Clinical and laboratory characteristics in outpatient diagnosis of COVID-19 in healthcare professionals in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Abstract

Aims: This study aimed to identify the symptoms associated with early-stage SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infections in healthcare professionals (HCP) using both clinical and laboratory data. Methods: A total of 1,297 patients, admitted between March 18 and April 8, 2020, were stratified according to their risk of developing COVID-19 using their responses to a questionnaire designed to evaluate symptoms and risk conditions. Results: Anosmia/hyposmia (p <0.0001), fever (p<0.0001), body pain (p<0.0001), and chills (p=0.001) were all independent predictors for COVID-19, with a 72% estimated probability for detecting COVID-19 in nasopharyngeal swab samples. Leukopenia, relative monocytosis, decreased eosinophil values, CRP, and platelets were also shown to be significant independent predictors for COVID-19. Conclusions: The significant clinical features for COVID-19 were identified as anosmia, fever, chills, and body pain. Elevated CRP, leukocytes under 5,400 x 109/L, and relative monocytosis (>9%) were common among patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. These variables may help, in the absence of RT-PCR tests, to identify possible COVID-19 infections during pandemic outbreaks.

Self‐reported olfactory and gustatory dysfunction and psychophysical testing in screening for COVID‐19: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…The pooled estimate from 37 studies 7,16–24,26,29–36, 38,39,43,45,47–59,61,62 yielded an overall sensitivity of 43.9% (95% CI, 37.8%‐50.2%) and specificity of 91.8% (95% CI, 89.0%‐93.9%) for predicting COVID‐19 infection. The pooled positive LR was 5.36 (95% CI, 4.20‐6.81) and negative LR was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.55‐0.67).…”

“…A total of 2113 abstracts were retrieved for screening, 114 full‐text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 50 studies 7–9,16–62 meeting inclusion criteria were selected in the qualitative synthesis. Data from 49 studies 7‐9,16‐43,45‐62 were pooled in the meta‐analysis. Figure 1 displays the flowchart of study selection adhering to PRISMA criteria.…”

“…Table 1 presents the characteristics of included studies 7–9,16–62 . There were 16 case‐control studies 21–23,26–28,32,33,36,44,45,47,53,55,59,62 and 34 cohort studies 7–9,16–20,24,25,29–31,34,35,37–43,46,48–52,54,56–58,60,61 . Sample size ranged from 83 to 11,483 patients.…”

“…Studies originated from 6 continents including Europe, North America, South America, Asia, Australia, and Africa. Thirteen studies 18,20,25,34–37,40,43,45,49,56,59 were carried out with clusters of health‐care workers. Presence of blinding of RT‐PCR test results was adhered to in 22 (44%) of the studies 7–9,19,20,24,28,29,31,34,35,37,38,40–42,48,49,55,57–59 .…”

“…Thirteen studies 18,20,25,34–37,40,43,45,49,56,59 were carried out with clusters of health‐care workers. Presence of blinding of RT‐PCR test results was adhered to in 22 (44%) of the studies 7–9,19,20,24,28,29,31,34,35,37,38,40–42,48,49,55,57–59 . The definition of acute onset (<14‐day duration) of OGD was clearly described in 11 studies 8,20,24,29,32,33,35,39,40,54,60 .…”