Search

Introduction: Center-based rehabilitation is limited by COVID-19 infectivity and social distancing policy. We hypothesized that discharged patients benefit from 8-week home-based tele-rehabilitation (tele-PR) using mobile phones and low-cost instruments., Methods: The TERCOV (Tele-rehabilitation in COVID-19 survivors) is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multi-center, real-world study. After proper assessment, 186 discharge patients received tele-PR by smartphone, including breathing exercise, respiratory muscle training, aerobic exercise, and resistance training. Physicians, physiotherapists, and nurses provided guidance through smartphone applications. The primary outcome was six-minute walk distance (6MWD). The secondary outcomes included hand grip, short physical performance battery, maximal inspiratory pressure, maximal expiratory pressure, self-rating anxiety/depression scale (SAS/SDS), 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) and international physical activity questionnaire., Results: Dyspnea subgroups were more functionally impaired. After tele-PR, improvements were observed in exercise capacity(∆6MWD: 16.80 m, 95% CI 1.18-32.42, p < 0.0001), limb muscle function (∆SPPB 0.25 points, 95% CI 0.05-0.46), respiratory muscle strength (∆MIP 16.50 cm H2O, 95% CI 9.22-23.78, p < 0.0001; ∆MEP: 12.09 cm H2O, 95% CI 3.48-20.70, p = 0.0002), health-related quality of life (∆SF-36 49.85, 95% CI: 21.01-78.69, p < 0.0001), physical activity(∆HEPA 13.01%, p = 0.0029). Anxiety reduced in patients with mMRC ≥ 2 (∆SAS = -4.19 points, CI -8.16 to -0.22, p = 0.03). Greater change was seen in dyspnea patients., Implications on Physiotherapy Practice: Supervised/semi-supervised tele-PR is a promising option during the pandemic. Patients with Dyspnea benefit more., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To determine which early-stage variables best predicted the deterioration of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among community-isolated people infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and to test the performance of prediction using only inexpensive-to-measure variables., Methods: Medical records of 3145 people isolated in two Fangcang shelter hospitals (large-scale community isolation centers) from February to March 2020 were accessed. Two complementary methods-machine learning algorithms and competing risk survival analyses-were used to test potential predictors, including age, gender, severity upon admission, symptoms (general symptoms, respiratory symptoms, and gastrointestinal symptoms), computed tomography (CT) signs, and comorbid chronic diseases. All variables were measured upon (or shortly after) admission. The outcome was deterioration versus recovery of COVID-19., Results: More than a quarter of the 3145 people did not present any symptoms, while one-third ended isolation due to deterioration. Machine learning models identified moderate severity upon admission, old age, and CT ground-glass opacity as the most important predictors of deterioration. Removing CT signs did not degrade the performance of models. Competing risk models identified age ≥ 35 years, male gender, moderate severity upon admission, cough, expectoration, CT patchy opacity, CT consolidation, comorbid diabetes, and comorbid cardiovascular or cerebrovascular diseases as significant predictors of deterioration, while a stuffy or runny nose as a predictor of recovery., Conclusions: Early-stage prediction of COVID-19 deterioration can be made with inexpensive-to-measure variables, such as demographic characteristics, severity upon admission, observable symptoms, and self-reported comorbid diseases, among asymptomatic people and mildly to moderately symptomatic patients., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine published by Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background: Since December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe adult respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, occurred in Wuhan, and rapidly spread throughout China. This study aimed to clarify the characteristics of patients with refractory COVID-19., Methods: In this retrospective single-center study, we included 155 consecutive patients with confirmed COVID-19 in Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University from 1 January to 5 February. The cases were divided into general and refractory COVID-19 groups according to the clinical efficacy of treatment after hospitalization, and the differences between groups were compared., Results: Compared with patients with general COVID-19 (45.2%), those with refractory disease were older, were more likely to be male, and had more underlying comorbid conditions, a lower incidence of fever, higher maximum temperatures among patients with fever, higher incidences of shortness of breath and anorexia, more severe disease assessment at admission, higher neutrophil, aspartate aminotransferase, lactate dehydrogenase, and C-reactive protein levels, lower platelet counts and albumin levels, and higher incidences of bilateral pneumonia and pleural effusion (P < .05). Patients with refractory COVID-19 were more likely to receive oxygen, mechanical ventilation, expectorant, and adjunctive treatment, including corticosteroids, antiviral drugs, and immune enhancers (P < .05). Considering the factors of disease severity at admission, mechanical ventilation, and intensive care unit transfer, patients with refractory COVID-19 were also more likely to be male, have manifestations of anorexia on admission, and receive oxygen, expectorant, and adjunctive agents (P < .05)., Conclusion: In nearly 50% of patients with COVID-19 obvious clinical and radiological remission was not achieved within 10 days after hospitalization. Male, anorexia, and no fever at admission was predictive of poor treatment efficacy., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

BACKGROUND. Chest CT findings have the potential to guide treatment of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to assess a CT visual severity score in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, with attention to temporal changes in the score and the role of the score in a model for predicting in-hospital complications. METHODS. This retrospective study included 161 inpatients with COVID-19 from three hospitals in China who underwent serial chest CT scans during hospitalization. CT examinations were evaluated using a visual severity scoring system. The temporal pattern of the CT visual severity score across serial CT examinations during hospitalization was characterized using a generalized spline regression model. A prognostic model to predict major complications, including in-hospital mortality, was created using the CT visual severity score and clinical variables. External model validation was evaluated by two independent radiologists in a cohort of 135 patients from a different hospital. RESULTS. The cohort included 91 survivors with nonsevere disease, 55 survivors with severe disease, and 15 patients who died during hospitalization. Median CT visual lung severity score in the first week of hospitalization was 2.0 in survivors with non-severe disease, 4.0 in survivors with severe disease, and 11.0 in nonsurvivors. CT visual severity score peaked approximately 9 and 12 days after symptom onset in survivors with nonsevere and severe disease, respectively, and progressively decreased in subsequent hospitalization weeks in both groups. In the prognostic model, in-hospital complications were independently associated with a severe CT score (odds ratio [OR], 31.28), moderate CT score (OR, 5.86), age (OR, 1.09 per 1-year increase), and lymphocyte count (OR, 0.03 per 1 × 10 9 /L increase). In the validation cohort, the two readers achieved C-index values of 0.92-0.95, accuracy of 85.2-86.7%, sensitivity of 70.7-75.6%, and specificity of 91.4-91.5% for predicting in-hospital complications. CONCLUSION. A CT visual severity score is associated with clinical disease severity and evolves in a characteristic fashion during hospitalization for COVID-19. A prognostic model based on the CT visual severity score and clinical variables shows strong performance in predicting in-hospital complications. CLINICAL IMPACT. The prognostic model using the CT visual severity score may help identify patients at highest risk of poor outcomes and guide early intervention.

Purpose: The aim of the study was to describe the use of masks among health care personnel (HCP) exposed to index cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and to evaluate any association with infection rate., Methods: We did a retrospective, observational study of HCP at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University for the management of COVID-19 (before person-to-person transmission was official confirmed, no additional protection was provided). A questionnaire was given to all staff listed on the roster in the clinical regions providing care for index patients with COVID-19. All participants were surveyed regarding hand-washing and use of surgical masks and gloves and were tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Data were analysed (Student's t test and Pearson χ2 test) for an association between infection and use of personal protective equipment., Results: Exposure of a total of 299 non-infected and 30 infected staff was confirmed. None of the 149 staff who reported use of all three preventative measures (hand-washing and use of gloves and masks) became infect-ed. In contrast, all 30 of the staff who became infected had omitted at least one of the measures. Fewer staff who wore surgical masks (P=0.000003) became infected compared with those who did not. Infections rates were significantly lower in HCP from the internal medicine departments, as these personnel generally wore masks., Conclusion: An association was found between SARS-CoV-2 infection of HCP and the non-use of masks when working with index cases in clinical settings. We recommend that all HCP follow the strict instructions for prevention and treatment of nosocomial infection during intimate contact with COVID-19, especially staff from surgical departments.

Purpose: To describe the radiological features of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) and to explore the significant signs that indicate severity of disease., Materials and Methods: We collected data retrospectively of 180 cases of COVID-19, from 15 January 2020 to 31 March 2020, from both the Wuhan Zhongnan and Beijing Ditan Hospitals, including 103 cases of mild and 77 cases of severe pneumonia. All patients had their first chest computed tomography scan within five days of symptom onset. The dandelion sign was defined by a focal ground glass opacity (GGO) with a central thickening of the airway wall, and the focal crazy paving sign was defined by a focal GGO with thickening of the interlobular septa., Results: Consolidation presented in only 4.9% (5/103) of the mild pneumonia cases, which was significantly lower than that in severe pneumonia cases (70.1% 54/77), p  < .001). Multifocal distribution and pure GGOs were observed more frequently in severe cases of pneumonia ( p  < .05). The dandelion sign was present in 86.4% (89/103) of the mild pneumonia cases, significantly more frequent than those with severe pneumonia (13.0% [10/77], p  < .001). The focal crazy paving sign presented in 65.0% (67/103) of the mild pneumonia cases and was significantly more frequent than in severe cases (23.4% [18/77], p  < .001). The hospital stay duration of the mild pneumonia group (13.6 ± 7.2 days) was significantly shorter than the severe pneumonia group (26.6 ± 11.7 days, p  < .001)., Conclusions: Consolidation, pure GGO and multifocal distribution on a CT scan were associated with severe COVID-19. The dandelion and focal crazy paving signs indicate mild COVID-19.

Objectives: The outbreak of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in Wuhan, China, has subsided after being hard hit by the disease and subsequent city lockdown. Information on the number of people involved in Wuhan is still inadequate. This study aimed to describe the screening results of 61 437 community members in Wuchang District, Wuhan., Methods: In mid-May 2020, Wuhan launched a population-scale city-wide SARS-CoV-2 testing campaign, which aimed to perform nucleic acid and viral antibody testing for citizens in Wuhan. Here we show the screening results of cluster sampling of 61 437 residents in Wuchang District, Wuhan, China., Results: A total of 1470 (2.39%, 95% CI 2.27-2.52) individuals were detected positive for at least one antiviral antibody. Among the positive individuals, 324 (0.53%, 95% CI 0.47-0.59) and 1200 (1.95%, 95% CI 1.85-2.07) were positive for immunoglobulin IgM and IgG, respectively, and 54 (0.08%, 95% CI 0.07-0.12) were positive for both antibodies. The positive rate of female carriers of antibodies was higher than those of male counterparts (male-to-female ratio of 0.75), especially in elderly citizens (ratio of 0.18 in 90+ age subgroup), indicating a sexual discrepancy in seroprevalence. In addition, viral nucleic acid detection using real-time PCR had showed 8 (0.013%, 95% CI 0.006-0.026) asymptomatic virus carriers., Discussion: The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan was low. Most Wuhan residents are still susceptible to this virus. Precautions, such as wearing mask, frequent hand hygiene and proper social distance, are necessary before an effective vaccine or antiviral treatments are available., (Copyright © 2020 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Different states in the United States had different nonpharmaceutical public health interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The effects of those interventions on hospital use have not been systematically evaluated. The investigation could provide data-driven evidence to potentially improve the implementation of public health interventions in the future., Objective: We aim to study two representative areas in the United States and one area in China (New York State, Ohio State, and Hubei Province), and investigate the effects of their public health interventions by time periods according to key interventions., Methods: This observational study evaluated the numbers of infected, hospitalized, and death cases in New York and Ohio from March 16 through September 14, 2020, and Hubei from January 26 to March 31, 2020. We developed novel Bayesian generalized compartmental models. The clinical stages of COVID-19 were stratified in the models, and the effects of public health interventions were modeled through piecewise exponential functions. Time-dependent transmission rates and effective reproduction numbers were estimated. The associations of interventions and the numbers of required hospital and intensive care unit beds were studied., Results: The interventions of social distancing, home confinement, and wearing masks significantly decreased (in a Bayesian sense) the case incidence and reduced the demand for beds in all areas. Ohio's transmission rates declined before the state's "stay at home" order, which provided evidence that early intervention is important. Wearing masks was significantly associated with reducing the transmission rates after reopening, when comparing New York and Ohio. The centralized quarantine intervention in Hubei played a significant role in further preventing and controlling the disease in that area. The estimated rates that cured patients become susceptible in all areas were small (<0.0001), which indicates that they have little chance to get the infection again., Conclusions: The series of public health interventions in three areas were temporally associated with the burden of COVID-19-attributed hospital use. Social distancing and the use of face masks should continue to prevent the next peak of the pandemic., (©Xiaofeng Wang, Rui Ren, Michael W Kattan, Lara Jehi, Zhenshun Cheng, Kuangnan Fang. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (http://publichealth.jmir.org), 23.12.2020.)

Background: In addition to supportive therapy, antiviral therapy is an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of favipiravir and umifenovir (Arbidol) to treat COVID-19 patients. Methods: We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label multicenter trial involving adult patients with COVID-19. Enrolled patients with initial symptoms within 12 days were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive conventional therapy plus Arbidol (200 mg*3/day) or favipiravir (1600 mg*2/first day followed by 600 mg*2/day) for 7 days. The primary outcome was the clinical recovery rate at day 7 of drug administration (relief for pyrexia and cough, respiratory frequency ≤24 times/min; oxygen saturation ≥98%). Latency to relief for pyrexia and cough and the rate of auxiliary oxygen therapy (AOT) or noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NMV)/mechanical ventilation (MV) were the secondary outcomes. Safety data were collected for 17 days. Results: A total of 240 enrolled COVID-19 patients underwent randomization; 120 patients were assigned to receive favipiravir (116 assessed), and 120 patients were assigned to receive Arbidol (120 assessed). The clinical recovery rate at day 7 of drug administration did not significantly differ between the favipiravir group (71/116) and Arbidol group (62/120) (p = 0.1396, difference in recovery rate: 0.0954; 95% CI: −0.0305∼0.2213). Favipiravir contributed to relief for both pyrexia (difference: 1.70 days, p < 0.0001) and cough (difference: 1.75 days, p < 0.0001). No difference was observed in the AOT or NMV/MV rate (both p > 0.05). The most frequently observed favipiravir-associated adverse event was increased serum uric acid (16/116, OR: 5.52, p = 0.0014). Conclusion: Among patients with COVID-19, favipiravir, compared to Arbidol, did not significantly improve the clinical recovery rate at day 7. Favipiravir significantly improved the latency to relieve pyrexia and cough. Adverse effects caused by favipiravir are mild and manageable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 has been widely spreading. We aimed to examine adaptive immune cells in non-severe patients with persistent SARS-CoV-2 shedding. 37 non-severe patients with persistent SARS-CoV-2 presence that were transferred to Zhongnan hospital of Wuhan University were retrospectively recruited to the PP (persistently positive) group, which was further allocated to PPP group (n = 19) and PPN group (n = 18), according to their testing results after 7 days (N = negative). Epidemiological, demographic, clinical and laboratory data were collected and analyzed. Data from age- and sex-matched non-severe patients at disease onset (PA [positive on admission] patients, n = 37), and lymphocyte subpopulation measurements from matched 54 healthy subjects were extracted for comparison (HC). Compared with PA patients, PP patients had much improved laboratory findings. The absolute numbers of CD3+ T cells, CD4+ T cells, and NK cells were significantly higher in PP group than that in PA group, and were comparable to that in healthy controls. PPP subgroup had markedly reduced B cells and T cells compared to PPN group and healthy subjects. Finally, paired results of these lymphocyte subpopulations from 10 PPN patients demonstrated that the number of T cells and B cells significantly increased when the SARS-CoV-2 tests turned negative. Persistent SARS-CoV-2 presence in non-severe COVID-19 patients is associated with reduced numbers of adaptive immune cells. Monitoring lymphocyte subpopulations could be clinically meaningful in identifying fully recovered COVID-19 patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Severe acute respiratory viral infections are frequency accompanied by multiple organ dysfunction, including acute kidney injury (AKI). In December 2019, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak began in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, and rapidly spread worldwide. While diffuse alveolar damage and acute respiratory failure are the main features of COVID-19, other organs may be involved, and the incidence of AKI is not well described. We assessed the incidence and clinical characteristics of AKI in patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and its effects on clinical outcomes. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, observational study of patients with COVID-19 admitted to two general hospitals in Wuhan from 5 January 2020 to 21 March 2020. Demographic data and information on organ dysfunction were collected daily. AKI was defined according to the KDIGO clinical practice guidelines. Early and late AKI were defined as AKI occurring within 72 h after admission or after 72 h, respectively. Results: Of the 116 patients, AKI developed in 21 (18.1%) patients. Among them, early and late AKI were found in 13 (11.2%) and 8 (6.9%) patients, respectively. Compared with patients without AKI, patients with AKI had more severe organ dysfunction, as indicated by a higher level of disease severity status, higher sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score on admission, an increased prevalence of shock, and a higher level of respiratory support. Patients with AKI had a higher SOFA score on admission (4.5 ± 2.1 vs. 2.8 ± 1.4, OR 1.498, 95% CI 1.047–2.143) and greater hospital mortality (57.1% vs. 12.6%, OR 3.998, 95% CI 1.088–14.613) than patients without AKI in both the univariate and multivariate analyses. Patients with late AKI, but not those with early AKI, had a significantly prolonged length of stay (19.6 vs. 9.6 days, p = 0.015). Conclusion: Our findings show that admission SOFA score was an independent risk factor for AKI in COVID-19 patients, and patients with AKI had higher in-hospital mortality. Moreover, AKI development after 72 h of admission was related to prolonged hospitalization time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), emerged in Wuhan, China, and has spread globally. However, the transmission route of SARS‐CoV‐2 has not been fully understood. In this study, we aimed to investigate SARS‐CoV‐2 shedding in the excreta of COVID‐19 patients. Electronical medical records, including demographics, clinical characteristics, laboratory and radiological findings of enrolled patients were extracted and analyzed. Pharyngeal swab, stool, and urine specimens were collected and tested for SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA by real‐time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Viral shedding at multiple time points in specimens was recorded, and its correlation analyzed with clinical manifestations and the severity of illness. A total of 42 laboratory‐confirmed patients were enrolled, 8 (19.05%) of whom had gastrointestinal symptoms. A total of 28 (66.67%) patients tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA in stool specimens, and this was not associated with the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms and the severity of illness. Among them, 18 (64.29%) patients remained positive for viral RNA in the feces after the pharyngeal swabs turned negative. The duration of viral shedding from the feces after negative conversion in pharyngeal swabs was 7 (6‐10) days, regardless of COVID‐19 severity. The demographics, clinical characteristics, laboratory and radiologic findings did not differ between patients who tested positive and negative for SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA in the feces. Viral RNA was not detectable in urine specimens from 10 patients. Our results demonstrated the presence of SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA in the feces of COVID‐19 patients and suggested the possibility of SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission via the fecal‐oral route. Research Highlights: Two thirds of COVID‐19 patients tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA in stool specimens.The presence of SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA in the feces of COVID‐19 patients was not associated with gastrointestinal symptoms and the severity of illness.More than 60% patients remained positive for viral RNA in feces after pharyngeal swabs turned negative.The duration of viral shedding from feces after negative conversion in pharyngeal swabs was 7 (6‐10) days, regardless of COVID‐19 severity.Fecal‐oral route may serve as an alternative transmission route for SARS‐CoV‐2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an emerging infectious disease that first manifested in humans in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, in December 2019, and has subsequently spread worldwide. Methods We conducted a retrospective, single-center case series of the seven maintenance hemodialysis (HD) patients infected with COVID-19 at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University from 13 January to 7 April 2020 and a proactive search of potential cases by chest computed tomography (CT) scans. Results Of 202 HD patients, 7 (3.5%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. Five were diagnosed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) because of compatible symptoms, while two were diagnosed by RT-PCR as a result of screening 197 HD patients without respiratory symptoms by chest CT. Thirteen of 197 patients had positive chest CT features and, of these, 2 (15%) were confirmed to have COVID-19. In COVID-19 patients, the most common features at admission were fatigue, fever and diarrhea [5/7 (71%) had all these]. Common laboratory features included lymphocytopenia [6/7 (86%)], elevated lactate dehydrogenase [3/4 (75%)], D-dimer [5/6 (83%)], high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [4/4 (100%)] and procalcitonin [5/5 (100%)]. Chest CT showed bilateral patchy shadows or ground-glass opacity in the lungs of all patients. Four of seven (57%) received oxygen therapy, one (14%) received noninvasive and invasive mechanical ventilation, five (71%) received antiviral and antibacterial drugs, three (43%) recieved glucocorticoid therapy and one (14%) received continuous renal replacement therapy. As the last follow-up, four of the seven patients (57%) had been discharged and three patients were dead. Conclusions Chest CT may identify COVID-19 patients without clear symptoms, but the specificity is low. The mortality of COVID-19 patients on HD was high. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: An ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 is spreading globally. Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is the most common complication of coronavirus disease 2019. However, the clinical effectiveness of early high-flow nasal oxygen treatment in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure has not been explored. This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of high-flow nasal oxygen treatment and to identify the variables predicting high-flow nasal oxygen treatment failure in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.Design: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study.Setting: Three tertiary hospitals in Wuhan, China.Patients: Forty-three confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal oxygen.Interventions: None.Measurements and Main Results: Mean age of the enrolled patients was 63.0 ± 9.7 years; female patients accounted for 41.9%. High-flow nasal oxygen failure (defined as upgrading respiratory support to positive pressure ventilation or death) was observed in 20 patients (46.5%), of which 13 (30.2%) required endotracheal intubation. Patients with high-flow nasal oxygen success had a higher median oxygen saturation (96.0% vs 93.0%; p < 0.001) at admission than those with high-flow nasal oxygen failure. High-flow nasal oxygen failure was more likely in patients who were older (p = 0.030) and male (p = 0.037), had a significant increase in respiratory rate and a significant decrease in the ratio of oxygen saturation/FIO2 to respiratory rate index within 3 days of high-flow nasal oxygen treatment. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis model, male and lower oxygen saturation at admission remained independent predictors of high-flow nasal oxygen failure. The hospital mortality rate of the cohort was 32.5%; however, the hospital mortality rate in patients with high-flow nasal oxygen failure was 65%.Conclusions: High-flow nasal oxygen may be effective for treating coronavirus disease 2019 patients with mild to moderate acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, high-flow nasal oxygen failure was associated with a poor prognosis. Male and lower oxygenation at admission were the two strong predictors of high-flow nasal oxygen failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: No specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models.Methods: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2-10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir-ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257656.Findings: Between Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87-1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95-2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early.Interpretation: In this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies.Funding: Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Emergency Project of COVID-19, National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Beijing Science and Technology Project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A recent cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China, was caused by a novel betacoronavirus, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). We report the epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics and treatment and clinical outcomes of these patients.Methods: All patients with suspected 2019-nCoV were admitted to a designated hospital in Wuhan. We prospectively collected and analysed data on patients with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection by real-time RT-PCR and next-generation sequencing. Data were obtained with standardised data collection forms shared by WHO and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium from electronic medical records. Researchers also directly communicated with patients or their families to ascertain epidemiological and symptom data. Outcomes were also compared between patients who had been admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and those who had not.Findings: By Jan 2, 2020, 41 admitted hospital patients had been identified as having laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection. Most of the infected patients were men (30 [73%] of 41); less than half had underlying diseases (13 [32%]), including diabetes (eight [20%]), hypertension (six [15%]), and cardiovascular disease (six [15%]). Median age was 49·0 years (IQR 41·0-58·0). 27 (66%) of 41 patients had been exposed to Huanan seafood market. One family cluster was found. Common symptoms at onset of illness were fever (40 [98%] of 41 patients), cough (31 [76%]), and myalgia or fatigue (18 [44%]); less common symptoms were sputum production (11 [28%] of 39), headache (three [8%] of 38), haemoptysis (two [5%] of 39), and diarrhoea (one [3%] of 38). Dyspnoea developed in 22 (55%) of 40 patients (median time from illness onset to dyspnoea 8·0 days [IQR 5·0-13·0]). 26 (63%) of 41 patients had lymphopenia. All 41 patients had pneumonia with abnormal findings on chest CT. Complications included acute respiratory distress syndrome (12 [29%]), RNAaemia (six [15%]), acute cardiac injury (five [12%]) and secondary infection (four [10%]). 13 (32%) patients were admitted to an ICU and six (15%) died. Compared with non-ICU patients, ICU patients had higher plasma levels of IL2, IL7, IL10, GSCF, IP10, MCP1, MIP1A, and TNFα.Interpretation: The 2019-nCoV infection caused clusters of severe respiratory illness similar to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and was associated with ICU admission and high mortality. Major gaps in our knowledge of the origin, epidemiology, duration of human transmission, and clinical spectrum of disease need fulfilment by future studies.Funding: Ministry of Science and Technology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]