Computed tomography findings and clinical manifestations in different clinical types of coronavirus disease 2019

OBJECTIVE: Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in Wuhan in 2019, the virus has spread rapidly. We investigated the clinical and computed tomography (CT) characteristics of different clinical types of COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed clinical and chest CT findings of 89 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction confirmed cases from five medical centers in China. All the patients were classified into the common (n = 65), severe (n = 18), or fatal (n = 6) type. CT features included lesion distribution, location, size, shape, edge, density, and the ratio of lung lesions to extra-pulmonary lesions. A COVID-19 chest CT analysis tool (uAI-discover-COVID-19) was used to calculate the number of infections from the chest CT images. RESULTS: Fatal type COVID-19 is more common in older men, with a median age of 65 years. Fever was more common in the severe and fatal type COVID-19 patients than in the common type patients. Patients with fatal type COVID-19 were more likely to have underlying diseases. On CT examination, common type COVID-19 showed bilateral (68%), patchy (83%), ground-glass opacity (48%), or mixed (46%) lesions. Severe and fatal type COVID-19 showed bilateral multiple mixed density lesions (56%). The infection ratio (IR) increased in the common type (2.4 [4.3]), severe type (15.7 [14.3]), and fatal type (36.9 [14.2]). The IR in the inferior lobe of both lungs was statistically different from that of other lobes in common and severe type patients (P < 0.05). However, in the fatal type group, only the IR in the right inferior lung (RIL) was statistically different from that in the right superior lung(RUL), right middle lung (RML), and the left superior lung (LSL) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The CT findings and clinical features of the various clinical types of COVID-19 pneumonia are different. Chest CT findings have unique characteristics in the different clinical types, which can facilitate an early diagnosis and evaluate the clinical course and severity of COVID-19.

The prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 among blood donors in China.

In this study, we investigate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among blood donors in the cities of Wuhan, Shenzhen, and Shijiazhuang in China. From January to April 2020, 38,144 healthy blood donors in the three cities were tested for total antibody against SARS-CoV-2 followed by pseudotype SARS-CoV-2 neutralization tests, IgG, and IgM antibody testing. Finally, a total of 398 donors were confirmed positive. The age- and sex-standardized SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among 18-60 year-old adults (18-65 year-old in Shenzhen) was 2.66% (95% CI: 2.24%-3.07%) in Wuhan, 0.033% (95% CI: 0.0029%-0.267%) in Shenzhen, and 0.0028% (95% CI: 0.0001%-0.158%) in Shijiazhuang, respectively. Female sex and older-age were identified to be independent risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among blood donors in Wuhan. As most of the population of China remained uninfected during the early wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, effective public health measures are still certainly required to block viral spread before a vaccine is widely available.

Feasibility of a pilot program for COVID-19 convalescent plasma collection in Wuhan, China.

BACKGROUND: A novel coronavirus has caused an international outbreak. Currently, there are no specific therapeutic agents for coronavirus infections. Convalescent plasma (CP) therapy is a potentially effective treatment option. METHODS: Patients who had recovered from COVID-19 and had been discharged from the hospital for more than 2 weeks were recruited. COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP)-specific donor screening and selection were performed based on the following criteria: 1) aged 18-55 years; 2) eligible for blood donation; 3) diagnosed with COVID-19; 4) had two consecutive negative COVID-19 nasopharyngeal swab tests based on PCR (at least 24 hr apart) prior to hospital discharge; 5) had been discharged from the hospital for more than 2 weeks; and 6) had no COVID-19 symptoms prior to convalescent plasma donation. In addition, preference was given to CCP donors who had a fever lasting more than 3 days or a body temperature exceeding 38.5°C (101.3°F), and who donated 4 weeks after the onset of symptoms. CCP collection was performed using routine plasma collection procedures via plasmapheresis. In addition to routine donor testing, the CCP donors' plasma was also tested for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid and S-RBD-specific IgG antibody. RESULTS: Of the 81 potential CCP donors, 64 (79%) plasma products were collected. There were 18 female donors and 46 male donors. There were 34 first-time blood donors and 30 repeat donors. The average time between CCP collection and initial symptom onset was 49.1 days, and the average time between CCP collection and hospital discharge was 38.7 days. The average volume of CCP collected was 327.7 mL. All Alanine transaminase (ALT) testing results met blood donation requirements. HIV Ag/Ab, anti-HCV, anti-syphilis, and HBsAg were all negative; NAT for HIV, HBV, and HCV were also negative. In addition, all of the CCP donors' plasma units were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Of the total 64 CCP donors tested, only one had an S-RBD-specific IgG titer of 1:160, all others had a titer of ≥1:320. CONCLUSION: Based on a feasibility study of a pilot CCP program in Wuhan, China, we demonstrated the success and feasibility of CCP collection. In addition, all of the CCP units collected had a titer of ≥1:160 for S-RBD-specific IgG antibody, which met the CCP quality control requirements based on the Chinese national guidelines for CCP.

Characteristics and serological patterns of COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors: optimal donors and timing of donation.

BACKGROUND: The lack of effective treatments against the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to the exploratory use of convalescent plasma for treating COVID-19. Case reports and case series have shown encouraging results. This study investigated SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and epidemiological characteristics in convalescent plasma donors, to identify criteria for donor selection. METHODS: Recovered COVID-19 patients, aged 18-55 years, who had experienced no symptoms for more than 2 weeks, were recruited. Donor characteristics such as disease presentations were collected and SARS-CoV-2 N-specific IgM, IgG, and S-RBD-specific IgG levels were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). RESULTS: Whereas levels of N-specific IgM antibody declined after recovery, S-RBD-specific and N-specific IgG antibodies increased after 4 weeks from the onset of symptoms, with no significant correlation to age, sex, or ABO blood type. Donors with the disease presentation of fever exceeding 38.5°C or lasting longer than 3 days exhibited higher levels of S-RBD-specific IgG antibodies at the time of donation. Of the 49 convalescent plasma donors, 90% had an S-RBD-specific IgG titer of ≥1:160 and 78% had a titer of ≥1:640 at the time of plasma donation. Of the 30 convalescent plasma donors, who had donated plasma later than 28 days after the onset of symptoms and had a disease presentation of fever lasting longer than 3 days or a body temperature exceeding 38.5°C, 100% had an S-RBD-specific IgG titer of ≥1:160 and 93% had a titer of ≥1:640. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that the S-RBD-specific IgG antibody reaches higher levels after 4 weeks from the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. We recommend the following selection criteria for optimal donation of COVID-19 convalescent plasma: 28 days after the onset of symptoms and with a disease presentation of fever lasting longer than 3 days or a body temperature exceeding 38.5°C. Selection based on these criteria can ensure a high likelihood of achieving sufficiently high S-RBD-specific IgG titers.

Effects of Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers and ACE (Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme) Inhibitors on Virus Infection, Inflammatory Status, and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19 and Hypertension: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.

With the capability of inducing elevated expression of ACE2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2), the cellular receptor for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) or ACE inhibitors treatment may have a controversial role in both facilitating virus infection and reducing pathogenic inflammation. We aimed to evaluate the effects of ARBs/ACE inhibitors on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a retrospective, single-center study. One hundred twenty-six patients with COVID-19 and preexisting hypertension at Hubei Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine in Wuhan from January 5 to February 22, 2020, were retrospectively allocated to ARBs/ACE inhibitors group (n=43) and non-ARBs/ACE inhibitors group (n=83) according to their antihypertensive medication. One hundred twenty-five age- and sex-matched patients with COVID-19 without hypertension were randomly selected as nonhypertension controls. In addition, the medication history of 1942 patients with hypertension that were admitted to Hubei Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine from November 1 to December 31, 2019, before the COVID-19 outbreak were also reviewed for external comparison. Epidemiological, demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected, analyzed, and compared between these groups. The frequency of ARBs/ACE inhibitors usage in patients with hypertension with or without COVID-19 were comparable. Among patients with COVID-19 and hypertension, those received either ARBs/ACE inhibitors or non-ARBs/ACE inhibitors had comparable blood pressure. However, ARBs/ACE inhibitors group had significantly lower concentrations of hs-CRP (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein; P=0.049) and PCT (procalcitonin, P=0.008). Furthermore, a lower proportion of critical patients (9.3% versus 22.9%; P=0.061) and a lower death rate (4.7% versus 13.3%; P=0.216) were observed in ARBs/ACE inhibitors group than non-ARBs/ACE inhibitors group, although these differences failed to reach statistical significance. Our findings thus support the use of ARBs/ACE inhibitors in patients with COVID-19 and preexisting hypertension.

Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Time to Clinical Improvement in Patients With Severe and Life-threatening COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Convalescent plasma is a potential therapeutic option for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but further data from randomized clinical trials are needed. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of convalescent plasma therapy for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed in 7 medical centers in Wuhan, China, from February 14, 2020, to April 1, 2020, with final follow-up April 28, 2020. The trial included 103 participants with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 that was severe (respiratory distress and/or hypoxemia) or life-threatening (shock, organ failure, or requiring mechanical ventilation). The trial was terminated early after 103 of a planned 200 patients were enrolled. Intervention: Convalescent plasma in addition to standard treatment (n = 52) vs standard treatment alone (control) (n = 51), stratified by disease severity. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was time to clinical improvement within 28 days, defined as patient discharged alive or reduction of 2 points on a 6-point disease severity scale (ranging from 1 [discharge] to 6 [death]). Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to discharge, and the rate of viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results turned from positive at baseline to negative at up to 72 hours. Results: Of 103 patients who were randomized (median age, 70 years; 60 [58.3%] male), 101 (98.1%) completed the trial. Clinical improvement occurred within 28 days in 51.9% (27/52) of the convalescent plasma group vs 43.1% (22/51) in the control group (difference, 8.8% [95% CI, -10.4% to 28.0%]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% CI, 0.79-2.49]; P = .26). Among those with severe disease, the primary outcome occurred in 91.3% (21/23) of the convalescent plasma group vs 68.2% (15/22) of the control group (HR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.07-4.32]; P = .03); among those with life-threatening disease the primary outcome occurred in 20.7% (6/29) of the convalescent plasma group vs 24.1% (7/29) of the control group (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.30-2.63]; P = .83) (P for interaction = .17). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (15.7% vs 24.0%; OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.22-1.59]; P = .30) or time from randomization to discharge (51.0% vs 36.0% discharged by day 28; HR, 1.61 [95% CI, 0.88-2.95]; P = .12). Convalescent plasma treatment was associated with a negative conversion rate of viral PCR at 72 hours in 87.2% of the convalescent plasma group vs 37.5% of the control group (OR, 11.39 [95% CI, 3.91-33.18]; P < .001). Two patients in the convalescent plasma group experienced adverse events within hours after transfusion that improved with supportive care. Conclusion and Relevance: Among patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, convalescent plasma therapy added to standard treatment, compared with standard treatment alone, did not result in a statistically significant improvement in time to clinical improvement within 28 days. Interpretation is limited by early termination of the trial, which may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000029757.