Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) has caused a major epidemic worldwide. A novel coronavirus is deemed to be the causative agent. Early diagnosis can be made with reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) of nasopharyngeal aspirate samples. We compared symptoms of 156 SARS-positive and 62 SARS-negative patients in Hong Kong; SARS was confirmed by RT-PCR. The RT-PCR–positive patients had significantly more shortness of breath, a lower lymphocyte count, and a lower lactate dehydrogenase level; they were also more likely to have bilateral and multifocal chest radiograph involvement, to be admitted to intensive care, to need mechanical ventilation, and to have higher mortality rates. By multivariate analysis, positive RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal aspirate samples was an independent predictor of death within 30 days.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is an emerging infectious disease worldwide. By May 28, 2003, a total of 745 patients had died of SARS and 8,240 persons were infected. At the same time
Two hundred sixty-seven patients fulfilling CDC case definition for suspected or probable SARS were admitted to the isolation wards of the Princess Margaret Hospital from February 26, 2003, to March 31, 2003. RT-PCR on NPA became available to us in mid-March. We included in our study 218 patients who had nasopharyngeal RT-PCR performed at illness onset.
Routine hematologic, biochemical, and microbiologic tests were performed for all patients. NPA samples were examined by rapid immunofluorescence antigen detection methods for viral cell culture and for common respiratory virus, including influenza viruses A and B; adenovirus; respiratory syncytial virus; and parainfluenza virus types 1, 2, and 3. Sputum samples were screened for bacterial and mycobacterial infection by conventional microscopic identification (Gram staining and acid-fast staining) and culture methods (blood, chocolate, MacConkey, and Löwenstein-Jensen media). Serologic testing for
The NPA sample collected from patients was added into a sterile vial containing 2 mL of viral transport medium and then transported on ice (4°C) to the Public Health Laboratory Centre, Government Virology Unit (GVU) of Hong Kong. Total RNA from 140 μL of each NPA sample was extracted by a QIAamp viral RNA Mini kit (QIAGEN, Valencia, CA), as instructed by the manufacturer and eluted in 60 μL of buffer. A total of 4.2 μL of eluted RNA was reverse-transcribed with use of reverse transcriptase (Applied Biosystem, Foster City, CA) in a 20-μL reaction containing 2.5 μM (final concentration) of random hexamer. The mixture was incubated at room temperature for 10 min and then at 42°C for 15 min. The reaction was stopped at 95°C for 5 min and then chilled in ice. The primers used for amplification, COR-1 and COR-2, were targeted at the coronavirus polymerase gene designed by GVU: sense 5′ CAC CGT TTC TAC AGG TTA GCT AAC GA 3′and antisense 5′ AAA TGT TTA CGC AGG TAA GCG TAA AA 3′, with expected product size of 311 bp. Five microliters of cDNA was amplified in 45 μL of master mixture containing 5 μL of 10X PCR buffer (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech, Piscataway, NJ), 1 μL of 2 5 mM extra MgCl2, 4 μL of deoxynucleoside triphosphates (dNTPs) (2.5 mM each), 0.5 μL of each primer, 0.3 μL of Taq polymerase (5 U/mL), and 33.7 μL of molecular grade water. One positive control and one negative control were included in each PCR assay. Reactions were performed in a thermocycler (GeneAmp PCR System 9700, Applied Biosystem) with the following conditions: at 94°C for 3 min, followed by 45 cycles of 94°C for 30 s, 60°C for 30 s, 72°C for 1 min, and 72°C for 7 min. PCR products were analyzed by gel electrophoresis.
All patients received treatment according to a standard protocol. Either a β-lactam plus β-lactamase inhibitor or third-generation cephalosporin in combination with a macrolide or a fluoroquinolone was given to the patient at admission. Per the recommendation of the Hospital Authority of Hong Kong, an antiviral drug (ribavirin 24 mg/kg/day intravenously, together with hydrocortisone 10 mg/kg/day) was administered if the symptoms did not respond within 48 h (The recommendations were found available at: URL:
Bivariate analysis was performed for epidemiologic, clinical, laboratory, radiologic data, and outcomes by using RT-PCR results as the dependent variable. Data of continuous variables were expressed as mean and standard deviation. Chi-square test was used for categorical variables, and the unpaired Student t test was performed for continuous variables. All significant factors for death with a p value
On admission, nasopharyngeal RT-PCR was performed on 90 male and 128 female patients (mean age 39.6 ± 14 years). All patients, except six, were Chinese; two were Indonesian, and four were Filipino. Twenty-one of the patients (10%) were healthcare workers, including 5 clinicians, 9 nurses, 5 ward assistants, and 2 allied health workers who worked in the SARS wards. Forty-one patients (19%) reported having recently traveled to SARS-endemic areas in the 2 weeks before admission; the most common areas visited were in the southern part of China. Our cohort consisted of patients (46.8%) from a local housing estate, the Amoy Gardens. Ten patients (4.6%) had one or more coexisting medical problems: diabetes mellitus (3 cases), a history of cerebrovascular disease (4 cases), ischemic heart disease (3 cases), chronic rheumatic heart disease (1 case), hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (1 case), sick sinus syndrome (1 case), cirrhosis of the liver secondary to chronic hepatitis B (1 case), bronchiectasis (1 case), end-stage renal disease (1 case), Sjögren syndrome (1 case), and nasopharyngeal carcinoma (1 case). The proportions of patients from Amoy Gardens that were RT-PCR positive (48%) and negative (45.7%) were not significantly different (p = 0.76). Likewise, the proportions of healthcare workers (p = 0.28) or patients with coexisting conditions (p = 0.83) did not differ significantly.
NPA samples for RT-PCR were taken from all patients at admission; samples from 156 patients (71.6%) were positive. The mean time from disease onset to sample collection was 4.4 ± 2.3 days. No significant difference in the mean sampling time was found between RT-PCR–positive or –negative patients. The optimal time for sample collection was day 8–10 when 13 of 14 patients (92.9%) were positive (
Percentage of reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positivity at different times of sample collection after onset of symptoms.
The most common clinical features for both RT-PCR–positive and –negative cases included fever, chill, malaise, myalgia, cough, rigor, and headache (
| Symptoms | Positive RT-PCR for coronavirus n=156 (%) | Negative RT-PCR for coronavirus n=62 (%) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time from symptoms onset to sample collection (days) | 4.5 ± 2.2 | 4.2 ± 2.4 | 0.366 |
| Fever | 155 (99) | 60 (97) | 0.139 |
| Chill | 120 (77) | 51 (82.3) | 0.388 |
| Malaise | 103 (66) | 34 (54.8) | 0.123 |
| Myalgia | 84 (53.8) | 30 (48.4) | 0.467 |
| Cough | 66 (42.3) | 27 (43.5) | 0.867 |
| Rigor | 65 (41.7) | 27 (43.5) | 0.800 |
| Headache | 49 (31.4) | 25 (40.3) | 0.210 |
| Anorexia | 37 (23.7) | 14 (22.6) | 0.858 |
| Sputum | 28 (18) | 13 (21) | 0.607 |
| Shortness of breath | 36 (23) | 5 (8.1) | |
| Dizziness | 23 (14.7) | 17 (27.4) | |
| Diarrhea | 22 (14.1) | 9 (14.5) | 0.937 |
| Sore throat | 21 (13.5) | 10 (16.1) | 0.611 |
| Runny nose | 15 (9.6) | 9 (14.5) | 0.297 |
| Chest pain | 13 (8.3) | 8 (12.9) | 0.302 |
| Vomiting | 12 (7.7) | 5 (8) | 0.926 |
| Palpitation | 2 (1.3) | 2 (3.2) | 0.320 |
| Hemoptysis | 1 (0.6) | 1 (1.6) | 0.497 |
| Confusion | 1 (0.6) | 1 (1.6) | 0.497 |
aFisher exact test was applied if p value was <5; RT-PCR, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction; p values in bold are significant.
| Positive RT-PCR for coronavirus (n = 156) | Negative RT-PCR for coronavirus (n = 62) | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vital sign upon admission | |||
| Temperature (°C) | 38.5 ± 0.9 | 38.4 ± 0.9 | 0.774 |
| Heart rate | 95 ± 14 | 98 ± 16 | 0.571 |
| Systolic blood pressure | 127 ± 18 | 130 ± 19 | 0.503 |
| Diastolic blood pressure | 71 ± 11 | 73 ± 12 | 0.450 |
| Laboratory findings upon admission | |||
| Hemoglobin level (g/dL) | 13.3 ± 1.4 | 13.0 ± 1.6 | 0.160 |
| Leukocyte count (x 109/L) | 5.5 ± 2.7 | 5.5 ± 1.9 | 0.954 |
| Neutrophil count (x 109/L) | 4.3 ± 2.6 | 4.2 ± 2.3 | 0.885 |
| Lymphocyte count (x 109/L) | 0.8 ± 0.3 | 0.9 ± 0.3 | |
| Platelet count (x 109/L) | 155 ± 55 | 166 ± 50 | 0.137 |
| Prothrombin time (sec) | 12 ± 2 | 12 ± 1 | 0.396 |
| Activated partial thromboplastin time (sec) | 35 ± 10 | 33 ± 5 | 0.094 |
| Sodium level (mmol/L) | 134 ± 4 | 134 ± 3 | 0.423 |
| Potassium level (mmol/L) | 3.6 ± 0.5 | 3.5 ± 0.4 | 0.787 |
| Urea level (mmol/L) | 3.7 ± 1.8 | 3.6 ± 4 | 0.200a |
| Creatinine level (mmol/L) | 74 ± 19 | 80 ± 79 | 0.885a |
| Albumin level (g/L) | 37± 4 | 38 ± 5 | 0.112 |
| Globulin (g/L) | 33 ± 5 | 33 ± 4 | 0.737 |
| Bilirubin (mmol/L) | 9 ± 6 | 8 ± 5 | 0.798 |
| Alkaline phosphatase (IU/L) | 75 ± 58 | 67 ± 33 | 0.245a |
| Alanine aminotransferase (IU/L) | 43 ± 41 | 33 ± 30 | 0.051a |
| Creatinine phosphokinase (IU/L) | 422 ± 1987 | 189 ± 391 | 0.118a |
| Lactate dehydrogenase (IU/L) | 287 ± 141 | 208 ± 67 |
aComparison made after log-transformation of data; RT-PCR, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction; p values in bold are significant.
Eighty-seven NPA RT-PCR–positive patients and 33 RT-PCR–negative patients had serologic tests on their paired serum samples 10–14 days apart. Of the positive RT-PCR patients, 74 patients (85.1%) had total antibodies detected by IFA, while serologic tests for 25 patients (75.8%) in the RT-PCR–negative group were positive. Results for 13 patients in the RT-PCR–positive group and 8 patients in the RT-PCR–negative group were negative.
Initial chest radiographs for 210 patients (96.3%) were abnormal. Sixty-five (41.7%) RT-PCR–positive patients and 13 (21%) RT-PCR–negative patients had bilateral chest involvement shown by radiograph. Multifocal radiologic involvement was found in 74 (47.4%) RT-PCR–positive patients and 15 (24.2%) RT-PCR–negative patients. By bivariate analysis, RT-PCR–negative patients were less likely to have abnormal bilateral (p = 0.01) and multifocal (p = 0.003) radiographs.
The overall 30-day mortality rate was 10.1% (22 patients). Fifty-two (23.9%) patients required intensive-care unit (ICU) admission, and 43 patients (19.7%) needed mechanical ventilation. In nine (4.1%) patients, acute renal failure further complicated SARS. When compared to the RT-PCR–negative patients, the RT-PCR–positive patients were more likely to need treatment in the ICU (p = 0.002), require mechanical ventilation (p = 0.008), and die (p = 0.044) (
| Clinical progress/outcome | Positive RT-PCR for coronavirus n=156 (%) | Negative RT-PCR for coronavirus n=62 (%) | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients requiring ICU care | 46 (29.5) | 6 (9.7) | 0.002 | |
| Patients requiring mechanical ventilation | 38 (24.4) | 5 (8.1) | 0.008a | |
| Patients developing acute renal failure | 8 (5.1) | 1 (1.6) | 0.451a | |
| Death | 20 (12.8) | 2 (3.2) | 0.044a | |
aFisher exact test was applied if number was <5; RT-PCR, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction.
Admission parameters, including epidemiologic data, vital signs, and laboratory and chest radiographic findings, were analyzed separately. By bivariate analysis, factors associated with death were age >60 (p = 0.037), male sex (p = 0.007), major coexisting medical conditions (p = 0.001), shortness of breath (p = 0.005), total leukocyte count >4.0 x 109/L (p = 0.041), bilateral chest radiographic involvement (p = 0.046), RT-PCR positivity on NPA samples (p = 0.034), and pulsing doses of steroid (p = 0.001). By multivariate analysis, independent predictors of 30-day mortality were RT-PCR positivity on NPA samples (odds ratio [OR] 6.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 to 38.0; p = 0.038), shortness of breath on admission (OR 3.9; 95% CI 1.2 to 12.3; p = 0.02), presence of important coexisting condition (OR 13.4; 95% CI 3.1 to 58.2; p = 0.001), total leukocyte count >4.0 x 109/L (OR, 6.94; 95% CI 1.18 to 41.6; p = 0.033), and pulsing doses of methylprednisolone (OR 26.0; 95% CI 4.4 to 154.8; p = 0.001) (
| Risk factors | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | p value |
|---|---|---|
| Significant coexisting conditions | 13.4 (3.1 to 58.2) | 0.001 |
| Shortness of breath on admission | 3.9 (1.2 to 12.3) | 0.020 |
| Total leukocyte count >4.0 x109/L
at admission | 6.94 (1.18 to 41.6) | 0.033 |
| Positive RT-PCR on NPA | 6.4 (1.1 to 38.0) | 0.038 |
| Use of pulsing doses of steroid | 26.0 (4.4 to 154.8) | 0.001 |
aOR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; RT-PCR, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction; NPA, nasopharyngeal aspirates.
In general, the epidemiologic background, clinical presentation, laboratory findings, and radiologic findings of our patients were similar to those of other reports (
Currently, the definition of SARS is mainly clinical, and diagnosis is made by exclusion of pneumonia from other known causal agents. However, patients with similar clinical scenarios may not be infected by the same agent, and placing them in the same location may spread infection. Unfortunately isolating every patient is not possible, especially with a large cohort. An early, rapid, and reliable test is needed. After coronavirus was recognized as the putative agent for SARS, diagnostic tests have burgeoned rapidly over the past 2 months. However, serologic tests cannot offer an early diagnosis since, despite their remarkable specificity, they require approximately 3 weeks for the total antibodies to become detectable (
RT-PCR for coronavirus on NPA samples appears to be the best supportive test for an early and firm diagnosis. However, the sensitivity of this test varies, and standardization of the test has not been unified. The test we used was qualitative and had good sensitivity (71.6%). In our study, the mean time between onset of symptoms and sample collection was 4.3 days. Peiris et al. reported that the sensitivity for RT-PCR was 32% at a mean 3.2 days after onset (
Peiris et al. reported that the sensitivity of stool samples for RT-PCR tests was 97% (mean of 14.2 days) (
Patients with a positive RT-PCR result on admission had adverse outcomes in term of survival, ICU care, and assisted ventilation, when compared to patients with negative RT-PCR results. Therefore, the patients with overwhelming disease had more viral shedding, which may have been more readily detected. Despite the satisfactory sensitivity that we demonstrated, the test might not provide the information for quantitative analysis. Hence, a negative result might not represent low viral load in patients and vice versa. A quantitative RT-PCR could give us some idea as to the correlation between the viral concentration and disease progression. Peiris et al. reported that the maximal viral replication by quantitative RT-PCR occurred by approximately day 10, but the clinical worsening seemed to lag behind this peak (
The clinical outcomes of RT-PCR–positive patients are worse in general when compared to RT-PCR–negative patients, and their chest radiographs show more bilateral and multifocal haziness. A higher level of lactate dehydrogenase was observed in the RT-PCR–positive patients, which might indicate more extensive lung tissue injury, as indicated in other SARS patients with poor outcome (
How to handle negative results in RT-PCR testing is a problem. In accordance with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommendations, a negative result has at least two possibilities (
Results of both RT-PCR and antibody tests were negative in eight patients; all of these patients had signs and symptoms that were clinically, radiologically, or biochemically well-matched with SARS, and they were given treatment, including ribavirin and steroid. Pulsing doses of steroid was also used in two of these patients. In addition to the sample timing, these patients could represent a milder spectrum of the disease with little antibody stimulation or inconspicuous coronavirus RNA level, or simply infection other than coronavirus. Antibody production may have been suppressed because of steroid administration.
Because RT-PCR testing has not been standardized, the test still varies in sensitivity and specificity, and we are still confronted with a clinical dilemma in terms of infection control and management. Furthermore, the controversy of medication in the management of SARS has never been settled. Current treatment guidelines proposed by the Hospital Authority of Hong Kong are still in use despite the adverse effects of the suggested treatment (The recommendations were found available at: URL:
Our results indicate that a positive nasopharyngeal RT-PCR result on admission, from the current standard, should raise the possibility of SARS in appropriate clinical settings and should alert the clinician of the possible clinical deterioration of the patient. Furthermore, clinicians should consider repeating the qualitative RT-PCR test or performing quantitative RT-PCR test for a previously RT-PCR–negative patient. Drug treatment for this group of patients may be withheld or delayed, especially if effective and reliable treatment has not been found.
We thank the staff of the Department of Medicine and Geriatrics, Princess Margaret Hospital for their devotion in the management of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome in Hong Kong; and Linda Lu and Esvin Chan for their secretarial work.
Dr. Tsang is a medical officer currently working in the Infectious Disease Unit of Princess Margaret Hospital. He is responsible for the management of SARS patients during the outbreak of this disease in Hong Kong.