Objective: We investigate the prevalence of the self-reported and objective sudden loss of smell (SLS) in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Severe COVID-19 patients with self-reported SLS were recruited at hospitalization discharge. Epidemiological and clinical data were collected. The Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) was used to evaluate rhinological complaints. Subjective olfactory and gustatory functions were assessed with the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHNES). Objective SLS was evaluated using psychophysical tests. Potential associations between olfactory evaluation and the clinical outcomes (duration of hospitalization; admission biology; one month serology (IgG), and chest computed tomography findings) were studied. Results: Forty-seven patients completed the study (25 females). Subjectively, eighteen (38.3%) individuals self-reported subjective partial or total SLS. Among them, only three and four were anosmic and hyposmic, respectively (38.9%). Considering the objective evaluation in the entire cohort, the prevalence of SLS was 21.3%. Elderly patients and those with diabetes had lower objective olfactory evaluation results than young and non-diabetic individuals. Conclusions: The prevalence of SLS in severe COVID-19 patients appears to be lower than previously estimated in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 forms. Future comparative studies are needed to explore the predictive value of SLS for COVID-19 severity.

Objective To investigate prevalence and epidemiological and clinical factors associated with olfactory dysfunction (OD) and gustatory dysfunction (GD) in COVID-19 patients according to the disease severity. Study design Cross-sectional study. Methods A total of 2579 patients with a positive diagnosis of COVID-19 were identified between March 22 and June 3, 2020 from 18 European hospitals. Epidemiological and clinical data were extracted. Otolaryngological symptoms, including OD and GD, were collected through patient-reported outcome questionnaire and Sniffin'Sticks tests were carried out in a subset of patients. Results A total of 2579 patients were included, including 2166 mild (84.0%), 144 moderate (5.6%) and 269 severe-to-critical (10.4%) patients. Mild patients presented an otolaryngological picture of the disease with OD, GD, nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea and sore throat as the most prevalent symptoms. The prevalence of subjective OD and GD was 73.7 and 46.8%, and decreases with the severity of the disease. Females had higher prevalence of subjective OD and GD compared with males. Diabetes was associated with a higher risk to develop GD. Among the subset of patients who benefited from psychophysical olfactory evaluations, there were 75 anosmic, 43 hyposmic and 113 normosmic patients. The prevalence of anosmia significantly decreased with the severity of the disease. Anosmia or hyposmia were not associated with any nasal disorder, according to SNOT-22. Conclusion OD and GD are more prevalent in patients with mild COVID-19 compared with individuals with moderate, severe or critical diseases. Females might have a higher risk of developing OD and GD compared with males.

Assess the predictive accuracy of the WHO COVID-19 severity classification on COVID-19 hospitalized patients. The secondary aim was to compare its predictive power with a new prediction model, named COVID-19 EPI-SCORE, based on a Bayesian network analysis. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a population of 295 COVID-19 RT-PCR positive patients hospitalized at Epicura Hospital Center, Belgium, admitted between March 1st and April 30th, 2020. Results: Our cohort’s median age was 73 (62–83) years, and the female proportion was 43%. All patients were classified following WHO severity classification at admission. In total, 125 (42.4%) were classified as Moderate, 69 (23.4%) as Severe, and 101 (34.2%) as Critical. Death proportions through these three classes were 11.2%, 33.3%, and 67.3%, respectively, and the proportions of critically ill patients (dead or needed Invasive Mechanical Ventilation) were 11.2%, 34.8%, and 83.2%, respectively. A Bayesian network analysis was used to create a model to analyze predictive accuracy of the WHO severity classification and to create the EPI-SCORE. The six variables that have been automatically selected by our machine learning algorithm were the WHO severity classification, acute kidney injury, age, Lactate Dehydrogenase Levels (LDH), lymphocytes and activated prothrombin time (aPTT). Receiver Operation Characteristic (ROC) curve indexes hereby obtained were 83.8% and 91% for the models based on WHO classification only and our EPI-SCORE, respectively. Conclusions: Our study shows that the WHO severity classification is reliable in predicting a severe outcome among COVID-19 patients. The addition to this classification of a few clinical and laboratory variables as per our COVID-19 EPI-SCORE has demonstrated to significantly increase its accuracy.

Oxygenation through High Flow Delivery Systems (HFO) is described as capable of delivering accurate F iO2 . Meanwhile, peak inspiratory flow ) of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure can reach up to 120 L/min, largely exceeding HFO flow. Currently, very few data on the reliability of HFO devices at these high are available. We sought to evaluate factors affecting oxygenation while using HFO systems at high in a bench study. Spontaneous breathing was generated with a mechanical test lung connected to a mechanical ventilator Servo-i®, set to volume control mode. Gas flow from a HFO device was delivered to the test lung. The influence on effective inspired oxygen fraction of three parameters (F iO2 0.6, 0.8, and 1, from 28 to 98.1 L/min, and HFO Gas Flows from 40 to 60 L/min) were analyzed and are reported. The present bench study demonstrates that during HFO treatment, measured F iO2 in the lung does not equal set F iO2 on the device. The substance of this variation (ΔF iO2 ) is tightly correlated to (Pearson’s coefficient of 0.94, p-value < 0.001). Additionally, set F iO2 and Flow at HFO device appear to significatively affect ΔF iO2 as well (p-values < 0.001, adjusted to ). The result of multivariate linear regression indicates predictors ( , Flow and set F iO2 ) to explain 92% of the variance of delta F iO2 through K-Fold Cross Validation. Moreover, adjunction of a dead space in the breathing circuit significantly decreased ΔF iO2 (p < 0.01). The present bench study did expose a weakness of HFO devices in reliability of delivering accurate F IO2 at high as well as, to a lesser extent, at below equivalent set HFO Flows. Moreover, set HFO flow and set F IO2 did influence the variability of effective inspired oxygen fraction. The adjunction of a dead space in the experimental set-up significantly amended this variability and should thus be further studied in order to improve success rate of HFO therapy.

Aim The objective of the study was to assess mortality rates in COVID-19 patients suffering from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who also requiring mechanical ventilation. The predictors of mortality in this cohort were analysed, and the clinical characteristics recorded. Material and method A single centre retrospective study was conducted on all COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit of the Epicura Hospital Center, Province of Hainaut, Belgium, between March 1st and April 30th 2020. Results Forty-nine patients were included in the study of which thirty-four were male, and fifteen were female. The mean (SD) age was 68.8 (10.6) and 69.5 (12.6) for males and females, respectively. The median time to death after the onset of symptoms was eighteen days. The median time to death, after hospital admission was nine days. By the end of the thirty days follow-up, twenty-seven patients (55%) had died, and twenty–two (45%) had survived. Non-survivors, as compared to those who survived, were similar in gender, prescribed medications, COVID-19 symptoms, with similar laboratory test results. They were significantly older (p = 0.007), with a higher co-morbidity burden (p = 0.026) and underwent significantly less tra-cheostomy (p < 0.001). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, no parameter significantly predicted mortality. Conclusions This study reported a mortality rate of 55% in critically ill COVID-19 patients with ARDS who also required mechanical ventilation. The results corroborate previous findings that older and more comorbid patients represent the population at most risk of a poor outcome in this setting.