Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 26
Filter
1.
Chest ; 158(6): 2700-2701, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1382291
2.
EClinicalMedicine ; 49: 101473, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1867082

ABSTRACT

Background: The long-term prognosis of COVID-19 survivors remains poorly understood. It is evidenced that the lung is the main damaged organ in COVID-19 survivors, most notably in impairment of pulmonary diffusion function. Hence, we conducted a meta-analysis of the potential risk factors for impaired diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) in convalescent COVID-19 patients. Methods: We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Ovid databases for relevant studies from inception until January 7, 2022, limited to papers involving human subjects. Studies were reviewed for methodological quality. Fix-effects and random-effects models were used to pool results. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2. The publication bias was assessed using the Egger's test. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021265377. Findings: A total of eighteen qualified articles were identified and included in the systematic review, and twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis. Our results showed that female (OR: 4.011; 95% CI: 2.928-5.495), altered chest computerized tomography (CT) (OR: 3.002; 95% CI: 1.319-6.835), age (OR: 1.018; 95% CI: 1.007-1.030), higher D-dimer levels (OR: 1.012; 95% CI: 1.001-1.023) and urea nitrogen (OR: 1.004;95% CI: 1.002-1.007) were identified as risk factors for impaired DLCO. Interpretation: Pulmonary diffusion capacity was the most common impaired lung function in recovered patients with COVID-19. Several risk factors, such as female, altered chest CT, older age, higher D-dimer levels and urea nitrogen are associated with impairment of DLCO. Raising awareness and implementing interventions for possible modifiable risk factors may be valuable for pulmonary rehabilitation. Funding: This work was financially supported by Emergency Key Program of Guangzhou Laboratory (EKPG21-29, EKPG21-31), Incubation Program of National Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars by Guangzhou Medical University (GMU2020-207).

3.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-312186

ABSTRACT

Background: Laboratory abnormalities associated with disease severity and mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported in many observational studies. However, there are significant heterogeneities in patient characteristics and research methodologies in these studies.ObjectivesWe aimed to provide an updated synthesis of the association between laboratory abnormalities and COVID-19 prognosis.MethodsWe conducted an electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, Willey, Web of Science, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) for studies reporting hematological, coagulation, inflammatory, and immunological results during hospital admission of COVID-19 patients with different severities and outcomes.ResultsA total of 64 studies were included in the current meta-analysis, with 8 hematological, 3 coagulation, 5 inflammatory, and 23 immunological variables reported. Of them, white blood cell (WBC) and neutrophil counts (Neu), D-dimer level, procalcitonin (PCT), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), ferretin, serum amyloid A (SAA), interleukins (ILs)–2R, IL-6, and IL-10 were significantly increased in severely ill patients and non-survivors. Meanwhile, non-severely ill patients and survivors presented significantly higher counts of eosinophils, lymphocytes, and CD4 + and CD8 + T cells. A majority of included variables presented with significant heterogeneity, some of which resulted from differing disease severities and ages of included patients.ConclusionsThe current meta-analysis provides a comprehensive and updated synthesis of the association between admission laboratory abnormalities with severity and mortality of COVID-19. Our results highlight that increases in the levels of PCT, ESR, CRP, ferretin, SAA, IL-2R, IL-6, and IL-10 were associated with disease deterioration, whereas elevated eosinophils, lymphocytes, and T-cell subsets might serve as indicators of favorable outcomes.

4.
EClinicalMedicine ; 43: 101255, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1676715

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The dynamic trends of pulmonary function in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) survivors since discharge have been rarely described. We aimed to describe the changes of lung function and identify risk factors for impaired diffusion capacity. METHODS: Non-critical COVID-19 patients admitted to the Guangzhou Eighth People's Hospital, China, were enrolled from March to June 2020. Subjects were prospectively followed up with pulmonary function tests at discharge, three and six months after discharge. FINDINGS: Eighty-six patients completed diffusion capacity tests at three timepoints. The mean diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO)% pred was 79.8% at discharge and significantly improved to 84.9% at Month-3. The transfer coefficient of the lung for carbon monoxide (KCO)% pred significantly increased from 91.7% at discharge to 95.7% at Month-3. Both of them showed no further improvement at Month-6. The change rates of DLCO% pred and KCO% pred were significantly higher in 0-3 months than in 3-6 months. The alveolar ventilation (VA) improved continuously during the follow-ups. At Month-6, impaired DLCO% pred was associated with being female (OR 5.2 [1.7-15.8]; p = 0.004) and peak total lesion score (TLS) of chest CT > 8.5 (OR 6.6 [1.7-26.5]; p = 0.007). DLCO% pred and KCO% pred were worse in females at discharge. And in patients with impaired diffusion capacity, females' DLCO% pred recovered slower than males. INTERPRETATION: The first three months is the critical recovery period for diffusion capacity. The impaired diffusion capacity was more severe and recovered slower in females than in males. Early pulmonary rehabilitation and individualized interventions for recovery are worthy of further investigations.

5.
Clin Rev Allergy Immunol ; 2022 Jan 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1636692

ABSTRACT

Abnormal immunological indicators associated with disease severity and mortality in patients with COVID-19 have been reported in several observational studies. However, there are marked heterogeneities in patient characteristics and research methodologies in these studies. We aimed to provide an updated synthesis of the association between immune-related indicators and COVID-19 prognosis. We conducted an electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, Willey, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and CNKI for studies reporting immunological and/or immune-related parameters, including hematological, inflammatory, coagulation, and biochemical variables, tested on hospital admission of COVID-19 patients with different severities and outcomes. A total of 145 studies were included in the current meta-analysis, with 26 immunological, 11 hematological, 5 inflammatory, 4 coagulation, and 10 biochemical variables reported. Of them, levels of cytokines, including IL-1ß, IL-1Ra, IL-2R, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-18, TNF-α, IFN-γ, IgA, IgG, and CD4+ T/CD8+ T cell ratio, WBC, neutrophil, platelet, ESR, CRP, ferritin, SAA, D-dimer, FIB, and LDH were significantly increased in severely ill patients or non-survivors. Moreover, non-severely ill patients or survivors presented significantly higher counts of lymphocytes, monocytes, lymphocyte/monocyte ratio, eosinophils, CD3+ T,CD4+T and CD8+T cells, B cells, and NK cells. The currently updated meta-analysis primarily identified a hypercytokinemia profile with the severity and mortality of COVID-19 containing IL-1ß, IL-1Ra, IL-2R, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-18, TNF-α, and IFN-γ. Impaired innate and adaptive immune responses, reflected by decreased eosinophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, B cells, NK cells, T cells, and their subtype CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, and augmented inflammation, coagulation dysfunction, and nonpulmonary organ injury, were marked features of patients with poor prognosis. Therefore, parameters of immune response dysfunction combined with inflammatory, coagulated, or nonpulmonary organ injury indicators may be more sensitive to predict severe patients and those non-survivors.

6.
Clin Rev Allergy Immunol ; 2022 Jan 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1626168

ABSTRACT

The current COVID-19 global pandemic poses immense challenges to global health, largely due to the difficulty to detect infection in the early stages of the disease, as well as the current lack of effective antiviral therapy. Research and understanding of the human immune system can provide important theoretical and technical support for the clinical diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19, the clinical implementations of which include immunoassays and immunotherapy, which play a crucial role in the fight against the pandemic. This review consolidates the current scientific evidence for immunoassay, which includes multiple methods of detecting antigen and antibody against SARS-CoV-2. We compared the characteristics, advantages and disadvantages, and clinical applications of these three detection techniques. In addition to detecting viral infections, knowledge on the body's immunity against the virus is desirable; thus, the immunotherapy-based neutralizing antibody (nAb) detection methods were discussed. We also gave a brief introduction to the new immunoassay technology such as biosensing. This was followed by an in-depth and extensive review on a variety of immunotherapy methods. It includes convalescent plasma therapy, neutralizing antibody-based treatments targeting different regions of SARS-CoV-2, immunotherapy targeted on the host cell including inhibiting the host cell receptor and cytokine storm, as well as cocktail antibodies, cross-neutralizing antibodies, and immunotherapy based on cross-reactivity between viral epitopes and autoepitopes and autoantibody. Despite the development of various immunological testing methods and antibody therapies, the current global situation of COVID-19 is still tense. We need more efficient detection methods and more reliable antibody therapies. The up-to-date knowledge on therapeutic strategies will likely help clinicians worldwide to protect patients from life-threatening viral infections.

7.
EClinicalMedicine ; 43:101255-101255, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1609851

ABSTRACT

Background The dynamic trends of pulmonary function in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) survivors since discharge have been rarely described. We aimed to describe the changes of lung function and identify risk factors for impaired diffusion capacity. Methods Non-critical COVID-19 patients admitted to the Guangzhou Eighth People's Hospital, China, were enrolled from March to June 2020. Subjects were prospectively followed up with pulmonary function tests at discharge, three and six months after discharge. Findings Eighty-six patients completed diffusion capacity tests at three timepoints. The mean diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO)% pred was 79.8% at discharge and significantly improved to 84.9% at Month-3. The transfer coefficient of the lung for carbon monoxide (KCO)% pred significantly increased from 91.7% at discharge to 95.7% at Month-3. Both of them showed no further improvement at Month-6. The change rates of DLCO% pred and KCO% pred were significantly higher in 0–3 months than in 3–6 months. The alveolar ventilation (VA) improved continuously during the follow-ups. At Month-6, impaired DLCO% pred was associated with being female (OR 5.2 [1.7–15.8];p = 0.004) and peak total lesion score (TLS) of chest CT > 8.5 (OR 6.6 [1.7–26.5];p = 0.007). DLCO% pred and KCO% pred were worse in females at discharge. And in patients with impaired diffusion capacity, females’ DLCO% pred recovered slower than males. Interpretation The first three months is the critical recovery period for diffusion capacity. The impaired diffusion capacity was more severe and recovered slower in females than in males. Early pulmonary rehabilitation and individualized interventions for recovery are worthy of further investigations.

8.
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
9.
EClinicalMedicine ; 40: 101129, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1401440

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A novel variant of SARS-CoV-2, the Delta variant of concern (VOC, also known as lineage B.1.617.2), is fast becoming the dominant strain globally. We reported the epidemiological, viral, and clinical characteristics of hospitalized patients infected with the Delta VOC during the local outbreak in Guangzhou, China. METHODS: We extracted the epidemiological and clinical information pertaining to the 159 cases infected with the Delta VOC across seven transmission generations between May 21 and June 18, 2021. The whole chain of the Delta VOC transmission was described. Kinetics of viral load and clinical characteristics were compared with a cohort of wild-type infection in 2020 admitted to the Guangzhou Eighth People's Hospital. FINDINGS: There were four transmission generations within the first ten days. The Delta VOC yielded a significantly shorter incubation period (4.0 vs. 6.0 days), higher viral load (20.6 vs. 34.0, cycle threshold of the ORF1a/b gene), and a longer duration of viral shedding in pharyngeal swab samples (14.0 vs. 8.0 days) compared with the wild-type strain. In cases with critical illness, the proportion of patients over the age of 60 was higher in the Delta VOC group than in the wild-type strain (100.0% vs. 69.2%, p = 0.03). The Delta VOC had a higher risk than wild-type infection in deterioration to critical status (hazards ratio 2.98 [95%CI 1.29-6.86]; p = 0.01). INTERPRETATION: Infection with the Delta VOC is characterized by markedly increased transmissibility, viral loads and risk of disease progression compared with the wild-type strain, calling for more intensive prevention and control measures to contain future outbreaks. FUNDING: National Grand Program, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Guangdong Provincial Department of Science and Technology, Guangzhou Laboratory.

10.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 8(8): ofab376, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1358476

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the quality and potential impacts of the guidelines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) management. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, guideline databases, and specialty society websites to evaluate the quality of the retrieved guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II. RESULTS: A total of 66 guidelines were identified. Only 24% were categorized as "recommended" for clinical practice. The 211 identified recommendations for COVID-19 management were classified into 4 topics: respiratory support (27), acute respiratory distress syndrome management (31), antiviral or immunomodulatory therapy (95), or other medicines (58). Only 63% and 56% of recommendations were supported by, respectively, assessment of the strength of the recommendations or level of evidence. There were notable discrepancies between the different guidelines regarding the recommendations on COVID-19 management. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the guidelines for COVID-19 management is heterogeneous, and the recommendations are rarely supported by evidence.

11.
Ann Transl Med ; 9(11): 941, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1278842

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Risk of adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients by stratifying by the time from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis status is still uncertain. METHODS: We included 1,590 hospitalized COVID-19 patients confirmed by real-time RT-PCR assay or high-throughput sequencing of pharyngeal and nasal swab specimens from 575 hospitals across China between 11 December 2019 and 31 January 2020. Times from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis, from symptom onset to first medical visit and from first medical visit to confirmed diagnosis were described and turned into binary variables by the maximally selected rank statistics method. Then, survival analysis, including a log-rank test, Cox regression, and conditional inference tree (CTREE) was conducted, regarding whether patients progressed to a severe disease level during the observational period (assessed as severe pneumonia according to the Chinese Expert Consensus on Clinical Practice for Emergency Severe Pneumonia, admission to an intensive care unit, administration of invasive ventilation, or death) as the prognosis outcome, the dependent variable. Independent factors included whether the time from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis was longer than 5 days (the exposure) and other demographic and clinical factors as multivariate adjustments. The clinical characteristics of the patients with different times from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis were also compared. RESULTS: The medians of the times from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis, from symptom onset to first medical visit, and from first medical visit to confirmed diagnosis were 6, 3, and 2 days. After adjusting for age, sex, smoking status, and comorbidity status, age [hazard ratio (HR): 1.03; 95% CI: 1.01-1.04], comorbidity (HR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.23-2.73), and a duration from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis of >5 days (HR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.10-2.60) were independent predictors of COVID-19 prognosis, which echoed the CTREE models, with significant nodes such as time from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis, age, and comorbidities. Males, older patients with symptoms such as dry cough/productive cough/shortness of breath, and prior COPD were observed more often in the patients who procrastinated before initiating the first medical consultation. CONCLUSIONS: A longer time from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis yielded a worse COVID-19 prognosis.

12.
Clin Respir J ; 15(8): 915-924, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1238374

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an emerging, rapidly evolving pandemic, hypertension is one of the most common co-existing chronic conditions and a risk factor for mortality. Nearly one-third of the adult population is hypertensive worldwide, it is urgent to identify the factors that determine the clinical course and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with hypertension. METHODS AND RESULTS: 148 COVID-19 patients with pre-existing hypertension with clarified outcomes (discharge or deceased) from a national cohort in China were included in this study, of whom 103 were discharged and 45 died in hospital. Multivariate regression showed higher odds of in-hospital death associated with high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) > 28 pg/ml (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.55-6.91) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) > 7 pg/ml (HR: 3.63, 95% CI:1.54-8.55) at admission. Patients with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) (n = 52) which were defined as systolic BP ≥140 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg for more than once (≥2 times) during hospitalization, were more likely to have ICU admission (p = 0.037), invasive mechanical ventilation (p = 0.028), and renal injury (p = 0.005). A stricter BP control with the threshold of 130/80 mm Hg was associated with lower mortality. Treatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) suppressors, including angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB), and spironolactone, was associated with a lower rate of ICU admission compared to other types of anti-hypertensive medications (8 (22.9%) vs. 25 (43.1%), p = 0.048). CONCLUSION: Among COVID-19 patients with pre-existing hypertension, elevated hs-cTn and IL-6 could help clinicians to identify patients with fatal outcomes at an early stage, blood pressure control is associated with better clinical outcomes, and RAAS suppressors do not increase mortality and may decrease the need for ICU admission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hypertension , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors , China/epidemiology , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hypertension/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Int J Infect Dis ; 106: 254-261, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1157419

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines from different regions on the use of non-invasive ventilation in COVID-19 have generally been inconsistent. The aim of this systematic review was to appraise the quality and availability of guidelines, and whether non-invasive ventilation in the early stages of the pandemic is of importance. DESIGN AND METHOD: Databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, as well as websites of international organizations and gray literature, were searched up to June 23, 2020. The reference lists of eligible papers were also hand-searched. RESULTS: A total of 26 guidelines met the inclusion criteria. According to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument, the guidelines' methodological quality was low. Among six domains, Rigour of Development and Editorial Independence were of the lowest quality. Given the lack of evidence from randomized clinical trials and the great variation between different regions, recommendations for non-invasive ventilation have generated considerable debate regarding the early stages of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Improving the methodological quality of the guidelines should be a goal with regard to future pandemics. Additionally, better-designed randomized clinical trials are needed to resolve contradictions regarding the impact of non-invasive ventilation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020198410.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Guidelines as Topic/standards , Noninvasive Ventilation , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
16.
Chest ; 158(1): 97-105, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-980155

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global health emergency. The cumulative number of new confirmed cases and deaths are still increasing out of China. Independent predicted factors associated with fatal outcomes remain uncertain. RESEARCH QUESTION: The goal of the current study was to investigate the potential risk factors associated with fatal outcomes from COVID-19 through a multivariate Cox regression analysis and a nomogram model. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 1,590 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 throughout China was established. The prognostic effects of variables, including clinical features and laboratory findings, were analyzed by using Kaplan-Meier methods and a Cox proportional hazards model. A prognostic nomogram was formulated to predict the survival of patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: In this nationwide cohort, nonsurvivors included a higher incidence of elderly people and subjects with coexisting chronic illness, dyspnea, and laboratory abnormalities on admission compared with survivors. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that age ≥ 75 years (hazard ratio [HR], 7.86; 95% CI, 2.44-25.35), age between 65 and 74 years (HR, 3.43; 95% CI, 1.24-9.5), coronary heart disease (HR, 4.28; 95% CI, 1.14-16.13), cerebrovascular disease (HR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.07-8.94), dyspnea (HR, 3.96; 95% CI, 1.42-11), procalcitonin level > 0.5 ng/mL (HR, 8.72; 95% CI, 3.42-22.28), and aspartate aminotransferase level > 40 U/L (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.1-6.73) were independent risk factors associated with fatal outcome. A nomogram was established based on the results of multivariate analysis. The internal bootstrap resampling approach suggested the nomogram has sufficient discriminatory power with a C-index of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.85-0.97). The calibration plots also showed good consistency between the prediction and the observation. INTERPRETATION: The proposed nomogram accurately predicted clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19 based on individual characteristics. Earlier identification, more intensive surveillance, and appropriate therapy should be considered in patients at high risk.


Subject(s)
Aspartate Aminotransferases/blood , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections , Dyspnea , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Procalcitonin/blood , Aged , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , China/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/blood , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Correlation of Data , Dyspnea/epidemiology , Dyspnea/etiology , Female , Humans , Male , Nomograms , Pneumonia, Viral/blood , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Prognosis , Risk Assessment/methods , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Survival Analysis
17.
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
19.
J Thorac Dis ; 12(5): 1811-1823, 2020 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-596684

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been a global pandemic disease, with more than 4 million cases and nearly 300,000 deaths. Little is known about COVID-19 in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aimed to evaluate the influence of preexisting COPD on the progress and outcomes of COVID-19. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational study. We enrolled 1,048 patients aged 40 years and above, including 50 patients with COPD and 998 patients without COPD, and with COVID-19 confirmed via high-throughput sequencing or real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, between December 11, 2019 and February 20, 2020. We collected data of demographics, pathologic test results, radiologic imaging, and treatments. The primary outcomes were composite endpoints determined by admission to an intensive care unit, the use of mechanical ventilation, or death. RESULTS: Compared with patients who had COVID-19 but not COPD, those with COPD had higher rates of fatigue (56.0% vs. 40.2%), dyspnea (66.0% vs. 26.3%), diarrhea (16.0% vs. 3.6%), and unconsciousness (8.0% vs. 1.7%) and a significantly higher proportion of increased activated partial thromboplastin time (23.5% vs. 5.2%) and D-dimer (65.9% vs. 29.3%), as well as ground-glass opacities (77.6% vs. 60.3%), local patchy shadowing (61.2% vs. 41.4%), and interstitial abnormalities (51.0% vs. 19.8%) on chest computed tomography. Patients with COPD were more likely to develop bacterial or fungal coinfection (20.0% vs. 5.9%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (20.0% vs. 7.3%), septic shock (14.0% vs. 2.3%), or acute renal failure (12.0% vs. 1.3%). Patients with COPD and COVID-19 had a higher risk of reaching the composite endpoints [hazard ratio (HR): 2.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.40-3.38; P=0.001] or death (HR: 2.28, 95% CI: 1.15-4.51; P=0.019), after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, patients with COPD who developed COVID-19 showed a higher risk of admission to the intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, or death.

20.
Crit Care Med ; 48(9): e809-e812, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-621210

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 is becoming a worldwide pandemic. Mechanical ventilation is lifesaving for respiratory distress, this study was designed to delineate the clinical features of the coronavirus disease 2019 patients with mechanical ventilation from a national cohort in China. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: The rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has infected more than 7.7 million people and caused more than 423,000 deaths. PATIENTS: Adult hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients with mechanical ventilation from 557 hospitals from China. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: From a nationwide cohort, 141 coronavirus disease 2019 cases with mechanical ventilation were extracted from 1,590 cases. Cigarette smoke, advanced age, coexisting chronic illness, elevated systolic blood pressure, high body temperature, and abnormal laboratory findings are common in these ventilated cases. Multivariate regression analysis showed that higher odds of in-hospital death was associated with invasive mechanical ventilation requirement (hazard ratio: 2.95; 95% CI, 1.40-6.23; p = 0.005), and coexisting chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (hazard ratio, 4.57; 95% CI, 1.65-12.69; p = 0.004) and chronic renal disease (hazard ratio, 5.45; 95% CI, 1.85-16.12; p = 0.002). Compared with patients with noninvasive mechanical ventilation, patients who needs invasive mechanical ventilation showed higher rate of elevated D-dimer (> 1.5 mg/L) at admission (hazard ratio, 3.28, 95% CI, 1.07-10.10; p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: The potential risk factors of elevated D-dimer level could help clinicians to identify invasive mechanical ventilation requirement at an early stage, and coexisting chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or chronic renal disease are independent risk factors associated with fatal outcome in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with mechanical ventilation.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiration, Artificial , Aged , COVID-19 , China/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Proportional Hazards Models , Prospective Studies , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/complications , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic/complications , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL