Characterization of clinical progression of COVID-19 patients in Shenzhen, China

Study design and study population

This single-centre, observational study was conducted at Shenzhen Third People’s Hospital, which is the designated hospital to treat all patients with COVID-19 in Shenzhen. We prospectively collected data of all 420 patients diagnosed and hospitalized with COVID-19 in Shenzhen between January 11th and March 10th 2020, regardless of their clinical severity and symptom profile.

Data collection

Epidemiological, demographic, laboratory, clinical, and outcome data were extracted from electronic medical records using a standardised data collection form. All information was updated as of April 7th 2020. Data were reviewed by multiple reviewers (BS, JC, JZ, PZ), and any disagreement between reviewers was resolved by consultation with an attending physician (JM). Data from patients with severe or critical clinical assessment were extracted by an attending physician (JM) and reviewed with a reviewer (CH) to ensure data quality.

We obtained information on demographic characteristics, mode of detection, and date of onset for each symptom. Date of symptom onset before admission was self-reported and date of symptom onset after admission was recorded by an attending physician. Clinical severity was defined based on guidelines issued by the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China, and the severity definition was generally consistent over time (see supplemental table 3 for guidelines in each version) ⁷. We recorded clinical severity at initial diagnosis and date of severity progression. Clinical severity was assessed daily when mild or moderate and was assessed twice a day when severe or critical.

Dates of ICU admission and discharge were recorded, as well as dates beginning and ending invasive ventilator use. Patients were eligible for discharge from the hospital or transfer to a non-COVID ward for treatment if they met all of the following: 1) no fever for over 3 days, 2) drastic improvement in respiratory symptoms, 3) pulmonary imaging showing significant reduction in inflammation, and 4) two consecutive negative RT-PCR results from respiratory sampling conducted over one day apart ⁷. We counted time in non-COVID wards for treatment of COVID-19 related complications towards the duration of hospitalization.

We recorded patients’ self-reported medical history (See table 1 for a list of baseline comorbidities). We reviewed laboratory results and created binary variables indicating presence of any abnormalities and the date when such abnormalities were detected (see Table1 for a complete list of lab indicators and abnormality cutoff). The x-ray computed tomography (CT) results were extracted from radiological examinations. We recorded the lowest cycle threshold values from the available RT-PCR testings and the date when the testing was performed. We also recorded complications developed during hospitalization.

The primary endpoints in this study include patients’ time from symptom onset to clinical progression beyond the moderate stage, ICU admission, invasive ventilator use, and discharge. We also examined other endpoints including time to when PaO₂/FiO₂ dropped under 300mmHg and time to developing ARDS.

Statistical analyses

We estimated cumulative incidence of developing key clinical events in the presence of competing risks (i.e., death and hospital discharge) using the Aalen-Johansen estimator ^8,9. Outcomes included progression to severe stage, low PaO2/FiO2 ratio, ARDS, ICU admission, use of invasive ventilator, and hospital discharge.

We estimated patients’ duration of hospitalization by calculating the area above the cumulative incidence of hospital discharge or death, which was estimated using the Aalen-Johansen estimator ^8,9. In addition, we estimated the time patients admitted to the ICU ultimately spent in the ICU as the area between the cumulative incidence functions for ICU entry and ICU exit among those who were admitted into ICU. We treated death while in the ICU and ICU discharge as a composite event when estimating cumulative incidence of ICU exit. Similarly, we estimated the duration of invasive ventilator use among patients requiring ventilation, as the area between the cumulative incidence functions for ventilator initiation and ventilator discontinuation. We treated death during ventilator use and withdrawal of ventilator support as a composite event when estimating ventilator discontinuation. We compared times in each state estimated using the nonparametric approach described above with times estimated using a parametric accelerated failure time models to examine improvements in precision seen when invoking a parametric approach (see Text S2 for detailed method). We used bootstrap simulation to construct confidence intervals (2000 bootstrap simulations for time to recovery and time to ARDS, and 200 bootstrap simulations for time to ICU entry/discharge and ventilator use/withdrawal). 95% confidence intervals were the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the distribution of point estimates from the bootstrap samples.

We used competing risk regressions according to the methods of Fine and Gray ¹⁰ to estimate subdistribution hazard ratios comparing the rate of clinical progression between subgroups that were defined a priori (See Table 3 for the list of subgroups). We compared the rate of clinical progression to severe stage, ICU admission, ARDS, and hospital discharge between subgroups. Except for the models where time to hospital discharge was the outcome, hospital discharge and death were treated as competing events and end of study as administrative censoring for those still in treatment.

We used a flexible approach to stratify cases into three risk strata for the purpose of visualizing different clinical trajectories. We constructed a random survival forest model (RSF) and divided cases into low, medium, and high risk groups based on tertiles of RSF out-of-bag predictions. The candidate predictors used in the RSF model included 1) demographic information, 2) baseline comorbidities, 3) symptom profile, lab and CT results within 5 days of any symptom onset. Hospital discharge was treated as a competing event. All four deaths occurred after cases progressed beyond the severe stage, thus they were not treated as competing events. We calculated AUC over time since symptom onset (tAUC), providing a measure of model performance across all possible classification thresholds and based on the observed number of cases entering the severe stage by each time point ¹¹. We fit 1000 trees, considered 5 random splits for each candidate splitting variables, and used the log-rank test as the split function.

Characteristics of cases and description of baseline comorbidities

Four-hundred and twenty cases were admitted and hospitalized to Shenzhen Third People’s Hospital between January 11th and March 10th, 2020 (Figure S1). Fifteen percent (63/420) of cases were detected through contact tracing (Table 1). On average, the first clinical diagnosis occurred 1.9 days (95% CI 1.6,2.3) and hospitalization occurred 4.2 days (95%CI 3.8,4.6) after symptom onset.

Of the 420 cases, there were approximately equal numbers of males (47.6%, n=200) and females (52.4%, n=220) (Table 1). A large portion (38.8%, n=163) were under the age of 40 and the majority (83.1%, n=349) were detected through symptom-based surveillance. 21.9% (92/420) of cases had at least one self-reported comorbidity on admission, with hypertension (n=49) and diabetes (n=24) being the most prevalent.

Fever, cough, sputum production were the most common initial symptoms, with 68.6% (288) of patients showing fever, 60.0% (252) with cough, and 31.2% (131) with sputum production within 5 days of initial symptom onset (see supplemental figure for onset time distribution of each symptom). 25.2% (106) of patients never had fever, and 26.9% (113) of patients never had cough.

At the initial clinical assessment, 23 patients (5.5%) were clinically mild, the vast majority (93.8%, n=394) were moderate, and only 3 patients were clinically severe or critical (Figure S2).

Clinical progression of cases

We estimated the proportion of the initially mild or moderate cases in each stage (mild/moderate, severe, ICU, death or discharge) over time following symptom onset, taking into account patients both transitioning into and out of each stage (Figure 1A). The total number of patients in the severe stage reached its peak 12 days after symptom onset. Among the 417 patients who were classified as mild or moderate at the time of initial assessment, 21.6% (90/417) progressed to the severe stage. 9.6% (95%CI, 6.8%, 12.4%) progressed to the severe stage within 7 days after symptom onset, and 20.4% (95%CI, 16.5%, 24.3%) progressed within 14 days (Figure 1 and 2). Those who progressed to the severe stage progressed on average 9.5 days (95%CI 8.7,10.3) after symptom onset. Among the 417 patients who were classified as mild or moderate at the time of initial assessment, 8.6% (36/417) developed ARDS. 2.6% (95%CI 1.1%,4.2%) developed ARDS within 7 days from symptom onset, and 7.7% (95%CI 5.1%, 10.2%) within 14 days. Those who developed ARDS developed ARDS on average 11.0 days (95%CI 9.7,12.3) after symptom onset.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Clinical progression within 80 days following symptom onset for a) all cases with mild or moderate initial assessment, and b) cases in each of three risk subgroups obtained from random survival forest (see Results for the list of predictors).

From the top to the bottom, the four curves show the time-varying proportions of all admitted cases who 1) have not been discharged, i.e., still hospitalized or have died in hospital, 2) were severe, in the ICU, or have died, 3) were in the ICU or have died, and 4) have died. Successive differences between the four curves over 80 days from symptom onset were highlighted in distinct colors and show daily composition of cases in each of four stages (mild/moderate, severe, ICU, died).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Cumulative incidence to clinical events and difference by age and sex.

A) Cumulative incidence of advancing to severe stage, PaO2/FiO2 dropping below 300mmHg, requiring ICU admission, and developing acute respiratory distress syndrome. B) cumulative incidence of ICU admission by age group and sex. C) cumulative incidence of hospital discharge by age group and sex.

As of April 7th, 19 patients had been admitted to ICU, among which 18 patients required invasive mechanical ventilation support, 4 patients died (1 patient died after initial hospital discharge with viral clearance), and 4 patients remained hospitalized in critical condition. We estimated that among the 417 patients who were classified as mild or moderate at the time of initial assessment, 3.3% (95%CI, 1.6%, 5.1%) of patients required ICU admission within 14 days from symptom onset (same for patients who required mechanical ventilators support). Those who required ICU admission were admitted into ICU on average 10.5 days (95%CI 8.2,13.3) after symptom onset. Using data from the 19 patients who were admitted into ICU, we estimated the average time in ICU was 34.4 days (95%CI 24.1,43.2) (Table 2). Using data from the 18 patients who required mechanical ventilator support, we estimated the average time on a ventilator was 28.5 days (95%CI 20.0,39.1).

The median length of hospital stay was 21.3 days (95%CI, 20.5, 22.2) for the mild or moderate cases who did not progress to the severe stage, and increased to 30.3 days (95%CI, 26.7, 31.4) for cases who reached the severe stage but did not enter ICU and 52.1 days (95%CI, 43.3, 59.5) for the cases who required ICU admission. Of note, patients in Shenzhen were required to be hospitalized for about 2 weeks for isolation; 21% (86/417) of the cases that were initially mild or moderate were discharged within 14 days from hospitalization, 34% (140/417) within 16 days. The duration of hospitalization for the mild or moderate cases was likely inflated as a result. All patients who were clinically mild at the time of initial assessment stayed mild until discharge (Figure S1).

Characteristics associated with difference in clinical progression

We then identified a priori-defined patients’ characteristics that were associated with faster clinical progression. We found that having hypertension and diabetes at baseline was strongly associated with faster clinical progression to various clinical events, including progression to the severe stage (sHR=3.2, 95%CI 2.1,5.1 for hypertension and sHR=3.0, 95%CI 1.6,5.4 for diabetes), to developing ARDS (sHR=3.6, 95%CI 1.8,6.9 for hypertension and sHR=5.5, 95%CI 2.7,11.3 for diabetes), and to ICU admission (sHR=4.6, 95%CI 1.8,11.6 for hypertension and sHR=4.7, 95%CI 1.6,14.1 for diabetes) (Table 3). Having more baseline comorbidities was also associated with a higher rate of clinical progression to these events (Table 3). Although many lab abnormalities measured within 5 days of symptom onset were strongly predictive of faster clinical progression, including low lymphocyte count, low platelet count, high concentration of C-reactive protein, and high concentration of D-dimer, notably, a low PaO2/FiO2 ratio close to symptom onset was very strongly associated with faster clinical progression. We observed a 22.3 times (95%CI 8.4, 58.8) increase in the subdistribution hazard of ICU admission among those with early measures of low PaO2/FiO2 ratio (Table 3).

Older age was one of the most important predictors of faster clinical progression (Table 3). All four patients who died were male over the age of 60. About half (46.3%, 50/108) of cases aged 60 or above progressed to the severe or critical stage (Table 1). Although the vast majority of those under the age of 40 did not progress beyond the moderate stage, 6% (9/163) of cases in this younger age group became clinically severe or critical and none of them had any known underlying comorbidities.

Sex was strongly associated with clinical progression of cases, though the difference by sex was mostly driven by the difference among older patients. We did not observe a significant difference in time to ICU admission between males and females under the age of 60 (sHR = 0.7, 95%CI 0.1,4.3 comparing males with reference to females; Table S1, Figure 2b). However, we observed a noteable difference in progression to require ICU admission between males and females aged 60 or above; males in this older age group had a 10-fold increase in the subdistribution hazard of ICU admission compared to females in the same age group (sHR=10.5, 95%CI 1.0, 108.6), despite the similar sex-specific age distribution in this age group (males: mean 67, IQR 63,69 vs. females: mean 65, IQR 62,66) (Table S1). Differences in baseline comorbidities between older males and females did not explain the disparity; after adjusting for having any underlying comorbidity, the subdistribution hazard ratio remained unchanged (Table S1). Similarly, we found that males aged 60 or above had a lower rate of hospital discharge compared to females in the same age group, and no significant difference by sex in the younger age group (Figure 2c). However, we did not find significant disparities in clinical progression to severe stage or to developing ARDS by sex in any age group (Table S1).

Using linear regression, we found that the minimum RT-PCR cycle threshold values for the severe cases were significantly lower than the mild cases after adjusting for time of sample collection with reference to symptom onset. We observed a general trend of lower minimum cycle threshold values in patients with more severe clinical presentation and in patients in the older age group though the association with age was not statistically significant (Figure S5).

Risk strata for clinical progression

Based on the random survival forest results, the most important predictors of faster progression to the severe stage were low PaO2/FiO2 ratio, low platelet count, and high C-reactive protein concentration (Figure S8a). We observed very different clinical trajectories of patients in each risk group (Figure 1b), highlighting the effectiveness of risk stratification produced by the RSF model. In the low-risk group, no case required ICU admission and only 3% (95%CI, 0.1%,6%) of cases became severe within 14 days from symptom onset. Whereas in the high-risk group, we estimated that 43% (95%CI, 35, 52) cases became severe and 9% (95%CI, 4%,14%) required ICU admission within 14 days from symptom onset. All but one case that required ICU admission were classified into the high-risk group, and we estimated that the duration in ICU for those in the high-risk group was 35.1 days (95%CI, 26.1,45.1) (Table 2, Figure S8). Risk stratification produced by a RSF model that excluded lab and CT results from the candidate predictors also differentiated clinical trajectory of patients well (Figure S7, Figure S8 c-d).