Divya P. Prajapati

Bio: Divya P. Prajapati is an academic researcher from University of California, San Diego. The author has contributed to research in topics: Anosmia & Olfaction. The author has an hindex of 4, co-authored 7 publications receiving 761 citations.

Association of chemosensory dysfunction and COVID-19 in patients presenting with influenza-like symptoms.

Abstract: Background Rapid spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and concern for viral transmission by ambulatory patients with minimal to no symptoms underline the importance of identifying early or subclinical symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Two such candidate symptoms include anecdotally reported loss of smell and taste. Understanding the timing and association of smell/taste loss in COVID-19 may help facilitate screening and early isolation of cases. Methods A single-institution, cross-sectional study evaluating patient-reported symptoms with a focus on smell and taste was conducted using an internet-based platform on adult subjects who underwent testing for COVID-19. Logistic regression was employed to identify symptoms associated with COVID-19 positivity. Results A total of 1480 patients with influenza-like symptoms underwent COVID-19 testing between March 3, 2020, and March 29, 2020. Our study captured 59 of 102 (58%) COVID-19-positive patients and 203 of 1378 (15%) COVID-19-negative patients. Smell and taste loss were reported in 68% (40/59) and 71% (42/59) of COVID-19-positive subjects, respectively, compared to 16% (33/203) and 17% (35/203) of COVID-19-negative patients (p Conclusion In ambulatory individuals with influenza-like symptoms, chemosensory dysfunction was strongly associated with COVID-19 infection and should be considered when screening symptoms. Most will recover chemosensory function within weeks, paralleling resolution of other disease-related symptoms.

Self-reported olfactory loss associates with outpatient clinical course in COVID-19.

Abstract: Author(s): Yan, Carol H; Faraji, Farhoud; Prajapati, Divya P; Ostrander, Benjamin T; DeConde, Adam S | Abstract: BackgroundRapid spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus has left many health systems around the world overwhelmed, forcing triaging of scarce medical resources. Identifying indicators of hospital admission for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients early in the disease course could aid the efficient allocation of medical interventions. Self-reported olfactory impairment has recently been recognized as a hallmark of COVID-19 and may be an important predictor of clinical outcome.MethodsA retrospective review of all patients presenting to a San Diego Hospital system with laboratory-confirmed positive COVID-19 infection was conducted with evaluation of olfactory and gustatory function and clinical disease course. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were performed to identify risk factors for hospital admission and anosmia.ResultsA total of 169 patients tested positive for COVID-19 disease between March 3 and April 8, 2020. Olfactory and gustatory data were obtained for 128 (75.7%) of 169 subjects, of which 26 (20.1%) of 128 required hospitalization. Admission for COVID-19 was associated with intact sense of smell and taste, increased age, diabetes, and subjective and objective parameters associated with respiratory failure. On adjusted analysis, anosmia was strongly and independently associated with outpatient care (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.74), whereas positive findings of pulmonary infiltrates and/or pleural effusion on chest radiograph (aOR 8.01; 95% CI, 1.12-57.49) was strongly and independently associated with admission.ConclusionNormosmia is an independent predictor of admission in COVID-19 cases. Smell loss in COVID-19 may be associated with a milder clinical course.

Association of subjective olfactory dysfunction and 12-item odor identification testing in ambulatory COVID-19 patients.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Acute loss of smell and taste are well-recognized symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yet the correlation between self-reported and psychophysical olfactory function remains unclear. Understanding the reliability of self-reported smell loss in ambulatory cases can assess the utility of this screening measure. METHODS: A prospective, longitudinal study evaluating patient-reported and measured olfactory function using the validated 12-item Brief Smell Identification Test (BSIT) was conducted on adult outpatients with COVID-19. Patient-reported olfaction scores using a visual analog scale (VAS) were obtained at baseline, time of COVID-19 testing, and time of BSIT completion. Linear associations between VAS and BSIT were evaluated using Spearman's correlation coefficient and the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of VAS scores were calculated. Logistic regression identified characteristics associated with accurate assessment of olfactory function. RESULTS: A total of 81 polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 positive subjects, of whom 54 self-reported smell loss, were prospectively recruited ≤5 days from diagnosis date between May 8, 2020, and July 8, 2020. Self-reported smell loss had good discriminative ability in identifying abnormal BSIT (area under receiver operating curve [AUC] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 0.92). A VAS <5 demonstrated sensitivity of 0.62 and specificity of 0.94 for predicting hyposmia (BSIT ≤8) with accuracy of 82.7%, whereas a VAS <9 had highest sensitivity at 0.86. Moderate bivariate linear associations were found between VAS and BSIT scores (rs = 0.59, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Self-reported olfactory loss associated with COVID-19 has a strong ability to predict abnormal olfactory function though the 2 measures are moderately correlated. Subjective olfactory assessment is useful in screening olfactory dysfunction at early disease time points when psychophysical testing cannot be conducted.

Persistent Smell Loss Following Undetectable SARS-CoV-2.

Abstract: The association of smell and taste loss with COVID-19 has been well demonstrated with high prevalence rates. In certain cases, chemosensory loss may be the only symptom of COVID-19 and may linger while other symptoms have resolved. The significance of persistent smell and taste loss and its relationship to ongoing viral shedding has yet to be investigated. In this cross-sectional study, of the 316 laboratory test-confirmed COVID-19 cases at our institution, 46 had subsequent test-based confirmation of viral clearance with 2 consecutive negative RT-PCR test results (reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction). Olfactory dysfunction was reported by 50% of the patients (23 of 46), with 78% (18 of 23) having subjective persistent smell loss despite negative RT-PCR test results. These preliminary data demonstrate the persistence of self-reported smell loss despite otherwise clinical resolution and undetectable nasal viral RNA.

Assessment of patient recognition of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated olfactory loss and recovery: a longitudinal study.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The clinical course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) olfactory dysfunction remains poorly characterized, often limited by self-reported measures. Given the logistical challenges of psychophysical testing, understanding the longitudinal relationship between self-reported and quantitative measures can help accurately identify patients with persistent olfactory dysfunction. This study aimed to longitudinally correlate measured and subjective olfactory function in COVID-19 subjects. METHODS: A prospective, longitudinal study evaluating subjective and measured olfaction was conducted on ambulatory COVID-19 subjects. Olfaction scores were obtained using a visual analogue scale (VAS) (0 = anosmia, 10 = normosmia) and the validated 12-item Brief Smell Identification Test (BSIT). Weekly testing was performed until recovery (BSIT ≥ 9/12 and/or VAS = 10/10) or study completion. RESULTS: Eighty-six polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive COVID-19 subjects were recruited ≤3 days from diagnosis and 52 completed longitudinal testing. Among those with self-reported smell loss at recruitment, similar levels (75.8%) of objective (BSIT ≥ 9/12) and subjective recovery were obtained using a VAS cutoff ≥8, yet only 30.3% reported complete subjective recovery (VAS = 10). Median times to objective and complete subjective olfactory recovery were 12 ± 2.3 and 24 ± 3.5 days, respectively. Although both measures showed chemosensory improvement, the distributions of objective and full subjective olfactory recovery differed significantly (log rank test χ2 = 6.46, degrees of freedom [df] = 1, p = 0.011). Overall correlation between BSIT and VAS scores was moderate to strong across longitudinal follow-up (rs = 0.41-0.65). CONCLUSION: Self-reported and psychophysically measured COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction improve at similar levels and are moderately correlated longitudinally, yet there is a significant delay in complete subjective recovery. Psychophysical testing in conjunction with qualitative assessments may be considered for counseling and follow-up of patients with COVID-19 smell loss.

Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study

Abstract: Summary Background Since December, 2019, Wuhan, China, has experienced an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 have been reported but risk factors for mortality and a detailed clinical course of illness, including viral shedding, have not been well described. Methods In this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included all adult inpatients (≥18 years old) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital (Wuhan, China) who had been discharged or had died by Jan 31, 2020. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data, including serial samples for viral RNA detection, were extracted from electronic medical records and compared between survivors and non-survivors. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods to explore the risk factors associated with in-hospital death. Findings 191 patients (135 from Jinyintan Hospital and 56 from Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital) were included in this study, of whom 137 were discharged and 54 died in hospital. 91 (48%) patients had a comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common (58 [30%] patients), followed by diabetes (36 [19%] patients) and coronary heart disease (15 [8%] patients). Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with older age (odds ratio 1·10, 95% CI 1·03–1·17, per year increase; p=0·0043), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5·65, 2·61–12·23; p Interpretation The potential risk factors of older age, high SOFA score, and d-dimer greater than 1 μg/mL could help clinicians to identify patients with poor prognosis at an early stage. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future. Funding Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences; National Science Grant for Distinguished Young Scholars; National Key Research and Development Program of China; The Beijing Science and Technology Project; and Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development.

Non-neuronal expression of SARS-CoV-2 entry genes in the olfactory system suggests mechanisms underlying COVID-19-associated anosmia.

Abstract: Altered olfactory function is a common symptom of COVID-19, but its etiology is unknown. A key question is whether SARS-CoV-2 (CoV-2) - the causal agent in COVID-19 - affects olfaction directly, by infecting olfactory sensory neurons or their targets in the olfactory bulb, or indirectly, through perturbation of supporting cells. Here we identify cell types in the olfactory epithelium and olfactory bulb that express SARS-CoV-2 cell entry molecules. Bulk sequencing demonstrated that mouse, non-human primate and human olfactory mucosa expresses two key genes involved in CoV-2 entry, ACE2 and TMPRSS2. However, single cell sequencing revealed that ACE2 is expressed in support cells, stem cells, and perivascular cells, rather than in neurons. Immunostaining confirmed these results and revealed pervasive expression of ACE2 protein in dorsally-located olfactory epithelial sustentacular cells and olfactory bulb pericytes in the mouse. These findings suggest that CoV-2 infection of non-neuronal cell types leads to anosmia and related disturbances in odor perception in COVID-19 patients.

Smell dysfunction: a biomarker for COVID-19.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is responsible for the largest pandemic since the 1918 influenza A virus subtype H1N1 influenza outbreak. The symptoms presently recognized by the World Health Organization are cough, fever, tiredness, and difficulty breathing. Patient-reported smell and taste loss has been associated with COVID-19 infection, yet no empirical olfactory testing on a cohort of COVID-19 patients has been performed. METHODS: The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), a well-validated 40-odorant test, was administered to 60 confirmed COVID-19 inpatients and 60 age- and sex-matched controls to assess the magnitude and frequency of their olfactory dysfunction. A mixed effects analysis of variance determined whether meaningful differences in test scores existed between the 2 groups and if the test scores were differentially influenced by sex. RESULTS: Fifty-nine (98%) of the 60 patients exhibited some smell dysfunction (mean [95% CI] UPSIT score: 20.98 [19.47, 22.48]; controls: 34.10 [33.31, 34.88]; p < 0.0001). Thirty-five of the 60 patients (58%) were either anosmic (15/60; 25%) or severely microsmic (20/60; 33%); 16 exhibited moderate microsmia (16/60; 27%), 8 mild microsmia (8/60; 13%), and 1 normosmia (1/60; 2%). Deficits were evident for all 40 UPSIT odorants. No meaningful relationships between the test scores and sex, disease severity, or comorbidities were found. CONCLUSION: Quantitative smell testing demonstrates that decreased smell function, but not always anosmia, is a major marker for SARS-CoV-2 infection and suggests the possibility that smell testing may help, in some cases, to identify COVID-19 patients in need of early treatment or quarantine.

The Prevalence of Olfactory and Gustatory Dysfunction in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Abstract: ObjectiveTo determine the pooled global prevalence of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction in patients with the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19).Data SourcesLiterature searches of PubMed, Embase, a...

Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19 disease.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The clinical implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection are highly variable. Some people with SARS-CoV-2 infection remain asymptomatic, whilst the infection can cause mild to moderate COVID-19 and COVID-19 pneumonia in others. This can lead to some people requiring intensive care support and, in some cases, to death, especially in older adults. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of smell or taste, and signs such as oxygen saturation are the first and most readily available diagnostic information. Such information could be used to either rule out COVID-19, or select patients for further testing. This is an update of this review, the first version of which published in July 2020. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: For this review iteration we undertook electronic searches up to 15 July 2020 in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they included patients with clinically suspected COVID-19, or if they recruited known cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Studies were eligible when they recruited patients presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies in hospitalised patients were only included if symptoms and signs were recorded on admission or at presentation. Studies including patients who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract stage and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the Quality Assessment tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis whenever five or more primary studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 44 studies including 26,884 participants in total. Prevalence of COVID-19 varied from 3% to 71% with a median of 21%. There were three studies from primary care settings (1824 participants), nine studies from outpatient testing centres (10,717 participants), 12 studies performed in hospital outpatient wards (5061 participants), seven studies in hospitalised patients (1048 participants), 10 studies in the emergency department (3173 participants), and three studies in which the setting was not specified (5061 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild from severe COVID-19, so we present the results for all disease severities together. Fifteen studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because inclusion in the studies depended on the applicable testing and referral protocols, which included many of the signs and symptoms under study in this review. This may have especially influenced the sensitivity of those features used in referral protocols, such as fever and cough. Five studies only included participants with pneumonia on imaging, suggesting that this is a highly selected population. In an additional 12 studies, we were unable to assess the risk for selection bias. This makes it very difficult to judge the validity of the diagnostic accuracy of the signs and symptoms from these included studies. The applicability of the results of this review update improved in comparison with the original review. A greater proportion of studies included participants who presented to outpatient settings, which is where the majority of clinical assessments for COVID-19 take place. However, still none of the studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 84 signs and symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. Only cough (25 studies) and fever (7 studies) had a pooled sensitivity of at least 50% but specificities were moderate to low. Cough had a sensitivity of 67.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 59.8% to 74.1%) and specificity of 35.0% (95% CI 28.7% to 41.9%). Fever had a sensitivity of 53.8% (95% CI 35.0% to 71.7%) and a specificity of 67.4% (95% CI 53.3% to 78.9%). The pooled positive likelihood ratio of cough was only 1.04 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.11) and that of fever 1.65 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.93). Anosmia alone (11 studies), ageusia alone (6 studies), and anosmia or ageusia (6 studies) had sensitivities below 50% but specificities over 90%. Anosmia had a pooled sensitivity of 28.0% (95% CI 17.7% to 41.3%) and a specificity of 93.4% (95% CI 88.3% to 96.4%). Ageusia had a pooled sensitivity of 24.8% (95% CI 12.4% to 43.5%) and a specificity of 91.4% (95% CI 81.3% to 96.3%). Anosmia or ageusia had a pooled sensitivity of 41.0% (95% CI 27.0% to 56.6%) and a specificity of 90.5% (95% CI 81.2% to 95.4%). The pooled positive likelihood ratios of anosmia alone and anosmia or ageusia were 4.25 (95% CI 3.17 to 5.71) and 4.31 (95% CI 3.00 to 6.18) respectively, which is just below our arbitrary definition of a 'red flag', that is, a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5. The pooled positive likelihood ratio of ageusia alone was only 2.88 (95% CI 2.02 to 4.09). Only two studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms, mostly combining fever and cough with other symptoms. These combinations had a specificity above 80%, but at the cost of very low sensitivity (< 30%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The majority of individual signs and symptoms included in this review appear to have very poor diagnostic accuracy, although this should be interpreted in the context of selection bias and heterogeneity between studies. Based on currently available data, neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out COVID-19. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for COVID-19. The presence of fever or cough, given their high sensitivities, may also be useful to identify people for further testing. Prospective studies in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings, examining combinations of signs and symptoms to evaluate the syndromic presentation of COVID-19, are still urgently needed. Results from such studies could inform subsequent management decisions.