Dataset Information

Fatality and risk features for prognosis in COVID-19 according to the care approach - a retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

This study analyzed the impact of a categorized approach, based on patients' prognosis, on major outcomes and explanators in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia in an academic center in Spain.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study (March 3 to May 2, 2020). Patients were categorized according to the followed clinical management, as maximum care or limited therapeutic effort (LTE). Main outcomes were all-cause mortality and need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Baseline factors associated with outcomes were analyzed by multiple logistic regression, estimating odds ratios (OR; 95%CI).

Results

Thirty-hundred and six patients were hospitalized, median age 65.0 years, 57.8% males, 53.3% Charlson index ≥3. The overall all-cause fatality rate was 15.0% (n = 46). Maximum care was provided in 238 (77.8%), IMV was used in 38 patients (16.0%), and 5.5% died. LTE was decided in 68 patients (22.2%), none received IMV and fatality was 48.5%. Independent risk factors of mortality under maximum care were lymphocytes <790/mm3, troponin T >15ng/L and hypotension. Advanced age, lymphocytes <790/mm3 and BNP >240pg/mL independently associated with IMV requirement.

Conclusion

Overall fatality in the cohort was 15% but markedly varied regarding the decided approach (maximum care versus LTE), translating into nine-fold higher mortality and different risk factors.

SUBMITTER: Andres M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7987197 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveDespite the increasing disease burden, there is a dearth of context-specific evidence on the risk factors for COVID-19 positivity and subsequent death in Nigeria. Thus, the study objective was to identify context-specific factors associated with testing positive for COVID-19 and fatality in Nigeria.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingCOVID-19 surveillance and laboratory centres in 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory reporting data to the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control.ParticipantsIndividuals who were investigated for SARS-CoV-2 using real-time PCR testing during the study period 27 February-8 June 2020.MethodsCOVID-19 positivity and subsequent mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors independently associated with both outcome variables, and findings are presented as adjusted ORs (aORs) and 95% CIs.ResultsA total of 36 496 patients were tested for COVID-19, with 10 517 confirmed cases. Of 3215 confirmed cases with available clinical outcomes, 295 died. Factors independently associated with COVID-19 positivity were older age (p value for trend<0.0001), male sex (aOR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.18) and the following presenting symptoms: cough (aOR 1.23, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.32), fever (aOR 1.45, 95% CI 1.45 to 1.71), loss of smell (aOR 7.78, 95% CI 5.19 to 11.66) and loss of taste (aOR 2.50, 95% CI 1.60 to 3.90). An increased risk of mortality following COVID-19 was observed in those aged ≥51 years, patients in farming occupation (aOR 7.56, 95% CI 1.70 to 33.53) and those presenting with cough (aOR 2.06, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.01), breathing difficulties (aOR 5.68, 95% CI 3.77 to 8.58) and vomiting (aOR 2.54, 95% CI 1.33 to 4.84).ConclusionThe significant risk factors associated with COVID-19 positivity and subsequent mortality in the Nigerian population are similar to those reported in studies from other countries and should guide clinical decisions for COVID-19 testing and specialist care referrals.

Project description:BackgroundRisk of adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients by stratifying by the time from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis status is still uncertain.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsA longer time from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis yielded a worse COVID-19 prognosis.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the number of people aged 50+ years presenting to primary care with features that could potentially indicate cancer, and to explore how reporting differed by patient characteristics and in face-to-face vs remote consultations.Design, setting and participantsA retrospective cohort study of general practitioner (GP), nurse and paramedic primary care consultations in 21 practices in South-West England covering 123 947 patients. The models compared potential cancer indicators reported in April-July 2019 with April-July 2020.Main outcome measuresPotential indicators of cancer were identified using code lists for symptoms, signs, test results and diagnoses listed in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence suspected cancer referral guidance (NG12).ResultsDuring April-July 2019, 17% of registered patients aged 50+ years reported a potential cancer indicator in a consultation with a GP or nurse. During April-July 2020, this reduced to 11% (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.67, p<0.001). Reductions in potential cancer indicators were stable across age group, sex, ethnicity, index of multiple deprivation quintile and shielding status, but less marked in patients with mental health conditions than without (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.79, interaction p<0.001). Proportions of GP consultations with potential indicators of cancer reduced between 2019 and 2020 for face-to-face consultations (IRR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.92, p<0.001) and increased for remote consultations (IRR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.29, p=0.001), although it remained lower in remote consulting than face-to-face in April-July 2020. This difference was greater for nurse/paramedic consultations (face-to-face: IRR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.83, p=0.002; remote: IRR 1.60, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.333, p=0.014).ConclusionThe number of patients consulting with presentations that could potentially indicate cancer reduced during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients should be encouraged to continue contacting primary care for persistent signs and symptoms, and GPs and nurses should be encouraged to probe patients for further information during remote consulting, in the absence of non-verbal cues.

Project description:BackgroundNeurological involvement in Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is widely recognized. However, the role of pre-existing neurological comorbidities in modulating COVID-19-related mortality still remains unclear. This cohort study evaluates the COVID-19-related case fatality rate (CFR) of patients with pre-existing neurological diseases.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated all patients consecutively admitted to our hospital with a diagnosis of COVID-19 between March and April 2020. We used a multivariate regression analysis to estimate the association between pre-existing neurological diseases and COVID-19-related mortality. Then, we compared the CFR and survival curves of two cohorts (patients suffering vs. those not suffering from pre-existing neurological disease), matched trough the propensity score (PS). Age and other comorbidities were considered for PS calculation. We applied a 1:1 matching for the entire neurological cohort and, separately, for cerebrovascular, neurodegenerative, and other neurological diseases.ResultsAmong 332 patients, 75 (22.6%) were affected by pre-existing neurological disease (n = 29 cerebrovascular, n = 26 neurodegenerative, n = 20 others). From the multivariate regression analysis, they resulted with a significant increase of COVID-19-related mortality (OR:2.559; 95%CI 1.181-5.545; p < 0.017). From the cohort analysis, CFR resulted 2-fold higher in patients with neurological disease (48.0% vs. 24.0%; p = 0.002). CFR was significantly higher in patients with neurodegenerative diseases compared to matched individuals (73.9% vs. 39.1%; p = 0.017), while CFR increase in patients with cerebrovascular diseases did not reach statistical significance (48.3% vs. 41.4%; p = 0.597).ConclusionsPre-existing neurological comorbidities, in particular neurodegenerative diseases, increase significantly COVID-19-related case fatality, indicating a clear priority for viral screening, access to care facilities and vaccination in these populations.

Project description:The evidence for the effects of environmental factors on COVID-19 case fatality remains controversial, and it is crucial to understand the role of preventable environmental factors in driving COVID-19 fatality. We thus conducted a nationwide cohort study to estimate the effects of environmental factors (temperature, particulate matter [PM2.5, PM10], sulfur dioxide [SO2], nitrogen dioxide [NO2], and ozone [O3]) on COVID-19 case fatality. A total of 71,808 confirmed COVID-19 cases were identified and followed up for their vital status through April 25, 2020. Exposures to ambient air pollution and temperature were estimated by linking the city- and county-level monitoring data to the residential community of each participant. For each participant, two windows were defined: the period from symptom onset to diagnosis (exposure window I) and the period from diagnosis date to date of death/recovery or end of the study period (exposure window II). Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the associations between these environmental factors and COVID-19 case fatality. COVID-19 case fatality increased in association with environmental factors for the two exposure windows. For example, each 10 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5, PM10, O3, and NO2 in window I was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.11 (95% CI 1.09, 1.13), 1.10 (95% CI 1.08, 1.13), 1.09 (95 CI 1.03, 1.14), and 1.27 (95% CI 1.19, 1.35) for COVID-19 fatality, respectively. A significant effect was also observed for low temperature, with a hazard ratio of 1.03 (95% CI 1.01, 1.04) for COVID-19 case fatality per 1°C decrease. Subgroup analysis indicated that these effects were stronger in the elderly, as well as in those with mild symptoms and living in Wuhan or Hubei. Overall, the sensitivity analyses also yielded consistent estimates. Short-term exposure to ambient air pollution and low temperature during the illness would play a nonnegligible part in causing case fatality due to COVID-19. Reduced exposures to high concentrations of PM2.5, PM10, O3, SO2, and NO2 and low temperature would help improve the prognosis and reduce public health burden.