| Literature DB >> 27716101 |
Hui Wang1, XinCai Xiao1, Jianyun Lu1, Zongqiu Chen1, Kuibiao Li1, Hui Liu1, Lei Luo1, Ming Wang1, ZhiCong Yang2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guangzhou reported its first laboratory-confirmed case of influenza A (H7N9) on January 10, 2014. A total of 25 cases were reported from the first wave of the epidemic until April 8, 2014. The fatality rate was much higher than in previous reports. The objective of the current work was to describe the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of A (H7N9) patients in Guangzhou and explore possible reasons for the high fatality rate.Entities:
Keywords: Avian influenza; Clinical characteristic; H7N9 subtype
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27716101 PMCID: PMC5048464 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-016-1840-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of 25 patients with laboratory-confirmed influenza A (H7N9) virus infection in Guangzhou
| Characteristic | Case | Percent (%) | Death (%) | ARDS (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fatal ( | Non-fatal ( |
| No ( | Yes ( |
| |||
| Age (median,range) | 65 | 4–88 | 71.5 (55–83) | 45 (4–88) | 0.139 | 55 (5–79) | 65 (59–78 | 0.317 |
| Sex | ||||||||
| Male | 16 | 64.0 | 10 (71.4) | 6 (54.5) | 0.434 | 5 (50.0) | 11 (73.3) | 0.397 |
| Female | 9 | 36.0 | 4 (28.6) | 5 (45.5) | 5 (50.0) | 4 (26.7) | ||
| Type of residence | ||||||||
| Urban | 13 | 52 | 8 (57.1) | 5 (45.5) | 0.695 | 5 (50.0) | 8 (53.3) | 1.000 |
| Rural | 12 | 48 | 6 (42.9) | 6 (54.5) | 5 (50.0) | 7 (46.7) | ||
| Required mechanical ventilation | 21 | 84.0 | ||||||
| invasive | 10 | 40.0 | 6 (42.9) | 4 (36.4) | 0.040 | 2 (20.0) | 8 (53.3) | 0.023 |
| Non-invasive* | 11 | 44.0 | 8 (57.1) | 3 (27.3) | 4 (40.0) | 7 (46.7) | ||
| Not required | 4 | 16 | 0 (0.0) | 4 (36.4) | 4 (40.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Underlying diseases (Yes) | 21 | 84.0 | 12 (85.7) | 9 (81.8) | 1.000 | 8 (80.0) | 13 (86.7 | 1.000 |
| Any chronic respiratory disease | 3 | 12.0 | 2 (14.3) | 1 (9.1) | 1.000 | 2 (20.0) | 1 (6.7) | 0.543 |
| Any chronic gastrointestinal disease | 5 | 20.0 | 2 (14.3) | 3 (27.3) | 0.623 | 3 (30.0) | 2 (13.3) | 0.358 |
| Any chronic cardiovascular disease | 14 | 56.0 | 10 (71.4) | 4 (36.4) | 0.116 | 3 (30.0) | 11 (73.3) | 0.049 |
| Any Nutritional and metabolic diseases | 11 | 44.0 | 7 (50.0) | 4 (36.4) | 0.689 | 3 (30.0) | 8 (53.3) | 0.414 |
*Using continuous positive airway pressure to provide ventilatory support without an invasive artificial airway
Fig. 1Initial symptoms of 25 patents with confirmed H7N9 virus infection in Guangzhou
Medical care Timelines and Clinical Characteresitic of 25 patents with confirmed A (H7N9) virus infection in Guangzhou
| Clinical characteristic | Median | Range | Death (Range) | ARDS (Range) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fatal ( | Nonfatal ( |
| No ( | Yes ( |
| |||
| Time from illness onset to first medical care (days) | 1 | 0–7 | 1.5 (0–6) | 1 (0–7) | 0.972 | 0.5 (0–4) | 2 (0–7) | 0.059 |
| Time from illness onset to hospitalization (days) | 4 | 0–14 | 4.5 (0–14) | 4 (0–7) | 0.783 | 3.5 (0–7) | 5 (0–14) | 0.109 |
| Time from illness onset to Confirmation (days) | 7 | 1–14 | 7 (3–14) | 7 (1–13) | 0.075 | 6 (1–13) | 7 (3–14) | 0.485 |
| Time from illness onset to oseltamivir treatment (days) | 5 | 0–11 | 6 (0–11) | 4 (0–8) | 0.802 | 4 (0–7) | 6 (0–11) | 0.024 |
| Time of sustained viral sheddinga (days) | 3 | 1–21 | 2 (2–11) | 3 (1–16) | 0.42 | 3 (2–13) | 2 (0–21) | 0.199 |
| Time from illness onset to development of ARDS (days) | 7 | 2–14 | 7.5 (2–14) | 7 (6–8) | 0.661 | |||
| Time from illness onset to development of death (days) | 10 | 2–70 | ||||||
aPatients were followed daily in throat swabs or endotracheal secretions in intubated patients by RT-PCR
Clinical characteristics of 25 patents with confirmed A (H7N9) virus infection in Guangzhou and 16 healthy controls
| Clinical characteristic | Health controls | Percent (%) | Case | Percent (%) |
| Death (%) | ARDS (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fatal ( | Nonfatal ( |
| No ( | Yes ( |
| ||||||
| Elevated CRP | 21 | 84 | 14 (100.0) | 7 (63.6) | 0.026 | 6 (60) | 15 (100) | 0.017 | |||
| Leukopenia | 0 | 0.0 | 9 | 36 | 0.024 | 6 (42.9) | 3 (27.3) | 0.667 | 3 (30.0) | 6 (40.0) | 0.691 |
| Lymphocytopenia | 11 | 68.8 | 20 | 80 | 0.472 | 13 (92.9) | 7 (63.6) | 0.096 | 5 (50) | 15 (100) | 0.005 |
| Thrombocytopenia | 0 | 0.0 | 5 | 20 | 0.374 | 3 (21.4) | 2 (18.2) | 1.000 | 1 (10.0) | 4 (26.7) | 0.615 |
| Neutropenia | 1 | 6.3 | 6 | 24 | 0.215 | 4 (28.6) | 2 (18.2) | 0.664 | 3 (30.0) | 3 (20.0) | 0.653 |
| Neutrophilia | 10 | 62.5 | 7 | 28 | 0.029 | 6 (42.9) | 1 (9.1) | 0.090 | 1 (10.0) | 6 (40.0 %) | 0.179 |
| Elevated TT | 0 | 0.0 | 7 | 28 | 0.114 | 5 (35.7) | 2 (18.2) | 0.407 | 1 (10.0) | 6 (40.0) | 0.179 |
| Elevated APTT | 1 | 6.3 | 13 | 52 | 0.002 | 9 (64.3) | 4 (36.4) | 0.238 | 4 (40.0) | 9 (60.0) | 0.428 |
| Elevated ALT | 2 | 12.5 | 10 | 40 | 0.084 | 6 (42.9) | 4 (36.4) | 1.000 | 2 (28.6) | 8 (53.3) | 0.211 |
| Elevated AST | 3 | 18.8 | 18 | 72 | 0.001 | 11 (78.6) | 7 (63.6) | 0.656 | 4 (40.0) | 14 (93.3) | 0.007 |
| Elevated LDH | 5 | 31.3 | 20 | 80 | 0.002 | 12 (85.7) | 8 (72.7) | 0.623 | 6 (60.0) | 14 (93.3) | 0.121 |
| Elevated CK | 3 | 18.8 | 15 | 60 | 0.009 | 10 (71.4) | 5 (45.5) | 0.241 | 2 (20.0) | 13 (86.7) | 0.002 |
| Elevated CRE | 0 | 0.0 | 8 | 32 | 0.060 | 6 (42.9) | 2 (18.2) | 0.234 | 2 (20.0) | 6 (40.0) | 0.402 |
aInformation was not available for CRP
* P value for the comparison between A (H7N9) patients and healthy-controls
Lymphocyte subsets of patents with confirmed A (H7N9) virus infection in Guangzhou
| Lymphocyte subsetsa | Case ( | Percent (%) | Death (%) | ARDS (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fatal ( | Nonfatal ( |
| No ( | Yes ( |
| |||
| Decreased CD3+ T lymphocyte | 15 | 60.0 | 11 (78.6) | 4 (36.4) | 0.179 | 3 (30.0) | 12 (80.0) | 0.023 |
| Decreased CD4+ T lymphocyte | 13 | 52.0 | 9 (64.3) | 4 (36.4) | 0.417 | 3 (30.0) | 10 (66.7) | 0.102 |
| Decreased CD8+ T lymphocyte | 15 | 60.0 | 11 (78.6) | 4 (36.4) | 0.179 | 3 (30.0) | 12 (80.0) | 0.023 |
aThe information of 2 patients was missing
Fig. 2Targeted surveillance for A (H7N9) patients in Guangzhou
Comparison between influenza A (H7N9) patients in Guangzhou and in the first epidemic wave in other places of China
| Characteristic | Guangzhou ( | First wave case | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case/Days | Percentage/ Ranges | Case/Days | Percentage/ Ranges | |
| Agea | ||||
| <65 years | 12 | 48 | 64 | 57.7 |
| ≥ 65 years | 13 | 52 | 47 | 42.3 |
| Underlying diseasea | 21 | 84 | 68 | 61.3 |
| ARDSa | 20 | 80 | 79 | 71.7 |
| Time from illness onset to first medical care (days)# | 1 | 0–4 | 1 | 0–3 |
| Time from illness onset to hospitalization (days)# | 4 | 1–7 | 4 | 3–6 |
| Time from illness onset to oseltamivir treatment (days)# | 5 | 3–7 | 6 | 5–9 |
| Time from illness onset to development of ARDS (days)# | 7 | 6–8 | 7 | 5–9 |
aCase and Percentage
#Days and Ranges