Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Front Public Health ; 11: 1170085, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20231258

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Quarantine , Retrospective Studies , China/epidemiology , Risk Factors
2.
Eur Respir J ; 59(2)2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1869041

ABSTRACT

The current pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected >160 million individuals to date, and has caused millions of deaths worldwide, at least in part due to the unclarified pathophysiology of this disease. Identifying the underlying molecular mechanisms of COVID-19 is critical to overcome this pandemic. Metabolites mirror the disease progression of an individual and can provide extensive insights into their pathophysiological significance at each stage of disease. We provide a comprehensive view of metabolic characterisation of sera from COVID-19 patients at all stages using untargeted and targeted metabolomic analysis. As compared with the healthy controls, we observed different alteration patterns of circulating metabolites from the mild, severe and recovery stages, in both the discovery cohort and the validation cohort, which suggests that metabolic reprogramming of glucose metabolism and the urea cycle are potential pathological mechanisms for COVID-19 progression. Our findings suggest that targeting glucose metabolism and the urea cycle may be a viable approach to fight COVID-19 at various stages along the disease course.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cohort Studies , Humans , Metabolomics , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
3.
N Engl J Med ; 382(18): 1708-1720, 2020 04 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1428982

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Since December 2019, when coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) emerged in Wuhan city and rapidly spread throughout China, data have been needed on the clinical characteristics of the affected patients. METHODS: We extracted data regarding 1099 patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 from 552 hospitals in 30 provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities in mainland China through January 29, 2020. The primary composite end point was admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), the use of mechanical ventilation, or death. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 47 years; 41.9% of the patients were female. The primary composite end point occurred in 67 patients (6.1%), including 5.0% who were admitted to the ICU, 2.3% who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation, and 1.4% who died. Only 1.9% of the patients had a history of direct contact with wildlife. Among nonresidents of Wuhan, 72.3% had contact with residents of Wuhan, including 31.3% who had visited the city. The most common symptoms were fever (43.8% on admission and 88.7% during hospitalization) and cough (67.8%). Diarrhea was uncommon (3.8%). The median incubation period was 4 days (interquartile range, 2 to 7). On admission, ground-glass opacity was the most common radiologic finding on chest computed tomography (CT) (56.4%). No radiographic or CT abnormality was found in 157 of 877 patients (17.9%) with nonsevere disease and in 5 of 173 patients (2.9%) with severe disease. Lymphocytopenia was present in 83.2% of the patients on admission. CONCLUSIONS: During the first 2 months of the current outbreak, Covid-19 spread rapidly throughout China and caused varying degrees of illness. Patients often presented without fever, and many did not have abnormal radiologic findings. (Funded by the National Health Commission of China and others.).


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections , Disease Outbreaks , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 , Child , China/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Female , Fever/etiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acuity , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
4.
Eur Respir J ; 55(6)2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-622479

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Hospitalization , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Adult , Aged , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , China , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/diagnostic imaging , Cough/etiology , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Dyspnea/etiology , Fatigue/etiology , Female , Fever/etiology , Geography , Humans , Hypertension/epidemiology , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pharyngitis/etiology , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnostic imaging , Prognosis , Proportional Hazards Models , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Time Factors , Time-to-Treatment/statistics & numerical data , Tomography, X-Ray Computed
6.
Lancet Digit Health ; 2(6): e323-e330, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-260619

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/etiology , COVID-19/pathology , Child , Child, Preschool , China/epidemiology , Female , Fever/etiology , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Leukocyte Count , Lung/pathology , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Risk Factors , Young Adult
7.
Eur Respir J ; 55(5)2020 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-18269

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Adult , COVID-19 , China/epidemiology , Comorbidity , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Prognosis , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL