Earlier diagnosis improves COVID-19 prognosis: a nationwide retrospective cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Risk of adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients by stratifying by the time from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis status is still uncertain. METHODS: We included 1,590 hospitalized COVID-19 patients confirmed by real-time RT-PCR assay or high-throughput sequencing of pharyngeal and nasal swab specimens from 575 hospitals across China between 11 December 2019 and 31 January 2020. Times from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis, from symptom onset to first medical visit and from first medical visit to confirmed diagnosis were described and turned into binary variables by the maximally selected rank statistics method. Then, survival analysis, including a log-rank test, Cox regression, and conditional inference tree (CTREE) was conducted, regarding whether patients progressed to a severe disease level during the observational period (assessed as severe pneumonia according to the Chinese Expert Consensus on Clinical Practice for Emergency Severe Pneumonia, admission to an intensive care unit, administration of invasive ventilation, or death) as the prognosis outcome, the dependent variable. Independent factors included whether the time from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis was longer than 5 days (the exposure) and other demographic and clinical factors as multivariate adjustments. The clinical characteristics of the patients with different times from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis were also compared. RESULTS: The medians of the times from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis, from symptom onset to first medical visit, and from first medical visit to confirmed diagnosis were 6, 3, and 2 days. After adjusting for age, sex, smoking status, and comorbidity status, age [hazard ratio (HR): 1.03; 95% CI: 1.01-1.04], comorbidity (HR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.23-2.73), and a duration from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis of >5 days (HR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.10-2.60) were independent predictors of COVID-19 prognosis, which echoed the CTREE models, with significant nodes such as time from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis, age, and comorbidities. Males, older patients with symptoms such as dry cough/productive cough/shortness of breath, and prior COPD were observed more often in the patients who procrastinated before initiating the first medical consultation. CONCLUSIONS: A longer time from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis yielded a worse COVID-19 prognosis.

Effect of Recombinant Human Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor for Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Lymphopenia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Lymphopenia is common and correlates with poor clinical outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To determine whether a therapy that increases peripheral blood leukocyte and lymphocyte cell counts leads to clinical improvement in patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting and Participants: Between February 18 and April 10, 2020, we conducted an open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial at 3 participating centers in China. The main eligibility criteria were pneumonia, a blood lymphocyte cell count of 800 per µL (to convert to ×109/L, multiply by 0.001) or lower, and no comorbidities. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection was confirmed with reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction testing. Exposures: Usual care alone, or usual care plus 3 doses of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF, 5 µg/kg, subcutaneously at days 0-2). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the time from randomization to improvement of at least 1 point on a 7-category disease severity score. Results: Of 200 participants, 112 (56%) were men and the median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 45 (40-55) years. There was random assignment of 100 patients (50%) to the rhG-CSF group and 100 (50%) to the usual care group. Time to clinical improvement was similar between groups (rhG-CSF group median of 12 days (IQR, 10-16 days) vs usual care group median of 13 days (IQR, 11-17 days); hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.95-1.71; P = .06). For secondary end points, the proportion of patients progressing to acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, or septic shock was lower in the rhG-CSF group (rhG-CSF group, 2% vs usual care group, 15%; difference, -13%; 95%CI, -21.4% to -5.4%). At 21 days, 2 patients (2%) had died in the rhG-CSF group compared with 10 patients (10%) in the usual care group (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95%CI, 0.04-0.88). At day 5, the lymphocyte cell count was higher in the rhG-CSF group (rhG-CSF group median of 1050/µL vs usual care group median of 620/µL; Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference in medians, 440; 95% CI, 380-490). Serious adverse events, such as sepsis or septic shock, respiratory failure, and acute respiratory distress syndrome, occurred in 29 patients (14.5%) in the rhG-CSF group and 42 patients (21%) in the usual care group. Conclusion and Relevance: In preliminary findings from a randomized clinical trial, rhG-CSF treatment for patients with COVID-19 with lymphopenia but no comorbidities did not accelerate clinical improvement, but the number of patients developing critical illness or dying may have been reduced. Larger studies that include a broader range of patients with COVID-19 should be conducted. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000030007.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 treated in Hubei (epicentre) and outside Hubei (non-epicentre): a nationwide analysis of China.

BACKGROUND: During the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), consistent and considerable differences in disease severity and mortality rate of patients treated in Hubei province compared to those in other parts of China have been observed. We sought to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients being treated inside and outside Hubei province, and explore the factors underlying these differences. METHODS: Collaborating with the National Health Commission, we established a retrospective cohort to study hospitalised COVID-19 cases in China. Clinical characteristics, the rate of severe events and deaths, and the time to critical illness (invasive ventilation or intensive care unit admission or death) were compared between patients within and outside Hubei. The impact of Wuhan-related exposure (a presumed key factor that drove the severe situation in Hubei, as Wuhan is the epicentre as well the administrative centre of Hubei province) and the duration between symptom onset and admission on prognosis were also determined. RESULTS: At the data cut-off (31 January 2020), 1590 cases from 575 hospitals in 31 provincial administrative regions were collected (core cohort). The overall rate of severe cases and mortality was 16.0% and 3.2%, respectively. Patients in Hubei (predominantly with Wuhan-related exposure, 597 (92.3%) out of 647) were older (mean age 49.7 versus 44.9 years), had more cases with comorbidity (32.9% versus 19.7%), higher symptomatic burden, abnormal radiologic manifestations and, especially, a longer waiting time between symptom onset and admission (5.7 versus 4.5 days) compared with patients outside Hubei. Patients in Hubei (severe event rate 23.0% versus 11.1%, death rate 7.3% versus 0.3%, HR (95% CI) for critical illness 1.59 (1.05-2.41)) have a poorer prognosis compared with patients outside Hubei after adjusting for age and comorbidity. However, among patients outside Hubei, the duration from symptom onset to hospitalisation (mean 4.4 versus 4.7 days) and prognosis (HR (95%) 0.84 (0.40-1.80)) were similar between patients with or without Wuhan-related exposure. In the overall population, the waiting time, but neither treated in Hubei nor Wuhan-related exposure, remained an independent prognostic factor (HR (95%) 1.05 (1.01-1.08)). CONCLUSION: There were more severe cases and poorer outcomes for COVID-19 patients treated in Hubei, which might be attributed to the prolonged duration of symptom onset to hospitalisation in the epicentre. Future studies to determine the reason for delaying hospitalisation are warranted.

Comorbidity and its impact on 1590 patients with COVID-19 in China: a nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is evolving rapidly worldwide. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of serious adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 by stratifying the comorbidity status. METHODS: We analysed data from 1590 laboratory confirmed hospitalised patients from 575 hospitals in 31 provinces/autonomous regions/provincial municipalities across mainland China between 11 December 2019 and 31 January 2020. We analysed the composite end-points, which consisted of admission to an intensive care unit, invasive ventilation or death. The risk of reaching the composite end-points was compared according to the presence and number of comorbidities. RESULTS: The mean age was 48.9 years and 686 (42.7%) patients were female. Severe cases accounted for 16.0% of the study population. 131 (8.2%) patients reached the composite end-points. 399 (25.1%) reported having at least one comorbidity. The most prevalent comorbidity was hypertension (16.9%), followed by diabetes (8.2%). 130 (8.2%) patients reported having two or more comorbidities. After adjusting for age and smoking status, COPD (HR (95% CI) 2.681 (1.424-5.048)), diabetes (1.59 (1.03-2.45)), hypertension (1.58 (1.07-2.32)) and malignancy (3.50 (1.60-7.64)) were risk factors of reaching the composite end-points. The hazard ratio (95% CI) was 1.79 (1.16-2.77) among patients with at least one comorbidity and 2.59 (1.61-4.17) among patients with two or more comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Among laboratory confirmed cases of COVID-19, patients with any comorbidity yielded poorer clinical outcomes than those without. A greater number of comorbidities also correlated with poorer clinical outcomes.