1
|
Goel A, Raizada A, Agrawal A, Bansal K, Uniyal S, Prasad P, Yadav A, Tyagi A, Rautela RS. Correlates of In-Hospital COVID-19 Deaths: A Competing Risks Survival Time Analysis of Retrospective Mortality Data. Disaster Med Public Health Prep 2022; 16:1889-1896. [PMID: 33762056 PMCID: PMC8129688 DOI: 10.1017/dmp.2021.85] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Several aspects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic remain ambiguous, including its transmission, severity, geographic, and racial differences in mortality. These variations merit elaboration of local patterns to inform wider national policies. METHODS In a retrospective analysis, data of patients treated at a dedicated COVID hospital with moderate and severe illness during 8 wk of the pandemic were reviewed with attention to mortality in a competing risks framework. RESULTS A total of 1147 patients were hospitalized, and 312 (27.2%) died in hospital. Those who died were older (56.5 vs 47.6 y; P < 0.0001). Of these, 885 (77.2%) had tested positive on reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), with 219 (24.2%) deaths (incidence rate, 1.9 per 100 person-days). Median time from onset of symptoms to death was 11 days. A competing risks analysis for in-hospital death revealed an adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio of 1.4 for each decade increase in age. CONCLUSIONS This retrospective analysis provides broad patterns of disease presentation and mortality. Even COVID test-negative patients will receive treatment at dedicated facilities, and 33% presenting cases may die within the first 72 h, most with comorbid illness. This should be considered while planning distribution of services for effective health-care delivery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ashish Goel
- Department of Medicine, UCMS and GTB Hospital, Delhi
- Corresponding author: Ashish Goel,
| | | | - Ananya Agrawal
- Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, New Delhi, India
| | | | | | - Pratima Prasad
- Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, UCMS and GTB Hospital, Delhi, India
| | - Anil Yadav
- Department of Medicine, UCMS and GTB Hospital, Delhi
| | - Asha Tyagi
- Department of Anesthesia, UCMS and GTB Hospital, Delhi, India
| | - RS Rautela
- Department of Anesthesia, UCMS and GTB Hospital, Delhi, India
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Struyf T, Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, Takwoingi Y, Davenport C, Leeflang MM, Spijker R, Hooft L, Emperador D, Domen J, Tans A, Janssens S, Wickramasinghe D, Lannoy V, Horn SRA, Van den Bruel A. Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 5:CD013665. [PMID: 35593186 PMCID: PMC9121352 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013665.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND COVID-19 illness is highly variable, ranging from infection with no symptoms through to pneumonia and life-threatening consequences. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of sense of smell (anosmia) or taste (ageusia), can help flag early on if the disease is present. Such information could be used either to rule out COVID-19 disease, or to identify people who need to go for COVID-19 diagnostic tests. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020. OBJECTIVES To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS We undertook electronic searches up to 10 June 2021 in the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We used artificial intelligence text analysis to conduct an initial classification of documents. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA Studies were eligible if they included people with clinically suspected COVID-19, or recruited known cases with COVID-19 and also controls without COVID-19 from a single-gate cohort. Studies were eligible when they recruited people presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies that included people who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract, and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 checklist, and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Analyses were restricted to prospective studies only. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis whenever five or more primary prospective studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable. MAIN RESULTS We identified 90 studies; for this update we focused on the results of 42 prospective studies with 52,608 participants. Prevalence of COVID-19 disease varied from 3.7% to 60.6% with a median of 27.4%. Thirty-five studies were set in emergency departments or outpatient test centres (46,878 participants), three in primary care settings (1230 participants), two in a mixed population of in- and outpatients in a paediatric hospital setting (493 participants), and two overlapping studies in nursing homes (4007 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild COVID-19 disease from COVID-19 pneumonia, so we present the results for both conditions together. Twelve studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because they used a high level of preselection to decide whether reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was needed, or because they enrolled a non-consecutive sample, or because they excluded individuals while they were part of the study base. We rated 36 of the 42 studies as high risk of bias for the index tests because there was little or no detail on how, by whom and when, the symptoms were measured. For most studies, eligibility for testing was dependent on the local case definition and testing criteria that were in effect at the time of the study, meaning most people who were included in studies had already been referred to health services based on the symptoms that we are evaluating in this review. The applicability of the results of this review iteration improved in comparison with the previous reviews. This version has more studies of people presenting to ambulatory settings, which is where the majority of assessments for COVID-19 take place. Only three studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 96 symptoms or combinations of signs and symptoms. Evidence on individual signs as diagnostic tests was rarely reported, so this review reports mainly on the diagnostic value of symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. RT-PCR was the most often used reference standard (40/42 studies). Only cough (11 studies) had a summary sensitivity above 50% (62.4%, 95% CI 50.6% to 72.9%)); its specificity was low (45.4%, 95% CI 33.5% to 57.9%)). Presence of fever had a sensitivity of 37.6% (95% CI 23.4% to 54.3%) and a specificity of 75.2% (95% CI 56.3% to 87.8%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of cough was 1.14 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.25) and that of fever 1.52 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.10). Sore throat had a summary positive likelihood ratio of 0.814 (95% CI 0.714 to 0.929), which means that its presence increases the probability of having an infectious disease other than COVID-19. Dyspnoea (12 studies) and fatigue (8 studies) had a sensitivity of 23.3% (95% CI 16.4% to 31.9%) and 40.2% (95% CI 19.4% to 65.1%) respectively. Their specificity was 75.7% (95% CI 65.2% to 83.9%) and 73.6% (95% CI 48.4% to 89.3%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of dyspnoea was 0.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.11) and that of fatigue 1.52 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.91), which means that the presence of fatigue slightly increases the probability of having COVID-19. Anosmia alone (7 studies), ageusia alone (5 studies), and anosmia or ageusia (6 studies) had summary sensitivities below 50% but summary specificities over 90%. Anosmia had a summary sensitivity of 26.4% (95% CI 13.8% to 44.6%) and a specificity of 94.2% (95% CI 90.6% to 96.5%). Ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 23.2% (95% CI 10.6% to 43.3%) and a specificity of 92.6% (95% CI 83.1% to 97.0%). Anosmia or ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 39.2% (95% CI 26.5% to 53.6%) and a specificity of 92.1% (95% CI 84.5% to 96.2%). The summary positive likelihood ratios of anosmia alone and anosmia or ageusia were 4.55 (95% CI 3.46 to 5.97) and 4.99 (95% CI 3.22 to 7.75) respectively, which is just below our arbitrary definition of a 'red flag', that is, a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5. The summary positive likelihood ratio of ageusia alone was 3.14 (95% CI 1.79 to 5.51). Twenty-four studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms, mostly combining olfactory symptoms. By combining symptoms with other information such as contact or travel history, age, gender, and a local recent case detection rate, some multivariable prediction scores reached a sensitivity as high as 90%. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Most individual symptoms included in this review have poor diagnostic accuracy. Neither absence nor presence of symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out the disease. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for the presence of COVID-19. The presence of cough also supports further testing. There is currently no evidence to support further testing with PCR in any individuals presenting only with upper respiratory symptoms such as sore throat, coryza or rhinorrhoea. Combinations of symptoms with other readily available information such as contact or travel history, or the local recent case detection rate may prove more useful and should be further investigated in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. The diagnostic accuracy of symptoms for COVID-19 is moderate to low and any testing strategy using symptoms as selection mechanism will result in both large numbers of missed cases and large numbers of people requiring testing. Which one of these is minimised, is determined by the goal of COVID-19 testing strategies, that is, controlling the epidemic by isolating every possible case versus identifying those with clinically important disease so that they can be monitored or treated to optimise their prognosis. The former will require a testing strategy that uses very few symptoms as entry criterion for testing, the latter could focus on more specific symptoms such as fever and anosmia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Struyf
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Jonathan J Deeks
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Jacqueline Dinnes
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Yemisi Takwoingi
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Clare Davenport
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Mariska Mg Leeflang
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - René Spijker
- Medical Library, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Lotty Hooft
- Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | | | - Julie Domen
- Department of Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Anouk Tans
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | | | | | - Sebastiaan R A Horn
- Department of Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Ann Van den Bruel
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|