Dataset Information

Risk factors for the critical illness in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prior studies reported that 5 ~ 32% COVID-19 patients were critically ill, a situation that poses great challenge for the management of the patients and ICU resources. We aim to identify independent risk factors to serve as prediction markers for critical illness of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Methods

Fifty-two critical and 200 non-critical SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid positive patients hospitalized in 15 hospitals outside Wuhan from January 19 to March 6, 2020 were enrolled in this study. Multivariable logistic regression and LASSO logistic regression were performed to identify independent risk factors for critical illness.

Results

Age older than 60 years, dyspnea, respiratory rate > 24 breaths per min, leukocytosis > 9.5 × 10⁹/L, neutrophilia > 6.3 × 10⁹/L, lymphopenia < 1.1 × 10⁹/L, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio > 3.53, fibrinogen > 4 g/L, d-dimer > 0.55 μg/mL, blood urea nitrogen > 7.1 mM, elevated aspartate transaminase, elevated alanine aminotransferase, total bilirubin > 21 μM, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 2 were identified as risk factors for critical illness. LASSO logistic regression identified the best combination of risk factors as SOFA score, age, dyspnea, and leukocytosis. The Area Under the Receiver-Operator Curve values for the risk factors in predicting critical illness were 0.921 for SOFA score, 0.776 for age, 0.764 for dyspnea, 0.658 for leukocytosis, and 0.960 for the combination of the four risk factors.

Conclusions

Our findings advocate the use of risk factors SOFA score ≥ 2, age > 60, dyspnea and leukocytosis > 9.5 × 10⁹/L on admission, alone or in combination, to determine the optimal management of the patients and health care resources.

SUBMITTER: Cheng S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7576549 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Risk for acute kidney injury (AKI) in older adults has not been evaluated systematically. We sought to delineate the determinants of risk for AKI in older compared with younger adults.Retrospective analysis of patients hospitalized in July 2000 to September 2008.We identified all adult patients admitted to an intensive care unit (n=45,655) in a large tertiary-care university hospital system. We excluded patients receiving dialysis or a kidney transplant prior to hospital admission and patients with baseline creatinine levels ? 4mg/dL, liver transplantation, indeterminate AKI status, or unknown age, leaving 39,938 patients.We collected data for multiple susceptibilities and exposures, including age, sex, race, body mass, comorbid conditions, severity of illness, baseline kidney function, sepsis, and shock.We defined AKI according to KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) criteria. We examined susceptibilities and exposures across age strata for impact on the development of AKI.We calculated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for prediction of AKI across age groups.25,230 (63.2%) patients were 55 years or older. Overall, 25,120 (62.9%) patients developed AKI (69.2% aged ?55 years). Examples of risk factors for AKI in the oldest age category (?75 years) were drugs (vancomycin, aminoglycosides, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories), history of hypertension (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.25), and sepsis (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.68-2.67). Fewer variables remained predictive of AKI as age increased and the model for older patients was less predictive (P<0.001). For the age categories 18 to 54, 55 to 64, 65 to 74, and 75 years or older, AUCs were 0.744 (95% CI, 0.735-0.752), 0.714 (95% CI, 0.702-0.726), 0.706 (95% CI, 0.693-0.718), and 0.673 (95% CI, 0.661-0.685), respectively.Analysis may not apply to non-intensive care unit patients.The likelihood of developing AKI increases with age; however, the same variables are less predictive for AKI as age increases. Efforts to quantify risk for AKI may be more difficult in older adults.

Project description:Objectives:To describe critically ill children with respiratory infections, classify them by infection syndrome type and determine the prevalence of Mycoplasma pneumoniae detection. Study design:A retrospective, single-centre cohort study. All children aged 2 months-18 years with presumed respiratory infection who were admitted to a tertiary hospital paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) between September 2015 and October 2016 were eligible. Subjects were grouped by clinical syndrome (viral respiratory infection, asthma exacerbation, undifferentiated/uncomplicated pneumonia, pneumonia complicated by effusion/empyema and 'other'). All subjects had nasopharyngeal swabs tested for respiratory viruses, M. pneumoniae and Chlamydia pneumoniae. Results:There were 221 subjects; the median age was 3.1 years; 44% were female; and 78% had medical comorbidities. The majority (75%) was treated with antibiotics, most often ceftriaxone (90% of treated children). Those with any pneumonia were significantly less likely to have a respiratory virus identified in their nasopharynges and had significantly higher C reactive protein (CRP) values than those in the viral infection and asthma groups. There were 10 subjects in whom M. pneumoniae was detected (4.5%, 95%?CI 2.2% to 8.2%). Mycoplasma-positive children were older (difference 3.5 years, 95%?CI 0.66 to 6.4 years) and had fewer viral coinfections (30% compared with 69%, p=0.02). The prevalence of Mycoplasma infection in children aged >5?years with any pneumonia was 13.2% (95%CI 4.4% to 28%). Conclusions:The majority of participants had respiratory viruses detected and were treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics. Differences in CRP and viral prevalence were observed between children with different infection syndrome types. M. pneumoniae infection was not rare in school-aged children with pneumonia admitted to the PICU. Attention to antibiotic treatment and rapid diagnostic testing for Mycoplasma in older, critically ill children should be considered to optimise management and avert morbidity and mortality from respiratory infection.

Project description:BackgroundThe proportion of asymptomatic carriers and transmission risk factors of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among household and non-household contacts remains unclear. In Singapore, extensive contact tracing by the Ministry of Health for every diagnosed COVID-19 case, and legally enforced quarantine and intensive health surveillance of close contacts provided a rare opportunity to determine asymptomatic attack rates and SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk factors among community close contacts of patients with COVID-19.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study involved all close contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Singapore, identified between Jan 23 and April 3, 2020. Household contacts were defined as individuals who shared a residence with the index COVID-19 case. Non-household close contacts were defined as those who had contact for at least 30 min within 2 m of the index case. All patients with COVID-19 in Singapore received inpatient treatment, with access restricted to health-care staff. All close contacts were quarantined for 14 days with thrice-daily symptom monitoring via telephone. Symptomatic contacts underwent PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2. Secondary clinical attack rates were derived from the prevalence of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 among close contacts. Consenting contacts underwent serology testing and detailed exposure risk assessment. Bayesian modelling was used to estimate the prevalence of missed diagnoses and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive cases. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk factors.FindingsBetween Jan 23 and April 3, 2020, 7770 close contacts (1863 household contacts, 2319 work contacts, and 3588 social contacts) linked to 1114 PCR-confirmed index cases were identified. Symptom-based PCR testing detected 188 COVID-19 cases, and 7582 close contacts completed quarantine without a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Among 7518 (96·8%) of the 7770 close contacts with complete data, the secondary clinical attack rate was 5·9% (95% CI 4·9-7·1) for 1779 household contacts, 1·3% (0·9-1·9) for 2231 work contacts, and 1·3% (1·0-1·7) for 3508 social contacts. Bayesian analysis of serology and symptom data obtained from 1150 close contacts (524 household contacts, 207 work contacts, and 419 social contacts) estimated that a symptom-based PCR-testing strategy missed 62% (95% credible interval 55-69) of COVID-19 diagnoses, and 36% (27-45) of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection were asymptomatic. Sharing a bedroom (multivariable odds ratio [OR] 5·38 [95% CI 1·82-15·84]; p=0·0023) and being spoken to by an index case for 30 min or longer (7·86 [3·86-16·02]; p<0·0001) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission among household contacts. Among non-household contacts, exposure to more than one case (multivariable OR 3·92 [95% CI 2·07-7·40], p<0·0001), being spoken to by an index case for 30 min or longer (2·67 [1·21-5·88]; p=0·015), and sharing a vehicle with an index case (3·07 [1·55-6·08]; p=0·0013) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Among both household and non-household contacts, indirect contact, meal sharing, and lavatory co-usage were not independently associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission.InterpretationTargeted community measures should include physical distancing and minimising verbal interactions. Testing of all household contacts, including asymptomatic individuals, is warranted.FundingMinistry of Health of Singapore, National Research Foundation of Singapore, and National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the excess risk and relative hazards for developing incident clinical sequelae after the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults aged 18-65.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingThree merged data sources from a large United States health plan: a large national administrative claims database, an outpatient laboratory testing database, and an inpatient hospital admissions database.ParticipantsIndividuals aged 18-65 with continuous enrollment in the health plan from January 2019 to the date of a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Three comparator groups, matched by propensity score, to individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2: a 2020 comparator group, an historical 2019 comparator group, and an historical comparator group with viral lower respiratory tract illness.Main outcome measuresMore than 50 clinical sequelae after the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection (defined as the date of first SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis (index date) plus 21 days) were identified using ICD-10 (international classification of diseases, 10th revision) codes. Excess risk in the four months after acute infection and hazard ratios with Bonferroni corrected 95% confidence intervals were calculated.Results14% of adults aged ≤65 who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 (27 074 of 193 113) had at least one new type of clinical sequelae that required medical care after the acute phase of the illness, which was 4.95% higher than in the 2020 comparator group. The risk for specific new sequelae attributable to SARS-Cov-2 infection after the acute phase, including chronic respiratory failure, cardiac arrythmia, hypercoagulability, encephalopathy, peripheral neuropathy, amnesia (memory difficulty), diabetes, liver test abnormalities, myocarditis, anxiety, and fatigue, was significantly greater than in the three comparator groups (2020, 2019, and viral lower respiratory tract illness groups) (all P<0.001). Significant risk differences because of SARS-CoV-2 infection ranged from 0.02 to 2.26 per 100 people (all P<0.001), and hazard ratios ranged from 1.24 to 25.65 compared with the 2020 comparator group.ConclusionsThe results indicate the excess risk of developing new clinical sequelae after the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection, including specific types of sequelae less commonly seen in other viral illnesses. Although individuals who were older, had pre-existing conditions, and were admitted to hospital because of covid-19 were at greatest excess risk, younger adults (aged ≤50), those with no pre-existing conditions, or those not admitted to hospital for covid-19 also had an increased risk of developing new clinical sequelae. The greater risk for incident sequelae after the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection is relevant for healthcare planning.