Epidemiological and initial clinical characteristics of patients with family aggregation of COVID-19

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 quantification from oropharyngeal swabs, nasopharyngeal swabs, and naso-oropharyngeal swabs: A cross-sectional study

The current naso-oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection faces several problems, such as waste issues and its use for quantitative studies. This study aimed to evaluate the total RNA and viral loads from different upper respiratory tract swabs types and whether SARS-CoV-2 quantification can use the current internal control for normalization. This cross-sectional study collected positive specimens with single oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swabs and naso-oropharyngeal swabs. The samples were extracted, tested with qualitative RT‒PCR, and then tested with quantitative RT‒PCR. The RNA eluate was measured for the total RNA concentration. The total RNA concentration, viral load, and RNaseP Ct values were collected and analysed statistically. The positive results came from 41 oropharyngeal swabs, 34 nasopharyngeal swabs, and 36 naso-oropharyngeal swabs. The total RNA increased significantly from oropharyngeal swabs to nasopharyngeal swabs to naso-oropharyngeal swabs. Significant differences in RNaseP Ct values between groups and their correlations with total RNA were found. In addition, the increase in the total RNA and the RNaseP Ct values were unrelated to the viral load. The physical features in the naso-oropharyngeal area and the swabbing procedures could affect the total RNA but not the viral load. However, since the virus particles could present inside and outside human cells, the increase in collected human cells may not always be followed by the viral load increase. Normalization using the RNaseP Ct value became unnecessary due to the factors mentioned above. Therefore, a careful approach is needed in viral load studies of swab specimens.

SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR Ct values in saliva and nasopharyngeal swab samples for disease severity prediction

Background

Comparison of clinical value of RT-qPCR-based SARS-CoV-2 tests performed on saliva samples (SSs) and nasopharyngeal swab samples (NPSs) for prediction of the COVID-19 disease severity.

Methods

Three paired SSs and NPSs collected every 3 days from 100 hospitalised COVID-19 patients during 2020 Jul-2021 Jan were tested by RT-qPCR for the original SARS-CoV-2 virus and compared to 150 healthy controls. Cases were divided into mild+moderate (Cohort I, N = 47) and severe disease (Cohort II, N = 53) cohorts and compared.

Results

SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 65% (91/140) vs. 53% (82/156) of NPSs and 49% (68/139) vs. 48% (75/157) of SSs collected from Cohort I and II, respectively, resulting in the total respective detection rates of 58% (173/296) vs. 48% (143/296) (P = 0.017). Ct values of SSs were lower than those of NPSs (mean Ct = 28.01 vs. 30.07, P = 0.002). Although Ct values of the first SSs were significantly lower in Cohort I than in Cohort II (P = 0.04), it became negative earlier (mean 11.7 vs. 14.8 days, P = 0.005). Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis showed that Ct value ≤30 from SSs was the independent predictor for severe COVID-19 (HR = 10.06, 95% CI: 1.84-55.14, P = 0.008).

Conclusion

Salivary RT-qPCR testing is suitable for SARS-CoV-2 infection control, while simple measurement of Ct values can assist in prediction of COVID-19 severity.

SARS-CoV-2 and Swabs: Disease Severity and the Numbers of Cycles of Gene Amplification, Single Center Experience

Pediatric COVID-19 determines a mild clinical picture, but few data have been published about the correlation between disease severity and PCR amplification cycles of SARS-CoV-2 from respiratory samples. This correlation is clinically important because it permits the stratification of patients in relation to their risk of developing a serious disease. Therefore, the primary endpoint of this study was to establish whether disease severity at the onset, when evaluated with a LqSOFA score, correlated with the gene amplification of SARS-CoV-2. LqSOFA score, also named the Liverpool quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, is a pediatric score that indicates the severity of illness with a range from 0 to 4 that incorporates age-adjusted heart rate, respiratory rate, capillary refill and consciousness level (AVPU). The secondary endpoint was to determine if this score could predict the days of duration for symptoms and positive swabs. Our study included 124 patients aged between 0 and 18 years. The LqSOFA score was negatively correlated with the number of PCR amplification cycles, but this was not significant (Pearson's index -0.14, p-value 0.13). Instead, the correlation between the LqSOFA score and the duration of symptoms was positively related and statistically significant (Pearson's index 0.20, p-value 0.02), such as the correlation between the LqSOFA score and the duration of a positive swab (Pearson's index 0.40, p-value < 0.01). So, the LqSOFA score upon admission may predict the duration of symptoms and positive swabs; the PCR amplification of SARS-CoV-2 appears not to play a key role at onset in the prediction of disease severity.

Biosensors based detection of novel biomarkers associated with COVID-19: Current progress and future promise

The pandemic situation of COVID-19 has caused global alarm in health care, devastating loss of lives, strangled economy, and paralysis of normal livelihood. The high inter-individual transmission rate created havoc in the global community. Although tremendous efforts are pitching in from across the globe to understand this disease, the clinical features seemed to have a wide range including fever, cough, and fatigue are the prominent features. Congestion, rhinorrhea, sore throat, and diarrhea are other less common features observed. The challenge of this disease lies in the difficulty in maneuvering the clinical course causing severe complications. One of the major causative factors for multi-organ failure in patients with severe COVID-19 complications is systemic vasculitis and cytokine-mediated coagulation disorders. Hence, effective markers trailing the disease severity and disease prognosis are urgently required for prompt medical treatment. In this review article, we have emphasized currently identified inflammatory, hematological, immunological, and biochemical biomarkers of COVID-19. We also discussed currently available biosensors for the detection of COVID-19-associated biomarkers & risk factors and the detection methods as well as their performances. These could be effective tools for rapid and more promising diagnoses in the current pandemic situation. Effective biomarkers and their rapid, scalable, & sensitive detection might be beneficial for the prevention of serious complications and the clinical management of the disease.

Is SARS-CoV-2 viral load a predictor of mortality in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients?

Objective

Viral load varies during infection and is higher during the initial stages of disease. Given the importance of the intensive care unit (ICU) in the late stages of COVID-19 infection, analyzing cycle threshold values to detect viral load upon ICU admission can be a clinically valuable tool for identifying patients with the highest mortality risk.

Methods

This was a retrospectively designed study. Patients older than 18 years who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 PCR and had a PaO2/FiO2 ratio <200 were included in the study. The patient population was divided into two groups: survivors and non-survivors.

Results

Two hundred patients were included in the study. In non-survivors, age, relevant ICU admission scores, and procalcitonin levels were significantly higher whereas PaO2/FiO2 ratios and cycle threshold levels were significantly lower than in survivors.

Conclusion

Viral load at ICU admission has significant prognostic value. In combination with age, comorbidities, and severity scores, viral load may assist clinicians in identifying individuals who need more intensive monitoring. Increased awareness may improve outcomes by allowing the more effective monitoring and treatment of patients. More prospective studies are needed to determine how a high viral load worsens disease and how to avoid irreversible results.

Asseri A, Binyamin SS, Al-Rabia MW. Enhanced Gravitational Search Optimization with Hybrid Deep Learning Model for COVID-19 Diagnosis on Epidemiology Data

Effective screening provides efficient and quick diagnoses of COVID-19 and could alleviate related problems in the health care system. A prediction model that combines multiple features to assess contamination risks was established in the hope of supporting healthcare workers worldwide in triaging patients, particularly in situations with limited health care resources. Furthermore, a lack of diagnosis kits and asymptomatic cases can lead to missed or delayed diagnoses, exposing visitors, medical staff, and patients to 2019-nCoV contamination. Non-clinical techniques including data mining, expert systems, machine learning, and other artificial intelligence technologies have a crucial role to play in containment and diagnosis in the COVID-19 outbreak. This study developed Enhanced Gravitational Search Optimization with a Hybrid Deep Learning Model (EGSO-HDLM) for COVID-19 diagnoses using epidemiology data. The major aim of designing the EGSO-HDLM model was the identification and classification of COVID-19 using epidemiology data. In order to examine the epidemiology data, the EGSO-HDLM model employed a hybrid convolutional neural network with a gated recurrent unit based fusion (HCNN-GRUF) model. In addition, the hyperparameter optimization of the HCNN-GRUF model was improved by the use of the EGSO algorithm, which was derived by including the concepts of cat map and the traditional GSO algorithm. The design of the EGSO algorithm helps in reducing the ergodic problem, avoiding premature convergence, and enhancing algorithm efficiency. To demonstrate the better performance of the EGSO-HDLM model, experimental validation on a benchmark dataset was performed. The simulation results ensured the enhanced performance of the EGSO-HDLM model over recent approaches.

Prevalence of comorbidities and symptoms stratified by severity of illness amongst adult patients with COVID-19: a systematic review

Introduction

We performed a systematic review of comorbidities and symptoms of adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to evaluate comorbidities, symptoms, and severity.

Material and methods

We searched databases and extracted comorbidities and symptoms from the included studies. We stratified the similar signs and symptoms in groups and on the basis of severity and compared them with stratified analysis. Individual case reports and case series with < 5 patients were excluded.

Results

A total of 163 studies with 43,187 patients were included. Mean age was 54.6 years. There were significantly fewer women in the study (43.9% vs. 56.1%, p < 0.0001). Prevalent cardiovascular comorbidities were hypertension (31.9%), obesity (27.9%), hyperlipidemia (26.4%), smoking (18.9%), diabetes mellitus (17.2%), atherosclerotic disease (9.2%) and arrhythmia (5.0%). The most frequently reported constitutional symptoms of COVID-19 were fever (73.9%), fatigue (33.4%), malaise (29.9%), myalgia and/or arthralgia (19.2%), generalized weakness (19.0%), and chills (11.3%). For the cardiovascular system, chest pain and/or tightness were most often reported (19.6%), followed by palpitations (5.2%). Hypertension and diabetes were common in severe disease. Obesity and congestive heart failure were not observed in any non-severe cases. Severe cases compared to non-severe cases more frequently had fever (87.8% vs. 58.5%, p < 0.001), shortness of breath (47.4% vs. 20.6%, p < 0.001), cough (66.8% vs. 62.9%, p < 0.001), sputum production (35.4% vs. 26.5%, p < 0.001) and rhinorrhea (32.2% vs. 7.3%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Hypertension, diabetes, and atherosclerotic diseases are common comorbidities across the world, with obesity as the second most common in the US and more common in men.

The association between real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold values, symptoms and disease severity among COVID-19 patients in the community: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 continues to spread throughout the world. Real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is used to diagnose COVID-19, with its cycle threshold (Ct) value inversely related to the viral load. The association between Ct values and COVID-19 related outcomes has been studied in the hospital setting but less so in the community. We aimed to estimate the association between Ct values and the severity of community-diagnosed COVID-19 to provide evidence on the utility of Ct testing in this setting.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study based on data from Israel's largest health organization. The study population included 34,658 individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 by RT-PCR and had available Ct values between June 1^st and December 21^st, 2020. Outcomes included COVID-19 related symptoms, hospitalization, severe disease, and death. Ct values were modelled both as discrete and continuous exposures.

RESULTS

After adjusting for known risk factors for severe COVID-19, low Ct values were associated with symptomatic disease (odds ratio [OR]: 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.21-1.84), hospitalization (OR: 1.27; 95%CI: 1.12-1.49), severe disease (OR: 1.80; 95%CI: 1.43-2.27), and death (OR: 1.64; 95%CI: 1.06-2.59). By modelling the exposure as continuous, we noticed a dose-response relationship, with the risk gradually rising with lower Ct values.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found a significant association between low Ct values and severe COVID-19 related outcomes, with a dose-response relationship. This suggests that Ct values could be helpful in identifying high-risk patients diagnosed in the community.

Early reports of epidemiological parameters of the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

The emergence of a new pathogen requires a rapid assessment of its transmissibility, to inform appropriate public health interventions.

Methods

The peer-reviewed literature published between 1 January and 30 April 2020 on COVID-19 in PubMed was searched. Estimates of the incubation period, serial interval and reproduction number for COVID-19 were obtained and compared.

Results

A total of 86 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 33 estimated the mean incubation period (4–7 days) and 15 included estimates of the serial interval (mean 4–8 days; median length 4–5 days). Fifty-two studies estimated the reproduction number. Although reproduction number estimates ranged from 0.3 to 14.8, in 33 studies (63%), they fell between 2 and 3.

Discussion

Studies calculating the incubation period and effective reproduction number were published from the beginning of the pandemic until the end of the study period (30 April 2020); however, most of the studies calculating the serial interval were published in April 2020. The calculated incubation period was similar over the study period and in different settings, whereas estimates of the serial interval and effective reproduction number were setting-specific. Estimates of the serial interval were shorter at the end of the study period as increasing evidence of pre-symptomatic transmission was documented and as jurisdictions enacted outbreak control measures. Estimates of the effective reproduction number varied with the setting and the underlying model assumptions. Early analysis of epidemic parameters provides vital information to inform the outbreak response.

The incubation period of COVID-19: a global meta-analysis of 53 studies and a Chinese observation study of 11 545 patients

BACKGROUND

The incubation period is a crucial index of epidemiology in understanding the spread of the emerging Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this study, we aimed to describe the incubation period of COVID-19 globally and in the mainland of China.

METHODS

The searched studies were published from December 1, 2019 to May 26, 2021 in CNKI, Wanfang, PubMed, and Embase databases. A random-effect model was used to pool the mean incubation period. Meta-regression was used to explore the sources of heterogeneity. Meanwhile, we collected 11 545 patients in the mainland of China outside Hubei from January 19, 2020 to September 21, 2020. The incubation period fitted with the Log-normal model by the coarseDataTools package.

RESULTS

A total of 3235 articles were searched, 53 of which were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled mean incubation period of COVID-19 was 6.0 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.6-6.5) globally, 6.5 days (95% CI 6.1-6.9) in the mainland of China, and 4.6 days (95% CI 4.1-5.1) outside the mainland of China (P = 0.006). The incubation period varied with age (P = 0.005). Meanwhile, in 11 545 patients, the mean incubation period was 7.1 days (95% CI 7.0-7.2), which was similar to the finding in our meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

For COVID-19, the mean incubation period was 6.0 days globally but near 7.0 days in the mainland of China, which will help identify the time of infection and make disease control decisions. Furthermore, attention should also be paid to the region- or age-specific incubation period.

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test results from a pandemic hospital according to demographic data

Objectives

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) leading to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China at the end of 2019 has resulted in a global pandemic. On 11 March 2020, the first case of COVID-19 was reported in Turkey. The aim of this study was to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) test results from the Medical Microbiology Laboratory of a pandemic hospital according to demographic data.

Study design

Retrospective cohort study.

Methods

SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test results of 413,013 samples from 194,062 patients were retrospectively analysed. Tests were carried out between 27 March and 31 December 2020 using two commercial kits. The patient's age and gender were recorded, in addition to the percentage of positive test results per month (i.e. monthly positivity). Pearson’s Chi-squared test was used to analyse statistical significance.

Results

Overall SARS-CoV-2 positivity in the pandemic hospital was 19.9%. Female gender and younger age (0–18 years) had a statistically significant higher positivity (P < 0.05). There was a statistically significant higher positivity in August and September.

Conclusions

Higher positivity among the younger population and females may be the leading cause of low COVID-19 mortality rates in Turkey as these population groups are less likely to die from the disease. Governments should disaggregate COVID-19 data by age and gender, and vaccine studies focussing on younger populations should be accelerated because this population group represents an important source of infection.

SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), viral load and clinical outcomes; lessons learned one year into the pandemic: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections is diagnosed via real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and reported as a binary assessment of the test being positive or negative. High SARS-CoV-2 viral load is an independent predictor of disease severity and mortality. Quantitative RT-PCR may be useful in predicting the clinical course and prognosis of patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

AIM

To identify whether quantitative SARS-CoV-2 viral load assay correlates with clinical outcome in COVID-19 infections.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was undertaken for a period between December 30, 2019 to December 31, 2020 in PubMed/MEDLINE using combination of terms "COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Ct values, Log10 copies, quantitative viral load, viral dynamics, kinetics, association with severity, sepsis, mortality and infectiousness''. After screening 990 manuscripts, a total of 60 manuscripts which met the inclusion criteria were identified. Data on age, number of patients, sample sites, RT-PCR targets, disease severity, intensive care unit admission, mortality and conclusions of the studies was extracted, organized and is analyzed.

RESULTS

At present there is no Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization for quantitative viral load assay in the current pandemic. The intent of this research is to identify whether quantitative SARS-CoV-2 viral load assay correlates with severity of infection and mortality? High SARS-CoV-2 viral load was found to be an independent predictor of disease severity and mortality in majority of studies, and may be useful in COVID-19 infection in susceptible individuals such as elderly, patients with co-existing medical illness such as diabetes, heart diseases and immunosuppressed. High viral load is also associated with elevated levels of TNF-α, IFN-γ, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-10 and C reactive protein contributing to a hyper-inflammatory state and severe infection. However there is a wide heterogeneity in fluid samples and different phases of the disease and these data should be interpreted with caution and considered only as trends.

CONCLUSION

Our observations support the hypothesis of reporting quantitative RT-PCR in SARS-CoV-2 infection. It may serve as a guiding principle for therapy and infection control policies for current and future pandemics.

The role of hemogram parameters and C-reactive protein in predicting mortality in COVID-19 infection

AIM

This study aimed to investigate hemogram parameters and C-reactive protein (CRP) that can be used in clinical practice to predict mortality in hospitalized patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19.

METHODS

This cohort study was conducted at University Hospital, which is a designated hospital for COVID-19 patients. Adult patients who were admitted to our hospital emergency department with suspected COVID-19 and who were hospitalized in our institution with a COVID-19 diagnosis were analysed.

RESULTS

There were 148 patients hospitalized with COVID-19. All-cause mortality of follow-up was 12.8%. There were statistically significant results between the two groups (survivors and nonsurvivors), which were classified based on hospital mortality rates, in terms of the lymphocyte to C-reactive protein ratio (LCRP), systemic immune inflammation index (SII), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), CRP concentration and comorbid disease. In a receiver operating characteristic (ROC), curve analysis, LCRP, NLR, PLR and SII area under the curve (AUC) for in-hospital mortality were 0.817, 0.816, 0.733 and 0.742, respectively. Based on an LCRP value of 1 for in-hospital mortality, the sensitivity and specificity rates were 100% and 86.8%, respectively. Based on the average SII of 2699 for in-hospital mortality, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy rates were 68.4%, 77.5% and 76.3%, respectively. A total of 19 patients died during hospitalization. All of these patients had an LCRP level ≤ 1; 14 had an NLR level ≤ 10.8; 13 had an SII ≥ 2699 (Fisher's exact test, P = .000). Independent predictors of in-hospital mortality rates were LCRP < 1, PLR, SII ≥ 2699, white blood cell count, CRP, age, comorbidities, and ICU stay.

CONCLUSIONS

We concluded that inflammatory parameters, such as LRCP, SII and NLR, were associated with disease severity and could be used as potentially important risk factors for COVID-19 progression.

Alkaline phosphatase and score of HRCT as indicators for predicting the severity of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The clinical symptoms, blood laboratory data, O2 saturation and high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) findings are critical factors in diagnosis of COVID-19 infection.

METHODS

In this study, 105 hospitalized patients suspected of having COVID-19 were evaluated. Finally, the laboratory and HRCT and related factors data of 83 confirmed cases by HRCT and RT-PCR were analyzed. To compare the median of quantitative variables in the two groups, the Mann-Whitney U test was used. Also, to determine the factors associated with the positiveness of the HRCT result, a univariate logistic model was fitted. Moreover, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to test the ability of the final model to predict the positiveness of HRCT result.

RESULTS

61.40% of the patients had a comorbidity disease. 89.20% had fever, 92.00% cough, 91.40% dyspnea. Abnormal CRP was seen in 77.80% of the patients, followed by 66.70% lymphopenia, and 60.30% neutrophilia. Also, ALP (abnormal vs. normal) and score of HRCT assessment variables had a significant effect on the positiveness of HRCT findings. 87.95% had abnormal HRCT with 41% bilateral multi lobar patchy ground glass opacity (GGO). Moreover, there was a statistically significant association between the level of O2 saturation and HRCT results.

CONCLUSION

Our findings showed that male patients with middle age and comorbidity disease were more susceptible to the COVID-19 infection. Additionally, clinical features, blood laboratory findings, O2 saturation and HRCT findings are critical factors in the prognosis of COVID-19 infection.

Role of Chest Computed Tomography versus Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction for Diagnosis of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The current global pandemic of COVID-19 is considered a public health emergency. The diagnosis of COVID-19 depends on detection of the viral nucleic acid by real time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). However, false-negative RT-PCR tests are reported and could hinder the control of the pandemic. Chest computed tomography could achieve a more reliable diagnosis and represent a complementary diagnostic tool.

Aim

To perform a meta-analysis and systematic review to find out the role of chest computed tomography versus RT-PCR for precise diagnosis of COVID-19 infection.

Methods

We searched three electronic databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus) from April 1 to April 20, 2020, to find out articles including the accuracy of chest computed tomography scan versus RT-PCR for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Observational studies, case series, and case reports were included.

Results

A total of 238 articles were retrieved from the search strategy. Following screening, 39 articles were chosen for full text assessment and finally 35 articles were included for qualitative and quantitative analysis. Chest computed tomography showed a wide range of sensitivity varied from 12%–100%.

Conclusion

Chest computed tomography is playing a key role for diagnosis and detection of COVID-19 infection. Computed tomography image findings may precede the initially positive RT-PCR assay.

Epidemiological feature, viral shedding, and antibody seroconversion among asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers and symptomatic/presymptomatic COVID-19 patients

Background

Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is pandemic. However, data concerning the epidemiological features, viral shedding, and antibody dynamics between asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers and COVID-19 patients remain controversial.

Methods

We enrolled 193 SARS-CoV-2 infected subjects in Ningbo and Zhoushan, Zhejiang, China, from January 21 to March 6, 2020. All subjects were followed up to monitor the dynamics of serum antibody immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG against SARS-CoV-2 using colloidal gold-labeled and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays.

Results

Of those, 31 were asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers, 148 symptomatic COVID-19 patients, and 14 presymptomatic COVID-19 patients. Compared to symptomatic COVID-19 patients, asymptomatic carriers were younger and had higher levels of white blood cell and lymphocyte, lower level of C-reactive protein, and shorter viral shedding duration. Conversion of IgM from positive to negative was shorter in asymptomatic carriers than in COVID-19 patients (7.5 vs. 25.5 days, P = 0.030). The proportion of those persistently seropositive for IgG against SARS-CoV-2 was higher in COVID-19 patients than in asymptomatic carriers (66.1% vs. 33.3%, P = 0.037). Viral load was higher in symptomatic patients than presymptomatic patients (P = 0.003) and asymptomatic carriers (P = 0.004). Viral shedding duration was longer in presymptomatic COVID-19 patients than in asymptomatic carriers (48.0 vs. 24.0 days, P = 0.002). Asymptomatic carriers acquired infection more from intra-familial transmission than did COVID-19 patients (89.0% vs. 61.0%, P = 0.028). In 4 familial clusters of SARS-CoV-2 infection, asymptomatic carriers were mainly children and young adults while severe COVID-19 was mainly found in family members older than 60 years with comorbidities.

Conclusion

Asymptomatic carriers might have a higher antiviral immunity to clear SARS-CoV-2 than symptomatic COVID-19 patients and this antiviral immunity should be contributable to innate and adaptive cellular immunity rather than humoral immunity. The severity of COVID-19 is associated with older age and comorbidities in familial clustering cases.

The diagnostic and prognostic role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The world urgently requires surrogate markers to diagnose COVID-19 and predict its progression. The severity is not easily predicted via currently used biomarkers. Critical COVID-19 patients need to be screened for hyperinflammation to improve mortality but expensive cytokine measurement is not routinely conducted in most laboratories. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a novel biomarker in patients with various diseases. We evaluated the diagnostic and prognostic accuracy of the NLR in COVID-19 patients.Methods: We searched for relevant articles in seven databases. The quantitative analysis was conducted if at least two studies were evaluating the NLR role in COVID-19.Results: We included 8,120 individuals, including 7,482 COVID-19 patients, from 32 articles. Patients with COVID-19 had significantly higher levels of NLR compared to negative individuals. Advanced COVID-19 stages had significantly higher levels of NLR than earlier stages.Expert Opinion: We found significantly higher levels of NLR in advanced stages compared to earlier stages of COVID-19 with good accuracy to diagnose and predict the disease outcome, especially mortality prediction. A close evaluation of critical SARS-CoV-2 patients and efficient early management are essential measures to decrease mortality. NLR could help in assessing the resource allocation in severe COVID-19 patients even in restricted settings.

Changes of clinical characteristics of asymptomatic patients with positive SARS-Cov-2 nucleic acid test during treatment cycle and related risk factors

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to explore the clinical characteristics, outcomes, and related influencing factors for asymptomatic patients with positive Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) nucleic acid test.

METHODS

Clinical data of 1568 patients with positive SARS-Cov-2 nucleic acid test (SNAT) were collected retrospectively. The patients were assigned to an asymptomatic group and a symptomatic group according to the existence of clinical symptoms when they got positive result in nucleic acid test, and the clinical data of the two groups were analyzed and compared. In addition, the data of asymptomatic patients who showed clinical symptoms later and the results of two-week follow-up after cure were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among all enrolled patients, there were 1489 patients with positive symptoms and 79 asymptomatic patients, including 34 patients who developed symptoms during treatment. Logistic analysis revealed that age ≤45 years (OR=2.722, P<0.001), history of diabetes mellitus (OR=0.446, P=0.007), and history of cancer (OR=0.259, P=0.008) were independent factors for asymptomatic presentation in patients with positive SNAT, and age ≥46 years (OR=1.562, P=0.012) and history of hypertension (OR=2.077, P<0.001) were risk factors for the occurrence of clinical symptoms in asymptomatic patients with positive SNAT during hospitalization. During the follow-up after cure, 8 patients got reoccurring positive SNAT result.

CONCLUSION

Asymptomatic patients with positive SNAT are mostly young and middle-aged people, and old age and hypertension are risk factors for the occurrence of positive clinical characteristics in asymptomatic patients.

The incubation period during the pandemic of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of our study was to determine through a systematic review and meta-analysis the incubation period of COVID-19. It was conducted based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). Criteria for eligibility were all published population-based primary literature in PubMed interface and the Science Direct, dealing with incubation period of COVID-19, written in English, since December 2019 to December 2020. We estimated the mean of the incubation period using meta-analysis, taking into account between-study heterogeneity, and the analysis with moderator variables.

RESULTS

This review included 42 studies done predominantly in China. The mean and median incubation period were of maximum 8 days and 12 days respectively. In various parametric models, the 95th percentiles were in the range 10.3-16 days. The highest 99th percentile would be as long as 20.4 days. Out of the 10 included studies in the meta-analysis, 8 were conducted in China, 1 in Singapore, and 1 in Argentina. The pooled mean incubation period was 6.2 (95% CI 5.4, 7.0) days. The heterogeneity (I² 77.1%; p < 0.001) was decreased when we included the study quality and the method of calculation used as moderator variables (I² 0%). The mean incubation period ranged from 5.2 (95% CI 4.4 to 5.9) to 6.65 days (95% CI 6.0 to 7.2).

CONCLUSIONS

This work provides additional evidence of incubation period for COVID-19 and showed that it is prudent not to dismiss the possibility of incubation periods up to 14 days at this stage of the epidemic.

COVID-19 illness and autoimmune diseases: recent insights

BACKGROUND

The aim of this review is to explore whether patients with autoimmune diseases (AIDs) were at high risk of infection during the COVID-19 epidemic and how severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic affected immune system.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using the foreign databases (NCBI, web of science, EBSCO, ELSEVIER ScienceDirect) and Chinese databases (WanFang, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), VIP, CBM) to locate all relevant publications (up to January 10, 2021). The search strategies used Medical Search Headings (MeSH) headings and keywords for "COVID-19" or "SARS-CoV-2" or "coronavirus" and "autoimmune disease".

RESULTS

This review evaluates the effect of SARS-CoV-2 on the immune system through ACE-2 receptor binding as the main pathway for cell attachment and invasion. It is speculated that SARS-COV-2 infection can activate lymphocytes and inflammatory response, which may play a role in the clinical onset of AIDs and also patients were treated with immunomodulatory drugs during COVID-19 outbreak. Preliminary studies suggested that the risk of developing severe forms of COVID-19 in patients with AIDs treated with immunomodulators or biologics might not increase. A large number of samples are needed for further verification, leading to an excessive immune response to external stimuli.

CONCLUSION

The relationship between autoimmune diseases and SARS-CoV-2 infection is complex. During the COVID-19 epidemic, individualized interventions for AIDs should be provided such as Internet-based service.

The role of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic infection in SARS-CoV-2 transmission-a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Reports suggest that asymptomatic individuals (those with no symptoms at all throughout infection) with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are infectious, but the extent of transmission based on symptom status requires further study.

PURPOSE

This living review aims to critically appraise available data about secondary attack rates from people with asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, EMBASE, China Academic Journals full-text database (CNKI), and pre-print servers were searched from 30 December 2019 to 3 July 2020 using relevant MESH terms.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies that report on contact tracing of index cases with SARS-CoV-2 infection in either English or Chinese were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality and risk of bias. We calculated the secondary attack rate as the number of contacts with SARS-CoV-2, divided by the number of contacts tested.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 927 studies identified, 80 were included. Summary secondary attack rate estimates were 1% (95% CI 0%-2%) with a prediction interval of 0%-10% for asymptomatic index cases in ten studies, 7% (95% CI 3%-11%) with a prediction interval of 1%-40% for pre-symptomatic cases in 11 studies and 6% (95% CI 5%-8%) with a prediction interval of 5%-38% for symptomatic index cases in 40 studies. The highest secondary attack rates were found in contacts who lived in the same household as the index case. Other activities associated with transmission were group activities such as sharing meals or playing board games with the index case, regardless of the disease status of the index case.

LIMITATIONS

We excluded some studies because the index case or number of contacts were unclear.

CONCLUSION

Asymptomatic patients can transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others, but our findings indicate that such individuals are responsible for fewer secondary infections than people with symptoms.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020188168.

Dynamic blood single-cell immune responses in patients with COVID-19

The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus is an ongoing global health emergency. However, the virus’ pathogenesis remains unclear, and there is no cure for the disease. We investigated the dynamic changes of blood immune response in patients with COVID-19 at different stages by using 5’ gene expression, T cell receptor (TCR), and B cell receptors (BCR) V(D)J transcriptome analysis at a single-cell resolution. We obtained single-cell mRNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data of 341,420 peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and 185,430 clonotypic T cells and 28,802 clonotypic B cells from 25 samples of 16 patients with COVID-19 for dynamic studies. In addition, we used three control samples. We found expansion of dendritic cells (DCs), CD14+ monocytes, and megakaryocytes progenitor cells (MP)/platelets and a reduction of naïve CD4+ T lymphocytes in patients with COVID-19, along with a significant decrease of CD8+ T lymphocytes, and natural killer cells (NKs) in patients in critical condition. The type I interferon (IFN-I), mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), and ferroptosis pathways were activated while the disease was active, and recovered gradually after patient conditions improved. Consistent with this finding, the mRNA level of IFN-I signal-induced gene IFI27 was significantly increased in patients with COVID-19 compared with that of the controls in a validation cohort that included 38 patients and 35 controls. The concentration of interferon-α (IFN-α) in the serum of patients with COVID-19 increased significantly compared with that of the controls in an additional cohort of 215 patients with COVID-19 and 106 controls, further suggesting the important role of the IFN-I pathway in the immune response of COVID-19. TCR and BCR sequences analyses indicated that patients with COVID-19 developed specific immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 antigens. Our study reveals a dynamic landscape of human blood immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, providing clues for therapeutic potentials in treating COVID-19.

Gastroenterological and hepatic manifestations of patients with COVID-19, prevalence, mortality by country, and intensive care admission rate: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 usually report fever and respiratory symptoms. However, multiple gastrointestinal (GI) manifestations such as diarrhoea and abdominal pain have been described. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of GI symptoms, elevated liver enzymes and mortality of patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies that included a cohort of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 were performed from 1 December 2019 to 15 December 2020. Data were collected by conducting a literature search using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We analysed pooled data on the prevalence of individual GI symptoms and elevated liver enzymes and performed subanalyses to investigate the relationship between GI symptoms/elevated liver enzymes, geographical location, mortality, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

RESULTS

The available data of 78 798 patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 from 158 studies were included in our analysis. The most frequent manifestations were diarrhoea (16.5%, 95% CI 14.2% to 18.4%), nausea (9.7%, 95% CI 9.0% to 13.2%) and elevated liver enzymes (5.6%, 95% CI 4.2% to 9.1%). The overall mortality and GI mortality were 23.5% (95% CI 21.2% to 26.1%) and 3.5% (95% CI 3.1% to 6.2%), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed non-statistically significant associations between GI symptoms/elevated liver enzymes and ICU admissions (OR=1.01, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.83). The GI mortality was 0.9% (95% CI 0.5% to 2.2%) in China and 10.8% (95% CI 7.8% to 11.3%) in the USA.

CONCLUSION

GI symptoms/elevated liver enzymes are common in patients with COVID-19. Our subanalyses showed that the presence of GI symptoms/elevated liver enzymes does not appear to affect mortality or ICU admission rate. Furthermore, the proportion of GI mortality among patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 varied based on geographical location.

Towards a sensitive and accurate interpretation of molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2: a rapid review of 264 studies

BackgroundSensitive molecular diagnostics and correct test interpretation are crucial for accurate COVID-19 diagnosis and thereby essential for good clinical practice. Furthermore, they are a key factor in outbreak control where active case finding in combination with isolation and contact tracing are crucial.AimWith the objective to inform the public health and laboratory responses to the pandemic, we reviewed current published knowledge on the kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 infection as assessed by RNA molecular detection in a wide range of clinical samples.MethodsWe performed an extensive search on studies published between 1 December 2019 and 15 May 2020, reporting on molecular detection and/or isolation of SARS-CoV-2 in any human laboratory specimen.ResultsWe compiled a dataset of 264 studies including 32,515 COVID-19 cases, and additionally aggregated data points (n = 2,777) from sampling of 217 adults with known infection timeline. We summarised data on SARS-CoV-2 detection in the respiratory and gastrointestinal tract, blood, oral fluid, tears, cerebrospinal fluid, peritoneal fluid, semen, vaginal fluid; where provided, we also summarised specific observations on SARS-CoV-2 detection in pregnancy, infancy, children, adolescents and immunocompromised individuals.ConclusionOptimal SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing relies on choosing the most appropriate sample type, collected with adequate sampling technique, and with the infection timeline in mind. We outlined knowledge gaps and directions for future well-documented systematic studies.

The association of viral load and disease severity in children with COVID-19

It is still not fully understood how to predict the future prognosis of patients at the diagnosis coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) due to the wide clinical range of the disease. We aimed to evaluate whether severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) viral load could predict the clinical course of pediatric patients. This study was conducted retrospectively with medical records of pediatric patients who were tested for SARS‐CoV2 between April 12 and October 25, 2020 in the University of Health Sciences, Ankara Educating and Training Hospital and Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine. We evaluated 518 pediatric patients diagnosed with COVID‐19 and classified according to severity as asymptomatic (16.2%), mild (59.6%), moderate (20.2%), and critical/severe (3.9%) cases. We analyzed patients in four groups in terms of ages: <4, 5‐9, 10–14, and 15–17 years. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of ∆C_t value among age groups, different gender and the existence of underlying diseases in each disease course. The ∆C_t values were relatively lower in the first 2 days of symptoms than after days in all groups. Our study has indicated that children with COVID‐19 have similar amount of viral load in all disease courses irrespective of the age and underlying disease. It should be taken into account that, regardless of the severity of the disease, pediatric patients may have a role in the transmission chain.

Children with COVID‐19 can carry similar amount of viral load in all disease courses irrespective of the age and underlying disease.

The viral load has no prediction utility in terms of the clinical course of children with COVID‐19.

Regardless of the severity of the disease, pediatric patients may have a role in the transmission chain.

Association of Gastrointestinal System With Severity and Mortality of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

At present, the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is causing a major pandemic. COVID-19 is caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In COVID-19, the patient usually presents with fever, dry cough, and respiratory manifestations. However, the involvement of other systems has also been reported in the literature. Abdominal pain, diarrhea, vomiting, and nausea are the predominant gastrointestinal (GI) manifestations underlined in the literature. We conducted a literature search using four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrials.gov). Our search strategy included Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords for COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, and GI system from inception to October 2020. After excluding duplicates, review articles, and non-relevant articles, we included 20 studies out of 842 articles reporting GI manifestations in COVID-19 patients. Using Cochrane RevMan version 5.4 (Cochrane, London, UK), a compute pooled analysis using a random-effect model was performed. Our study included 6,022 patients with a median age of 49.5 years. Pooled analysis via random effect model revealed an increased risk of severe COVID-19 in patients manifesting GI symptoms with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.07 (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.34-3.18) with I²=41%). Odds of mortality in COVID-19 with GI manifestation and hepatic abnormalities included 0.92 (95% CI: 0.50-1.69) (I²=57%) and 1.26 (95% CI: 0.67-2.37) (I²=0%), respectively. Severe COVID-19 may have a strong association with GI manifestations and have a significant impact on GI practice. Holistic knowledge of the spectrum of the GI consequences in COVID-19 is crucial to get a hold of virus spread. In this article, we have summarized the association of GI manifestations in severe COVID-19 patients.

Chest CT findings of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A comprehensive meta-analysis of 9907 confirmed patients

OBJECTIVES

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of chest CT findings in patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection.

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar to retrieve original studies on chest CT findings of patients with confirmed COVID-19, available up to 10 May 2020. Data on frequency and distribution of chest CT findings were extracted from eligible studies, pooled and meta-analyzed using random-effects model to calculate the prevalence of chest CT findings.

RESULTS

Overall, 103 studies (pooled population: 9907 confirmed COVID-19 patients) were meta-analyzed. The most common CT findings were ground-glass opacities (GGOs) (77.18%, 95%CI = 72.23-81.47), reticulations (46.24%, 95%CI = 38.51-54.14), and air bronchogram (41.61%, 95%CI = 32.78-51.01). Pleural thickening (33.35%, 95%CI = 21.89-47.18) and bronchial wall thickening (15.48%, 95%CI = 8.54-26.43) were major atypical and airway findings. Lesions were predominantly distributed bilaterally (75.72%, 95%CI = 70.79-80.06) and peripherally (65.64%, 95%CI = 58.21-72.36), while 8.20% (95%CI = 6.30-10.61) of patients had no abnormal findings and pre-existing lung diseases were present in 6.01% (95%CI = 4.37-8.23).

CONCLUSIONS

The most common CT findings in COVID-19 are GGOs with/without consolidation, reticulations, and air bronchogram, which often involve both lungs with peripheral distribution. However, COVID-19 might present with atypical manifestations or no abnormal findings in chest CT, which deserve clinicians' notice.

Gastrointestinal and hepatic manifestations of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and Aim

This review investigates the role of gastrointestinal and hepatic manifestations in COVID-19, particularly with regard to the prevalence of isolated gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library for COVID-19 publications from 1 December 2019 to 18 May 2020. We included any study that reported the presence of GI symptoms in a sample of >5 COVID-19 patients. Data collection and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Where ≥3 studies reported data sufficiently similar to allow calculation of a pooled prevalence, we performed random effects meta-analysis.

Results

This review included 17 776 COVID-19 patients from 108 studies. Isolated GI symptoms only occurred in 1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0-6%) of patients. GI symptoms were reported in 20% (95% CI 15-24%) of patients. The most common were anorexia (21%, 95% CI 15-27%), diarrhea (13%, 95% CI 11-16%), nausea or vomiting (8%, 95% CI 6-11%), and abdominal pain (4%, 95% CI 2-6%). Transaminase elevations were present in 24% (95% CI 17-31%) of patients. Higher prevalence of GI symptoms were reported in studies published after 1st April, with prevalence of diarrhea 16% (95% CI 13-20), nausea or vomiting 12% (95% CI 8-16%), and any GI symptoms 24% (95% CI 18-34%). GI symptoms were associated with severe COVID-19 disease (odds ratio [OR] 2.1, 95% CI 1.3-3.2), but not mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52-1.54).

Conclusions

Patients with isolated GI symptoms may represent a small but significant portion of COVID-19 cases. When testing resources are abundant, clinicians should still consider testing patients with isolated GI symptoms or unexplained transaminase elevations for COVID-19. More recent studies estimate higher overall GI involvement in COVID-19 than was previously recognized.

T Cells: Warriors of SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Severe infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2 is characterized by massive cytokine release and T cell loss. The exaggerated host immune response, incapable of viral clearance, instead aggravates respiratory distress, as well as cardiac, and/or damage to other organs. The mortality pattern of SARS-CoV-2 infection, higher in older versus younger adults and almost absent in children, is possibly caused by the effects of age and pre-existing comorbidities on innate and adaptive immunity. Here, we speculate that the abnormal and excessive immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection partly depends on T cell immunological memory, which is more pronounced in adults compared with children, and may significantly contribute to immunopathology and massive collateral damage in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.

A meta-analysis of accuracy and sensitivity of chest CT and RT-PCR in COVID-19 diagnosis

Nowadays there is an ongoing acute respiratory outbreak caused by the novel highly contagious coronavirus (COVID-19). The diagnostic protocol is based on quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and chests CT scan, with uncertain accuracy. This meta-analysis study determines the diagnostic value of an initial chest CT scan in patients with COVID-19 infection in comparison with RT-PCR. Three main databases; PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and EMBASE were systematically searched for all published literature from January 1st, 2019, to the 21st May 2020 with the keywords "COVID19 virus", "2019 novel coronavirus", "Wuhan coronavirus", "2019-nCoV", "X-Ray Computed Tomography", "Polymerase Chain Reaction", "Reverse Transcriptase PCR", and "PCR Reverse Transcriptase". All relevant case-series, cross-sectional, and cohort studies were selected. Data extraction and analysis were performed using STATA v.14.0SE (College Station, TX, USA) and RevMan 5. Among 1022 articles, 60 studies were eligible for totalizing 5744 patients. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of chest CT scan compared to RT-PCR were 87% (95% CI 85-90%), 46% (95% CI 29-63%), 69% (95% CI 56-72%), and 89% (95% CI 82-96%), respectively. It is important to rely on the repeated RT-PCR three times to give 99% accuracy, especially in negative samples. Regarding the overall diagnostic sensitivity of 87% for chest CT, the RT-PCR testing is essential and should be repeated to escape misdiagnosis.

Sharing CD4+ T Cell Loss: When COVID-19 and HIV Collide on Immune System

COVID-19 is a distinctive infection characterized by elevated inter-human transmission and presenting from absence of symptoms to severe cytokine storm that can lead to dismal prognosis. Like for HIV, lymphopenia and drastic reduction of CD4+ T cell counts in COVID-19 patients have been linked with poor clinical outcome. As CD4+ T cells play a critical role in orchestrating responses against viral infections, important lessons can be drawn by comparing T cell response in COVID-19 and in HIV infection and by studying HIV-infected patients who became infected by SARS-CoV-2. We critically reviewed host characteristics and hyper-inflammatory response in these two viral infections to have a better insight on the large difference in clinical outcome in persons being infected by SARS-CoV-2. The better understanding of mechanism of T cell dysfunction will contribute to the development of targeted therapy against severe COVID-19 and will help to rationally design vaccine involving T cell response for the long-term control of viral infection.

Retrospective study identifies infection related risk factors in close contacts during COVID-19 epidemic

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the risk of infection of children with that of adults and to explore risk factors of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) by following up close contacts of COVID-19 patients.

METHOD

The retrospective cohort study was performed among close contacts of index cases diagnosed with COVID-19 in Guangzhou, China. Demographic characteristics, clinical symptoms and exposure information were extracted. Logistic regression analysis was employed to explore the risk factors. The restricted cubic spline was conducted to examine to the dose-response relationship between age and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

RESULTS

The secondary attack rate (SAR) was 4.4% in 1,344 close contacts. The group of household contacts (17.2%) had the highest SAR. The rare-frequency contact (p < 0.001) and moderate-frequency contact (p < 0.001) were associated with lower risk of infection. Exposure to index cases with dry cough symptoms was associated with infection in close contacts (p = 0.004). Compared with children, adults had a significantly increased risk of infection (p = 0.014). There is a linear positive correlation between age and infection (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Children are probably less susceptible to COVID-19. Close contacts with frequent contact with patients and those exposed to patients with cough symptoms are associated with an increased risk of infection.

Risk Factors Associated With In-Hospital Mortality in a US National Sample of Patients With COVID-19

IMPORTANCE

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected more than 8.1 million US residents and killed more than 221 000. There is a dearth of research on epidemiology and clinical outcomes in US patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To characterize patients with COVID-19 treated in US hospitals and to examine risk factors associated with in-hospital mortality.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study was conducted using Premier Healthcare Database, a large geographically diverse all-payer hospital administrative database including 592 acute care hospitals in the United States. Inpatient and hospital-based outpatient visits with a principal or secondary discharge diagnosis of COVID-19 (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code, U07.1) between April 1 and May 31, 2020, were included.

EXPOSURES

Characteristics of patients were reported by inpatient/outpatient and survival status. Risk factors associated with death examined included patient characteristics, acute complications, comorbidities, and medications.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

In-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, total hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, acute complications, and treatment patterns.

RESULTS

Overall, 64 781 patients with COVID-19 (29 479 [45.5%] outpatients; 35 302 [54.5%] inpatients) were analyzed. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 46 (33-59) years for outpatients and 65 (52-77) years for inpatients; 31 968 (49.3%) were men, 25 841 (39.9%) were White US residents, and 14 340 (22.1%) were Black US residents. In-hospital mortality was 20.3% among inpatients (7164 patients). A total of 5625 inpatients (15.9%) received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 6849 (19.4%) were admitted to the ICU. Median (IQR) inpatient LOS was 6 (3-10) days. Median (IQR) ICU LOS was 5 (2-10) days. Common acute complications among inpatients included acute respiratory failure (19 706 [55.8%]), acute kidney failure (11 971 [33.9%]), and sepsis (11 910 [33.7%]). Older age was the risk factor most strongly associated with death (eg, age ≥80 years vs 18-34 years: odds ratio [OR], 16.20; 95% CI, 11.58-22.67; P < .001). Receipt of statins (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.56-0.65; P < .001), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.46-0.60; P < .001), and calcium channel blockers (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.68-0.79; P < .001) was associated with decreased odds of death. Compared with patients with no hydroxychloroquine or azithromycin, patients with both azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine had increased odds of death (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.31; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study of patients with COVID-19 infection in US acute care hospitals, COVID-19 was associated with high ICU admission and in-hospital mortality rates. Use of statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and calcium channel blockers were associated with decreased odds of death. Understanding the potential benefits of unproven treatments will require future randomized trials.

Emergency Nursing Care of Patients With Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019

Novel coronavirus disease 2019 is the disease caused by the novel coronavirus originally from Wuhan, China. Its pathophysiology is poorly understood, but it is known to be contagious and deadly. Multiple symptoms and complications from the disease have been described, with the most common complaints being respiratory. Nursing care of patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 is largely supportive, but it should include a strong focus on mitigating the spread of infection to staff, other patients, and the community.

Emergency Department Management of COVID-19: An Evidence-Based Approach

The novel coronavirus, SARs-CoV-2, causes a clinical disease known as COVID-19. Since being declared a global pandemic, a significant amount of literature has been produced and guidelines are rapidly changing as more light is shed on this subject. Decisions regarding disposition must be made with attention to comorbidities. Multiple comorbidities portend a worse prognosis. Many clinical decision tools have been postulated; however, as of now, none have been validated. Laboratory testing available to the emergency physician is nonspecific but does show promise in helping prognosticate and risk stratify. Radiographic testing can also aid in the process. Escalating oxygen therapy seems to be a safe and effective therapy; delaying intubation for only the most severe cases in which respiratory muscle fatigue or mental status demands this. Despite thrombotic concerns in COVID-19, the benefit of anticoagulation in the emergency department (ED) seems to be minimal. Data regarding adjunctive therapies such as steroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories are variable with no concrete recommendations, although steroids may decrease mortality in those patients developing acute respiratory distress syndrome. With current guidelines in mind, we propose a succinct flow sheet for both the escalation of oxygen therapy as well as ED management and disposition of these patients.

Biomarkers associated with COVID-19 disease progression

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a scientific, medical, and social challenge. The complexity of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is centered on the unpredictable clinical course of the disease that can rapidly develop, causing severe and deadly complications. The identification of effective laboratory biomarkers able to classify patients based on their risk is imperative in being able to guarantee prompt treatment. The analysis of recently published studies highlights the role of systemic vasculitis and cytokine mediated coagulation disorders as the principal actors of multi organ failure in patients with severe COVID-19 complications. The following biomarkers have been identified: hematological (lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR)), inflammatory (C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), procalcitonin (PCT)), immunological (interleukin (IL)-6 and biochemical (D-dimer, troponin, creatine kinase (CK), aspartate aminotransferase (AST)), especially those related to coagulation cascades in disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). New laboratory biomarkers could be identified through the accurate analysis of multicentric case series; in particular, homocysteine and angiotensin II could play a significant role.

A Systematic Review of the Clinical Utility of Cycle Threshold Values in the Context of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The ability to predict likely prognosis and infectiousness for patients with COVID-19 would aid patient management decisions. Diagnosis is usually via real-time PCR, and it is unclear whether the semi-quantitative capability of this method, determining viral load through cycle threshold (Ct) values, can be leveraged.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to review available knowledge on correlations between SARS-COV-2 Ct values and patient- or healthcare-related outcomes to determine whether Ct values provide useful clinical information.

SOURCES

A PubMed search was conducted on 1 June 2020 based on a search strategy of (Ct value OR viral load) AND SARS-CoV-2. Data were extracted from studies reporting on the presence or absence of an association between Ct values, or viral loads determined via Ct value, and clinical outcomes.

CONTENT

Data from 18 studies were relevant for inclusion. One study reported on the correlation between Ct values and mortality and one study reported on the correlation between Ct values and progression to severe disease; both reported a significant association (p < 0.001 and p = 0.008, respectively). Fourteen studies reported on the correlation between Ct value or viral loads determined via Ct value and disease severity, and an association was observed in eight (57%) studies. Studies reporting on the correlation of viral load with biochemical and haematological markers showed an association with at least one marker, including increased lactate dehydrogenase (n = 4), decreased lymphocytes (n = 3) and increased high-sensitivity troponin I (n = 2). Two studies reporting on the correlation with infectivity showed that lower Ct values were associated with higher viral culture positivity.

IMPLICATIONS

Data suggest that lower Ct values may be associated with worse outcomes and that Ct values may be useful in predicting the clinical course and prognosis of patients with COVID-19; however, further studies are warranted to confirm clinical value.

Development of minimal basic data set to report COVID-19

Background: Effective surveillance of COVID-19 highlights the importance of rapid, valid, and standardized information to crisis monitoring and prompts clinical interventions. Minimal basic data set (MBDS) is a set of metrics to be collated in a standard approach to allow aggregated use of data for clinical purposes and research. Data standardization enables accurate comparability of collected data, and accordingly, enhanced generalization of findings. The aim of this study is to establish a core set of data to characterize COVID-19 to consolidate clinical practice. Methods: A 3-step sequential approach was used in this study: (1) an elementary list of data were collected from the existing information systems and data sets; (2) a systematic literature review was conducted to extract evidence supporting the development of MBDS; and (3) a 2-round Delphi survey was done for reaching consensus on data elements to include in COVID-19 MBDS and for its robust validation. Results: In total, 643 studies were identified, of which 38 met the inclusion criteria, where a total of 149 items were identified in the data sources. The data elements were classified by 3 experts and validated via a 2-round Delphi procedure. Finally, 125 data elements were confirmed as the MBDS. Conclusion: The development of COVID-19 MBDS could provide a basis for meaningful evaluations, reporting, and benchmarking COVID-19 disease across regions and countries. It could also provide scientific collaboration for care providers in the field, which may lead to improved quality of documentation, clinical care, and research outcomes.

COVID-19: pathophysiology, diagnosis, complications and investigational therapeutics

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak started in early December 2019 in the capital city of Wuhan, Hubei province, People's Republic of China, and caused a global pandemic. The number of patients confirmed to have this disease has exceeded 9 million in more than 215 countries, and more than 480 600 have died as of 25 June 2020. Coronaviruses were identified in the 1960s and have recently been identified as the cause of a Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV) outbreak in 2012 and a severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2003. The current SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the most recently identified. Patients with COVID-19 may be asymptomatic. Typical symptoms include fever, dry cough and shortness of breath. Gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and diarrhoea have been reported; neurologically related symptoms, particularly anosmia, hyposmia and dysgeusia, have also been reported. Physical examination may find fever in over 44% of patients (and could be documented in over 88% of patients after admission), increased respiratory rate, acute respiratory disease and maybe decreased consciousness, agitation and confusion. This article aims at presenting an up-to-date review on the pathogenesis, diagnosis and complications of COVID-19 infection. Currently no therapeutics have been found to be effective. Investigational therapeutics are briefly discussed.

High neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic marker in COVID-19 patients

Systemic inflammation has been reported as a new predictor for COVID-19 outcomes. Thus, we highlight in this viewpoint the importance of the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in COVID-19 pandemic-infected patients.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: liver manifestations and outcomes in COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The incidence of elevated liver chemistries and the presence of pre-existing chronic liver disease (CLD) have been variably reported in COVID-19.

AIMS

To assess the prevalence of CLD, the incidence of elevated liver chemistries and the outcomes of patients with and without underlying CLD/elevated liver chemistries in COVID-19.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of electronic databases from 1 December 2019 to 24 April 2020 was done. We included studies reporting underlying CLD or elevated liver chemistries and patient outcomes in COVID-19.

RESULTS

107 articles (n = 20 874 patients) were included for the systematic review. The pooled prevalence of underlying CLD was 3.6% (95% CI, 2.5-5.1) among the 15 407 COVID-19 patients. The pooled incidence of elevated liver chemistries in COVID-19 was 23.1% (19.3-27.3) at initial presentation. Additionally, 24.4% (13.5-40) developed elevated liver chemistries during the illness. The pooled incidence of drug-induced liver injury was 25.4% (14.2-41.4). The pooled prevalence of CLD among 1587 severely infected patients was 3.9% (3%-5.2%). The odds of developing severe COVID-19 in CLD patients was 0.81 (0.31-2.09; P = 0.67) compared to non-CLD patients. COVID-19 patients with elevated liver chemistries had increased risk of mortality (OR-3.46 [2.42-4.95, P < 0.001]) and severe disease (OR-2.87 [95% CI, 2.29-3.6, P < 0.001]) compared to patients without elevated liver chemistries.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated liver chemistries are common at presentation and during COVID-19. The severity of elevated liver chemistries correlates with the outcome of COVID-19. The presence of CLD does not alter the outcome of COVID-19. Further studies are needed to analyse the outcomes of compensated and decompensated liver disease.

Prevalence and Mortality of COVID-19 Patients With Gastrointestinal Symptoms: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the prevalence of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosed.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus was performed from December 1, 2019 to May 7, 2020. Observational studies including adults with COVID-19 infection and reporting GI symptoms were included. The primary outcome was assessing the weighted pooled prevalence (WPP) of GI symptoms in patients with COVID-19 infection. Secondary outcomes were WPP of overall mortality, and mortality in patients with COVID-19 infection with GI symptoms.

RESULTS

A total of 78 studies with 12,797 patients were included. Among GI symptoms (at onset of illness in 6, at admission in 17, data given separately for both in 3, and data unavailable in 52 studies), the WPP of diarrhea was 12.4% (95% CI, 8.2% to 17.1%), I2=94%; nausea and/or vomiting, 9.0% (95% CI, 5.5% to 12.9%), I2=93%; loss of appetite, 22.3% (95% CI, 11.2% to 34.6%, I2=94%; and abdominal pain, 6.2% (95% CI, 2.6% to 10.3%), I2=92%. Mortality among patients with GI symptoms (0.4%; 95% CI, 0% to 1.1%; I2=74%) was similar to overall mortality (2.1%; 95% CI, 0.2% to 4.7%; I2=94%), P=.15. Most studies had high risk of bias and overall quality of evidence was low to very low for all outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Gastrointestinal symptoms are seen in up to 1 in 5 patients with COVID-19 infection. More high-quality evidence is needed to confirm these findings and explore factors causing mortality in these patients.

COVID-19 exposure risk for family members of healthcare workers: An observational study

BACKGROUND

Many publications have considered the exposure risk to COVID-19 of the general population and healthcare workers. However, no available papers have discussed the risk of exposure by family members of health care workers.

AIMS

The present study collected data on SARS-COV-2 positive family members (FM) of health care workers (HW) using serological rapid IgM/IgG tests (SRT), compared to positive HWs on SRT and serological quantitative IgG tests (SQT).

METHODS

The study was conducted from May 2 to 31, 2020. Thirty-eight HWs were tested by both SRT and SQT; 81 FMs were screened using SRT. Descriptive statistical analyses were used to summarize the data.

RESULTS

Of the 38 HWs, two (5,3%) showed an IgG line on SRT, confirmed by SQT. Thirty-two HWs decided on self-isolation from the family during the SARS-COV-2 spread. Out of 81 FMs, 26 (32,1%) were found IgG positive on SRT. Eleven (42%) of them had symptoms typical for COVID-19, during the study period. In two families, the HWs were the only negative cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The general population's exposure to COVID-19 is less controlled than that of HWs. HWs experienced a lower infection rate than their families and did not represent a main transmission risk for relatives.

Use of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte and Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratios in COVID-19

BACKGROUND

As the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues, prognostic markers are now being identified. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) are easily accessible values that have been known to correlate with inflammation and prognosis in several conditions. We used the available data to identify the association of NLR and PLR with the severity of COVID-19.

METHODS

A literature search using EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar for studies reporting the use of NLR and PLR in COVID-19 published until April 28, 2020, was performed. Random effects meta-analysis was done to estimate standard mean difference (SMD) of NLR and PLR values with 95% confidence interval (CI) between severe and non-severe COVID-19 cases.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies with 3,508 patients were included. Nineteen studies reported NLR values, while five studies reported PLR values between severe and non-severe COVID-19 patients. Higher levels of NLR (SMD: 2.80, 95% CI: 2.12 - 3.48, P < 0.00001) and PLR (SMD: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.03 - 2.61, P < 0.00001)) were seen in patients with severe disease compared to non-severe disease.

CONCLUSIONS

NLR and PLR can be used as independent prognostic markers of disease severity in COVID-19.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify current infection, rule out infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 aim to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and may help to confirm the presence of current infection.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has SARS-CoV-2 infection, or has previously had SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the accuracy of antibody tests for use in seroprevalence surveys.

SEARCH METHODS

We undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 27 April 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antibody tests (including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, chemiluminescence immunoassays, and lateral flow assays) in people suspected of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We also included studies of people either known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR) and clinical diagnostic criteria).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed possible bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We extracted 2x2 contingency table data and present sensitivity and specificity for each antibody (or combination of antibodies) using paired forest plots. We pooled data using random-effects logistic regression where appropriate, stratifying by time since post-symptom onset. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. We have presented uncertainty in estimates of sensitivity and specificity using 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 57 publications reporting on a total of 54 study cohorts with 15,976 samples, of which 8526 were from cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studies were conducted in Asia (n = 38), Europe (n = 15), and the USA and China (n = 1). We identified data from 25 commercial tests and numerous in-house assays, a small fraction of the 279 antibody assays listed by the Foundation for Innovative Diagnostics. More than half (n = 28) of the studies included were only available as preprints. We had concerns about risk of bias and applicability. Common issues were use of multi-group designs (n = 29), inclusion of only COVID-19 cases (n = 19), lack of blinding of the index test (n = 49) and reference standard (n = 29), differential verification (n = 22), and the lack of clarity about participant numbers, characteristics and study exclusions (n = 47). Most studies (n = 44) only included people hospitalised due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. There were no studies exclusively in asymptomatic participants. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 33) defined COVID-19 cases based on RT-PCR results alone, ignoring the potential for false-negative RT-PCR results. We observed evidence of selective publication of study findings through omission of the identity of tests (n = 5). We observed substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgA, IgM and IgG antibodies, or combinations thereof, for results aggregated across different time periods post-symptom onset (range 0% to 100% for all target antibodies). We thus based the main results of the review on the 38 studies that stratified results by time since symptom onset. The numbers of individuals contributing data within each study each week are small and are usually not based on tracking the same groups of patients over time. Pooled results for IgG, IgM, IgA, total antibodies and IgG/IgM all showed low sensitivity during the first week since onset of symptoms (all less than 30.1%), rising in the second week and reaching their highest values in the third week. The combination of IgG/IgM had a sensitivity of 30.1% (95% CI 21.4 to 40.7) for 1 to 7 days, 72.2% (95% CI 63.5 to 79.5) for 8 to 14 days, 91.4% (95% CI 87.0 to 94.4) for 15 to 21 days. Estimates of accuracy beyond three weeks are based on smaller sample sizes and fewer studies. For 21 to 35 days, pooled sensitivities for IgG/IgM were 96.0% (95% CI 90.6 to 98.3). There are insufficient studies to estimate sensitivity of tests beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. Summary specificities (provided in 35 studies) exceeded 98% for all target antibodies with confidence intervals no more than 2 percentage points wide. False-positive results were more common where COVID-19 had been suspected and ruled out, but numbers were small and the difference was within the range expected by chance. Assuming a prevalence of 50%, a value considered possible in healthcare workers who have suffered respiratory symptoms, we would anticipate that 43 (28 to 65) would be missed and 7 (3 to 14) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG/IgM testing at days 15 to 21 post-symptom onset. At a prevalence of 20%, a likely value in surveys in high-risk settings, 17 (11 to 26) would be missed per 1000 people tested and 10 (5 to 22) would be falsely positive. At a lower prevalence of 5%, a likely value in national surveys, 4 (3 to 7) would be missed per 1000 tested, and 12 (6 to 27) would be falsely positive. Analyses showed small differences in sensitivity between assay type, but methodological concerns and sparse data prevent comparisons between test brands.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT-PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease. The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID-19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID-19-positive cases who are RT-PCR-negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT-PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast-moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review.

Design and development of a web-based registry for Coronavirus (COVID-19) disease

Background: The 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) is a highly contagious disease associated with a high morbidity and mortality worldwide. The accumulation of data through a prospective clinical registry enables public health authorities to make informed decisions based on real evidence obtained from surveillance of COVID-19. This registry is also fundamental to providing robust infrastructure for future research surveys. The purpose of this study was to design a registry and its minimum data set (MDS), as a valid and reliable data source for reporting and benchmarking COVID-19. Methods: This cross sectional and descriptive study provides a template for the required MDS to be included in COVID-19 registry. This was done by an extensive literature review and 2 round Delphi survey to validate the content, which resulted in a web-based registry created by Visual Studio 2019 and a database designed by Structured Query Language (SQL). Results: The MDS of COVID-19 registry was categorized into the administrative part with 3 sections, including 30 data elements, and the clinical part with 4 sections, including 26 data elements. Furthermore, a web-based registry with modular and layered architecture was designed based on final data classes and elements. Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, COVID-19 registry is the first designed instrument from information management perspectives in Iran and can become a homogenous and reliable infrastructure for collecting data on COVID-19. We hope this approach will facilitate epidemiological surveys and support policymakers to better plan for monitoring patients with COVID-19.

Immune-Inflammatory Parameters in COVID-19 Cases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The recent outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been rapidly spreading on a global scale and poses a great threat to human health. Acute respiratory distress syndrome, characterized by a rapid onset of generalized inflammation, is the leading cause of mortality in patients with COVID-19. We thus aimed to explore the effect of risk factors on the severity of the disease, focusing on immune-inflammatory parameters, which represent the immune status of patients. Methods: A comprehensive systematic search for relevant studies published up to April 2020 was performed by using the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI) databases. After extracting all available data of immune-inflammatory indicators, we statistically analyzed the risk factors of severe and non-severe COVID-19 patients with a meta-analysis. Results: A total of 4,911 patients from 29 studies were included in the final meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that severe patients tend to present with increased white blood cell (WBC) and neutrophil counts, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), procalcitonin (PCT), C-reaction protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and Interleukin-6 (IL-6) and a decreased number of total lymphocyte and lymphocyte subtypes, such as CD4+ T lymphocyte and CD8+ T lymphocyte, compared to the non-severe patients. In addition, the WBC count>10 × 109/L, lymphocyte count<1 × 109/L, PCT>0.5 ng/mL, and CRP>10 mg/L were risk factors for disease progression in patients with COVID-19 (WBC count>10 × 109/L: OR = 2.92, 95% CI: 1.96-4.35; lymphocyte count<1 × 109/L: OR = 4.97, 95% CI: 3.53-6.99; PCT>0.5 ng/mL: OR = 6.33, 95% CI: 3.97-10.10; CRP>10 mg/L: OR = 3.51, 95% CI: 2.38-5.16). Furthermore, we found that NLR, as a novel marker of systemic inflammatory response, can also help predict clinical severity in patients with COVID-19 (OR = 2.50, 95% CI: 2.04-3.06). Conclusions: Immune-inflammatory parameters, such as WBC, lymphocyte, PCT, CRP, and NLR, could imply the progression of COVID-19. NLR has taken both the levels of neutrophil and lymphocyte into account, indicating a more complete, accurate, and reliable inspection efficiency; surveillance of NLR may help clinicians identify high-risk COVID-19 patients at an early stage.