Abstract
The prevalence of chemosensory dysfunction in patients with COVID-19 varies greatly between populations. It is unclear whether such differences are due to factors at the level of the human host, or at the level of the coronavirus, or both. At the host level, the entry proteins which allow virus binding and entry have variants with distinct properties, and the frequency of such variants differs between ethnicities. At the level of the virus, the D614G mutation enhances virus entry to the host cell. Since the two virus strains (D614 and G614) co-existed in the first six months of the pandemic in most populations, it has been difficult to distinguish between contributions of the virus and contributions of the host for anosmia. To answer this question, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in South Asian populations when either the D614 or the G614 virus was dominant. We show that populations infected predominantly with the G614 virus had a much higher prevalence of anosmia (pooled prevalence of 31.8%) compared with the same ethnic populations infected mostly with the D614 virus strain (pooled anosmia prevalence of 5.3%). We conclude that the D614G mutation is a major contributing factor that increases the prevalence of anosmia in COVID-19, and that this enhanced effect on olfaction constitutes a previously unrecognized phenotype of the D614G mutation. The new virus strains that have additional mutations on the background of the D614G mutation can be expected to cause a similarly increased prevalence of chemosensory dysfunctions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Supported by grant GM103554 from the National Institutes of Health (C.S.v.B.), and the Excellence Initiative-Research University programme at the Nicolaus Copernicus University (R.B.). No other payment or services were received.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
IRB oversight is not required, because this systematic review and meta-analysis reports exclusively on publicly available data sets, and does not use identifiable private information about humans.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data referred to in the manuscript are publicly available.
