Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 2.143
Filter
Add filters

Year range
1.
Med Sci Monit ; 26: e925047, 2020 Jul 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-689085

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and compare these parameters in an elderly group with those in a younger group. MATERIAL AND METHODS This retrospective, single-center observational study included 69 hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from a tertiary hospital in Wuhan, China, between January 14, 2020, and February 26, 2020. Epidemiological, demographic, clinical, and laboratory data, as well as treatments, complications, and outcomes were extracted from electronic medical records and compared between elderly patients (aged ≥60 years) and younger patients (aged <60 years). Patients were followed until March 19, 2020. RESULTS Elderly patients had more complications than younger patients, including acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS; 9/25, 36% vs. 5/44, 11.4%) and cardiac injury (7/25, 28% vs. 1/44, 2.3%), and they were more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (6/25, 24% vs. 2/44, 4.5%). As of March 19, 2020, 60/69 (87%) of the patients had been discharged, 6/69 (8.7%) had died, and 3/69 (4.3%) remained in the hospital. Of those who were discharged or died, the median duration of hospitalization was 13.5 days (interquartile range, 10-18 days). CONCLUSIONS Elderly patients with confirmed COVID-19 were more likely to develop ARDS and cardiac injury than younger patients and were more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit. In addition to routine monitoring and respiratory support, cardiac monitoring and supportive care should be a focus in elderly patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Age Factors , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Heart Diseases/epidemiology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Adult/epidemiology , Acute Kidney Injury/epidemiology , Acute Kidney Injury/etiology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Betacoronavirus , China/epidemiology , Combined Modality Therapy , Coronavirus Infections/blood , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Heart Diseases/etiology , Humans , Inpatients , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Multiple Organ Failure/epidemiology , Multiple Organ Failure/etiology , Palliative Care/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/blood , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Adult/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Tertiary Care Centers , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
2.
J Infect Dis ; 221(11): 1762-1769, 2020 05 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-688308

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In December 2019, novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia (COVID-19) was reported in Wuhan and has since rapidly spread throughout China. We aimed to clarify the characteristics and clinical significance of peripheral lymphocyte subset alteration in COVID-19. METHODS: The levels of peripheral lymphocyte subsets were measured by flow cytometry in 60 hospitalized COVID-19 patients before and after treatment, and their association with clinical characteristics and treatment efficacy was analyzed. RESULTS: Total lymphocytes, CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, B cells, and natural killer (NK) cells decreased in COVID-19 patients, and severe cases had a lower level than mild cases. The subsets showed a significant association with inflammatory status in COVID-19, especially CD8+ T cells and CD4+/CD8+ ratio. After treatment, 37 patients (67%) showed clinical response, with an increase in CD8+ T cells and B cells. No significant change in any subset was detected in nonresponsive cases. In multivariate analysis, posttreatment decrease in CD8+ T cells and B cells and increase in CD4+/CD8+ ratio were indicated as independent predictors of poor efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Peripheral lymphocyte subset alteration was associated with clinical characteristics and treatment efficacy of COVID-19. CD8+ T cells tended to be an independent predictor for COVID-19 severity and treatment efficacy.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Lymphocyte Subsets , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Pneumonia/etiology , Pneumonia/physiopathology , Adult , Aged , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , China , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Female , Flow Cytometry , Humans , Lymphocyte Count , Lymphocyte Subsets/immunology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia/diagnosis , Pneumonia/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Prognosis , Treatment Outcome
3.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 20(6): 669-677, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-688245

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In the face of rapidly changing data, a range of case fatality ratio estimates for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been produced that differ substantially in magnitude. We aimed to provide robust estimates, accounting for censoring and ascertainment biases. METHODS: We collected individual-case data for patients who died from COVID-19 in Hubei, mainland China (reported by national and provincial health commissions to Feb 8, 2020), and for cases outside of mainland China (from government or ministry of health websites and media reports for 37 countries, as well as Hong Kong and Macau, until Feb 25, 2020). These individual-case data were used to estimate the time between onset of symptoms and outcome (death or discharge from hospital). We next obtained age-stratified estimates of the case fatality ratio by relating the aggregate distribution of cases to the observed cumulative deaths in China, assuming a constant attack rate by age and adjusting for demography and age-based and location-based under-ascertainment. We also estimated the case fatality ratio from individual line-list data on 1334 cases identified outside of mainland China. Using data on the prevalence of PCR-confirmed cases in international residents repatriated from China, we obtained age-stratified estimates of the infection fatality ratio. Furthermore, data on age-stratified severity in a subset of 3665 cases from China were used to estimate the proportion of infected individuals who are likely to require hospitalisation. FINDINGS: Using data on 24 deaths that occurred in mainland China and 165 recoveries outside of China, we estimated the mean duration from onset of symptoms to death to be 17·8 days (95% credible interval [CrI] 16·9-19·2) and to hospital discharge to be 24·7 days (22·9-28·1). In all laboratory confirmed and clinically diagnosed cases from mainland China (n=70 117), we estimated a crude case fatality ratio (adjusted for censoring) of 3·67% (95% CrI 3·56-3·80). However, after further adjusting for demography and under-ascertainment, we obtained a best estimate of the case fatality ratio in China of 1·38% (1·23-1·53), with substantially higher ratios in older age groups (0·32% [0·27-0·38] in those aged <60 years vs 6·4% [5·7-7·2] in those aged ≥60 years), up to 13·4% (11·2-15·9) in those aged 80 years or older. Estimates of case fatality ratio from international cases stratified by age were consistent with those from China (parametric estimate 1·4% [0·4-3·5] in those aged <60 years [n=360] and 4·5% [1·8-11·1] in those aged ≥60 years [n=151]). Our estimated overall infection fatality ratio for China was 0·66% (0·39-1·33), with an increasing profile with age. Similarly, estimates of the proportion of infected individuals likely to be hospitalised increased with age up to a maximum of 18·4% (11·0-37·6) in those aged 80 years or older. INTERPRETATION: These early estimates give an indication of the fatality ratio across the spectrum of COVID-19 disease and show a strong age gradient in risk of death. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Betacoronavirus , Child , Child, Preschool , China/epidemiology , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Incidence , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Middle Aged , Models, Statistical , Young Adult
4.
JCI Insight ; 5(10)2020 05 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-687860

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUNDThe severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused a novel viral pneumonia (COVID-19), which is rapidly spreading throughout the world. The positive result of nucleic acid test is a golden criterion to confirm SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the detection features remain unclear.METHODSWe performed a retrospective analysis in 5630 high-risk individuals receiving SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid tests in Wuhan, China, and investigated their characteristics and diagnosis rates.RESULTSThe overall diagnosis rate was 34.7% (1952/5630). Male (P = 0.025) and older populations (P = 2.525 × 10-39) were at significantly higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. People were generally susceptible, and most cases concentrated in people of 30-79 years. Furthermore, we investigated the association between diagnosis rate and the amount of testing in 501 subjects. Results revealed a 1.27-fold improvement (from 27.9% to 35.5%) of diagnosis rate from testing once to twice (P = 5.847 × 10-9) and a 1.43-fold improvement (from 27.9% to 39.9%) from testing once to 3 times (P = 7.797 × 10-14). More than 3 testing administrations was not helpful for further improvement. However, this improvement was not observed in subjects with pneumonia (P = 0.097).CONCLUSIONAll populations are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and male and older-aged populations are at significantly higher risk. Increasing the amount of testing could significantly improve diagnosis rates, except for subjects with pneumonia. It is recommended to test twice in those high-risk individuals whose results are negative the first time, and performing 3 tests is better, if possible.FUNDINGThis work was supported by National Mega Project on Major Infectious Disease Prevention (no. 2017ZX10103005-007) and National Key Research and Development Program of China (no. 2018YFE0204500).


Subject(s)
Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Child, Preschool , China/epidemiology , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Incidence , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , RNA, Viral/analysis , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Retrospective Studies , Sex Factors , Young Adult
5.
Int J Infect Dis ; 95: 376-383, 2020 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-687543

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare clinical courses and outcomes between pregnant and reproductive-aged non-pregnant women with COVID-19, and to assess the vertical transmission potential of COVID-19 in pregnancy. METHODS: Medical records of pregnant and reproductive-aged non-pregnant women hospitalized with COVID-19 from January 15 to March 15, 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The severity of disease, virus clearance time, and length of hospital stay were measured as the primary objective, while the vertical transmission potential of COVID-19 was also assessed. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients (28 pregnant women, 54 reproductive-aged non-pregnant women) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled in this study. Univariate regression indicated no association between pregnancy and severity of disease (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.08-5.15; p=0.76), virus clearance time (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.65-2.01; p=0.62), and length of hospital stay (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.66-1.84; p=0.71). Of the pregnant women, 22 delivered 23 live births, either by cesarean section (17, 60.7%) or vaginal delivery (5, 17.9%), and no neonate was infected with SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant women have comparable clinical courses and outcomes with reproductive-aged non-pregnant women when infected with SARS-CoV-2. No evidence supported vertical transmission of COVID-19 in the late stage of pregnancy, including vaginal delivery.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious , Adult , Cesarean Section , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Female , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/virology , Retrospective Studies
7.
Acad Emerg Med ; 27(6): 461-468, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-686322

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Rapid and early severity-of-illness assessment appears to be important for critically ill patients with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the rapid scoring system on admission of these patients. METHODS: A total of 138 medical records of critically ill patients with COVID-19 were included in the study. Demographic and clinical characteristics on admission used for calculating Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) and Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) and outcomes (survival or death) were collected for each case and extracted for analysis. All patients were divided into two age subgroups (<65 years and ≥65 years). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed for overall patients and both subgroups. RESULTS: The median [25th quartile, 75th quartile] of MEWS of survivors versus nonsurvivors were 1 [1, 2] and 2 [1, 3] and those of REMS were 5 [2, 6] and 7 [6, 10], respectively. In overall analysis, the area under the ROC curve for the REMS in predicting mortality was 0.833 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.737 to 0.928), higher than that of MEWS (0.677, 95% CI = 0.541 to 0.813). An optimal cutoff of REMS (≥6) had a sensitivity of 89.5%, a specificity of 69.8%, a positive predictive value of 39.5%, and a negative predictive value of 96.8%. In the analysis of subgroup of patients aged <65 years, the area under the ROC curve for the REMS in predicting mortality was 0.863 (95% CI = 0.743 to 0.941), higher than that of MEWS (0.603, 95% CI = 0.462 to 0.732). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this study was the first exploration on rapid scoring systems for critically ill patients with COVID-19. The REMS could provide emergency clinicians with an effective adjunct risk stratification tool for critically ill patients with COVID-19, especially for the patients aged <65 years. The effectiveness of REMS for screening these patients is attributed to its high negative predictive value.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Hospital Mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Betacoronavirus , Blood Pressure , Cerebrovascular Disorders/epidemiology , China , Comorbidity , Coronavirus , Critical Illness , Early Warning Score , Emergency Medicine , Female , Glasgow Coma Scale , Humans , Lung Diseases/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen/metabolism , Pandemics , Prognosis , ROC Curve , Respiratory Rate , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Sensitivity and Specificity
8.
BMC Infect Dis ; 20(1): 549, 2020 Jul 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-684717

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We aimed to report the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) in Zengdu District, Hubei Province, China. METHODS: Clinical data on COVID-19 inpatients in Zengdu Hospital from January 27 to March 11, 2020 were collected; this is a community hospital in an area surrounding Wuhan and supported by volunteer doctors. All hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were included in this study. The epidemiological findings, clinical features, laboratory findings, radiologic manifestations, and clinical outcomes of these patients were analyzed. The patients were followed up for clinical outcomes until March 22, 2020. Severe COVID-19 cases include severe and critical cases diagnosed according to the seventh edition of China's COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines. Severe and critical COVID-19 cases were diagnosed according to the seventh edition of China's COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines. RESULTS: All hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 276 (median age: 51.0 years), were enrolled, including 262 non-severe and 14 severe patients. The proportion of patients aged over 60 years was higher in the severe group (78.6%) than in the non-severe group (18.7%, p < 0.01). Approximately a quarter of the patients (24.6%) had at least one comorbidity, such as hypertension, diabetes, or cancer, and the proportion of patients with comorbidities was higher in the severe group (85.7%) than in the non-severe group (21.4%, p < 0.01). Common symptoms included fever (82.2% [227/276]) and cough (78.0% [218/276]). 38.4% (106/276) of the patients had a fever at the time of admission. Most patients (94.9% [204/276]) were cured and discharged; 3.6% (10/276) deteriorated to a critical condition and were transferred to another hospital. The median COVID-19 treatment duration and hospital stay were 14.0 and 18.0 days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the COVID-19 patients in Zengdu had mild disease. Older patients with underlying diseases were at a higher risk of progression to severe disease. The length of hospital-stay and antiviral treatment duration for COVID-19 were slightly longer than those in Wuhan. This work will contribute toward an understanding of COVID-19 characteristics in the areas around the core COVID-19 outbreak region and serve as a reference for decision-making for epidemic prevention and control in similar areas.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Adolescent , Adult , Child , Child, Preschool , China/epidemiology , Comorbidity , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Cough/epidemiology , Female , Fever/epidemiology , Humans , Hypertension/epidemiology , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
9.
Circulation ; 142(2): 114-128, 2020 07 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-684109

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To investigate deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we performed a single institutional study to evaluate its prevalence, risk factors, prognosis, and potential thromboprophylaxis strategies in a large referral and treatment center. METHODS: We studied a total of 143 patients with COVID-19 from January 29, 2020 to February 29, 2020. Demographic and clinical data, laboratory data, including ultrasound scans of the lower extremities, and outcome variables were obtained, and comparisons were made between groups with and without DVT. RESULTS: Of the 143 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (age 63±14 years, 74 [51.7%] men), 66 patients developed lower extremity DVT (46.1%: 23 [34.8%] with proximal DVT and 43 [65.2%] with distal DVT). Compared with patients who did not have DVT, patients with DVT were older and had a lower oxygenation index, a higher rate of cardiac injury, and worse prognosis, including an increased proportion of deaths (23 [34.8%] versus 9 [11.7%]; P=0.001) and a decreased proportion of patients discharged (32 [48.5%] versus 60 [77.9%]; P<0.001). Multivariant analysis showed an association only between CURB-65 (confusion status, urea, respiratory rate, and blood pressure) score 3 to 5 (odds ratio, 6.122; P=0.031), Padua prediction score ≥4 (odds ratio, 4.016; P=0.04), D-dimer >1.0 µg/mL (odds ratio, 5.818; P<0.014), and DVT in this cohort, respectively. The combination of a CURB-65 score 3 to 5, a Padua prediction score ≥4, and D-dimer >1.0 µg/mL has a sensitivity of 88.52% and a specificity of 61.43% for screening for DVT. In the subgroup of patients with a Padua prediction score ≥4 and whose ultrasound scans were performed >72 hours after admission, DVT was present in 18 (34.0%) patients in the subgroup receiving venous thromboembolism prophylaxis versus 35 (66.0%) patients in the nonprophylaxis group (P=0.010). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of DVT is high and is associated with adverse outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism may be protective in patients with a Padua protection score ≥4 after admission. Our data seem to suggest that COVID-19 is probably an additional risk factor for DVT in hospitalized patients.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Venous Thrombosis/diagnosis , Adult , Aged , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Blood Pressure , China/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Female , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products/analysis , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Lower Extremity/diagnostic imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Prevalence , Prognosis , Respiratory Rate , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Treatment Outcome , Venous Thrombosis/complications , Venous Thrombosis/drug therapy , Venous Thrombosis/epidemiology
10.
Invest Radiol ; 55(5): 257-261, 2020 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-684015

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the chest computed tomography (CT) findings in patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to evaluate its relationship with clinical features. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study sample consisted of 80 patients diagnosed as COVID-19 from January to February 2020. The chest CT images and clinical data were reviewed, and the relationship between them was analyzed. RESULTS: Totally, 80 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were included. With regards to the clinical manifestations, 58 (73%) of the 80 patients had cough, and 61 (76%) of the 80 patients had high temperature levels. The most frequent CT abnormalities observed were ground glass opacity (73/80 cases, 91%), consolidation (50/80 cases, 63%), and interlobular septal thickening (47/80, 59%). Most of the lesions were multiple, with an average of 12 ± 6 lung segments involved. The most common involved lung segments were the dorsal segment of the right lower lobe (69/80, 86%), the posterior basal segment of the right lower lobe (68/80, 85%), the lateral basal segment of the right lower lobe (64/80, 80%), the dorsal segment of the left lower lobe (61/80, 76%), and the posterior basal segment of the left lower lobe (65/80, 81%). The average pulmonary inflammation index value was (34% ± 20%) for all the patients. Correlation analysis showed that the pulmonary inflammation index value was significantly correlated with the values of lymphocyte count, monocyte count, C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, days from illness onset, and body temperature (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The common chest CT findings of COVID-19 are multiple ground glass opacity, consolidation, and interlobular septal thickening in both lungs, which are mostly distributed under the pleura. There are significant correlations between the degree of pulmonary inflammation and the main clinical symptoms and laboratory results. Computed tomography plays an important role in the diagnosis and evaluation of this emerging global health emergency.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/diagnostic imaging , Coronavirus Infections/pathology , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnostic imaging , Pneumonia, Viral/pathology , Adult , Aged , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Cough/virology , Female , Fever/virology , Humans , Lung/pathology , Lung/virology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Retrospective Studies , Thorax/diagnostic imaging , Thorax/virology , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Young Adult
11.
Radiology ; 296(2): E97-E104, 2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-683271

ABSTRACT

Background A categorical CT assessment scheme for suspicion of pulmonary involvement of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19 provides a basis for gathering scientific evidence and improved communication with referring physicians. Purpose To introduce the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) for use in the standardized assessment of pulmonary involvement of COVID-19 on unenhanced chest CT images and to report its initial interobserver agreement and performance. Materials and Methods The Dutch Radiological Society developed CO-RADS based on other efforts for standardization, such as the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System or Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. CO-RADS assesses the suspicion for pulmonary involvement of COVID-19 on a scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). The system is meant to be used in patients with moderate to severe symptoms of COVID-19. The system was evaluated by using 105 chest CT scans of patients admitted to the hospital with clinical suspicion of COVID-19 and in whom reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was performed (mean, 62 years ± 16 [standard deviation]; 61 men, 53 with positive RT-PCR results). Eight observers used CO-RADS to assess the scans. Fleiss κ value was calculated, and scores of individual observers were compared with the median of the remaining seven observers. The resulting area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) was compared with results from RT-PCR and clinical diagnosis of COVID-19. Results There was absolute agreement among observers in 573 (68.2%) of 840 observations. Fleiss κ value was 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45, 0.47), with the highest κ value for CO-RADS categories 1 (0.58, 95% CI: 0.54, 0.62) and 5 (0.68, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.72). The average AUC was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.97) for predicting RT-PCR outcome and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.99) for clinical diagnosis. The false-negative rate for CO-RADS 1 was nine of 161 cases (5.6%; 95% CI: 1.0%, 10%), and the false-positive rate for CO-RADS category 5 was one of 286 (0.3%; 95% CI: 0%, 1.0%). Conclusion The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) is a categorical assessment scheme for pulmonary involvement of COVID-19 at unenhanced chest CT that performs very well in predicting COVID-19 in patients with moderate to severe symptoms and has substantial interobserver agreement, especially for categories 1 and 5. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/diagnostic imaging , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnostic imaging , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/standards , Adult , Aged , Communication , Female , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands , Observer Variation , Pandemics , Radiology Information Systems , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods
12.
Drug Alcohol Rev ; 39(5): 441-446, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-681748

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: The Australian Treatment Outcomes Profile (ATOP) is a brief clinical tool measuring recent substance use, health and wellbeing among clients attending alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment services. It has previously been assessed for concurrent validity and inter-rater reliability. In this study we examine whether it is suitable for administration over the telephone. DESIGN AND METHODS: We recruited a sample of 107 AOD clients across public sector specialist AOD treatment services in New South Wales, Australia between 2016 and 2018. Participants had a mean age of 47 years and 46% were female. Participants completed a face-to-face ATOP and a phone ATOP with a researcher within 5 days. Comparisons between the two administration modes were undertaken using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient for continuous or ordinal variables, and Cohen's Kappa for nominal variables. RESULTS: Among 107 participants, 59% were attending for alcohol treatment and 41% for opioid treatment. Most ATOP items (76%) reached above 0.7 (good) or 0.9 (excellent) agreement between face-to-face and telephone use. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the ATOP is a suitable instrument for telephone monitoring of recent substance use, health and social functioning among AOD clients. Its validation for remote use over the telephone will support staff to monitor clients' risks and outcomes-of particular relevance in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in which services are increasingly relying on telework approaches to client monitoring.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Substance Abuse Treatment Centers/methods , Substance-Related Disorders/rehabilitation , Telephone , Adult , Alcoholism/rehabilitation , Australia , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , New South Wales , Pandemics , Reproducibility of Results , Surveys and Questionnaires , Treatment Outcome
13.
Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol ; 70(7): 272-282, 2020 Jul.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-680660

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: International studies point to increased mental health problems of medical staff during the Corona pandemic (COVID-19). This is the first study to investigate mental health, i. e. adjustment disorder, depression, stress symptoms, Corona related fears as well as coping mechanisms in this group in a German-speaking country. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In April 2020, N=100 subjects were recruited that currently are engaged in a hospital. A series of standardized assessments were included: adjustment disorder (ADNM-20), depression (PHQ-9), stress symptoms and coping strategies (SCI). Currently, cross-sectional data are analyzed, because the study is still going on and longitudinal data is not yet assessed. RESULTS: Frequencies of adjustment disorder and depression are 8 and 15%, respectively. Two hierarchical regression models were run to predict adjustment disorder and depression; predictive power was higher for the first (41 vs. 35%). Fear of infection was reported to be higher regarding one's family than oneself. Nursing staff, those with preloads, and women were found to report more mental health problems. Those with direct contact to people that fell ill with COVID-19 did not differ from those with no direct contact. DISCUSSION: Currently, medical staff has a high risk for being mentally stressed. China, being epidemically experienced, has published principles for psychiatric interventions in January 2020. This might be relevant for Switzerland, too. Specific psychotherapeutic interventions, targeting at cognitive restructuring and sensitizing regarding dealing with alcohol and cigarettes, may be needed in order to protect this vulnerable group of person during and after the Corona pandemic.


Subject(s)
Adjustment Disorders/psychology , Anxiety/psychology , Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Depression/psychology , Pandemics , Personnel, Hospital/psychology , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Adaptation, Psychological , Adjustment Disorders/epidemiology , Adjustment Disorders/etiology , Adult , Aged , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/etiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/etiology , Family , Fear , Female , Humans , Male , Medical Staff , Middle Aged , Neuropsychological Tests , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Switzerland/epidemiology
14.
Medwave ; 20(6): e7967, 2020 Jul 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-680506

ABSTRACT

Objective: Provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the evidence on the role of lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Methods: We conducted searches in the special L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that performs regular searches in PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and other 33 sources. We searched for randomized trials and non-randomized studies evaluating the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies, according to predefined selection criteria, and extracted data using a predesigned standardized form. We performed meta-analyses using random-effect models and assessed overall certainty in evidence using the GRADE approach. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Our search strategy yielded 862 references. Finally, we identified 12 studies, including two randomized trials, evaluating lopinavir/ritonavir, in addition to standard care versus standard care alone in 250 adult inpatients with COVID-19. The evidence from randomized trials shows lopinavir/ritonavir may reduce mortality (relative risk: 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 1.3; low certainty evidence), but the anticipated magnitude of the absolute reduction in mortality, varies across different risk groups. Lopinavir/ritonavir also had a slight reduction in the risk of requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, developing respiratory failure, or acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, it did not lead to any difference in the duration of hospitalization and may lead to an increase in the number of total adverse effects. The overall certainty of the evidence was low or very low. Conclusions: For severe and critical patients with COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir might play a role in improving outcomes, but the available evidence is still limited. A substantial number of ongoing studies should provide valuable evidence to inform researchers and decision-makers soon.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Lopinavir/administration & dosage , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Ritonavir/administration & dosage , Adult , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Drug Combinations , Humans , Lopinavir/adverse effects , Pandemics , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Ritonavir/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome
15.
Med Sci Monit ; 26: e926008, 2020 Jul 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-680488

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND During the outbreak of COVID-19, health care workers in the radiology department frequently interact with suspected patients and face a higher risk of infection and sudden surges in workload. High anxiety levels seriously harm physical and mental health and affect work efficiency and patient safety. Therefore, it is critical to determine anxiety levels of health care workers and explore its risk factors. MATERIAL AND METHODS Self-Rating Anxiety Scale and Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale were used to evaluate the anxiety and resilience of 364 health care workers with high exposure risk from the radiology departments of 32 public hospitals in Sichuan Province, China. Multivariate linear regression was used to analyze factors related to anxiety. RESULTS The mean anxiety score was 44.28±8.93 and 23.4% of our study participants reported mild (n=63), moderate (n=19), or severe (n=3) anxiety. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that age, job position, availability of protective materials, signs of suspected symptoms, and susceptibility to emotions and behaviors of people around them were identified as risk factors for anxiety, whereas psychological resilience was identified as a protective factor. CONCLUSIONS Our study suggests that the anxiety level of health care workers in the radiology department with a high exposure risk to COVID-19 was high in the early stage of the outbreak, although the majority remained within normal limits. Timely assessment and effective intervention measures can improve the mental health of these at-risk populations.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/etiology , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Occupational Exposure , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Radiology Department, Hospital , Resilience, Psychological , Adult , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/psychology , China/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Diagnostic Self Evaluation , Fear , Female , Hospitals, Public , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Risk Factors , Sampling Studies , Severity of Illness Index , Socioeconomic Factors , Stress, Psychological , Workload
16.
Int J Med Sci ; 17(12): 1773-1782, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-680183

ABSTRACT

Rationale: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is one of the major reasons for ventilation and intubation management of COVID-19 patients but there is no noninvasive imaging monitoring protocol for ARDS. In this study, we aimed to develop a noninvasive ARDS monitoring protocol based on traditional quantitative and radiomics approaches from chest CT. Methods: Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from Jan 20, 2020 to Mar 31, 2020 were enrolled in this study. Quantitative and radiomics data were extracted from automatically segmented regions of interest (ROIs) of infection regions in the lungs. ARDS existence was measured by Pa02/Fi02 <300 in artery blood samples. Three different models were constructed by using the traditional quantitative imaging metrics, radiomics features and their combinations, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to assess the effectiveness of the models. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was used to test the clinical value of the proposed model. Results: The proposed models were constructed using 352 CT images from 86 patients. The median age was 49, and the male proportion was 61.9%. The training dataset and the validation dataset were generated by randomly sampling the patients with a 2:1 ratio. Chi-squared test showed that there was no significant difference in baseline of the enrolled patients between the training and validation datasets. The areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) of the traditional quantitative model, radiomics model and combined model in the validation dataset was 0.91, 0.91 and 0.94, respectively. Accordingly, the sensitivities were 0.55, 0.82 and 0.58, while the specificities were 0.97, 0.86 and 0.98. The DCA curve showed that when threshold probability for a doctor or patients is within a range of 0 to 0.83, the combined model adds more net benefit than "treat all" or "treat none" strategies, while the traditional quantitative model and radiomics model could add benefit in all threshold probability. Conclusions: It is feasible to monitor ARDS from CT images using radiomics or traditional quantitative analysis in COVID-19. The radiomics model seems to be the most practical one for possible clinical use. Multi-center validation with a larger number of samples is recommended in the future.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Models, Theoretical , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Adult/diagnostic imaging , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Adult , Algorithms , Area Under Curve , China/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Datasets as Topic , Female , Humans , Image Processing, Computer-Assisted/methods , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , ROC Curve , Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Adult/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Sampling Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity , Translational Medical Research/methods , Workflow
17.
Korean J Radiol ; 21(5): 541-544, 2020 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-678713

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia is a recent outbreak in mainland China and has rapidly spread to multiple countries worldwide. Pulmonary parenchymal opacities are often observed during chest radiography. Currently, few cases have reported the complications of severe COVID-19 pneumonia. We report a case where serial follow-up chest computed tomography revealed progression of pulmonary lesions into confluent bilateral consolidation with lower lung predominance, thereby confirming COVID-19 pneumonia. Furthermore, complications such as mediastinal emphysema, giant bulla, and pneumothorax were also observed during the course of the disease.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/complications , Mediastinal Emphysema/etiology , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumothorax/etiology , Adult , Betacoronavirus , Blister , China , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/diagnostic imaging , Disease Progression , Humans , Lung/pathology , Male , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnostic imaging , Tomography, X-Ray Computed
18.
Am J Pathol ; 190(8): 1680-1690, 2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-677458

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, has spread globally, and no proven treatments are available. Convalescent plasma therapy has been used with varying degrees of success to treat severe microbial infections for >100 years. Patients (n = 25) with severe and/or life-threatening COVID-19 disease were enrolled at the Houston Methodist hospitals from March 28, 2020, to April 14, 2020. Patients were transfused with convalescent plasma, obtained from donors with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection who had recovered. The primary study outcome was safety, and the secondary outcome was clinical status at day 14 after transfusion. Clinical improvement was assessed on the basis of a modified World Health Organization six-point ordinal scale and laboratory parameters. Viral genome sequencing was performed on donor and recipient strains. At day 7 after transfusion with convalescent plasma, nine patients had at least a one-point improvement in clinical scale, and seven of those were discharged. By day 14 after transfusion, 19 (76%) patients had at least a one-point improvement in clinical status, and 11 were discharged. No adverse events as a result of plasma transfusion were observed. Whole genome sequencing data did not identify a strain genotype-disease severity correlation. The data indicate that administration of convalescent plasma is a safe treatment option for those with severe COVID-19 disease.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Adult , Aged , Betacoronavirus/genetics , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Investigational New Drug Application , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Texas , Whole Genome Sequencing , Young Adult
19.
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol ; 41(7): 1179-1183, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-677455

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a serious public health crisis and can have neurologic manifestations. This is a retrospective observational case series performed March 1-31, 2020, at New York University Langone Medical Center campuses. Clinical and imaging data were extracted, reviewed, and analyzed. Two hundred forty-two patients with COVID-19 underwent CT or MRI of the brain within 2 weeks after the positive result of viral testing (mean age, 68.7 ± 16.5 years; 150 men/92 women [62.0%/38.0%]). The 3 most common indications for imaging were altered mental status (42.1%), syncope/fall (32.6%), and focal neurologic deficit (12.4%). The most common imaging findings were nonspecific white matter microangiopathy (134/55.4%), chronic infarct (47/19.4%), acute or subacute ischemic infarct (13/5.4%), and acute hemorrhage (11/4.5%). No patients imaged for altered mental status demonstrated acute ischemic infarct or acute hemorrhage. White matter microangiopathy was associated with higher 2-week mortality (P < .001). Our data suggest that in the absence of a focal neurologic deficit, brain imaging in patients with early COVID-19 with altered mental status may not be revealing.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Brain Diseases/diagnostic imaging , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Brain Diseases/etiology , Female , Humans , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Neuroimaging , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , United States
20.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 99(29): e21334, 2020 Jul 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-676910

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE: The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in 2019 has become a global pandemic. It is not known whether the disease is associated with a higher risk of infection in pregnant women or whether intrauterine vertical transmission can occur. We report 2 cases of pregnant women diagnosed with COVID-19. PATIENT CONCERNS: In all of Yichang city from January 20, 2020, to April 9, 2020, only 2 pregnant women, who were in the late stage of pregnancy, were diagnosed with COVID-19; one patient was admitted for fever with limb asthenia, and the other patient was admitted for abnormal chest computed tomography results. DIAGNOSES: Both pregnant women were diagnosed with COVID-19. INTERVENTIONS: After the medical staff prepared for isolation and protection, the 2 pregnant women quickly underwent cesarean sections. A series of tests, such as laboratory, imaging, and SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid examinations, were performed on the 2 women with COVID-19 and their newborns. OUTCOMES: One of the 2 infected pregnant women had severe COVID-19, and the other had mild disease. Both babies were delivered by cesarean section. Both of the women with COVID-19 worsened 3 to 6 days after delivery. Chest computed tomography suggested that the lesions due to SARS-CoV-2 infection increased. These women began to exhibit fever or reduced blood oxygen saturation again. One of the 2 newborns was born prematurely, and the other was born at full term. Neither infant was infected with COVID-19, but both had increased prothrombin time and fibrinogen, lactate dehydrogenase, phosphocreatine kinase, and creatine kinase isoenzyme contents. LESSONS: SARS-CoV-2 infection was not found in the newborns born to the 2 pregnant women with COVID-19, but transient coagulation dysfunction and myocardial damage occurred in the 2 newborns. Effective management strategies for pregnant women with COVID-19 will help to control the outbreak of COVID-19 among pregnant women.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/genetics , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Adult , Asthenia/etiology , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Cesarean Section/methods , China/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Female , Fever/etiology , Humans , Infant, Newborn/blood , Infant, Newborn/metabolism , Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical/prevention & control , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/virology , Pregnancy Outcome/epidemiology , Premature Birth/epidemiology , Thorax/diagnostic imaging , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL