Back

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and chemosensory dysfunction after COVID-19

Koyama, S.; Mucignat-Caretta, C.; Klyuchnikova, M. A.; Laktionova, T. K.; Kopishinskaia, S.; Kvasha, I. G.; Ye, J.; Cantone, E.; Parsa, S.; Guardia, M. D.; Hivert, V.; Chauquet, S.; Chen, J.; Centorame, G.; Parma, V.; Ohla, K.; Voznessenskaya, V. V.; Hwang, L.-D.

2025-05-29 infectious diseases
10.1101/2025.05.28.25328470 medRxiv
Show abstract

Olfactory and taste dysfunction are common symptoms of COVID-19 and post-acute COVID-19 syndrome, yet the effects of COVID-19 vaccines on chemosensory perception remain incompletely understood. This global, multilingual, online survey assessed post-vaccination changes in chemosensory function among individuals with and without COVID-19-related chemosensory impairment. Between May 2022 and August 2023, 2,955 responses were collected via convenience sampling, of which 1,352 were included in the analyses. Participants reported vaccination status, side effects, and chemosensory function before and after each vaccine dose. Pfizer-BioNTech accounted for 46.2% of doses, followed by Sputnik V (16.3%), Moderna (15.4%), AstraZeneca (8.9%), and Sinopharm (7.4%). More than 90% of participants reported no change in their general sense of smell or taste following vaccination, regardless of pre-existing chemosensory impairment. Among participants with qualitative chemosensory distortions (one-third of the sample), improvement was reported by 11-18% for parosmia, 20-29% for phantosmia, and 12-21% for taste distortion, depending on the vaccine dose, while worsening was reported by 3% or fewer. Side effects varied by vaccine type and were more frequent among individuals with worsened chemosensory symptoms. These findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccination is unlikely to adversely affect chemosensory function for most individuals. Given the observational design and reliance on self-reported data, the results should be interpreted cautiously. Future longitudinal studies using objective measures are needed to clarify these associations.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Chemical Senses
30 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
54.0%
50% of probability mass above
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 30%
5.1%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 29%
4.1%
4
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.9%
5
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
6
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.3%
7
Med
38 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
8
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
9
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
10
Translational Psychiatry
219 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
11
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
12
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
13
Journal of Clinical Investigation
164 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
14
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
15
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
16
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
17
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
18
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
19
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
20
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
21
Infection
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
22
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
23
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.5%