Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-324977

ABSTRACT

Background: Early identification of patients who are at high risk of poor clinical outcomes is of great importance in saving the lives of patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the context of limited medical resources. Objective: To evaluate the value of the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), calculated at hospital admission and in isolation, for the prediction of the subsequent presence of disease progression and serious clinical outcomes (e.g., shock, death). Methods: : We designed a prospective cohort study of 352 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 between January 9 and February 26, 2020, in Yichang City, Hubei Province. Patients with an NLR equal to or higher than the cutoff value derived from the receiver operating characteristic curve method were classified as the exposed group. The primary outcome was disease deterioration, defined as an increase of the clinical disease severity classification during hospitalization (e.g., moderate to severe/critical;severe to critical). The secondary outcomes were shock and death during the treatment. Results: : During the follow-up period, 51 (14.5%) patients’ conditions deteriorated, 15 patients (4.3%) had complicated septic shock, and 15 patients (4.3%) died. The NLR was higher in patients with deterioration than in those without deterioration (median: 5.33 vs. 2.14, P <0.001), and higher in patients with serious clinical outcomes than in those without serious clinical outcomes (shock vs. no shock: 6.19 vs. 2.25, P <0.001;death vs. survival: 7.19 vs. 2.25, P <0.001). The NLR measured at hospital admission had high value in predicting subsequent disease deterioration, shock and death (all the areas under the curve > 0.80). The sensitivity of an NLR ≥ 2.6937 for predicting subsequent disease deterioration, shock and death was 82.0% (95% confidence interval, 69.0 to 91.0), 93.3% (68.0 to 100), and 92.9% (66.0 to 100), and the corresponding negative predictive values were 95.7% (93.0 to 99.2), 99.5% (98.6 to 100) and 99.5% (98.6 to 100), respectively. Conclusions: : The NLR measured at admission and in isolation can be used to effectively predict the subsequent presence of disease deterioration and serious clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

2.
J Multidiscip Healthc ; 14: 629-637, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1140594

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: COVID-19 is a new infectious disease with global spread. The aim of the present study was to explore possible risk factors and evaluate prognosis in COVID-19 with liver injury. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 356 COVID-19 patients in the Third People's Hospital of Yichang, Hubei, China. Clinical characteristics and laboratory tests between patients with and without liver injury were compared, while risk factors of COVID-19-related liver injury were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were conducted to identify risk factors of in-hospital death. RESULTS: Of the patients with liver injury, severe and critical types of COVID-19 comprised 12.43% and 14.69%, respectively, higher than in patients without liver injury (both P<0.05). CRP and male sex were independent risk factors for for patients with liver injury, while decreased lymphocyte count (HR 0.024, 95% CI 0.001-0.821) and elevated monocytes (HR 1.951, 95% CI 1.040-3.662) and CRP (HR 1.028, 95% CI 1.010-1.045) were independent risk factors of prognosis of death in COVID-19 patients with liver injury. CONCLUSION: Liver injury is a common complication in severe COVID-19 patients. Male sex and elevated CRP were independent risk factors in COVID-19 complicated by liver damage. Liver damage with increased CRP and monocyte count and decreased lymphocyte count may imply a poor prognosis.

3.
BMC Infect Dis ; 21(1): 80, 2021 Jan 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1067200

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Early identification of patients who are at high risk of poor clinical outcomes is of great importance in saving the lives of patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the context of limited medical resources. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), calculated at hospital admission and in isolation, for the prediction of the subsequent presence of disease progression and serious clinical outcomes (e.g., shock, death). METHODS: We designed a prospective cohort study of 352 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 between January 9 and February 26, 2020, in Yichang City, Hubei Province. Patients with an NLR equal to or higher than the cutoff value derived from the receiver operating characteristic curve method were classified as the exposed group. The primary outcome was disease deterioration, defined as an increase of the clinical disease severity classification during hospitalization (e.g., moderate to severe/critical; severe to critical). The secondary outcomes were shock and death during the treatment. RESULTS: During the follow-up period, 51 (14.5%) patients' conditions deteriorated, 15 patients (4.3%) had complicated septic shock, and 15 patients (4.3%) died. The NLR was higher in patients with deterioration than in those without deterioration (median: 5.33 vs. 2.14, P < 0.001), and higher in patients with serious clinical outcomes than in those without serious clinical outcomes (shock vs. no shock: 6.19 vs. 2.25, P < 0.001; death vs. survival: 7.19 vs. 2.25, P < 0.001). The NLR measured at hospital admission had high value in predicting subsequent disease deterioration, shock and death (all the areas under the curve > 0.80). The sensitivity of an NLR ≥ 2.6937 for predicting subsequent disease deterioration, shock and death was 82.0% (95% confidence interval, 69.0 to 91.0), 93.3% (68.0 to 100), and 92.9% (66.0 to 100), and the corresponding negative predictive values were 95.7% (93.0 to 99.2), 99.5% (98.6 to 100) and 99.5% (98.6 to 100), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The NLR measured at admission and in isolation can be used to effectively predict the subsequent presence of disease deterioration and serious clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/blood , Disease Progression , Lymphocytes , Neutrophils , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Lymphocyte Count , Male , Middle Aged , Predictive Value of Tests , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , ROC Curve , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index
4.
World J Clin Cases ; 8(22): 5535-5546, 2020 Nov 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1049214

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak in China, constitutes a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. It is well known that COVID-19 patients may have increased serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels in the early stage. The clinical changes in LDH may have predictive value in disease evolution and prognosis in critically ill COVID-19 patients. AIM: To examine serum LDH and clinical characteristics in patients with COVID-19 and their predictive value for prognosis. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed the clinical data of forty-seven critical COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit of the Third People's Hospital of Yichang City from January 27 to March 25, 2020 and divided them into survivors and non-survivors. The patients were diagnosed according to the World Health Organization interim guidance and critical cases met any one of the following criteria: Respiratory failure and required mechanical ventilation, the occurrence of shock, and the combined failure of other organs that required intensive care unit monitoring and treatments, according to the diagnostic criteria of critical COVID-19. Clinical data including symptoms, detection of SARS-CoV-2, chest computed tomography (CT) images, changes in serum LDH in different clinical phases, and prognosis were collected. Statistical analysis of the data was performed. Continuous variables were expressed as median (interquartile range) and compared with the Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical variables were compared with the Chi-square test. Survival data were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank tests. RESULTS: According to chest CT images, we observed the alveolitis and fibrosis stages in all critical patients in this study. Most non-survivors died in the fibrosis stage. Non-survivors had fewer days of hospitalization, shorter disease duration, shorter duration of alveolitis and fibrosis, and had dyspnea symptoms at disease onset (P = 0.05). Both first and lowest LDH values in the alveolitis stage were more pronounced in non-survivors than in survivors (449.0 U/L vs 288.0 U/L, P = 0.0243; 445.0 U/L vs 288.0 U/L, P = 0.0199, respectively), while the first, lowest and highest values of serum LDH in non-survivors were all significantly increased compared to survivors in the fibrosis phase (449.0 U/L vs 225.5 U/L, P = 0.0028; 432.0 U/L vs 191.0 U/L, P = 0.0007; 1303.0 U/L vs 263.5 U/L, P = 0.0001, respectively). The cut-off points of first LDH values in the alveolitis and fibrosis phase for distinction of non-survivors from survivors were 397.0 U/L and 263.0 U/L, respectively. In the fibrosis stage, non-survivors had more days with high LDH than survivors (7.0 d vs 0.0 d, P = 0.0002). Importantly, patients with high LDH had a significantly shorter median survival time than patients with low LDH in the alveolitis phase (22.0 d vs 36.5 d, P = 0.0002), while patients with high LDH also had a significantly shorter median survival time than patients with low LDH in the fibrosis phase (27.5 d vs 40.0 d, P = 0.0008). The proportion of non-survivors with detectable SARS-CoV-2 until death in the alveolitis stage was significantly increased compared with that in the fibrosis stage (100% vs 35.7%, P = 0.0220). CONCLUSION: High LDH and dyspnea symptoms were positive predictors of an adverse outcome in critical COVID-19. The rapid progressive fibrosis stage was more perilous than the alveolitis stage, even if SARS-CoV-2 is undetectable.

5.
PLoS One ; 15(12): e0244128, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1004460

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone in treating the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted, and all COVID-19 patients were recruited who were admitted to the Yichang Third People's Hospital from February 1st to March 31st, 2020. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was used for minimizing confounding effects. The primary outcome was hospital mortality, with the secondary outcomes being the time needed for a positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test to turn negative and the length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Totaling 367 patients with COVID-19 hospitalized at the Yichang Third People's Hospital were identified, of whom 276 were mild or stable COVID-19, and 67 were serious or critically ill. Among them, 255 patients were treated using methylprednisolone, and 188 did not receive any corticosteroid-related treatment. After PSM, no statistically significant difference was found in the baseline characteristics between the two groups. Regarding the outcomes, there also were no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Patients without the use of methylprednisolone were more quickly to obtain negative results of their nasopharyngeal swab tests of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid after treatment, compared to those receiving methylprednisolone. CONCLUSION: Methylprednisolone could not improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19, and the efficacy and safety of the use of methylprednisolone in patients with COVID-19 still remain uncertain, thus the use of corticosteroids clinically in patients with COVID-19 should be with cautions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hospital Mortality , Length of Stay , Methylprednisolone/administration & dosage , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/mortality , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Propensity Score , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL