Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 28
Filter
2.
Lancet ; 395(10223): 497-506, 2020 02 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-665705

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A recent cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China, was caused by a novel betacoronavirus, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). We report the epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics and treatment and clinical outcomes of these patients. METHODS: All patients with suspected 2019-nCoV were admitted to a designated hospital in Wuhan. We prospectively collected and analysed data on patients with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection by real-time RT-PCR and next-generation sequencing. Data were obtained with standardised data collection forms shared by WHO and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium from electronic medical records. Researchers also directly communicated with patients or their families to ascertain epidemiological and symptom data. Outcomes were also compared between patients who had been admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and those who had not. FINDINGS: By Jan 2, 2020, 41 admitted hospital patients had been identified as having laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection. Most of the infected patients were men (30 [73%] of 41); less than half had underlying diseases (13 [32%]), including diabetes (eight [20%]), hypertension (six [15%]), and cardiovascular disease (six [15%]). Median age was 49·0 years (IQR 41·0-58·0). 27 (66%) of 41 patients had been exposed to Huanan seafood market. One family cluster was found. Common symptoms at onset of illness were fever (40 [98%] of 41 patients), cough (31 [76%]), and myalgia or fatigue (18 [44%]); less common symptoms were sputum production (11 [28%] of 39), headache (three [8%] of 38), haemoptysis (two [5%] of 39), and diarrhoea (one [3%] of 38). Dyspnoea developed in 22 (55%) of 40 patients (median time from illness onset to dyspnoea 8·0 days [IQR 5·0-13·0]). 26 (63%) of 41 patients had lymphopenia. All 41 patients had pneumonia with abnormal findings on chest CT. Complications included acute respiratory distress syndrome (12 [29%]), RNAaemia (six [15%]), acute cardiac injury (five [12%]) and secondary infection (four [10%]). 13 (32%) patients were admitted to an ICU and six (15%) died. Compared with non-ICU patients, ICU patients had higher plasma levels of IL2, IL7, IL10, GSCF, IP10, MCP1, MIP1A, and TNFα. INTERPRETATION: The 2019-nCoV infection caused clusters of severe respiratory illness similar to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and was associated with ICU admission and high mortality. Major gaps in our knowledge of the origin, epidemiology, duration of human transmission, and clinical spectrum of disease need fulfilment by future studies. FUNDING: Ministry of Science and Technology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Adult , Age Distribution , Aged , China/epidemiology , Comorbidity , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Cough/epidemiology , Cough/virology , Female , Fever/epidemiology , Fever/virology , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Myalgia/epidemiology , Myalgia/virology , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Prognosis , Radiography, Thoracic , Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Adult/epidemiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Adult/virology , Time Factors , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Young Adult
3.
Eur Respir Rev ; 29(157)2020 Sep 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-662439

ABSTRACT

According to the Third International Consensus Definition for Sepsis and Septic Shock, sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction resulting from dysregulated host responses to infection. Epidemiological data about sepsis from the 2017 Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factor Study showed that the global burden of sepsis was greater than previously estimated. Bacteria have been shown to be the predominant pathogen of sepsis among patients with pathogens detected, while sepsis caused by viruses is underdiagnosed worldwide. The coronavirus disease that emerged in 2019 in China and now in many other countries has brought viral sepsis back into the vision of physicians and researchers worldwide. Although the current understanding of the pathophysiology of sepsis has improved, the differences between viral and bacterial sepsis at the level of pathophysiology are not well understood. Diagnosis methods that can broadly differentiate between bacterial and viral sepsis at the initial stage after the development of sepsis are limited. New treatments that can be applied at clinics for sepsis are scarce and this situation is not consistent with the growing understanding of pathophysiology. This review aims to give a brief summary of current knowledge of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of viral sepsis.

4.
Eur Respir J ; 2020 Jul 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-649672

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Use of existing disease severity scores would greatly contribute to risk stratification and rationally resource allocation in COVID-19 pandemic. However, the performance of these scores in COVID-19 hospitalised patients with pneumonia was still unknown. METHODS: In this single center, retrospective study, all hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia from Wuhan Jin Yin-tan Hospital who had discharged or died as of February 15, 2020 were enrolled. Performance of PSI, CURB-65, A-DROP, CRB-65, SMART-COP, qSOFA and NEWS2 were validated. Net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) were also estimated. RESULTS: Among the 654 patients enrolled, 133 patients died and 521 were discharged. Areas of under curves (AUCs) of A-DROP, CURB-65, PSI, SMART-COP, NEWS2, CRB-65 and qSOFA in the prediction of in-hospital death were 0.87, 0.85, 0.85, 0.84, 0.81, 0.80 and 0.73 respectively. CONCLUSION: ADROP is a reliable tool for risk stratification of death in COVID-19 hospitalised patients on admission.

5.
Clin Trials ; : 1740774520939938, 2020 Jul 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-647480

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Endpoint choice for randomized controlled trials of treatments for novel coronavirus-induced disease (COVID-19) is complex. Trials must start rapidly to identify treatments that can be used as part of the outbreak response, in the midst of considerable uncertainty and limited information. COVID-19 presentation is heterogeneous, ranging from mild disease that improves within days to critical disease that can last weeks to over a month and can end in death. While improvement in mortality would provide unquestionable evidence about the clinical significance of a treatment, sample sizes for a study evaluating mortality are large and may be impractical, particularly given a multitude of putative therapies to evaluate. Furthermore, patient states in between "cure" and "death" represent meaningful distinctions. Clinical severity scores have been proposed as an alternative. However, the appropriate summary measure for severity scores has been the subject of debate, particularly given the variable time course of COVID-19. Outcomes measured at fixed time points, such as a comparison of severity scores between treatment and control at day 14, may risk missing the time of clinical benefit. An endpoint such as time to improvement (or recovery) avoids the timing problem. However, some have argued that power losses will result from reducing the ordinal scale to a binary state of "recovered" versus "not recovered." METHODS: We evaluate statistical power for possible trial endpoints for COVID-19 treatment trials using simulation models and data from two recent COVID-19 treatment trials. RESULTS: Power for fixed time-point methods depends heavily on the time selected for evaluation. Time-to-event approaches have reasonable statistical power, even when compared with a fixed time-point method evaluated at the optimal time. DISCUSSION: Time-to-event analysis methods have advantages in the COVID-19 setting, unless the optimal time for evaluating treatment effect is known in advance. Even when the optimal time is known, a time-to-event approach may increase power for interim analyses.

6.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 2020 Jul 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-638887
7.
Front Med ; 2020 Jul 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-632554

ABSTRACT

The possible effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) on COVID-19 disease severity have generated considerable debate. We performed a single-center, retrospective analysis of hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China, who had definite clinical outcome (dead or discharged) by February 15, 2020. Patients on anti-hypertensive treatment with or without ACEI/ARB were compared on their clinical characteristics and outcomes. The medical records from 702 patients were screened. Among the 101 patients with a history of hypertension and taking at least one anti-hypertensive medication, 40 patients were receiving ACEI/ARB as part of their regimen, and 61 patients were on antihypertensive medication other than ACEI/ARB. We observed no statistically significant differences in percentages of in-hospital mortality (28% vs. 34%, P = 0.46), ICU admission (20% vs. 28%, P = 0.37) or invasive mechanical ventilation (18% vs. 26%, P = 0.31) between patients with or without ACEI/ARB treatment. Further multivariable adjustment of age and gender did not provide evidence for a significant association between ACEI/ARB treatment and severe COVID-19 outcomes. Our findings confirm the lack of an association between chronic receipt of renin-angiotensin system antagonists and severe outcomes of COVID-19. Patients should continue previous anti-hypertensive therapy until further evidence is available.

8.
Front Med ; 2020 Jun 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-597942

ABSTRACT

The rationale for the antibiotic treatment of viral community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in adults was analyzed to develop a clinical reference standard for this condition. Clinical data from 166 patients diagnosed with viral pneumonia across 14 hospitals in Beijing from November 2010 to December 2017 were collected. The indications for medications were evaluated, and the rationale for the use of antibiotics was analyzed. A total of 163 (98.3%) patients with viral pneumonia were treated with antibiotics. A combination of C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) was used as markers to analyze the possible indications for antibiotic use. With threshold levels set at 0.25 µg/L for PCT and 20 mg/L for CRP, the rate of unreasonable use of antibiotics was 55.2%. By contrast, at a CRP level threshold of 60 mg/L, the rate of antibiotic misuse was 77.3%. A total of 39 of the 163 (23.9%) patients did not meet the guidelines for drug selection for viral CAP in adults. The unreasonable use of antibacterial drugs for the treatment of viral CAP in adults is a serious concern. Clinicians must reduce the unnecessary use of antibiotics.

9.
Trials ; 21(1): 422, 2020 May 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-342726

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by a novel corinavirus (later named SARS-CoV-2 virus), was fistly reported in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China towards the end of 2019. Large-scale spread within China and internationally led the World Health Organization to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 30th January 2020. The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 virus infection include asymptomatic infection, mild upper respiratory symptoms, severe viral pneumonia with respiratory failure, and even death. There are no antivirals of proven clinical efficacy in coronavirus infections. Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue, has inhibitory effects on animal and human highly pathogenic coronaviruses, including MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, in in vitro and in vivo experiments. It is also inhibitory against the COVID-19 virus in vitro. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of remdesivir in adult patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS: The protocol is prepared in accordance with the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) guidelines. This is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Adults (≥ 18 years) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 virus infection, severe pneumonia signs or symptoms, and radiologically confirmed severe pneumonia are randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenously administered remdesivir or placebo for 10 days. The primary endpoint is time to clinical improvement (censored at day 28), defined as the time (in days) from randomization of study treatment (remdesivir or placebo) until a decline of two categories on a six-category ordinal scale of clinical status (1 = discharged; 6 = death) or live discharge from hospital. One interim analysis for efficacy and futility will be conducted once half of the total number of events required has been observed. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial in COVID-19. Enrolment began in sites in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China on 6th February 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04257656. Registered on 6 February 2020.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Betacoronavirus/drug effects , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/administration & dosage , Adenosine Monophosphate/adverse effects , Alanine/administration & dosage , Alanine/adverse effects , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , China , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Double-Blind Method , Equivalence Trials as Topic , Female , Humans , Infusions, Intravenous , Male , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Pandemics , Patient Safety , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Severity of Illness Index , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
10.
Lancet Digit Health ; 2(6): e275-e276, 2020 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-260299
12.
Chin Med J (Engl) ; 133(13): 1575-1594, 2020 Jul 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-191701
14.
Lancet ; 395(10236): 1569-1578, 2020 05 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-141774

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: No specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2-10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir-ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257656. FINDINGS: Between Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87-1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95-2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early. INTERPRETATION: In this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies. FUNDING: Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Emergency Project of COVID-19, National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Beijing Science and Technology Project.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/adverse effects , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Aged , Alanine/adverse effects , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Betacoronavirus , China , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Infusions, Intravenous , Male , Middle Aged , Negative Results , Pandemics
15.
Lancet ; 395(10235): 1517-1520, 2020 05 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-72046

ABSTRACT

Since the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), clinicians have tried every effort to understand the disease, and a brief portrait of its clinical features have been identified. In clinical practice, we noticed that many severe or critically ill COVID-19 patients developed typical clinical manifestations of shock, including cold extremities and weak peripheral pulses, even in the absence of overt hypotension. Understanding the mechanism of viral sepsis in COVID-19 is warranted for exploring better clinical care for these patients. With evidence collected from autopsy studies on COVID-19 and basic science research on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and SARS-CoV, we have put forward several hypotheses about SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis after multiple rounds of discussion among basic science researchers, pathologists, and clinicians working on COVID-19. We hypothesise that a process called viral sepsis is crucial to the disease mechanism of COVID-19. Although these ideas might be proven imperfect or even wrong later, we believe they can provide inputs and guide directions for basic research at this moment.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , Coronavirus Infections , Cytokines/metabolism , Lung , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Sepsis/virology , Autopsy , Blood Coagulation Disorders/virology , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Critical Illness , Endothelium , Epithelium , Humans , Inflammation , Lung/immunology , Lung/pathology , Macrophages , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Severity of Illness Index , Shock/etiology
18.
Front Med ; 14(2): 225-228, 2020 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-11146

ABSTRACT

The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) is an emerging pathogen and is threatening the global health. Strikingly, more than 28 000 cases and 550 deaths have been reported within two months from disease emergence. Armed with experience from previous epidemics in the last two decades, clinicians, scientists, officials, and citizens in China are all contributing to the prevention of further 2019-nCoV transmission. Efficient preliminary work has enabled us to understand the basic characteristics of 2019-nCoV, but there are still many unanswered questions. It is too early now to judge our performance in this outbreak. Continuous and strengthened efforts should be made not only during the epidemic, but also afterwards in order to prepare for any incoming challenges.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , China/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Public Health
19.
N Engl J Med ; 382(19): 1787-1799, 2020 05 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-9371

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: No therapeutics have yet been proven effective for the treatment of severe illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial involving hospitalized adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which causes the respiratory illness Covid-19, and an oxygen saturation (Sao2) of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen (Pao2) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) of less than 300 mm Hg. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) twice a day for 14 days, in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. The primary end point was the time to clinical improvement, defined as the time from randomization to either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever came first. RESULTS: A total of 199 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent randomization; 99 were assigned to the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 100 to the standard-care group. Treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir was not associated with a difference from standard care in the time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio for clinical improvement, 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.80). Mortality at 28 days was similar in the lopinavir-ritonavir group and the standard-care group (19.2% vs. 25.0%; difference, -5.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -17.3 to 5.7). The percentages of patients with detectable viral RNA at various time points were similar. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, lopinavir-ritonavir led to a median time to clinical improvement that was shorter by 1 day than that observed with standard care (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.91). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, but serious adverse events were more common in the standard-care group. Lopinavir-ritonavir treatment was stopped early in 13 patients (13.8%) because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19, no benefit was observed with lopinavir-ritonavir treatment beyond standard care. Future trials in patients with severe illness may help to confirm or exclude the possibility of a treatment benefit. (Funded by Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development and others; Chinese Clinical Trial Register number, ChiCTR2000029308.).


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Betacoronavirus/genetics , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A Inhibitors/adverse effects , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Lopinavir/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Patient Acuity , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Proportional Hazards Models , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Ritonavir/adverse effects , Time-to-Treatment , Treatment Failure , Viral Load
20.
Lancet ; 395(10229): 1054-1062, 2020 03 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-6685

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Since December, 2019, Wuhan, China, has experienced an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 have been reported but risk factors for mortality and a detailed clinical course of illness, including viral shedding, have not been well described. METHODS: In this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included all adult inpatients (≥18 years old) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital (Wuhan, China) who had been discharged or had died by Jan 31, 2020. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data, including serial samples for viral RNA detection, were extracted from electronic medical records and compared between survivors and non-survivors. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods to explore the risk factors associated with in-hospital death. FINDINGS: 191 patients (135 from Jinyintan Hospital and 56 from Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital) were included in this study, of whom 137 were discharged and 54 died in hospital. 91 (48%) patients had a comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common (58 [30%] patients), followed by diabetes (36 [19%] patients) and coronary heart disease (15 [8%] patients). Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with older age (odds ratio 1·10, 95% CI 1·03-1·17, per year increase; p=0·0043), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5·65, 2·61-12·23; p<0·0001), and d-dimer greater than 1 µg/mL (18·42, 2·64-128·55; p=0·0033) on admission. Median duration of viral shedding was 20·0 days (IQR 17·0-24·0) in survivors, but SARS-CoV-2 was detectable until death in non-survivors. The longest observed duration of viral shedding in survivors was 37 days. INTERPRETATION: The potential risk factors of older age, high SOFA score, and d-dimer greater than 1 µg/mL could help clinicians to identify patients with poor prognosis at an early stage. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future. FUNDING: Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences; National Science Grant for Distinguished Young Scholars; National Key Research and Development Program of China; The Beijing Science and Technology Project; and Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Organ Dysfunction Scores , Patient Care Planning , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Risk Assessment , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Betacoronavirus , Cardiovascular Diseases/complications , China , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Diabetes Complications , Disease Progression , Female , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products/analysis , Humans , Hypertension/complications , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality/trends , Pandemics , Patient Isolation , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment/methods , Risk Factors , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL