Case Definition Of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Research Articles

Comparative study of patients with and without SARS WHO fulfilled the WHO SARS case definition

To differentiate severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) from non-SARS illness, we retrospectively compared 53 patients with probable SARS and 31 patients with non-SARS who were admitted to Mackay Memorial Hospital from April 27 to June 16, 2003. Fever (> 38°C) was the earliest symptom (50/53 SARS vs. 5/31 non-SARS, p < 0.0001), preceding cough by a mean of 4.5 days. The initial chest X-ray study was normal in 22/53 SARS cases versus 5/31 non-SARS cases. SARS patients with an initially normal chest X-ray study developed infiltrates at a mean of 5 ± 3.44 days after onset of fever (21/22 SARS vs. 0/5 non-SARS). Rapid radiographic progression of unifocal involvement to multifocal infiltrates was seen in 22 of 24 SARS vs. 0 of 26 non-SARS patients ( p < 0.0001). Pleural effusion was not present in any SARS patients but was seen in 6 of 26 non-SARS cases ( p < 0.0001). Initial lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia, and elevated lactate dehydrogenase were all more common in SARS than non-SARS ( p < 0.0001). They may help differentiate SARS from non-SARS if a reliable and rapid diagnostic test is not available.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)--paradigm of an emerging viral infection.

An acute and often severe respiratory illness emerged in southern China in late 2002 and rapidly spread to different areas of the Far East as well as several countries around the globe. When the outbreak of this apparently novel infectious disease termed severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) came to an end in July 2003, it had caused over 8000 probable cases worldwide and more than 700 deaths.Starting in March 2003, the World Health Organization (WHO) organised an unprecedented international effort by leading laboratories working together to find the causative agent. Little more than one week later, three research groups from this WHO-coordinated network simultaneously found evidence of a hitherto unknown coronavirus in SARS patients, using different approaches. After Koch’s postulates had been fulfilled, WHO officially declared on 16 April 2003 that this virus never before seen in humans is the cause of SARS.Ever since, progress around SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) has been swift. Within weeks of the first isolate being obtained, its complete genome was sequenced. Diagnostic tests based on the detection of SARS-CoV RNA were developed and made available freely and widely; nevertheless the SARS case definition still remains based on clinical and epidemiological criteria. The agent’s environmental stability, methods suitable for inactivation and disinfection, and potential antiviral compounds have been studied, and development of vaccines and immunotherapeutics is ongoing.Despite its grave consequences in humanitarian, political and economic terms, SARS may serve as an example of how much can be achieved through a well-coordinated international approach, combining the latest technological advances of molecular virology with more “traditional” techniques carried out to an excellent standard.

Accuracy of clinical diagnosis versus the World Health Organization case definition in the Amoy Garden SARS cohort

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of emergency department (ED) physicians with the World Health Organization (WHO) case definition in a large community-based SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) cohort. This was a cohort study of all patients from Hong Kong's Amoy Garden complex who presented to an ED SARS screening clinic during a 2-month outbreak. Clinical findings and WHO case definition criteria were recorded, along with ED diagnoses. Final diagnoses were established independently based on relevant diagnostic tests performed after the ED visit. Emergency physician diagnostic accuracy was compared with that of the WHO SARS case definition. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios were calculated using standard formulae. During the study period, 818 patients presented with SARS-like symptoms, including 205 confirmed SARS, 35 undetermined SARS and 578 non-SARS. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 91%, 96% and 94% for ED clinical diagnosis, versus 42%, 86% and 75% for the WHO case definition. Positive likelihood ratios (LR+) were 21.1 for physician judgement and 3.1 for the WHO criteria. Negative likelihood ratios (LR-) were 0.10 for physician judgement and 0.67 for the WHO criteria, indicating that clinician judgement was a much more powerful predictor than the WHO criteria. Physician clinical judgement was more accurate than the WHO case definition. Reliance on the WHO case definition as a SARS screening tool may lead to an unacceptable rate of misdiagnosis. The SARS case definition must be revised if it is to be used as a screening tool in emergency departments and primary care settings.