Selected article for: "high intensity and population high intensity"
Author: Cocconcelli, Elisabetta; Castelli, Gioele; Onelia, Francesco; Lavezzo, Enrico; Giraudo, Chiara; Bernardinello, Nicol; Fichera, Giulia; Leoni, Davide; Trevenzoli, Marco; Saetta, Marina; Cattelan, Annamaria; Crisanti, Andrea; Spagnolo, Paolo; Balestro, Elisabetta
Title: Disease Severity and Prognosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Hospitalized Patients Is Not Associated With Viral Load in Nasopharyngeal Swab
  • Cord-id: 1q762lon
  • Document date: 2021_9_10
    • ID: 1q762lon
    Snippet: Background: The impact of viral burden on severity and prognosis of patients hospitalized for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still a matter of debate due to controversial results. Herein, we sought to assess viral load in the nasopharyngeal swab and its association with severity score indexes and prognostic parameters. Methods: We included 127 symptomatic patients and 21 asymptomatic subjects with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection obtained by reverse transcription polymerase chain reac
    Document: Background: The impact of viral burden on severity and prognosis of patients hospitalized for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still a matter of debate due to controversial results. Herein, we sought to assess viral load in the nasopharyngeal swab and its association with severity score indexes and prognostic parameters. Methods: We included 127 symptomatic patients and 21 asymptomatic subjects with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection obtained by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and presence of cycle threshold. According to the level of care needed during hospitalization, the population was categorized as high-intensity (HIMC, n = 76) or low intensity medical care setting (LIMC, n = 51). Results: Viral load did not differ among asymptomatic, LIMC, and HIMC SARS-CoV-2 positive patients [4.4 (2.9–5.3) vs. 4.8 (3.6–6.1) vs. 4.6 (3.9–5.7) log10 copies/ml, respectively; p = 0.31]. Similar results were observed when asymptomatic individuals were compared to hospitalized patients [4.4 (2.9–5.3) vs. 4.68 (3.8–5.9) log10 copies/ml; p = 0.13]. When the study population was divided in High (HVL, n = 64) and Low Viral Load (LVL, n = 63) group no differences were observed in disease severity at diagnosis. Furthermore, LVL and HVL groups did not differ with regard to duration of hospital stay, number of bacterial co-infections, need for high-intensity medical care and number of deaths. The viral load was not an independent risk factor for HIMC in an adjusted multivariate regression model (OR: 1.59; 95% CI: 0.46–5.55, p = 0.46). Conclusions: Viral load at diagnosis is similar in asymptomatic and hospitalized patients and is not associated with either worse outcomes during hospitalization. SARS CoV-2 viral load might not be the right tool to assist clinicians in risk-stratifying hospitalized patients.

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents
    • acute respiratory sars syndrome and admission require: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
    • acute respiratory sars syndrome and admission viral load: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
    • acute respiratory sars syndrome and load evaluation: 1
    • acute respiratory sars syndrome and load group: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    • acute respiratory sars syndrome and load value: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
    • acute respiratory sars syndrome and log10 mean: 1
    • acute respiratory sars syndrome and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
    • acute respiratory sars syndrome and logistic regression analysis: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
    • acute respiratory sars syndrome and low intensity: 1, 2, 3, 4
    • acute respiratory sars syndrome and low upper respiratory tract: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    • admission perform and logistic regression: 1
    • admission require and load value: 1
    • admission require and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
    • admission require and logistic regression analysis: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
    • admission viral load and load evaluation: 1
    • admission viral load and load group: 1, 2, 3, 4
    • admission viral load and load value: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    • admission viral load and logistic regression: 1
    • admission viral load and logistic regression analysis: 1