zatoński T (2020) COVID-19 in otolaryngologist practice: a review of current knowledge. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 277(7):1885–1897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-05968-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Jain A, Kaur J, Rai AK, Pandey AK (2021) Anosmia: a clinical indicator of COVID-19 reinfection. Ear, Nose Throat J. 100(2_suppl):180S–181S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145561320978169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mutiawati E, Fahriani M, Mamada SS et al (2021) Anosmia and dysgeusia in SARS-CoV-2 infection: incidence and effects on COVID-19 severity and mortality, and the possible pathobiology mechanisms - a systematic review and meta-analysis. F1000Research 10:40. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.28393.1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Salmon Ceron D, Bartier S, Hautefort C et al (2020) Self-reported loss of smell without nasal obstruction to identify COVID-19. The multicenter Coranosmia cohort study. J Infect. 81(4):614–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2020.07.005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Zayet S, Klopfenstein T, Mercier J et al (2021) Contribution of anosmia and dysgeusia for diagnostic of COVID-19 in outpatients. Infection. 49(2):1. https://doi.org/10.1007/S15010-020-01442-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Deems DA, Doty RL, Settle RG et al (1991) Smell and taste disorders, a study of 750 patients from the University of Pennsylvania smell and taste center. Arch Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 117(5):519–528. https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.1991.01870170065015

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Zayet S, Kadiane-Oussou NJ, Lepiller Q et al (2020) Clinical features of COVID-19 and influenza: a comparative study on Nord Franche-Comte cluster. Microbes Infect. 22(9):481–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2020.05.016

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Heikkinen T, Järvinen A (2003) The common cold. Lancet (London, England). 361(9351):51–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12162-9

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Lechien JR, Chiesa-Estomba CM, De Siati DR et al (2020) Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions as a clinical presentation of mild-to-moderate forms of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a multicenter European study. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 277(8):2251–2261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-05965-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Migneault-Bouchard C, Hsieh JW, Hugentobler M, Frasnelli J, Landis BN (2020) Chemosensory decrease in different forms of olfactory dysfunction. J Neurol. 267(1):138–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-019-09564-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Landis BN, Scheibe M, Weber C et al (2010) Chemosensory interaction: acquired olfactory impairment is associated with decreased taste function. J Neurol. 257(8):1303–1308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-010-5513-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cao Y, Liu X, Xiong L, Cai K (2020) Imaging and clinical features of patients with 2019 novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 92(9):1449–1459. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25822

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Xu Y-H, Dong J-H, An W-M et al (2020) Clinical and computed tomographic imaging features of novel coronavirus pneumonia caused by SARS-CoV-2. J Infect. 80(4):394–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2020.02.017

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhao W, Zhong Z, Xie X, Yu Q, Liu J (2020) Relation between chest CT findings and clinical conditions of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pneumonia: a multicenter study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 214(5):1072–1077. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.22976

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Klopfenstein T, Kadiane-Oussou NJ, Toko L et al (2020) Features of anosmia in COVID-19. Med Mal Infect. 50(5):436–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medmal.2020.04.006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Zou L, Ruan F, Huang M et al (2020) SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. N Engl J Med 382(12):1177–1179. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMC2001737

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Al-Zaidi HMH, Badr HM (2020) Incidence and recovery of smell and taste dysfunction in COVID-19 positive patients. Egypt J Otolaryngol. 36(1):47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43163-020-00050-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Benazzo M, Cassaniti I, Maiorano E et al (2020) SARS-CoV-2 virologic and immunologic correlates in patients with olfactory and taste disorders. Microorganisms. 8(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8071052

  31. Song YG, Shin HS (2020) COVID-19, A clinical syndrome manifesting as hypersensitivity pneumonitis. Infect Chemother. 52(1):110–112. https://doi.org/10.3947/ic.2020.52.1.110

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Liu Z-L, Liu Y, Wan L-G et al (2020) Antibody profiles in mild and severe cases of COVID-19. Clin Chem. 66(8):1102–1104. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvaa137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kokkinakis I, Selby K, Favrat B, Genton B, Cornuz J (2020) Covid-19 diagnosis : clinical recommendations and performance of nasopharyngeal swab-PCR. Rev Med Suisse. 16(689):699–701

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Wehling E, Nordin S, Espeseth T, Reinvang I, Lundervold AJ (2011) Unawareness of olfactory dysfunction and its association with cognitive functioning in middle aged and old adults. Arch Clin Neuropsychol Off J Natl Acad Neuropsychol. 26(3):260–269. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acr019

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

NA

Funding

No funding to be declared.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, 38 Abbassia, Next to the Al-Nour Mosque, Cairo, Egypt

    Ossama I. Mansour, Mohamed Shehata Taha, Mohammad Salah Mahmoud, Waleed Farag Ezzat, Anas Askoura & Mohamed Naguib Mohamed

  2. Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, 38 Abbassia, Next to the Al-Nour Mosque, Cairo, Egypt

    Mohamed Farouk Allam

  3. Department of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, 38 Abbassia, Next to the Al-Nour Mosque, Cairo, Egypt

    Samia Abdo Girgis

  4. Department of Clinical Pathology, El-Mataria Teaching Hospital, Cairo, Egypt

    Azza Omran

  5. Clinical Pathology, Molecular Genomic Unit, MASRI, Ain Shams University, 38 Abbassia, Next to the Al-Nour Mosque, Cairo, Egypt

    Sara Hassan Agwa

Authors
  1. Ossama I. Mansour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohamed Shehata Taha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammad Salah Mahmoud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Waleed Farag Ezzat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anas Askoura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mohamed Farouk Allam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Samia Abdo Girgis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Azza Omran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Sara Hassan Agwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Mohamed Naguib Mohamed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. OIM: concept and design, interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, and supervision. MST: obtaining the swabs, concept and design, interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, and supervision. MSM: obtaining the swabs, following up the patients, acquisition and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. WFE: interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. AA: interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. MFA: concept and design, acquisition and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, supervision. SAG: acquisition and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. AO: acquisition and interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. SHA: performing laboratory work, acquisition and interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. MNM: acquisition and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Salah Mahmoud.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval for the current study protocol was obtained from Ain Shams University Faculty of Medicine Research Ethics Committee (REC) FWA 00017585 with reference number FMASU P45a/2020. Informed written consent to participate in the study was provided by all participants.

Consent for publication

Written consent for publication is taken from all participants.

Competing interests

Dr Mohamed Shehata Taha is a co-author of this study and editorial board member of the journal. He declares a competing interest for this submission. He has not handled this manuscript. The rest of the authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mansour, O.I., Taha, M.S., Mahmoud, M.S. et al. SARS COV-2 and other viral etiology as a possible clue for the olfactory dilemma. Egypt J Otolaryngol 38, 65 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43163-022-00251-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43163-022-00251-9

Keywords