Risk factors associated with indoor transmission during home quarantine of COVID-19 patients.

Purpose: The study aimed to identify potential risk factors for family transmission and to provide precautionary guidelines for the general public during novel Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) waves. Methods: A retrospective cohort study with numerous COVID-19 patients recruited was conducted in Shanghai. Epidemiological data including transmission details, demographics, vaccination status, symptoms, comorbidities, antigen test, living environment, residential ventilation, disinfection and medical treatment of each participant were collected and risk factors for family transmission were determined. Results: A total of 2,334 COVID-19 patients participated. Compared with non-cohabitation infected patients, cohabitated ones were younger (p = 0.019), more commonly unvaccinated (p = 0.048) or exposed to infections (p < 0.001), and had higher rates of symptoms (p = 0.003) or shared living room (p < 0.001). Risk factors analysis showed that the 2019-nCov antigen positive (OR = 1.86, 95%CI 1.40-2.48, p < 0.001), symptoms development (OR = 1.86, 95%CI 1.34-2.58, p < 0.001), direct contact exposure (OR = 1.47, 95%CI 1.09-1.96, p = 0.010) were independent risk factors for the cohabitant transmission of COVID-19, and a separate room with a separate toilet could reduce the risk of family transmission (OR = 0.62, 95%CI 0.41-0.92, p = 0.018). Conclusion: Patients showing negative 2019-nCov antigen tests, being asymptomatic, living in a separate room with a separate toilet, or actively avoiding direct contact with cohabitants were at low risk of family transmission, and the study recommended that avoiding direct contact and residential disinfection could reduce the risk of all cohabitants within the same house being infected with COVID-19.

Early identification and severity prediction of acute respiratory infection (ESAR): a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 at the end of 2019 sounded the alarm for early inspection on acute respiratory infection (ARI). However, diagnosis pathway of ARI has still not reached a consensus and its impact on prognosis needs to be further explored. METHODS: ESAR is a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled, non-inferiority clinical trial on evaluating the diagnosis performance and its impact on prognosis of ARI between mNGS and multiplex PCR. Enrolled patients will be divided into two groups with a ratio of 1:1. Group I will be directly tested by mNGS. Group II will firstly receive multiplex PCR, then mNGS in patients with severe infection if multiplex PCR is negative or inconsistent with clinical manifestations. All patients will be followed up every 7 days for 28 days. The primary endpoint is time to initiate targeted treatment. Secondary endpoints include incidence of significant events (oxygen inhalation, mechanical ventilation, etc.), clinical remission rate, and hospitalization length. A total of 440 participants will be enrolled in both groups. DISCUSSION: ESAR compares the efficacy of different diagnostic strategies and their impact on treatment outcomes in ARI, which is of great significance to make precise diagnosis, balance clinical resources and demands, and ultimately optimize clinical diagnosis pathways and treatment strategies. Trial registration Clinicaltrial.gov, NCT04955756, Registered on July 9th 2021.

Research advances and clinical management of bronchiectasis: Chinese perspective.

Bronchiectasis is a debilitating chronic suppurative airway disease that confers a substantial burden globally. Despite the notable prevalence, research on bronchiectasis in mainland China remains in its infancy. Nevertheless, there has been a significant leap in the quantity and quality of research, which has contributed to the ever-improving clinical practice. A nationwide collaborative platform has been established to foster multicentre studies, which will help increase the level of evidence further. Here, we summarise the status quo of clinical management and consider the research priorities for bronchiectasis that have been published previously. We also highlight the efforts of the Chinese medical communities to outline the core tasks that need to be addressed within the next decade.

Risk assessment of venous thromboembolism and bleeding in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly recognized illness that has spread rapidly all over the world. More and more reports highlight the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in COVID-19. Our study aims to identify in-hospital VTE risk and bleeding risk in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 138 consecutively enrolled patients with COVID-19 and identified in-hospital VTE and bleeding risk by Padua Prediction Score and Improve bleed risk assessment model. The clinical data and features were analyzed in VTE patients. RESULTS: Our findings identified that 23 (16.7%) patients with COVID-19 were at high risk for VTE according to Padua prediction score and 9 (6.5%) patients were at high risk of bleeding for VTE prophylaxis according to Improve prediction score. Fifteen critically ill patients faced double high risk from thrombosis (Padua score more than 4 points in all 15 [100%] patients) and hemorrhage (Improve score more than 7 points in 9 [60.0%] patients). Thrombotic events were identified in four patients (2.9%) of all COVID-19 patients. All of them were diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis by ultrasound 3 to 18 days after admission. Three (75.0%) were critically ill patients, which means that the incidence of VTE among critically ill patients was 20%. One major hemorrhage happened in critically ill patients during VTE treatment. CONCLUSION: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 suffered both a high risk of thrombosis and bleeding risks. More effective VTE prevention strategies based on an individual assessment of bleeding risks were necessary for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 causes lung inflammation and injury.

BACKGROUND: As of 14 October 2021, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected more than 246 million individuals and caused more than 4.9 million deaths worldwide. COVID-19 has caused significant damage to the health, economy and lives of people worldwide. Although severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is not as lethal as SARS coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, its high transmissibility has had disastrous consequences for public health and health-care systems worldwide given the lack of effective treatment at present. OBJECTIVES: To clarify the mechanisms by which SARS-CoV-2 caused lung inflammation and injury, from the molecular mechanism to lung damage and tissue repair, from research to clinical practice, and then presented clinical requirements. SOURCES: References for this review were identified through searches '(COVID-19 [Title]) OR (SARS-CoV-2 [Title])' on PubMed, and focused on the pathological damage and clinical practice of COVID-19. CONTENT: We comprehensively reviewed the process of lung inflammation and injury during SARS-CoV-2 infection, including pyroptosis of alveolar epithelial cells, cytokine storm and thrombotic inflammatory mechanisms. IMPLICATIONS: This review describes SARS-CoV-2 in comparison to SARS and explores why most people have mild inflammatory responses, even asymptomatic infections, and only a few develop severe disease. It suggests that future therapeutic strategies may be targeted antiviral therapy, the pathogenic pathways in the lung inflammatory response, and enhancing repair and regeneration in lung injury.

Early predicting indicators of conversion from mild to moderate in overseas-imported COVID-19 cases.

BACKGROUND: Due to the ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in foreign countries and regions, many overseas people arrive in China by air. Currently, most of the new cases of COVID-19 were imported from overseas. Here, we evaluated the predictive effect of the level of blood albumin (ALB) and serum prealbumin (PA) level in overseas-imported cases on the conversion of mild COVID-19 to moderate and its value in guiding nutritional support for these travelers. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed serum levels of ALB and PA of 193 patients with imported COVID-19 admitted to the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center at the time of admission on April 8, 2020. RESULTS: Since the first overseas-imported case was admitted to Shanghai on March 5, 2020, 195 overseas-imported cases have been treated in the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center. The disease was mild or moderate. A total of 193 patients (111 males and 82 females) entered our analysis and the disease was moderate in 108 patients and mild in 85 patients. Patients were aged 6 to 66 years (mean: 28 years). There was a strong negative correlation between the proportion of moderate type and ALB (P=0.0073); thus, patients with a lower level of ALB were more likely to be diagnosed with moderate type. The correlation coefficient was close to 0 in the scatter plot, indicating that there was no linear correlation between PA and the diagnosis of moderate type (P>0.05). There was a strong negative correlation between age and ALB level (P<0.001), while length of hospital stay did not show a linear correlation with ALB or PB levels (both P>0.05). Therefore, older patients had lower levels of ALB and were more likely to develop moderate COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The serum ALB level can be an early predictive indicator for the conversion of mild COVID-19 to moderate in cases imported overseas and may guide nutritional support.

Psychological Impact During the First Outbreak of COVID-19 on Frontline Health Care Workers in Shanghai.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is a significant health threat. Health care worker (HCWs) are at a significant risk of infection which may cause high levels of psychological distress. The aim of this study was to investigate the psychological impact of the COVID-19 on HCWs and factors which were associated with these stresses during the first outbreak in Shanghai. Methods: Between February 9 and 21, 2020, a total of 3,114 frontline HCWs from 26 hospitals in Shanghai completed an online survey. The questionnaire included questions on their sociodemographic characteristics, 15 stress-related questions, and General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12). Exploratory factor analysis was applied to the 15 stress-related questions which produced four distinct factors for evaluation. Multiple linear regression models were performed to explore the association of personal characteristics with each score of the four factors. Binary logistic analysis was used to explain the association of personal characteristics and these four factors with the GHQ-12. Results: There were 2,691 valid surveys received. The prevalence of emotional distress (defined as GHQ-12 ≥ 12) was noted in 47.7% (95%CI:45.7-49.6%) HCWs. Females (OR = 1.43, 95%CI:1.09-1.86) were more likely to have a psychological distress than males. However, HCWs who work in secondary hospitals (OR = 0.71, 95% CI:0.58-0.87) or had a no contact history (OR = 0.45, 95%CI: 0.35-0.58) were less likely to suffer psychological distress. HCWs who were nurses, married, and had a known contact history were highly likely to have anxiety. HCWs working at tertiary hospitals felt an elevated anxiety regarding the infection, a lack of knowledge, and less protected compared to those who worked at secondary hospitals. Conclusions: Our study shows that the frontline HCWs had a significant psychosocial distress during the COVID-19 outbreak in Shanghai. HCWs felt a lack of knowledge and had feelings of being not protected. It is necessary for hospitals and governments to provide additional trainings and psychological counseling to support the first-line HCWs.

Diagnosis and treatment of 471 patients with 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: While the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak has been largely kept under control in China, it remains a global pandemic, and the source, transmission route, and treatments of SARS-COV-2 are still being investigated. Here, we summarized the clinical features, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of COVID-19 patients based on our clinical practice. METHODS: The clinical and imaging findings, treatments, and follow-up data of 471 patients with COVID-19 who were discharged from the Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital prior to February 6, 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Among these patients, there were 2 mild cases, 282 moderate cases, 181 severe cases, and 6 critical cases. There were 250 males and 221 females aged 17 to 90 years. The median age was 54 years in the severe/critical group, which was significantly older than in the mild/moderate group (P<0.05). 44.59% of them had one or more underlying diseases. The most common symptoms were fever, cough, expectoration, and dyspnea. The median body temperature in the severe/critical group was 39°C, which was significantly higher than in the mild/moderate group (P<0.05). The incidences of lymphopenia and CD4+ T lymphocytopenia were 53.5% and 41.86%, respectively. Ground-glass opacity and small patchy shadows were the most common findings on chest computed tomography (CT). Compared with the mild/moderate group, the severe/critical group showed higher proportions of severe lymphocytopenia and CD4+ T lymphocytopenia, along with more ground-glass shadows and large-scale consolidation. After anti-infection, oxygen therapy, and symptomatic support, lymphocytes and CD4+ T lymphocytes were markedly increased, all patients were discharged. The median time of nucleic acid conversion and hospital stay were 9 and 12 days, respectively, which were significantly longer in the severe/critical group than in the mild/moderate group. Of the 390 cases followed, only 19 were hospitalized again due to other diseases. All patients recovered well from COVID-19, with negative nucleic acid test results. CONCLUSIONS: Lymphocytopenia and CD4+ T lymphocytopenia were found to be associated with COVID-19 and thus may be important indicators in evaluating the severity and prognosis. Multidisciplinary management including antiviral treatment, immune regulation, and symptomatic support is effective, and yields a low recurrence rate.

Deep learning for differentiating novel coronavirus pneumonia and influenza pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Chest computed tomography (CT) has been found to have high sensitivity in diagnosing novel coronavirus pneumonia (NCP) at the early stage, giving it an advantage over nucleic acid detection during the current pandemic. In this study, we aimed to develop and validate an integrated deep learning framework on chest CT images for the automatic detection of NCP, focusing particularly on differentiating NCP from influenza pneumonia (IP). METHODS: A total of 148 confirmed NCP patients [80 male; median age, 51.5 years; interquartile range (IQR), 42.5-63.0 years] treated in 4 NCP designated hospitals between January 11, 2020 and February 23, 2020 were retrospectively enrolled as a training cohort, along with 194 confirmed IP patients (112 males; median age, 65.0 years; IQR, 55.0-78.0 years) treated in 5 hospitals from May 2015 to February 2020. An external validation set comprising 57 NCP patients and 50 IP patients from 8 hospitals was also enrolled. Two deep learning schemes (the Trinary scheme and the Plain scheme) were developed and compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: Of the NCP lesions, 96.6% were >1 cm and 76.8% were of a density <-500 Hu, indicating them to have less consolidation than IP lesions, which had nodules ranging from 5-10 mm. The Trinary scheme accurately distinguished NCP from IP lesions, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.93. For patient-level classification in the external validation set, the Trinary scheme outperformed the Plain scheme (AUC: 0.87 vs. 0.71) and achieved human specialist-level performance. CONCLUSIONS: Our study has potentially provided an accurate tool on chest CT for early diagnosis of NCP with high transferability and showed high efficiency in differentiating between NCP and IP; these findings could help to reduce misdiagnosis and contain the pandemic transmission.

Corticosteroid therapy for coronavirus disease 2019-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: a cohort study with propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of corticosteroid therapy on outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is highly controversial. We aimed to compare the risk of death between COVID-19-related ARDS patients with corticosteroid treatment and those without. METHODS: In this single-center retrospective observational study, patients with ARDS caused by COVID-19 between January 20, 2020, and February 24, 2020, were enrolled. The primary outcome was 60-day in-hospital death. The exposure was prescribed systemic corticosteroids or not. Time-dependent Cox regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 60-day in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 382 patients [60.7 ± 14.1 years old (mean ± SD), 61.3% males] were analyzed. The median of sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score was 2.0 (IQR 2.0-3.0). Of these cases, 94 (24.6%) patients had invasive mechanical ventilation. The number of patients received systemic corticosteroids was 226 (59.2%), and 156 (40.8%) received standard treatment. The maximum dose of corticosteroids was 80.0 (IQR 40.0-80.0) mg equivalent methylprednisolone per day, and duration of corticosteroid treatment was 7.0 (4.0-12.0) days in total. In Cox regression analysis using corticosteroid treatment as a time-varying variable, corticosteroid treatment was associated with a significant reduction in risk of in-hospital death within 60 days after adjusting for age, sex, SOFA score at hospital admission, propensity score of corticosteroid treatment, comorbidities, antiviral treatment, and respiratory supports (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.21, 0.85; p = 0.0160). Corticosteroids were not associated with delayed viral RNA clearance in our cohort. CONCLUSION: In this clinical practice setting, low-dose corticosteroid treatment was associated with reduced risk of in-hospital death within 60 days in COVID-19 patients who developed ARDS.

Spatiotemporal spread pattern of the COVID-19 cases in China.

The COVID-19 pandemic is currently spreading widely around the world, causing huge threats to public safety and global society. This study analyzes the spatiotemporal pattern of the COVID-19 pandemic in China, reveals China's epicenters of the pandemic through spatial clustering, and delineates the substantial effect of distance to Wuhan on the pandemic spread. The results show that the daily new COVID-19 cases mostly occurred in and around Wuhan before March 6, and then moved to the Grand Bay Area (Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Macau). The total COVID-19 cases in China were mainly distributed in the east of the Huhuanyong Line, where the epicenters accounted for more than 60% of the country's total in/on 24 January and 7 February, half in/on 31 January, and more than 70% from 14 February. The total cases finally stabilized at approximately 84,000, and the inflection point for Wuhan was on 14 February, one week later than those of Hubei (outside Wuhan) and China (outside Hubei). The generalized additive model-based analysis shows that population density and distance to provincial cities were significantly associated with the total number of the cases, while distances to prefecture cities and intercity traffic stations, and population inflow from Wuhan after 24 January, had no strong relationships with the total number of cases. The results and findings should provide valuable insights for understanding the changes in the COVID-19 transmission as well as implications for controlling the global COVID-19 pandemic spread.

COVID19: A Systematic Approach to Early Identification and Healthcare Worker Protection.

The COVID-19 outbreak spread rapidly throughout the globe, with worldwide infections and deaths continuing to increase dramatically. To control disease spread and protect healthcare workers, accurate information is necessary. We searched PubMed and Google Scholar for studies published from December 2019 to March 31, 2020 with the terms "COVID-19," "2019-nCoV," "SARS-CoV-2," or "Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia." The main symptoms of COVID-19 are fever (83-98.6%), cough (59.4-82%), and fatigue (38.1-69.6%). However, only 43.8% of patients have fever early in the disease course, despite still being infectious. These patients may present to clinics lacking proper precautions, leading to nosocomial transmission, and infection of workers. Potential COVID-19 cases must be identified early to initiate proper triage and distinguish them quickly from similar infections. Early identification, accurate triage, and standardized personal protection protocols can reduce the risk of cross infection. Containing disease spread will require protecting healthcare workers.

Assessing risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients presenting with symptoms in Shanghai, China: a multicentre, observational cohort study.

Background: The outbreak of COVID-19 has led to international concern. We aimed to establish an effective screening strategy in Shanghai, China, to aid early identification of patients with COVID-19. Methods: We did a multicentre, observational cohort study in fever clinics of 25 hospitals in 16 districts of Shanghai. All patients visiting the clinics within the study period were included. A strategy for COVID-19 screening was presented and then suspected cases were monitored and analysed until they were confirmed as cases or excluded. Logistic regression was used to determine the risk factors of COVID-19. Findings: We enrolled patients visiting fever clinics from Jan 17 to Feb 16, 2020. Among 53 617 patients visiting fever clinics, 1004 (1·9%) were considered as suspected cases, with 188 (0·4% of all patients, 18·7% of suspected cases) eventually diagnosed as confirmed cases. 154 patients with missing data were excluded from the analysis. Exposure history (odds ratio [OR] 4·16, 95% CI 2·74-6·33; p<0·0001), fatigue (OR 1·56, 1·01-2·41; p=0·043), white blood cell count less than 4 × 109 per L (OR 2·44, 1·28-4·64; p=0·0066), lymphocyte count less than 0·8 × 109 per L (OR 1·82, 1·00-3·31; p=0·049), ground glass opacity (OR 1·95, 1·32-2·89; p=0·0009), and having both lungs affected (OR 1·54, 1·04-2·28; p=0·032) were independent risk factors for confirmed COVID-19. Interpretation: The screening strategy was effective for confirming or excluding COVID-19 during the spread of this contagious disease. Relevant independent risk factors identified in this study might be helpful for early recognition of the disease. Funding: National Natural Science Foundation of China.