Patient factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 in an admitted emergency department population.

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) virus has wide community spread. The aim of this study was to describe patient characteristics and to identify factors associated with COVID-19 among emergency department (ED) patients under investigation for COVID-19 who were admitted to the hospital. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study from 8 EDs within a 9-hospital health system. Patients with COVID-19 testing around the time of hospital admission were included. The primary outcome measure was COVID-19 test result. Patient characteristics were described and a multivariable logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with a positive COVID-19 test. Results: During the study period from March 1, 2020 to April 8, 2020, 2182 admitted patients had a test resulted for COVID-19. Of these patients, 786 (36%) had a positive test result. For COVID-19-positive patients, 63 (8.1%) died during hospitalization. COVID-19-positive patients had lower pulse oximetry (0.91 [95% confidence interval, CI], [0.88-0.94]), higher temperatures (1.36 [1.26-1.47]), and lower leukocyte counts than negative patients (0.78 [0.75-0.82]). Chronic lung disease (odds ratio [OR] 0.68, [0.52-0.90]) and histories of alcohol (0.64 [0.42-0.99]) or substance abuse (0.39 [0.25-0.62]) were less likely to be associated with a positive COVID-19 result. Conclusion: We observed a high percentage of positive results among an admitted ED cohort under investigation for COVID-19. Patient factors may be useful in early differentiation of patients with COVID-19 from similarly presenting respiratory illnesses although no single factor will serve this purpose.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes for 7,995 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

OBJECTIVE: Severe acute respiratory syndrome virus (SARS-CoV-2) has infected millions of people worldwide. Our goal was to identify risk factors associated with admission and disease severity in patients with SARS-CoV-2. DESIGN: This was an observational, retrospective study based on real-world data for 7,995 patients with SARS-CoV-2 from a clinical data repository. SETTING: Yale New Haven Health (YNHH) is a five-hospital academic health system serving a diverse patient population with community and teaching facilities in both urban and suburban areas. POPULATIONS: The study included adult patients who had SARS-CoV-2 testing at YNHH between March 1 and April 30, 2020. MAIN OUTCOME AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Primary outcomes were admission and in-hospital mortality for patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection as determined by RT-PCR testing. We also assessed features associated with the need for respiratory support. RESULTS: Of the 28605 patients tested for SARS-CoV-2, 7995 patients (27.9%) had an infection (median age 52.3 years) and 2154 (26.9%) of these had an associated admission (median age 66.2 years). Of admitted patients, 2152 (99.9%) had a discharge disposition at the end of the study period. Of these, 329 (15.3%) required invasive mechanical ventilation and 305 (14.2%) expired. Increased age and male sex were positively associated with admission and in-hospital mortality (median age 80.7 years), while comorbidities had a much weaker association with the risk of admission or mortality. Black race (OR 1.43, 95%CI 1.14-1.78) and Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.81, 95%CI 1.50-2.18) were identified as risk factors for admission, but, among discharged patients, age-adjusted in-hospital mortality was not significantly different among racial and ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: This observational study identified, among people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, older age and male sex as the most strongly associated risks for admission and in-hospital mortality in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. While minority racial and ethnic groups had increased burden of disease and risk of admission, age-adjusted in-hospital mortality for discharged patients was not significantly different among racial and ethnic groups. Ongoing studies will be needed to continue to evaluate these risks, particularly in the setting of evolving treatment guidelines.

NEW CLINICAL DECISION SUPPORT TOOLS FOR COVID-19

While the global community coming together to share promising medical research is usually positive, COVID-19 created a unique problem for everyone in medicine, including those in medical research: the need to quickly disseminate information accurately so healthcare workers around the world could work together to provide effective care, learn from each other, and save lives. The need for COVID-specific clinical decision support tools has only increased in urgency as new outbreaks, evolving symptoms, and a climbing death toll continue to threaten public health. [...]that the United States is six months into this worldwide pandemic and crisis, we have much more data at our disposal, and researchers are developing many COVID-specific medical calculators, such as the Quick COVID-19 Severity Index,2 which predicts 24-hr risk of critical respiratory illness in patients admitted from ED with COVID-19 and added to MDCalc, and the Call Score, which predicts prognosis of COVID-19 inpatients decompensation and NOT added to MDCalc due to only 200 patients included (40 in progression group) and no validation besides internal bootstrapping.3 However, the research problem remains:

Development and Validation of the Quick COVID-19 Severity Index: A Prognostic Tool for Early Clinical Decompensation.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to create a predictive, interpretable model of early hospital respiratory failure among emergency department (ED) patients admitted with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: This was an observational, retrospective, cohort study from a 9-ED health system of admitted adult patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (COVID-19) and an oxygen requirement less than or equal to 6 L/min. We sought to predict respiratory failure within 24 hours of admission as defined by oxygen requirement of greater than 10 L/min by low-flow device, high-flow device, noninvasive or invasive ventilation, or death. Predictive models were compared with the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, quick Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment, and the CURB-65 pneumonia severity score. RESULTS: During the study period, from March 1 to April 27, 2020, 1,792 patients were admitted with COVID-19, 620 (35%) of whom had respiratory failure in the ED. Of the remaining 1,172 admitted patients, 144 (12.3%) met the composite endpoint within the first 24 hours of hospitalization. On the independent test cohort, both a novel bedside scoring system, the quick COVID-19 Severity Index (area under receiver operating characteristic curve mean 0.81 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.73 to 0.89]), and a machine-learning model, the COVID-19 Severity Index (mean 0.76 [95% CI 0.65 to 0.86]), outperformed the Elixhauser mortality index (mean 0.61 [95% CI 0.51 to 0.70]), CURB-65 (0.50 [95% CI 0.40 to 0.60]), and quick Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (0.59 [95% CI 0.50 to 0.68]). A low quick COVID-19 Severity Index score was associated with a less than 5% risk of respiratory decompensation in the validation cohort. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of admitted COVID-19 patients progress to respiratory failure within 24 hours of admission. These events are accurately predicted with bedside respiratory examination findings within a simple scoring system.