RESUMO
BackgroundCharacteristic chest computed tomography (CT) manifestation of 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was added as a diagnostic criterion in the Chinese National COVID-19 management guideline. Whether the characteristic findings of Chest CT could differentiate confirmed COVID-19 cases from other positive nucleic acid test (NAT)-negative patients has not been rigorously evaluated. PurposeWe aim to test whether chest computed tomography (CT) manifestation of 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) can be differentiated by a radiologist or a computer-based CT image analysis system. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective case-control study that included 52 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients and 80 non-COVID-19 viral pneumonia patients between 20 December, 2019 and 10 February, 2020. The chest CT images were evaluated by radiologists in a double blind fashion. A computer-based image analysis system (uAI system, Lianying Inc., Shanghai, China) detected the lesions in 18 lung segments defined by Boyden classification system and calculated the infected volume in each segment. The number and volume of lesions detected by radiologist and computer system was compared with Chi-square test or Mann-Whitney U test as appropriate. ResultsThe main CT manifestations of COVID-19 were multi-lobar/segmental peripheral ground-glass opacities and patchy air space infiltrates. The case and control groups were similar in demographics, comorbidity, and clinical manifestations. There was no significant difference in eight radiologist identified CT image features between the two groups of patients. There was also no difference in the absolute and relative volume of infected regions in each lung segment. ConclusionsWe documented the non-differentiating nature of initial chest CT image between COVID-19 and other viral pneumonia with suspected symptoms. Our results do not support CT findings replacing microbiological diagnosis as a critical criterion for COVID-19 diagnosis. Our findings may prompt re-evaluation of isolated patients without laboratory confirmation.
RESUMO
Although testing is widely regarded as critical to fighting the Covid-19 pandemic, what measure and level of testing best reflects successful infection control remains unresolved. Our aim was to compare the sensitivity of two testing metrics-population testing number and testing coverage-to population mortality outcomes and identify a benchmark for testing adequacy with respect to population mortality and capture of potential disease burden. This ecological study aggregated publicly available data through April 12 on testing and outcomes related to COVID-19 across 36 OECD (Organization for Economic Development) countries and Taiwan. All OECD countries and Taiwan were included in this population-based study as a proxy for countries with highly developed economic and healthcare infrastructure. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated between the aforementioned metrics and following outcome measures: deaths per 1 million people, case fatality rate, and case proportion of critical illness. Fractional polynomials were used to generate scatter plots to model the relationship between the testing metrics and outcomes. Testing coverage, but not population testing number, was highly correlated with population mortality (rs= -0.79, P=5.975e-09 vs rs = - 0.3, P=0.05) and case fatality rate (rs= -0.67, P=9.067e-06 vs rs= -0.21, P=0.20). A testing coverage threshold of 15-45 signified adequate testing: below 15, testing coverage was associated with exponentially increasing population mortality, whereas above 45, increased testing did not yield significant incremental mortality benefit. Testing coverage was better than population testing number in explaining country performance and can be used as an early and sensitive indicator of testing adequacy and disease burden. This may be particularly useful as countries consider re-opening their economies.
