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

Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study

6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study.

Objective To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital with the disease. Design Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the COVID-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group. Data sources PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 1 July 2020, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020. Study selection Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model. Data extraction At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool). Results 37 421 titles were screened, and 169 studies describing 232 prediction models were included. The review identified seven models for identifying people at risk in the general population; 118 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 (75 were based on medical imaging, 10 to diagnose disease severity); and 107 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, intensive care unit admission, ventilation, intubation, or length of hospital stay. The most frequent types of predictors included in the covid-19 prediction models are vital signs, age, comorbidities, and image features. Flu-like symptoms are frequently predictive in diagnostic models, while sex, C reactive protein, and lymphocyte counts are frequent prognostic factors. Reported C index estimates from the strongest form of validation available per model ranged from 0.71 to 0.99 in prediction models for the general population, from 0.65 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models, and from 0.54 to 0.99 in prognostic models. All models were rated at high or unclear risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, high risk of model overfitting, and unclear reporting. Many models did not include a description of the target population (n=27, 12%) or care setting (n=75, 32%), and only 11 (5%) were externally validated by a calibration plot. The Jehi diagnostic model and the 4C mortality score were identified as promising models. Conclusion Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that almost all pubished prediction models are poorly reported, and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performance is probably optimistic. However, we have identified two (one diagnostic and one prognostic) promising models that should soon be validated in multiple cohorts, preferably through collaborative efforts and data sharing to also allow an investigation of the stability and heterogeneity in their performance across populations and settings. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/. Methodological guidance as provided in this paper should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction model authors should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline. Systematic review registration Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245. Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 3 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/369/bmj.m1328.full.pdf

Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal

The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has caused an unprecedented global social and economic impact, and high numbers of deaths. Many risk factors have been identified in the progression of COVID-19 into a severe and critical stage, including old age, male gender, underlying comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, chronic lung diseases, heart, liver and kidney diseases, tumors, clinically apparent immunodeficiencies, local immunodeficiencies, such as early type I interferon secretion capacity, and pregnancy. Possible complications include acute kidney injury, coagulation disorders, thoromboembolism. The development of lymphopenia and eosinopenia are laboratory indicators of COVID-19. Laboratory parameters to monitor disease progression include lactate dehydrogenase, procalcitonin, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-6, IL-1β, Krebs von den Lungen-6 (KL-6), and ferritin. The development of a cytokine storm and extensive chest computed tomography imaging patterns are indicators of a severe disease. In addition, socioeconomic status, diet, lifestyle, geographical differences, ethnicity, exposed viral load, day of initiation of treatment, and quality of health care have been reported to influence individual outcomes. In this review, we highlight the scientific evidence on the risk factors of severity of COVID-19.

Risk factors for severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients: A review.

AIM: COVID-19 clinical presentation is heterogeneous, ranging from asymptomatic to severe cases. While there are a number of early publications relating to risk factors for COVID-19 infection, low sample size and heterogeneity in study design impacted consolidation of early findings. There is a pressing need to identify the factors which predispose patients to severe cases of COVID-19. For rapid and widespread risk stratification, these factors should be easily obtainable, inexpensive, and avoid invasive clinical procedures. The aim of our study is to fill this knowledge gap by systematically mapping all the available evidence on the association of various clinical, demographic, and lifestyle variables with the risk of specific adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: The systematic review was conducted using standardized methodology, searching two electronic databases (PubMed and SCOPUS) for relevant literature published between 1st January 2020 and 9th July 2020. Included studies reported characteristics of patients with COVID-19 while reporting outcomes relating to disease severity. In the case of sufficient comparable data, meta-analyses were conducted to estimate risk of each variable. RESULTS: Seventy-six studies were identified, with a total of 17,860,001 patients across 14 countries. The studies were highly heterogeneous in terms of the sample under study, outcomes, and risk measures reported. A large number of risk factors were presented for COVID-19. Commonly reported variables for adverse outcome from COVID-19 comprised patient characteristics, including age >75 (OR: 2.65, 95% CI: 1.81-3.90), male sex (OR: 2.05, 95% CI: 1.39-3.04) and severe obesity (OR: 2.57, 95% CI: 1.31-5.05). Active cancer (OR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.04-2.04) was associated with increased risk of severe outcome. A number of common symptoms and vital measures (respiratory rate and SpO2) also suggested elevated risk profiles. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of this study, a range of easily assessed parameters are valuable to predict elevated risk of severe illness and mortality as a result of COVID-19, including patient characteristics and detailed comorbidities, alongside the novel inclusion of real-time symptoms and vital measurements.

/pdf/population-risk-factors-for-severe-disease-and-mortality-in-4cti2umyve.pdf

Population risk factors for severe disease and mortality in COVID-19: A global systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rationale: Some patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rapidly develop respiratory failure or even die, underscoring the need for early identification of patients at elevated risk of severe illness. This study aims to quantify pneumonia lesions by computed tomography (CT) in the early days to predict progression to severe illness in a cohort of COVID-19 patients. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included confirmed COVID-19 patients. Three quantitative CT features of pneumonia lesions were automatically calculated using artificial intelligence algorithms, representing the percentages of ground-glass opacity volume (PGV), semi-consolidation volume (PSV), and consolidation volume (PCV) in both lungs. CT features, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE-II) score, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and d-dimer, on day 0 (hospital admission) and day 4, were collected to predict the occurrence of severe illness within a 28-day follow-up using both logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models. Results: We included 134 patients, of whom 19 (14.2%) developed any severe illness. CT features on day 0 and day 4, as well as their changes from day 0 to day 4, showed predictive capability. Changes in CT features from day 0 to day 4 performed the best in the prediction (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87~0.99; C-index=0.88, 95% CI 0.81~0.95). The hazard ratios of PGV and PCV were 1.39 (95% CI 1.05~1.84, P=0.023) and 1.67 (95% CI 1.17~2.38, P=0.005), respectively. CT features, adjusted for age and gender, on day 4 and in terms of changes from day 0 to day 4 outperformed APACHE-II, NLR, and d-dimer. Conclusions: CT quantification of pneumonia lesions can early and non-invasively predict the progression to severe illness, providing a promising prognostic indicator for clinical management of COVID-19.

CT quantification of pneumonia lesions in early days predicts progression to severe illness in a cohort of COVID-19 patients.

To explore the long-term trajectories considering pneumonia volumes and lymphocyte counts with individual data in COVID-19. A cohort of 257 convalescent COVID-19 patients (131 male and 126 females) were included. Group-based multi-trajectory modelling was applied to identify different trajectories in terms of pneumonia lesion percentage and lymphocyte counts covering the time from onset to post-discharge follow-ups. We studied the basic characteristics and disease severity associated with the trajectories. We characterised four distinct trajectory subgroups. (1) Group 1 (13.9%), pneumonia increased until a peak lesion percentage of 1.9% (IQR 0.7–4.4) before absorption. The slightly decreased lymphocyte rapidly recovered to the top half of the normal range. (2) Group 2 (44.7%), the peak lesion percentage was 7.2% (IQR 3.2–12.7). The abnormal lymphocyte count restored to normal soon. (3) Group 3 (26.0%), the peak lesion percentage reached 14.2% (IQR 8.5–19.8). The lymphocytes continuously dropped to 0.75 × 109/L after one day post-onset before slowly recovering. (4) Group 4 (15.4%), the peak lesion percentage reached 41.4% (IQR 34.8–47.9), much higher than other groups. Lymphopenia was aggravated until the lymphocytes declined to 0.80 × 109/L on the fourth day and slowly recovered later. Patients in the higher order groups were older and more likely to have hypertension and diabetes (all P values < 0.05), and have more severe disease. Our findings provide new insights to understand the heterogeneous natural courses of COVID-19 patients and the associations of distinct trajectories with disease severity, which is essential to improve the early risk assessment, patient monitoring, and follow-up schedule.

/pdf/longitudinal-trajectories-of-pneumonia-lesions-and-b4b2yr5xjd.pdf

Longitudinal trajectories of pneumonia lesions and lymphocyte counts associated with disease severity among convalescent COVID-19 patients: a group-based multi-trajectory analysis.

Background: To retrospectively evaluate several clinical indicators related to the improvement of COVID-19 pneumonia on CT. Methods: A total of 62 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were included. The CT scores based on lesion patterns and distributions in serial CT were investigated. The improvement and deterioration of pneumonia was assessed based on the changes of CT scores. Grouped by using the temperature, serum lymphocytes and high sensitivity CRP (hs-CRP) on admission respectively, the CT scores on admission, at peak time and at discharge were evaluated. Correlation analysis was carried out between the time to onset of pneumonia resolution on CT images and the recovery time of temperature, negative conversion of viral nucleic acid, serum lymphocytes and hs-CRP. Results: The CT scores of the fever group and lymphopenia group were significantly higher than those of normal group on admission, at peak time and at discharge; and the CT scores of normal hs-CRP group were significantly lower than those of the elevated hs-CRP group at peak time and at discharge (P all<0.05). The time to onset of pneumonia resolution on CT image was moderately correlated with negative conversion duration of viral nucleic acid (r =0.501, P<0.05) and the recovery time of hs-CPR (r =0.496, P<0.05). Conclusions: COVID-19 pneumonia patients with no fever, normal lymphocytes and hs-CRP had mild lesions on admission, and presented with more absorption and fewer pulmonary lesions on discharge. The negative conversion duration of viral nucleic acid and the recovery time of hs-CPR may be the indicator of the pneumonia resolution.

/pdf/preliminary-investigation-of-relationship-between-clinical-5cj3uehyzu.pdf

Lei Shi

Papers

CT quantification of pneumonia lesions in early days predicts progression to severe illness in a cohort of COVID-19 patients.

Longitudinal trajectories of pneumonia lesions and lymphocyte counts associated with disease severity among convalescent COVID-19 patients: a group-based multi-trajectory analysis.

Preliminary investigation of relationship between clinical indicators and CT manifestation patterns of COVID-19 pneumonia improvement.