Distinct clinical symptom patterns in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in an analysis of 59,011 patients in the ISARIC-4C study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Millar JE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9043502 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPrognostic models to predict the risk of clinical deterioration in acute COVID-19 cases are urgently required to inform clinical management decisions.MethodsWe developed and validated a multivariable logistic regression model for in-hospital clinical deterioration (defined as any requirement of ventilatory support or critical care, or death) among consecutively hospitalised adults with highly suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who were prospectively recruited to the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (ISARIC4C) study across 260 hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales. Candidate predictors that were specified a priori were considered for inclusion in the model on the basis of previous prognostic scores and emerging literature describing routinely measured biomarkers associated with COVID-19 prognosis. We used internal-external cross-validation to evaluate discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility across eight National Health Service (NHS) regions in the development cohort. We further validated the final model in held-out data from an additional NHS region (London).Findings74 944 participants (recruited between Feb 6 and Aug 26, 2020) were included, of whom 31 924 (43·2%) of 73 948 with available outcomes met the composite clinical deterioration outcome. In internal-external cross-validation in the development cohort of 66 705 participants, the selected model (comprising 11 predictors routinely measured at the point of hospital admission) showed consistent discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility across all eight NHS regions. In held-out data from London (n=8239), the model showed a similarly consistent performance (C-statistic 0·77 [95% CI 0·76 to 0·78]; calibration-in-the-large 0·00 [-0·05 to 0·05]); calibration slope 0·96 [0·91 to 1·01]), and greater net benefit than any other reproducible prognostic model.InterpretationThe 4C Deterioration model has strong potential for clinical utility and generalisability to predict clinical deterioration and inform decision making among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.FundingNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Department for International Development, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, EU Platform for European Preparedness Against (Re-)emerging Epidemics, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool, NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London.
| S-EPMC7832571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the COVID-19 pandemic, difficulties have been experienced in the provision of healthcare services because of excessive patient admissions to hospitals and emergency departments. It has become important to use clear and objective criteria for the early diagnosis of patients with high-risk classification and clinical worsening risk.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the prognostic accuracy of CURB-65, ISARIC-4C and COVID-GRAM scores in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 and to compare the scoring systems in terms of predicting in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit requirement.MethodsThe files of all COVID-19 patients over the age of 18 who were admitted to the emergency department and hospitalised between September 1, 2020 and December 1, 2020 were retrospectively scanned. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and Youden J Index were used to compare scoring systems for predicting in-hospital mortality and intensive care requirement.ResultsThere were 481 patients included in this study. The median age of the patients was 67 (52-79). In terms of in-hospital mortality, the AUC of CURB-65, ISARIC-4C and COVID-GRAM were 0.846, 0.784 and 0.701 respectively. In terms of intensive care requirement, the AUC of CURB-65, ISARIC-4C and COVID-GRAM were 0.898, 0.797 and 0.684 respectively. In our study, Youden's J indexes of CURB-65, ISARIC-4C and COVID-GRAM scores were found to be 0.59, 0.27 and 0.01 respectively, for mortality prediction of COVID-19 patients. Whereas Youden's J indexes were found to be 0.63, 0.26 and 0.01 respectively for determining intensive care requirement.ConclusionsAmong the scoring systems assessed, CURB-65 score had better performance in predicting in-hospital mortality and ICU requirement in COVID-19 patients. ISARIC-4C has been found successful in identifying low-risk patients and the use of the ISARIC-4C score with CURB-65 increases the accuracy of risk assessment.
| S-EPMC8646358 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) have been shown to be excellent disease diagnostic or prognostic biomarkers in a wide range of chronic and acute inflammatory and infectious diseases including viral respiratory infection. Crucially, circulating miRNA levels are thought to reflect the state of the diseased tissue. Despite their proven value as mechanism-based clinical stratification indicators, miRNAs have only started being explored in the context of COVID-19. here, we aimed to explore whether integrating miRNA with other clinical and biological measurements would reveal more accurate correlates of COVID-19 severity and outcome, and to identify severity-specific correlations of miRNAs with COVID-19-associated inflammatory mediators, clinical parameters, and otucome.
2021-12-09 | GSE189610 | GEO
Project description:Objective: To develop and validate a pragmatic risk score to predict mortality in patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).Design: Prospective observational cohort study.Setting: International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study (performed by the ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium-ISARIC-4C) in 260 hospitals across England, Scotland, and Wales. Model training was performed on a cohort of patients recruited between 6 February and 20 May 2020, with validation conducted on a second cohort of patients recruited after model development between 21 May and 29 June 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (age ?18 years) admitted to hospital with covid-19 at least four weeks before final data extraction.Main outcome measure: In-hospital mortality.Results: 35?463 patients were included in the derivation dataset (mortality rate 32.2%) and 22?361 in the validation dataset (mortality rate 30.1%). The final 4C Mortality Score included eight variables readily available at initial hospital assessment: age, sex, number of comorbidities, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, level of consciousness, urea level, and C reactive protein (score range 0-21 points). The 4C Score showed high discrimination for mortality (derivation cohort: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.79; validation cohort: 0.77, 0.76 to 0.77) with excellent calibration (validation: calibration-in-the-large=0, slope=1.0). Patients with a score of at least 15 (n=4158, 19%) had a 62% mortality (positive predictive value 62%) compared with 1% mortality for those with a score of 3 or less (n=1650, 7%; negative predictive value 99%). Discriminatory performance was higher than 15 pre-existing risk stratification scores (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve range 0.61-0.76), with scores developed in other covid-19 cohorts often performing poorly (range 0.63-0.73).Conclusions: An easy-to-use risk stratification score has been developed and validated based on commonly available parameters at hospital presentation. The 4C Mortality Score outperformed existing scores, showed utility to directly inform clinical decision making, and can be used to stratify patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 into different management groups. The score should be further validated to determine its applicability in other populations.Study registration: ISRCTN66726260.
| S-EPMC7116472 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesEstimating mortality risk in hospitalised SARS-CoV-2+ patients may help with choosing level of care and discussions with patients. The Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium Mortality Score (4C Score) is a promising COVID-19 mortality risk model. We examined the association of risk factors with 30-day mortality in hospitalised, full-code SARS-CoV-2+ patients and investigated the discrimination and calibration of the 4C Score. This was a retrospective cohort study of SARS-CoV-2+ hospitalised patients within the RECOVER (REgistry of suspected COVID-19 in EmeRgency care) network.Setting99 emergency departments (EDs) across the USA.ParticipantsPatients ≥18 years old, positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the ED, and hospitalised.Primary outcomeDeath within 30 days of the index visit. We performed logistic regression analysis, reporting multivariable risk ratios (MVRRs) and calculated the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) and mean prediction error for the original 4C Score and after dropping the C reactive protein (CRP) component.ResultsOf 6802 hospitalised patients with COVID-19, 1149 (16.9%) died within 30 days. The 30-day mortality was increased with age 80+ years (MVRR=5.79, 95% CI 4.23 to 7.34); male sex (MVRR=1.17, 1.05 to 1.28); and nursing home/assisted living facility residence (MVRR=1.29, 1.1 to 1.48). The 4C Score had comparable discrimination in the RECOVER dataset compared with the original 4C validation dataset (AUROC: RECOVER 0.786 (95% CI 0.773 to 0.799), 4C validation 0.763 (95% CI 0.757 to 0.769). Score-specific mortalities in our sample were lower than in the 4C validation sample (mean prediction error 6.0%). Dropping the CRP component from the 4C Score did not substantially affect discrimination and 4C risk estimates were now close (mean prediction error 0.7%).ConclusionsWe independently validated 4C Score as predicting risk of 30-day mortality in hospitalised SARS-CoV-2+ patients. We recommend dropping the CRP component of the score and using our recalibrated mortality risk estimates.
| S-EPMC9023850 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImmunocompromised patients may be at higher risk of mortality if hospitalised with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared with immunocompetent patients. However, previous studies have been contradictory. We aimed to determine whether immunocompromised patients were at greater risk of in-hospital death and how this risk changed over the pandemic.Methods and findingsWe included patients > = 19 years with symptomatic community-acquired COVID-19 recruited to the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK prospective cohort study. We defined immunocompromise as immunosuppressant medication preadmission, cancer treatment, organ transplant, HIV, or congenital immunodeficiency. We used logistic regression to compare the risk of death in both groups, adjusting for age, sex, deprivation, ethnicity, vaccination, and comorbidities. We used Bayesian logistic regression to explore mortality over time. Between 17 January 2020 and 28 February 2022, we recruited 156,552 eligible patients, of whom 21,954 (14%) were immunocompromised. In total, 29% (n = 6,499) of immunocompromised and 21% (n = 28,608) of immunocompetent patients died in hospital. The odds of in-hospital mortality were elevated for immunocompromised patients (adjusted OR 1.44, 95% CI [1.39, 1.50], p < 0.001). Not all immunocompromising conditions had the same risk, for example, patients on active cancer treatment were less likely to have their care escalated to intensive care (adjusted OR 0.77, 95% CI [0.7, 0.85], p < 0.001) or ventilation (adjusted OR 0.65, 95% CI [0.56, 0.76], p < 0.001). However, cancer patients were more likely to die (adjusted OR 2.0, 95% CI [1.87, 2.15], p < 0.001). Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, comorbidities, and vaccination status. As the pandemic progressed, in-hospital mortality reduced more slowly for immunocompromised patients than for immunocompetent patients. This was particularly evident with increasing age: the probability of the reduction in hospital mortality being less for immunocompromised patients aged 50 to 69 years was 88% for men and 83% for women, and for those >80 years was 99% for men and 98% for women. The study is limited by a lack of detailed drug data prior to admission, including steroid doses, meaning that we may have incorrectly categorised some immunocompromised patients as immunocompetent.ConclusionsImmunocompromised patients remain at elevated risk of death from COVID-19. Targeted measures such as additional vaccine doses, monoclonal antibodies, and nonpharmaceutical preventive interventions should be continually encouraged for this patient group.Trial registrationISRCTN 66726260.
| S-EPMC9928075 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTreatment options for non-hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to reduce morbidity, mortality and spread of the disease are an urgent global need. The over-the-counter histamine-2 receptor antagonist famotidine is a putative therapy for COVID-19. We quantitively assessed longitudinal changes in patient reported outcome measures in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who self-administered high-dose famotidine orally.DesignPatients were enrolled consecutively after signing written informed consent. Data on demographics, COVID-19 diagnosis, famotidine use, drug-related side effects, temperature measurements, oxygen saturations and symptom scores were obtained using questionnaires and telephone interviews. Based on a National Institute of Health (NIH)-endorsed Protocol to research Patient Experience of COVID-19, we collected longitudinal severity scores of five symptoms (cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, headaches and anosmia) and general unwellness on a four-point ordinal scale modelled on performance status scoring. All data are reported at the patient level. Longitudinal combined normalised symptom scores were statistically compared.ResultsTen consecutive patients with COVID-19 who self-administered high-dose oral famotidine were identified. The most frequently used famotidine regimen was 80 mg three times daily (n=6) for a median of 11 days (range: 5-21 days). Famotidine was well tolerated. All patients reported marked improvements of disease related symptoms after starting famotidine. The combined symptom score improved significantly within 24 hours of starting famotidine and peripheral oxygen saturation (n=2) and device recorded activity (n=1) increased.ConclusionsThe results of this case series suggest that high-dose oral famotidine is well tolerated and associated with improved patient-reported outcomes in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7299656 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic is a significant public health crisis that is hitting hard on people's health, well-being, and freedom of movement, and affecting the global economy. Scientists worldwide are competing to develop therapeutics and vaccines; currently, three drugs and two vaccine candidates have been given emergency authorization use. However, there are still questions of efficacy with regard to specific subgroups of patients and the vaccine's scalability to the general public. Under such circumstances, understanding COVID-19 symptoms is vital in initial triage; it is crucial to distinguish the severity of cases for effective management and treatment. This study aimed to discover symptom patterns and overall symptom rules, including rules disaggregated by age, sex, chronic condition, and mortality status, among COVID-19 patients.MethodsThis study was a retrospective analysis of COVID-19 patient data made available online by the Wolfram Data Repository through May 27, 2020. We applied a widely used rule-based machine learning technique called association rule mining to identify frequent symptoms and define patterns in the rules discovered.ResultIn total, 1,560 patients with COVID-19 were included in the study, with a median age of 52 years. The most frequently occurring symptom was fever (67%), followed by cough (37%), malaise/body soreness (11%), pneumonia (11%), and sore throat (8%). Myocardial infarction, heart failure, and renal disease were present in less than 1% of patients. The top ten significant symptom rules (out of 71 generated) showed cough, septic shock, and respiratory distress syndrome as frequent consequents. If a patient had a breathing problem and sputum production, then, there was higher confidence of that patient having a cough; if cardiac disease, renal disease, or pneumonia was present, then there was a higher confidence of septic shock or respiratory distress syndrome. Symptom rules differed between younger and older patients and between male and female patients. Patients who had chronic conditions or died of COVID-19 had more severe symptom rules than those patients who did not have chronic conditions or survived of COVID-19. Concerning chronic condition rules among 147 patients, if a patient had diabetes, prerenal azotemia, and coronary bypass surgery, there was a certainty of hypertension.ConclusionThe most frequently reported symptoms in patients with COVID-19 were fever, cough, pneumonia, and sore throat; while 1% had severe symptoms, such as septic shock, respiratory distress syndrome, and respiratory failure. Symptom rules differed by age and sex. Patients with chronic disease and patients who died of COVID-19 had severe symptom rules more specifically, cardiovascular-related symptoms accompanied by pneumonia, fever, and cough as consequents.
| S-EPMC7966840 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe host immune response has a prominent role in the progression and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lymphopenia has been described as an important feature of SARS-CoV-2 infection and has been associated with severe disease manifestation. Lymphocyte dysregulation and hyper-inflammation have been shown to be associated with a more severe clinical course; however, a T cell subpopulation whose dysfunction correlate with disease progression has yet to be identify.MethodsWe performed an immuno-phenotypic analysis of T cell sub-populations in peripheral blood from patients affected by different severity of COVID-19 (n=60) and undergoing a different clinical evolution. Clinical severity was established based on a modified WHO score considering both ventilation support and respiratory capacity (PaO2/FiO2 ratio). The ability of circulating cells at baseline to predict the probability of clinical aggravation was explored through multivariate regression analyses.ResultsThe immuno-phenotypic analysis performed by multi-colour flow cytometry confirmed that patients suffering from severe COVID-19 harboured significantly reduced circulating T cell subsets, especially for CD4+ T, Th1, and regulatory T cells. Peripheral T cells also correlated with parameters associated with disease severity, i.e., PaO2/FiO2 ratio and inflammation markers. CD4+ T cell subsets showed an important significant association with clinical evolution, with patients presenting markedly decreased regulatory T cells at baseline having a significantly higher risk of aggravation. Importantly, the combination of gender and regulatory T cells allowed distinguishing between improved and worsened patients with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 82%.ConclusionsThe present study demonstrates the association between CD4+ T cell dysregulation and COVID-19 severity and progression. Our results support the importance of analysing baseline regulatory T cell levels, since they were revealed able to predict the clinical worsening during hospitalization. Regulatory T cells assessment soon after hospital admission could thus allow a better clinical stratification and patient management.
| S-EPMC8674838 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterised by dyspnoea and abnormal coagulation parameters, including raised D-dimer. Data suggests a high incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) in ventilated patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES:To determine the incidence of PE in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and the diagnostic yield of Computer Tomography Pulmonary Angiography (CTPA) for PE. We also examined the utility of D-dimer and conventional pre-test probability for diagnosis of PE in COVID-19. PATIENTS/METHODS:Retrospective review of single-centre data of all CTPA studies in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 identified from Electronic Patient Records (EPR). RESULTS:There were 1477 patients admitted with COVID-19 and 214 CTPA scans performed, of which n = 180 (84%) were requested outside of critical care. The diagnostic yield for PE was 37%. The overall proportion of PE in patients with COVID-19 was 5.4%. The proportions with Wells score of ?4 ('PE likely') was 33/134 (25%) without PE vs 20/80 (25%) with PE (P = 0.951). The median National Early Warning-2 (NEWS2) score (illness severity) was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 3-9) in PE group vs 4 (IQR 2-7) in those without PE (P = 0.133). D-dimer was higher in PE (median 8000 ng/mL; IQR 4665-8000 ng/mL) than non-PE (2060 ng/mL, IQR 1210-4410 ng/mL, P < 0.001). In the 'low probability' group, D-dimer was higher (P < 0.001) in those with PE but had a limited role in excluding PE. CONCLUSIONS:Even outside of the critical care environment, PE in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 is common. Of note, approaching half of PE events were diagnosed on hospital admission. More data are needed to identify an optimal diagnostic pathway in patients with COVID-19. Randomised controlled trials of intensified thromboprophylaxis are urgently needed.
| S-EPMC7351054 | biostudies-literature