| Literature DB >> 32589691 |
Xinkui Liu1, Xinpei Yue1, Furong Liu1, Le Wei1, Yuntian Chu2, Honghong Bao1, Yichao Dong1, Wenjie Cheng1, Linpeng Yang1.
Abstract
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. Although previous studies have described the clinical aspects of COVID-19, few studies have focused on the early detection of severe COVID-19. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the predictors of severe COVID-19 and to compare clinical features between patients with severe COVID-19 and those with less severe COVID-19. Patients admitted to designated hospital in the Henan Province of China who were either discharged or died prior to February 15, 2020 were enrolled retrospectively. Additionally, patients who underwent at least one of the following treatments were assigned to the severe group: continuous renal replacement therapy, high-flow oxygen absorption, noninvasive and invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The remaining patients were assigned to the non-severe group. Demographic information, initial symptoms, and first visit examination results were collected from the electronic medical records and compared between the groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the predictors of severe COVID-19. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to identify a threshold for each predictor. Altogether,104 patients were enrolled in our study with 30 and 74 patients in the severe and non-severe groups, respectively. Multivariate logistic analysis indicated that patients aged ≥63 years (odds ratio = 41.0; 95% CI: 2.8, 592.4), with an absolute lymphocyte value of ≤1.02×109/L (odds ratio = 6.1; 95% CI = 1.5, 25.2) and a C-reactive protein level of ≥65.08mg/L (odds ratio = 8.9; 95% CI = 1.0, 74.2) were at a higher risk of severe illness. Thus, our results could be helpful in the early detection of patients at risk for severe illness, enabling the implementation of effective interventions and likely lowering the morbidity of COVID-19 patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32589691 PMCID: PMC7319317 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235459
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Baseline demographics and epidemiological and clinical status of participants.
| Basic information | Statistics | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All patients | Non-severe group | Severe group | ||
| Age, median (IQR) | 42.0 (31.0–55.0) | 40.0 (32.0–55.0) | 55.0 (31.0–72.0) | 0.005 |
| Sex | 0.509 | |||
| Male, n (%) | 63(60.6) | 43 (58.1) | 20 (66.7) | - |
| Female, n (%) | 41(39.4) | 31 (41.9) | 10 (33.3) | - |
| Exposure history | ||||
| Travelling in Wuhan, n (%) | 84 (80.8) | 65 (87.8) | 19 (63.3) | 0.006 |
| Contact with patient in Wuhan, n (%) | 38 (36.5) | 31 (41.9) | 7 (23.3) | 0.115 |
| Clustered onset, n (%) | 17 (16.3) | 13 (17.6) | 4 (13.3) | 0.772 |
| Contact with COVID-19, n (%) | 24 (23.1) | 17 (23.0) | 7 (23.3) | 1.000 |
| Unknown exposure, n (%) | 6 (5.8) | 0 (0.0) | 6 (20%) | <0.001 |
| Incubation period, n (min-max) | 5.0 (3.0–9.0) | 5.0 (2.0–9.0) | 5.0 (3.0–8.0) | 0.956 |
| Comorbidity, n (%) | 29 (27.9) | 16 (21.6) | 13 (43.3) | 0.032 |
| Respiratory disease, n (%) | 10 (9.6) | 6 (8.1) | 4 (13.3) | 0.426 |
| Metabolic disease, n (%) | 12 (11.5) | 6 (8.1) | 6 (20.0) | 0.099 |
| Cardiovascular disease, n (%) | 23 (22.1) | 12 (16.2) | 11 (36.7) | 0.036 |
| Neurological disease, n (%) | 1 (1.0) | 1 (1.4) | 0 (0.0) | 1.000 |
| Others, n (%) | 2 (1.9) | 1 (1.4) | 1 (3.3) | 0.496 |
| Symptoms | ||||
| Fever, n (%) | 96 (92.3) | 66 (89.2) | 30 (100) | 0.065 |
| Fatigue, n (%) | 50 (48.1) | 37 (50.0) | 13 (43.3) | 0.665 |
| Cough, n (%) | 66 (63.5) | 45 (60.8) | 21 (70.0) | 0.501 |
| Expectoration, n (%) | 33 (31.7) | 24 (32.4) | 9 (30.0) | 0.822 |
| Asthma, n (%) | 12 (11.5) | 6 (8.1) | 6 (20.0) | 0.099 |
| Nasal obstruction, n (%) | 7 (6.7) | 4 (5.4) | 3 (10.0) | 0.670 |
| Runny nose, n (%) | 9 (8.7) | 6 (8.1) | 3 (10.0) | 1.000 |
| Pharyngalgia, n (%) | 15(14.4) | 13 (17.6) | 2(6.7) | 0.221 |
| Chest distress, n (%) | 22 (21.2) | 13 (17.6) | 9 (30.0) | 0.189 |
| Headache, n (%) | 11 (10.6) | 8 (10.8) | 3(10.0) | 1.000 |
| Dizziness, n (%) | 9 (8.7) | 7 (9.5) | 2 (6.7) | 0.726 |
| Poor appetite, n (%) | 13 (12.5) | 9 (2.2) | 4 (13.3) | 1.000 |
| Diarrhea, n (%) | 7 (6.7) | 5 (6.8) | 2 (6.7) | 1.000 |
| Muscle and joint pain, n (%) | 15 (14.4) | 9 (12.2) | 6 (20.0) | 0.359 |
| Dyspnea, n (%) | 9 (8.7) | 2 (2.7) | 7 (23.3) | 0.001 |
aQuantitative data are expressed as median and interquartile range (IQR); qualitative data are expressed as count and percentages.
Initial laboratory results of COVID-19 patients.
| Index | Median (IQR) | P | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Patients | Non-severe Group | Severe Group | ||
| Blood routine testing | ||||
| Leukocyte count, 10^9/L | 4.78 (3.37–6.30) | 4.78 (3.35–6.17) | 4.55 (3.78–7.58) | 0.299 |
| RBC count, 10^12/L | 4.50 (4.08–4.91) | 4.51 (4.86–4.08) | 4.47 (4.06–5.00) | 0.553 |
| Platelet count, 10^9/L | 172.50 (139.00–206.00) | 174.50 (141.25–206.00) | 156.50 (130.75–207.25) | 0.581 |
| Lymphocyte count, 10^9/L | 1.12 (0.80–1.45) | 1.29 (0.97–1.57) | 0.91 (0.59–1.11) | 0.002 |
| Neutrophil count, 10^9/L | 3.05 (1.93–4.76) | 3.01 (1.94–4.49) | 3.97 (1.90–6.29) | 0.213 |
| Eosinophils count,10^9/L | 0.01 (0.00–0.03) | 0.01 (0.00–0.03) | 0.01 (0.00–0.03) | 0.345 |
| Monocyte count, 10^9/L | 0.32 (0.20–0.48) | 0.32 (0.20–0.48) | 0.28 (0.19–0.49) | 0.836 |
| Lymphocyte, % | 23.15 (10.54–33.65) | 24.55 (15.00–35.65) | 20.15 (7.53–32.83) | 0.368 |
| Neutrophil, % | 65.10 (54.75–77.05) | 65.30 (54.90–73.50) | 62.96 (54.40–86.65) | 0.231 |
| Eosinophils, % | 0.20 (0.00–0.40) | 0.20 (0.00–0.40) | 0.10 (0.00–0.43) | 0.226 |
| Monocytes, % | 6.60 (4.13–9.53) | 6.50 (4.30–9.00) | 7.00 (4.00–10.00) | 0.897 |
| Liver function | ||||
| Alanine aminotransferase, U/L | 22.00 (15.00–40.00) | 21.00 (15.00–40.00) | 27.90 (17.00–53.58) | 0.212 |
| Aspartate aminotransferase, U/L | 26.25 (20.23–35.00) | 25.00 (20.00–33.00) | 30.00 (23.00–39.00) | 0.120 |
| Total bilirubin, μmol/L | 10.44 (6.60–14.90) | 10.44 (7.01–14.30) | 10.45 (5.80–17.27) | 0.758 |
| Direct bilirubin,μmol/L | 3.30 (2.40–4.80) | 3.20 (1.95–4.40) | 4.27 (3.03–5.78) | 0.015 |
| Indirect bilirubin,μmol/L | 7.06 (3.93–10.18) | 7.02 (4.35–10.45) | 7.40 (2.80–10.20) | 0.495 |
| Lactate dehydrogenase,U/L | 203.00 (173.00–266.00) | 198.00 (172.00–226.00) | 249.59 (188.75–403.00) | 0.004 |
| Creatine kinase, U/L | 75.00 (53.00–144.00) | 77.00 (52.50–121.79) | 74.00 (55.00–235.00) | 0.286 |
| Albumin,g/L | 40.60 (36.80–44.40) | 41.40 (37.30–44.90) | 39.90 (34.70–43.80) | 0.098 |
| Kidney function | ||||
| Creatinine, μmol/L | 62.80 (52.84–71.00) | 60.50 (52.20–71.00) | 66.90 (52.97–74.00) | 0.383 |
| Urea, mmol/L | 4.20 (3.25–6.00) | 4.20 (3.22–5.30) | 4.30 (3.35–8.46) | 0.483 |
| C-reactive protein,mg/L | 13.62 (5.26–31.37) | 10.61 (4.08–18.78) | 31.22 (11.63–92.52) | 0.001 |
| Procalcitonin,μg/L | 0.07 (0.04–0.19) | 0.05 (0.03–0.09) | 0.17 (0.06–0.21) | 0.001 |
Fig 1Receiver operating characteristic curve for age.
Fig 4Receiver operating characteristic curve for procalcitonin levels.
Analysis of the receiver operating characteristic curve for a single predictor.
| Variables | Threshold | AUC(95%CI) | Youden index | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 63 | 0.676 (0.542,0.809) | 0.393 | 0.005 |
| Absolute lymphocyte value, 10^9/L | 1.02 | 0.708 (0.592,0.825) | 0.460 | 0.002 |
| C-reactive protein, mg/L | 65.08 | 0.734 (0.607,0.861) | 0.492 | 0.001 |
| Procalcitonin, μg/L | 0.12 | 0.773 (0.634,0.912) | 0.567 | 0.001 |
aAUC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; CI, confidence interval.
Multivariate analysis of COVID-19 severity.
| Variables | β | SE | OR(95%CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age≥63 years old | 3.714 | 1.362 | 41.036(2.843~592.356) | 0.006 |
| Absolute lymphocyte value≤1.02×10^9/L | 1.806 | 0.725 | 6.089(1.469~25.230) | 0.013 |
| C-reactive protein≥65.08mg/L | 2.183 | 1.084 | 8.876(1.016~74.228) | 0.044 |
aSE, standard error; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval. Variables were categorized by threshold values, whereas functions were inferred by ranges, not formulas. The effect in this multivariate regression was that the variables were independent from each other.
Fig 5Receiver operating characteristic curve of the multivariate prediction model.