Identifying a more severe emergent COVID-19 variant using Emergency Departments' routinely collected clinical measures.

Adelaide Nyinawingeri, Michael Staff
{"title":"Identifying a more severe emergent COVID-19 variant using Emergency Departments' routinely collected clinical measures.","authors":"Adelaide Nyinawingeri,&nbsp;Michael Staff","doi":"10.33321/cdi.2023.47.16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether a clinical scoring system (the mPRIEST score) could be used to identify an emerging coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) variant with increased clinical severity.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross sectional study comparing two time periods (Delta and Omicron waves).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Public Emergency Departments in Northern Sydney Local Health District.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Patients presenting during August 2021 (Delta wave) and January 2022 (Omicron wave) with confirmed COVID-19. Data on age, gender, temperature, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation and mental status were extracted from patients' electronic medical records to assess clinical disease severity at presentation.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Modified Pandemic Respiratory Infection Emergency System Triage (mPRIEST) score calculated using routinely collected data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A sample of 262 records of COVID-19 positive patients presenting during the Delta and initial Omicron waves were reviewed with 205 having COVID-19 as their primary diagnosis. During the Delta wave 48.1% had scores above 4 compared to 35.1% for the Omicron wave (p = 0.03). The median score was also significantly higher for the Delta group (4 vs 3; p = 0.01). Hospitalisations, admissions to ICU and deaths during admission were higher among patients presenting during the Delta wave than among those presenting during the Omicron wave.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The mPRIEST score was significantly higher for patients for whom the predominant circulating variant was Delta than those for whom the predominant circulating variant was Omicron. This finding is consistent with international reporting of severity measured by hospital admission data and demonstrates the score's possible ability to identify an emergent strain with higher morbidity and mortality.</p>","PeriodicalId":36867,"journal":{"name":"Communicable diseases intelligence (2018)","volume":"47 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communicable diseases intelligence (2018)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33321/cdi.2023.47.16","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether a clinical scoring system (the mPRIEST score) could be used to identify an emerging coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) variant with increased clinical severity.

Design: Cross sectional study comparing two time periods (Delta and Omicron waves).

Setting: Public Emergency Departments in Northern Sydney Local Health District.

Participants: Patients presenting during August 2021 (Delta wave) and January 2022 (Omicron wave) with confirmed COVID-19. Data on age, gender, temperature, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation and mental status were extracted from patients' electronic medical records to assess clinical disease severity at presentation.

Main outcome measures: Modified Pandemic Respiratory Infection Emergency System Triage (mPRIEST) score calculated using routinely collected data.

Results: A sample of 262 records of COVID-19 positive patients presenting during the Delta and initial Omicron waves were reviewed with 205 having COVID-19 as their primary diagnosis. During the Delta wave 48.1% had scores above 4 compared to 35.1% for the Omicron wave (p = 0.03). The median score was also significantly higher for the Delta group (4 vs 3; p = 0.01). Hospitalisations, admissions to ICU and deaths during admission were higher among patients presenting during the Delta wave than among those presenting during the Omicron wave.

Conclusion: The mPRIEST score was significantly higher for patients for whom the predominant circulating variant was Delta than those for whom the predominant circulating variant was Omicron. This finding is consistent with international reporting of severity measured by hospital admission data and demonstrates the score's possible ability to identify an emergent strain with higher morbidity and mortality.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用急诊科常规收集的临床措施确定更严重的紧急COVID-19变体。
目的:确定临床评分系统(mPRIEST评分)是否可用于识别临床严重程度增加的新发冠状病毒病2019 (COVID-19)变体。设计:横断面研究比较两个时间段(Delta波和ommicron波)。地点:悉尼北部地方卫生区的公共紧急部门。参与者:2021年8月(Delta波)和2022年1月(Omicron波)期间确诊的COVID-19患者。从患者的电子病历中提取年龄、性别、体温、心率、收缩压、呼吸频率、血氧饱和度和精神状态等数据,以评估临床疾病的严重程度。主要结果测量:使用常规收集的数据计算改良大流行性呼吸道感染紧急系统分诊(mPRIEST)评分。结果:分析了262例在Delta波和初始欧米克隆波期间出现的COVID-19阳性患者的记录,其中205例以COVID-19为主要诊断。在Delta波中,48.1%的患者得分在4分以上,而在Omicron波中,这一比例为35.1% (p = 0.03)。Delta组的中位评分也显著更高(4 vs 3;P = 0.01)。在三角洲波期间出现的患者的住院率、ICU入院率和入院期间的死亡率高于在欧米克隆波期间出现的患者。结论:主要循环变异为Delta的患者的mPRIEST评分明显高于主要循环变异为Omicron的患者。这一发现与国际上通过住院数据衡量严重程度的报告一致,并证明了该评分可能能够识别具有较高发病率和死亡率的紧急菌株。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
72
期刊最新文献
Measles secondary vaccine failure in a childcare setting: an outbreak report. Meningococcal Surveillance Australia: Reporting period 1 April to 30 June 2024. Meningococcal Surveillance Australia: Reporting period 1 January to 31 March 2024. Never waste a measles outbreak. Learning from COVID-19: strengthening Australia's research capacity through preparedness and collaboration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1