Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak is evolving rapidly worldwide. Objective: To evaluate the risk of serious adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 by stratifying the comorbidity status. Methods: We analysed data from 1590 laboratory confirmed hospitalised patients from 575 hospitals in 31 provinces/autonomous regions/provincial municipalities across mainland China between 11 December 2019 and 31 January 2020. We analysed the composite end-points, which consisted of admission to an intensive care unit, invasive ventilation or death. The risk of reaching the composite end-points was compared according to the presence and number of comorbidities. Results: The mean age was 48.9 years and 686 (42.7%) patients were female. Severe cases accounted for 16.0% of the study population. 131 (8.2%) patients reached the composite end-points. 399 (25.1%) reported having at least one comorbidity. The most prevalent comorbidity was hypertension (16.9%), followed by diabetes (8.2%). 130 (8.2%) patients reported having two or more comorbidities. After adjusting for age and smoking status, COPD (HR (95% CI) 2.681 (1.424-5.048)), diabetes (1.59 (1.03-2.45)), hypertension (1.58 (1.07-2.32)) and malignancy (3.50 (1.60-7.64)) were risk factors of reaching the composite end-points. The hazard ratio (95% CI) was 1.79 (1.16-2.77) among patients with at least one comorbidity and 2.59 (1.61-4.17) among patients with two or more comorbidities. Conclusion: Among laboratory confirmed cases of COVID-19, patients with any comorbidity yielded poorer clinical outcomes than those without. A greater number of comorbidities also correlated with poorer clinical outcomes. This article has supplementary material available from

Please cite this article as: Liang W-hua, Guan W-jie, Li C-chen, et al. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 treated in Hubei (epicenter) and outside Hubei (non-epicenter): A Nationwide Analysis of China. Eur Respir J 2020; in press (https://doi.Abstract BACKGROUND: During the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), consistent and considerable differences in disease severity and mortality rate of patients treated in Hubei province compared to those in other parts of China has been observed. We sought to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients being treated inside and outside Hubei province, and explore the factors underlying these differences. METHODS:Collaborating with the National Health Commission, we established a retrospective cohort to study hospitalized COVID-19 cases in China. Clinical characteristics, the rate of severe events and deaths, and the time to critical illness (invasive ventilation or intensive care unit admission or death) were compared between patients in and outside of Hubei. The impact of Wuhan-related exposure (a presumed key factor that drove the severe situation in Hubei, as Wuhan is the epicenter as well the administrative center of Hubei province) and the duration between symptom onset and admission on prognosis were also determined. RESULTS:Upon data cut-off (Jan 31st, 2020), 1,590 cases from 575 hospitals in 31 provincial administrative regions were collected (core cohort). The overall rate of severe cases and mortality was 16.0% and 3.2%, respectively. Patients in Hubei (predominantly with Wuhan-related exposure, 597/647, 92.3%) were older (mean: 49.7 vs. 44.9 years), had more cases with comorbidity (32.9% vs. 19.7%), higher symptomatic burden, abnormal radiologic manifestations, and, especially, a longer waiting time between symptom onset and admission (5.7 vs. 4.5 days) compared with patients outside Hubei. Patients in Hubei [severe event rate 23.0% vs. 11.1%, death rate 7.3% vs. 0.3%, hazards ratio (HR) for critical illness 1.59, 95%CI 1.05-2.41] have a poorer prognosis compared with patients outside of Hubei after adjusting for age and comorbidity. However, among patients outside of Hubei, the duration from symptom onset to hospitalization (mean: 4.4 vs. 4.7 days) and prognosis (HR 0.84, were similar between patients with or without Wuhan-related exposure. In the overall population, the waiting time, but neither treated in Hubei nor Wuhan-related exposure, remained an independent prognostic factor (HR 1.05, 1.01-1.08).CONCLUSION: There were more severe cases and poorer outcomes for COVID-19 patients treated in Hubei, which might be attributed to the prolonged duration of symptom onset to hospitalization in the epicenter. Future studies to determine the reason for delaying hospitalization are warranted.

Findings from this study provided evidence that dietary habits, tobacco-smoking and alcohol drinking contribute to the etiology of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. A healthy dietary habit, with smoking cessation and alcohol controlling is of a great importance in the prevention of esophageal cancer.

Background and Purpose— High rates of ischemic stroke and poor adherence to secondary prevention measures are observed in the Chinese population. Methods— We used a national, multicenter, cluster-randomized controlled trial in which 47 hospitals were randomized to either a structured care program group (n=23) or a usual care group (n=24). The structured care program consisted of a specialist-administered, guideline-recommended pharmaceutical treatment and a lifestyle modification algorithm associated with written and Internet-accessed educational material for patients for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients who adhered to the recommended measures at 12-month postdischarge. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT00664846). Results— At 12 months, 1287 (72.1%) patients in the Standard Medical Management in Secondary Prevention of Ischemic Stroke in China (SMART) group and 1430 (72%) patients in the usual care group had completed the 12-month follow-up ( P =0.342). Compared with the usual care group, those in the SMART group showed higher adherence to statins (56% versus 33%; P =0.006) but no difference in adherence to antiplatelet (81% versus 75%; P =0.088), antihypertensive (67% versus 69%; P =0.661), or diabetes mellitus drugs (73% versus 67%; P =0.297). No significant difference in the composite end point (new-onset ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, acute coronary syndrome, and all-cause death) was observed (3.56% versus 3.59%; P =0.921). Conclusions— The implementation of a program to improve adherence to secondary ischemic stroke prevention efforts in China is feasible, but these programs had only a limited impact on adherence and no impact on 1-year outcomes. Further development of a structured program to reduce vascular events after stroke is needed. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00664846.