Dataset Information

Optimal symptom combinations to aid COVID-19 case identification: Analysis from a community-based, prospective, observational cohort.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Diagnostic work-up following any COVID-19 associated symptom will lead to extensive testing, potentially overwhelming laboratory capacity whilst primarily yielding negative results. We aimed to identify optimal symptom combinations to capture most cases using fewer tests with implications for COVID-19 vaccine developers across different resource settings and public health.

Methods

UK and US users of the COVID-19 Symptom Study app who reported new-onset symptoms and an RT-PCR test within seven days of symptom onset were included. Sensitivity, specificity, and number of RT-PCR tests needed to identify one case (test per case [TPC]) were calculated for different symptom combinations. A multi-objective evolutionary algorithm was applied to generate combinations with optimal trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity.

Findings

UK and US cohorts included 122,305 (1,202 positives) and 3,162 (79 positive) individuals. Within three days of symptom onset, the COVID-19 specific symptom combination (cough, dyspnoea, fever, anosmia/ageusia) identified 69% of cases requiring 47 TPC. The combination with highest sensitivity (fatigue, anosmia/ageusia, cough, diarrhoea, headache, sore throat) identified 96% cases requiring 96 TPC.

Interpretation

We confirmed the significance of COVID-19 specific symptoms for triggering RT-PCR and identified additional symptom combinations with optimal trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity that maximize case capture given different resource settings.

SUBMITTER: Antonelli M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7881291 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Optimal symptom combinations to aid COVID-19 case identification: Analysis from a community-based, prospective, observational cohort.

Antonelli M M Capdevila J J Chaudhari A A Granerod J J Canas L S LS Graham M S MS Klaser K K Modat M M Molteni E E Murray B B Sudre C H CH Davies R R May A A Nguyen L H LH Drew D A DA Joshi A A Chan A T AT Cramer J P JP Spector T T Wolf J J Ourselin S S Steves C J CJ Loeliger A E AE

The Journal of infection 20210213 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>Diagnostic work-up following any COVID-19 associated symptom will lead to extensive testing, potentially overwhelming laboratory capacity whilst primarily yielding negative results. We aimed to identify optimal symptom combinations to capture most cases using fewer tests with implications for COVID-19 vaccine developers across different resource settings and public health.<h4>Methods</h4>UK and US users of the COVID-19 Symptom Study app who reported new-onset symptoms and an R ...[more]

PMID: 33592254

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn the Netherlands, the prevalence of post COVID-19 condition is estimated at 12.7% at 90-150 days after SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study aimed to determine the occurrence of fatigue and other symptoms, to assess how many patients meet the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) criteria, to identify symptom-based clusters within the P4O2 COVID-19 cohort and to compare these clusters with clusters in a ME/CFS cohort.MethodsIn this multicentre, prospective, observational cohort in the Netherlands, 95 post COVID-19 patients aged 40-65 years were included. Data collection at 3-6 months after infection included demographics, medical history, questionnaires, and a medical examination. Follow-up assessments occurred 9-12 months later, where the same data were collected. Fatigue was determined with the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), a score of ≥ 4 means moderate to high fatigue. The frequency and severity of other symptoms and the percentage of patients that meet the ME/CFS criteria were assessed using the DePaul Symptom Questionnaire-2 (DSQ-2). A self-organizing map was used to visualize the clustering of patients based on severity and frequency of 79 symptoms. In a previous study, 337 Dutch ME/CFS patients were clustered based on their symptom scores. The symptom scores of post COVID-19 patients were applied to these clusters to examine whether the same or different clusters were found.ResultsAccording to the FSS, fatigue was reported by 75.9% of the patients at 3-6 months after infection and by 57.1% of the patients 9-12 months later. Post-exertional malaise, sleep disturbances, pain, and neurocognitive symptoms were also frequently reported, according to the DSQ-2. Over half of the patients (52.7%) met the Fukuda criteria for ME/CFS, while fewer patients met other ME/CFS definitions. Clustering revealed specific symptom patterns and showed that post COVID-19 patients occurred in 11 of the clusters that have been observed in the ME/CFS cohort, where 2 clusters had > 10 patients.ConclusionsThis study shows persistent fatigue and diverse symptomatology in post COVID-19 patients, up to 12-18 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Clustering showed that post COVID-19 patients occurred in 11 of the clusters that have been observed in the ME/CFS cohort.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic wounds are managed almost entirely by community nurses. Almost all individuals with leg ulcers report acute pain usually related to dressing change. Little is known about pain after healing. The purpose of this study was to explore the course of pain from baseline to time of healing of leg ulcers (venous or mixed etiology). In order to understand this phenomenon and develop implications for nursing practice, objectives included: 1) Measure incidence and prevalence of pain at baseline and healing; 2) Describe characteristics associated with leg ulcer pain at baseline; 3) Identify predictors of leg ulcer pain at healing. METHODS:Data were from one randomized controlled trial (2004-2008) of 424 individuals with leg ulcers in the community receiving evidence-informed nursing management. The primary outcome was pain at the time of healing. Predictive factors included demographic, circumstance of living, clinical and ulcer characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression identified the subset of predictors of pain at healing. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported. RESULTS:Eighty-two percent of participants reported pain at baseline and 32% at healing. Five percent with no pain at baseline reported pain at healing. Thirty-seven percent reported moderate to severe pain at baseline and 11% at healing. Twenty percent of all those who healed reported pain interfered with work moderately to extremely at time of healing. Being female (OR=1.64, 95% CI 1.00, 2.68, p=0.05), use of short-stretch vs. four-layer bandages (OR=1.73, 95% CI 1.06, 2.82, p=0.03), lower SF-12 PCS (OR=0.97, 95% CI 0.94, 0.99, p=0.02) and MCS (OR=0.98, 95% CI 0.95-1.00, p=0.04) scores, use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (OR=2.28, 95% CI 1.06, 4.88, p=0.03), and tender pain (OR=2.17, 95% CI 1.29, 3.66, p=<0.01) were associated with pain at time of healing. CONCLUSIONS:Pain is an issue on admission for chronic wounds and at healing, yet 58% with moderate to severe pain on admission were not taking pain medication(s). Future studies should examine the role of pain at healing and at subsequent ulcer recurrence. Mobility and other factors that may contribute to pain at time of healing should also be assessed. Community nurses are encouraged to consider pain when planning care on admission and also after wound healing, when most patients are discharged from care. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00202267.

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe the frequency of symptoms compatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection in immunocompromised children and young people in the UK during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. To describe patient/parent anxiety regarding SARS-CoV-2 infection in this cohort.DesignA prospective observational cohort study.Setting46 centres across the UK between 16 March and 4 July 2020. A weekly online questionnaire based on the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium-WHO Case Report Form was used to collect participant reported data on symptoms, test results, National Health Service attendance, hospital admission and impact on daily life.Participants1490 immunocompromised children, defined as those requiring an annual influenza vaccination due to their underlying condition or medication.Main outcome measuresIncidence of SARS-CoV-2-like symptoms and patient/parent anxiety score.ResultsOver 16 weeks during the first wave of the pandemic, no SARS-CoV-2 infection was diagnosed in this large immunocompromised paediatric cohort (median age 11 years, 54.4% female). 110 symptomatic participants underwent a test for SARS-CoV-2; all were negative. 922 (67.4%) participants reported at least one symptom consistent with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection over the study period. 476 (34.8%) reported three or more symptoms. The most frequently reported symptoms included joint pain, fatigue, headache, nausea and muscle pain. SARS-CoV-2 testing during this period was performed on admitted patients only. 137 participants had their medication suspended or changed during the study period due to assumed COVID-19 disease risk. 62% reported high levels of anxiety (scores of 7-10 out of 10) at the start of the study, with anxiety levels remaining high throughout the study period.ConclusionsAlthough symptoms related to SARS-CoV-2 infection in children were common, there were no positive tests in this large immunocompromised cohort. Symptom-based screening to facilitate early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection may not be helpful in these individuals. Patient/parent anxiety about SARS-CoV-2 infection was high.Trial registration numberNCT04382508.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Within systematic reviews, when searching for relevant references, it is advisable to use multiple databases. However, searching databases is laborious and time-consuming, as syntax of search strategies are database specific. We aimed to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient searches in systematic reviews and whether the current practice in published reviews is appropriate. While previous studies determined the coverage of databases, we analyzed the actual retrieval from the original searches for systematic reviews. METHODS:Since May 2013, the first author prospectively recorded results from systematic review searches that he performed at his institution. PubMed was used to identify systematic reviews published using our search strategy results. For each published systematic review, we extracted the references of the included studies. Using the prospectively recorded results and the studies included in the publications, we calculated recall, precision, and number needed to read for single databases and databases in combination. We assessed the frequency at which databases and combinations would achieve varying levels of recall (i.e., 95%). For a sample of 200 recently published systematic reviews, we calculated how many had used enough databases to ensure 95% recall. RESULTS:A total of 58 published systematic reviews were included, totaling 1746 relevant references identified by our database searches, while 84 included references had been retrieved by other search methods. Sixteen percent of the included references (291 articles) were only found in a single database; Embase produced the most unique references (n = 132). The combination of Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar performed best, achieving an overall recall of 98.3 and 100% recall in 72% of systematic reviews. We estimate that 60% of published systematic reviews do not retrieve 95% of all available relevant references as many fail to search important databases. Other specialized databases, such as CINAHL or PsycINFO, add unique references to some reviews where the topic of the review is related to the focus of the database. CONCLUSIONS:Optimal searches in systematic reviews should search at least Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar as a minimum requirement to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage.

Project description:BackgroundCognitive impairment has been reported after many types of infection, including SARS-CoV-2. Whether deficits following SARS-CoV-2 improve over time is unclear. Studies to date have focused on hospitalised individuals with up to a year follow-up. The presence, magnitude, persistence and correlations of effects in community-based cases remain relatively unexplored.MethodsCognitive performance (working memory, attention, reasoning, motor control) was assessed in a prospective cohort study of participants from the United Kingdom COVID Symptom Study Biobank between July 12, 2021 and August 27, 2021 (Round 1), and between April 28, 2022 and June 21, 2022 (Round 2). Participants, recruited from the COVID Symptom Study smartphone app, comprised individuals with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection and varying symptom duration. Effects of COVID-19 exposures on cognitive accuracy and reaction time scores were estimated using multivariable ordinary least squares linear regression models weighted for inverse probability of participation, adjusting for potential confounders and mediators. The role of ongoing symptoms after COVID-19 infection was examined stratifying for self-perceived recovery. Longitudinal analysis assessed change in cognitive performance between rounds.Findings3335 individuals completed Round 1, of whom 1768 also completed Round 2. At Round 1, individuals with previous positive SARS-CoV-2 tests had lower cognitive accuracy (N = 1737, β = -0.14 standard deviations, SDs, 95% confidence intervals, CI: -0.21, -0.07) than negative controls. Deficits were largest for positive individuals with ≥12 weeks of symptoms (N = 495, β = -0.22 SDs, 95% CI: -0.35, -0.09). Effects were comparable to hospital presentation during illness (N = 281, β = -0.31 SDs, 95% CI: -0.44, -0.18), and 10 years age difference (60-70 years vs. 50-60 years, β = -0.21 SDs, 95% CI: -0.30, -0.13) in the whole study population. Stratification by self-reported recovery revealed that deficits were only detectable in SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals who did not feel recovered from COVID-19, whereas individuals who reported full recovery showed no deficits. Longitudinal analysis showed no evidence of cognitive change over time, suggesting that cognitive deficits for affected individuals persisted at almost 2 years since initial infection.InterpretationCognitive deficits following SARS-CoV-2 infection were detectable nearly two years post infection, and largest for individuals with longer symptom durations, ongoing symptoms, and/or more severe infection. However, no such deficits were detected in individuals who reported full recovery from COVID-19. Further work is needed to monitor and develop understanding of recovery mechanisms for those with ongoing symptoms.FundingChronic Disease Research Foundation, Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Alzheimer's Society, European Union, COVID-19 Driver Relief Fund, French National Research Agency.

Dataset Information

Optimal symptom combinations to aid COVID-19 case identification: Analysis from a community-based, prospective, observational cohort.

Objectives

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Publications

Optimal symptom combinations to aid COVID-19 case identification: Analysis from a community-based, prospective, observational cohort.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets