4.5 Article

The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain: characterisation of cases and risk factors for severe outcomes, as at 27 April 2020

期刊

EUROSURVEILLANCE
卷 25, 期 50, 页码 15-27

出版社

EUR CENTRE DIS PREVENTION & CONTROL
DOI: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.50.2001431

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The first wave of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic spread rapidly in Spain, one of Europe's most affected countries. A national lockdown was implemented on 15 March 2020. Aim: To describe reported cases and the impact of national lockdown, and to identify disease severity risk factors. Methods: National surveillance data were used to describe PCR-confirmed cases as at 27 April 2020. We compared case characteristics by severity categories (hospitalisation, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), death) and identified severity risk factors using multivariable regression. Results: The epidemic peaked on 20 March. Of 218,652 COVID-19 cases, 45.4% were hospitalised, 4.6% were admitted to ICU and 11.9% died. Among those who died, 94.8% had at least one underlying disease. Healthcare workers (HCWs) represented 22.9% of cases. Males were more likely to have severe outcomes than females. Cardiovascular disease was a consistent risk factor. Patients with pneumonia had higher odds of hospitalisation (odds ratio (OR): 26.63; 95% confidence interval (CI): 25.03-28.33). The strongest predictor of death was age >= 80 years (OR: 28.4; 95% CI: 19.85-40.78). Among underlying diseases, chronic renal disease had highest odds of death (OR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.29-1.68). Conclusions: COVID-19 case numbers began declining 6 days after the national lockdown. The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain had a severe impact on elderly people. Patients with cardiovascular or renal conditions were at higher risk for severe outcomes. A high proportion of cases were HCWs. Enhanced surveillance and control measures in these subgroups are crucial during future COVID-19 waves.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据