Literature DB >> 32879731

A meta-analysis of potential biomarkers associated with severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Celestin Danwang1, Francky Teddy Endomba2,3, Jan René Nkeck4, Dominic Leandry Angong Wouna5, Annie Robert1, Jean Jacques Noubiap6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prognostic factors for the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID1-9) are not well established. This study aimed to summarize the available data on the association between the severity of COVID-19 and common hematological, inflammatory and biochemical parameters.
METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of sciences were searched to identify all published studies providing relevant data. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool effect sizes.
RESULTS: The bibliographic search yielded 287 citations, 31 of which were finally retained. Meta-analysis of standardized mean difference (SMD) between severe and non-severe COVID-19 cases showed that CK-MB (SMD = 0.68,95%CI: 0.48;0.87; P-value:< 0.001), troponin I (SMD = 0.71, 95%CI:0.42;1.00; P-value:< 0.001), D-dimer (SMD = 0.54,95%CI:0.31;0.77; P-value:< 0.001), prothrombin time (SMD = 0.48, 95%CI:0.23;0.73; P-value: < 0.001), procalcitonin (SMD = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.34;1,11; P-value:< 0.001), interleukin-6 (SMD = 0.93, 95%CI: 0.25;1.61;P-value: 0.007),C-reactive protein (CRP) (SMD = 1.34, 95%CI:0.83;1.86; P-value:< 0.001), ALAT (SMD = 0.53, 95%CI: 0.34;0,71; P-value:< 0.001), ASAT (SMD = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.58;1.34; P-value: < 0.001), LDH (SMD = 1.36, 95%CI: 0.75;1.98; P-value:< 0.001), CK (SMD = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.10;0.87; P-value:0.01), total bilirubin (SMD = 0.32, 95%CI: 0.18;0.47;P-value: < 0.001), γ-GT (SMD = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.83;1.22; P-value: < 0.001), myoglobin (SMD = 1.14, 95%CI: 0.81;1.47; P-value:< 0.001), blood urea nitrogen (SMD = 0.32, 95%CI: 0.18;0.47;P-value:< 0.001) and Creatininemia (SMD = 0.18, 95%CI: 0.01;0.35; P-value:0.04) were significantly more elevated in severe cases, in opposition to lymphocyte count (SMD = -0.57, 95%CI:-0.71; - 0.42; P-value: < 0.001) and proportion of lymphocytes (SMD = -0.81, 95%CI: - 1.12; - 0.49; P-value:< 0.001) which were found to be significantly lower in severe patients with other biomarker such as thrombocytes (SMD = -0.26, 95%CI: - 0.48; - 0.04; P-value:0.02), eosinophils (SMD = - 0.28, 95%CI:-0.50; - 0.06; P-value:0.01), haemoglobin (SMD = -0.20, 95%CI: - 0.37,-0.03; P-value:0.02), albuminemia (SMD-1.67,95%CI -2.40; - 0.94; P-value:< 0.001), which were also lower. Furthermore, severe COVID-19 cases had a higher risk to have lymphopenia (RR =1.66, 95%CI: 1.26;2.20; P-value:0.002), thrombocytopenia (RR = 1.86, 95%CI: 1.59;2.17; P-value: < 0.001), elevated procalcitonin level (RR = 2.94, 95%CI: 2.09-4.15; P-value:< 0.001), CRP (RR =1.41,95%CI: 1.17-1.70; P-value:0.003), ASAT(RR =2.27, 95%CI: 1.76;2.94; P-value:< 0.001), CK(RR = 2.61, 95%CI: 1.35;5.05; P-value: 0.01), Creatininemia (RR = 3.66, 95%CI: 1.53;8.81; P-value: 0.02) and LDH blood level (RR = 2.03, 95%CI: 1.42;290; P-value: 0.003).
CONCLUSION: Some inflammatory (procalcitonin, CRP), haematologic (lymphocyte, Thrombocytes), and biochemical (CK-MB, Troponin I, D-dimer, ASAT, ALAT, LDH, γ-GT) biomarkers are significantly associated with severe COVID-19. These biomarkers might help in prognostic risk stratification of patients with COVID-19.
© The Author(s) 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COVID-19; Meta-analysis; Prognostic biomarkers

Year:  2020        PMID: 32879731      PMCID: PMC7456766          DOI: 10.1186/s40364-020-00217-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biomark Res        ISSN: 2050-7771


Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which emerged in Wuhan, China, has spread to almost all countries and regions of the world, becoming one of the most lethal pandemic after the Spanish flu in 1918–1920. It is caused by an RNA virus (2019 novel coronavirus or 2019-nCoV or SARS-CoV-2). As of July 13, 2020, a total of 12,768,307 confirmed COVID-19 cases and 566,654 related deaths have been reported [1]. Beyond its important morbidity and mortality and the huge burden of health care systems, COVID-19 has a massive societal and economic impact globally. To date, there is no established curative treatment for COVID-19. Although some drugs such as hydroxychloroquine are integrated in treatment guidelines or under investigation in interventional studies, the management of COVID-19 is mostly supportive. [2-4] Identifying biological abnormalities induced by COVID-19 may contribute to a better understanding of the pathophysiology of the disease and ultimately guide the development of targeted adjuvant therapies besides antivirals drugs. Furthermore, such information on the biological profile of COVID-19 can guide clinicians in the assessment and treatment of these patients. Clinically, most of COVID-19 cases (80%) are either asymptomatic or have mild forms. [4, 5] However, about 13.8 and 6.1% have severe and critical life-threatening disease that require admission to hospital and sometimes in the intensive care unit. [5] In the context of outstretched heath care systems and limited resources, risk stratification is pivotal to identify patients who the most need in-hospital and intensive management. Biomarkers along with some clinical factors might help to predict adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients. Hence, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize available data on the association between some common hematological, inflammatory, biochemical parameters and the severity of COVID-19.

Methods

This review is reported according to the MOOSE (Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines [6].

Search strategy and selection criteria

We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of sciences from inception to April 18, 2020, to identify studies in English or French reporting biological work-up results in patients with biologically confirmed (with polymerase chain reaction assays) COVID-19. The search strategies are presented in the appendix (Supplementary Table 1 and 2). Furthermore, the reference list of eligible studies was analysed to identify potential additional data sources. For duplicates publications or studies conducted on the same group of patients, the study with the largest sample size was considered. We excluded studies from which we could not obtain data on the prevalence of abnormalities or the mean and standard deviation (or median and interquartile range) of the reported biomarker in severe and non-severe patients.

Data extraction and management

Two investigators (CD and FTE) independently assessed the articles retrieved from the literature search to determine their potential eligibility based on titles and abstracts. The full texts of selected articles were then downloaded and assessed for final inclusion. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and consensus. An electronic data abstraction form was used by four investigators (CD, FTE, JRN and DLAW) to extracted relevant information in accordance with the objectives of the review. One investigator (JJN) crosscheck extracted data. For each study data extracted included: surname of the first author, year of publication, country and city where the study was conducted, study design, timing of data collection, sample size, proportion of males, study sample size, biological abnormalities reported, mean and standard deviation (or median and interquartile range) of reported biomarkers. All patients presenting blood oxygen saturation ≤ 93%; respiratory failure; septic shock; multiple organ dysfunction; dyspnea;respiratory rate greater than 30/min, PaO2/FiO2 ratio < 300, and/or lung infiltrates > 50% of the lung field within 24–48 h were considered as severe cases as recommended by the World Health Organization. [5]

Data synthesis and analysis

A DerSimonian and Laird random-effects meta-analysis model was used to obtain the pooled effect size within the statistical software R (version 3.6.2). For studies reporting median and interquartile range of the biomarker, only those with a reported number of cases greater than 25 were included in the standardized mean difference (SMD) meta-analysis. Prior to pooling effect sizes, the standard deviation of each mean value was computed from the interquartile range by taking the difference between Q3 and Q1 and dividing by 1.35 as recommended in the Cochrane handbook of systematic review [7]. Pooled OR and SMD of each biomarker are reported with their 95% confidence intervals. Cochran’s χ2 and the I2 tests were used respectively to assess the presence and the amount of heterogeneity, with the cut-off of I2 values of 25, 50 and 75% representing low, medium and high heterogeneity respectively [8, 9]. Publication bias was assess by the inspection of the Funnel plot and the Egger test (p < 0.10) [10]. Unless otherwise specify, a p value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant for all analysis.

Results

Characteristics of included studies

The bibliographical search yielded 287 eligible articles, of which 31 were finally retained for the systematic review, and 16 for the meta-analysis as depicted in the study selection process (Supplementary Figure 1). Two studies were conducted in Singapore [11, 12] and all the others in China in 2020 [13-41] (Table 1). Twelve of the included studies were conducted in Wuhan. Twenty-eight studies had collected data retrospectively while three were prospective. All included studies except one (which was cross sectional) were case series with patients having a mean age ranging from 9 to 70.5 years in severe cases and from 7.5 to 59.7 years in non-severe cases. The proportion of males ranged from between 40.7 and 73%. Three studies reported data on survivors and non-survivors (Table 1).
Table 1

Characteristics of included studies

CaiQiCase serieChinaShenzhenSingle centerHospitalRetrospectiveNon-servere Vs Servere41785NR233NRNRNR
CaiQCase serieChinaShenzhenSingle centerReferal hospitalRetrospectiveNon-servere Vs Servere2985862.524041

Liver diseases:13.9%; Type II diabetes:13.8%; Hypertension:37.9%;

Cardiac diseases:22.4%;

Liver diseases:8.3%; Type II diabetes:4.2; Hypertension:10.4;

Cardiac diseases:5.0%

ChenXCase serieChinaChongqingSingle centerHospitalRetrospectiveNon-servere Vs Servere7815NR63NRNRNR
ChenGCase serieChinaWuhanSingle centerHospitalRetrospectiveModerate Vs Severe2111611052Hypertension: 36.4%; diabetes: 18.2%Hypertension: 10%; diabetes:10%
FanBCase serieSingaporeUnclearSingle centerHospitalProspectiveICU VS No-ICU679545841NRNR
FengYCase serieChinaWuhanMulticenterHospitalRetrospectiveModerate Vs Critical476706135251Hypertension: 35.7%; diabetes 8.6%; cardiovascular diseases: 17.1%; malignancy: 8.6%;COPD: 15.7%;immunosuppression: 7.1%;Hypertension: 20.7%;diabetes 9.1%; cardiovascular diseases 6%; malignancy: 1.4%;COPD: 2.3%;immunosuppression: 0.6%;
GuanWCase serieChinaUnclearMulticenterUnclearRetrospectiveAdmission to an intensive care unit (ICU), use of mechanical ventilation, or death10991735292645Hepatitis B: 2.4%; Diabetes:16.2%;Hypertention: 23.7%;COPD:3.5%; CHD: 5.8%; Cerebro-Vas diseases: 2.3%;Immunodeficiency:0%;Cancer: 1.7%Hepatitis B: 0.6%; Diabetes: 5.7%;Hypertention:13.4%;COPD: 0.6%; CHD: 1.8%; Cerebro-Vas diseases:1.2%;Immunodeficiency:0.2%;Cancer:0.8%
HanHCross sectionalChinaWuhanSingle centerHospitalProspectiveOrdinary Vs Severe9435NR49NRNRNR
HuangCCase serieChinaWuhanSingle centerHospitalProspectiveNon-servere Vs Servere4113492849Diabetes:8%;Hypertention: 15%;COPD:8%; CVD: 23%;Immunodeficiency:%;Cancer: 0%Diabetes: 25%;Hypertention: 14%;COPD:0%;CVD: 11%;Cancer: 4%
LiYCase serieChinaHuazhongSingle centerDepartment of Thoracic SurgeryRetrospectiveNon-servere Vs Servere259NR16NRHypertention: 11.1%;COPD:44.4%;diabetes:11.1%;CHD: 11.1Hypertention:6.3%;COPD:6.3%;diabetes: 0%;CHD:18.8
LiKCase serieChinaUnclearSingle centerHospitalRetrospectiveNon-servere Vs Servere832553.75841Hypertention:8%;COPD: 16.0%;diabetes:28.0%;CHD: 4.0%Hypertention5.2%;COPD: 1.7%;diabetes:0.0%;CHD:0.0%
LiuYCase serieChinaShenzhenSingle centerHospitalRetrospectiveMechanical ventilation VS No Mechanical ventilation12664.5652Hypertention:17.6%;COPD:%;diabetes:16.7%;CHD:33.3%;cancer:0%;chronic liver diseases:0%; chronic renal diseases:16.7%
LiuWCase serieChinaWuhanMulticenterHospitalRetrospectiveCommon Vs Severe788NR70NRHypertention:10.3%;COPD: 5.1%;diabetes:6.4%;cancer:5.1%
MaoLCase serieChinaWuhanMulticenterNeurologyRetrospectiveNon-servere Vs Servere2148858.212648.9

Hypertention:36.4%; diabetes: 17.0%; cardiac/cerebral disease: 8.0%;

Cancer: 5.7%; chronic kidney disease:2.3%

Hypertention: 15.1%; diabetes:11.9%; cardiac/cerebral disease:6.3%;

Cancer:6.3%; chronic kidney disease:3.2%

QianGCase serieChinaZhejiangMulticenterHospitalRetrospectiveNon-servere Vs Servere919668249NRNR
QinCCase serieChinaTongjiSingle centerHospitalRetrospectiveNon-servere Vs Servere4522866116653Hypertention:36.7%;COPD: 3.1%;diabetes:18.5%;cancer:3.5%;CVD:8.4;CeVD:2.8%; chronic liver diseases: 1%;Tuberculosis:2.4%; chronic kidney diseases: 2.1%Hypertention:18.1%;COPD: 1.8%;diabetes:13.3%;cancer:2.4%;CVD:1.8%;CeVD:1.8%; chronic liver diseases:1.8%;Tuberculosis:1.2%; chronic kidney diseases: 2.4%
QiuHCase serieChinaZhejiangMulticenterPaediatricRetrospectiveMild Vs Moderate36199177.5NRNR
QuRCase serieChinaHuizhouSingle centerHospitalRetrospectiveNon-servere Vs Servere303602749.4NRNR
RuanQCase serieChinaJin,TongjiMulticenterHospitalRetrospectiveDeath Vs Discharge15068NR82NRNRNR
WanSCase serieChinaChongqingSingle centerHospitalRetrospectiveNon-servere Vs Servere13540569544Hypertention:10%;COPD:10%;diabetes:22.5%;cancer: 7.5%;CVD:15%;chronic liver diseases:2.5%; pulmonary diseases:2.5%Hypertention:9.4%;COPD:0%;diabetes: 3.1%;cancer:1.5%;CVD:1%; chronic liver diseases: 1%;Tuberculosis: %;diseases:0%
WangZCase serieChinaWuhanMulticenterHospitalRetrospectiveNon-servere Vs Servere691470.55537Hypertention:36%;COPD: 14%;diabetes:43%;cancer: 7%;CVD:36%;chronic liver diseases:0%;Hypertention: 7%;COPD: 4%;diabetes: 2%;cancer: 5%;CVD:5%;chronic liver diseases:2%
WangRCase serieChinaFuyangSingle centerHospitalRetrospectiveNon-servere Vs Servere1252549.410039.7Comorbidities: 48%Comorbidities:22%
WangDCase serieChinaWuhanSingle centerHospitalRetrospectiveNon-servere Vs Servere138366610251Hypertention:58.3%;COPD: 8.3%;diabetes:22.2%;cancer:11.1%;CVD:25.0%;chronic liver diseases:0%; CeVD:16.7%;HIV:0%Hypertention:21.6%;COPD:1.0%;diabetes:5.9%;cancer: 5.9%;CVD:10.8%;chronic liver diseases:3.9%; CeVD:1.0%;HIV:2.0%
WuCCase serieChinaWuhanSingle centerHospitalRetrospectiveSurvivor Vs Non-survivor2014468.54050aHypertention:36.4%; diabetes:25.0%; CVD:9.1%aHypertention:17.5%; diabetes:12.5%;CVD:2.5%
XuYCase serieChinaUnclearSingle centerRadiologyRetrospectiveMild/Moderate/Severe/critical503NR9NRNRNR
YangXCase serieChinaWuhanSingle centerHospitalRetrospectiveSurvivor Vs Non-survivor523264.62059.7aCOPD:6%;diabetes:22%;cancer:3%;CVD:9%;chronic liver diseases:0%; CeVD:22%aCOPD:10%;diabetes:10%;cancer:5%;CVD:10%;chronic liver diseases:0%;CeVD:0%
YoungBCase serieSingaporeNRMulticenterHospitalRetrospectiveRequire Vs not require supp Oxygen186561237Comorbidities:67%Comorbidities:8%
YunLCase serieChinaShanghaiSingle centerHospitalRetrospectiveNo-servere Vs Servere2922165.527148.7NRNR
ZhangJCase serieChinaWuhanMulticenterHospitalRetrospectiveNon-servere Vs Servere14058648251.5Hypertention:37.9%; COPD:3.4%; diabetes:13.8%;CHD:6.9%;liver diseases:6.9%; CeVD: 3.4%Hypertention:24.4%; COPD:0%; diabetes:11.0%;CHD:3.7%;liver diseases:5.0%; CeVD: 1.2%
ZhengFCase serieChinaChangshaSingle centerHospitalRetrospectiveNon-servere Vs Servere161305713140Hypertention:40%; COPD:6.7%; diabetes:6.7%; CHD:6.7%;chronic liver diseases:3.1%; CeVD:3.3%Hypertention:7.6%; COPD:3.1%; diabetes:3.8%;CHD:1.5%;chronic liver diseases:0%;CeVD:2.3%
ZhouFCase serieChinaWuhanMulticenterPulmonary hospitalRetrospectiveSurvivor Vs Non-survivor191546913752a Hypertention:48%; COPD:7%; diabetes: 31%; cancer:0%; CHD:14%;chronic kidney diseases:4%a Hypertention: 23%; COPD:1%; diabetes: 14%; cancer:1%; CHD:1%;chronic kidney diseases:1%

aSurvivor Vs Non-survivors; CeVD Cerebrovascular diseases; CVD Cardiovascular diseases; COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases; CHD coronary heart diseases; NR Not reported

Characteristics of included studies Liver diseases:13.9%; Type II diabetes:13.8%; Hypertension:37.9%; Cardiac diseases:22.4%; Liver diseases:8.3%; Type II diabetes:4.2; Hypertension:10.4; Cardiac diseases:5.0% Hypertention:36.4%; diabetes: 17.0%; cardiac/cerebral disease: 8.0%; Cancer: 5.7%; chronic kidney disease:2.3% Hypertention: 15.1%; diabetes:11.9%; cardiac/cerebral disease:6.3%; Cancer:6.3%; chronic kidney disease:3.2% aSurvivor Vs Non-survivors; CeVD Cerebrovascular diseases; CVD Cardiovascular diseases; COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases; CHD coronary heart diseases; NR Not reported

Full blood count abnormalities

Severe COVID-19 cases had significantly lower lymphocyte count (SMD = -0.57, 95%CI:-0.71; − 0.42; P-value: < 0.001; n = 3337), proportion of lymphocytes (SMD = -0.81, 95%CI: − 1.12; − 0.49; P-value:< 0.001;n = 1974), thrombocytes (SMD = -0.26, 95%CI: − 0.48; − 0.04; P-value:0.02;n = 2064), eosinophils (SMD = − 0.28, 95%CI:-0.50; − 0.06; P-value:0.01; n = 436) and haemoglobin (SMD = -0.20, 95%CI: − 0.37,-0.03; P-value:0.02;n = 843). They had a significantly higher neutrophil count (SMD = 0.52, 95%CI: 0.28;0.76; P-value:< 0.001; n = 2156) (Table 2). Moreover, non-survivor cases of COVID-19 had a significantly lower level of lymphocytes (SMD = -0.67, 95% CI: − 1.18; − 0.17; P-value: 0.009; n = 327) and higher level of white blood cells (SMD = 0.89, 95%CI:0.04; 1.75; P-value: 0.04; n = 275) (Table 3).
Table 2

Summary results of the meta-analysis of mean values of each Biomarker in severe vs non-severe cases

AnomaliesSMD (95% CI)P-valueHeterogeneityI2 (%)Number of studiesSample size for severeSample size for Non-severe
Inflammation
 Procalcitonin0.72 (0.34;1,11)< 0.0018764671042
 CRP1.34 (0.83;1.86)< 0.0019596701304
 IL-60.93 (0.25;1.61)0.007933369506
 ESR0.27 (−0.16;0.70)0.229044351029
Blood routine
 Lymphocytes count-0.57 (−0.71; −0.42)< 0.00161128882449
 Lymphocytes %-0.81 (−1.12; − 0.49)< 0.001623367306
 Thrombocytes-0.26 (− 0.48; − 0.04)0.027274451619
 Eosinophils−0.28 (− 0.50; − 0.06)0.0102114322
 Neutrophils0.52 (0.28;0.76)< 0.0018096461510
 Haemoglobin−0.20 (− 0.37; − 0.03)0.0204165678
 Monocytes−0.09(− 0.27;0.08)0.30144372426
 White Blood Cells0.13 (−0.14;0.39)0.35901111332566
 CD3+ T−0.77(−0.95; − 0.59)< 0.00102307437
Cardiac injury biomarkers
 CK-MB0.68(0.48;0.87)< 0.001304185965
 Troponin I0.71(0.42;1.00)< 0.0010257373
Biochemestry
 CK0.48(0.10;0.87)0.018973431317
 Myoglobin1.14(0.81;1.47)< 0.001663149863
 ALAT0.53(0.34;0,71)< 0.00168105071785
 ASAT0.96(0.58;1.34)< 0.0019194531650
 Albumin−1.67(−2.40; −0.94)< 0.001934185855
 Creatinemia0.18(0.01;0.35)0.044983681417
 Blood urea nitrogen0.58(0.23;0.93)0.001835277920
 Total bilirubin0.32(0.18;0.47)< 0.0012873441253
 LDH1.36(0.75;1.98)< 0.0019573431317
 Potassium−0.10(−0.43;0.23)0.557932481061
 Sodium−0.19(− 0.72;0.34)0.49913231983
 γ-GT1.03(0.83;1.22)< 0.00102143473
Blood clothing
 PT0.48(0.23;0.73)< 0.001163111246
 D-dimer0.54(0.31;0.77)< 0.0016973481235
 aPT0.17(−0.23;0.57)0.40744164274
 Fibrinogen0.09(−0.56;0.74)0.7877256320

SMD Standardized mean difference; CRP C-reactive protein; CK Creatine kinase; IL-6 interleukin-6; ALAT alanine amino-transferase;

ASAT aspartate amino-transferase; LDH Lactate dehydrogenese; PT prothrombin time; aPT activated partial thromboplastin;

Table 3

Summary results of the meta-analysis of mean values of each Biomarker in non-survivor and survivor cases

AnomaliesSMD (95% CI)P-valueHeterogeneityI2 (%)Number of studiesSample size for Non-survivorSample size survivor
Inflammation
 IL-61.23(0.77;1.68)< 0.00161298177
Blood routine
 Lymphocytes count−0.67(−1.18; −0.17)0.009753130197
 White Blood Cells0.89(0.04; 1.75)0.0490298177
Biochemestry
 Creatinemia−0.09(−0.46;0.27)0.621227660
 Total bilirubin0.55(0.20;0.89)0.002027660
 LDH1.48(0.57;2.40)0.00290298170
 Ferritin0.76(−0.33;1.90)0.1893290122
Blood clothing
 PT0.30(−0.14;0.75)0.18683130188

SMD Standardized mean difference; IL-6 interleukin-6; LDH Lactate dehydrogenese; PT prothrombin time; CD3+ T CD3+ positif T lymphocytes

Summary results of the meta-analysis of mean values of each Biomarker in severe vs non-severe cases SMD Standardized mean difference; CRP C-reactive protein; CK Creatine kinase; IL-6 interleukin-6; ALAT alanine amino-transferase; ASAT aspartate amino-transferase; LDH Lactate dehydrogenese; PT prothrombin time; aPT activated partial thromboplastin; Summary results of the meta-analysis of mean values of each Biomarker in non-survivor and survivor cases SMD Standardized mean difference; IL-6 interleukin-6; LDH Lactate dehydrogenese; PT prothrombin time; CD3+ T CD3+ positif T lymphocytes Furthermore, cases of severe COVID-19 were more likely to present lymphopenia (RR =1.66, 95%CI: 1.26;2.20; P-value:0.002; n = 1636), and thrombocytopenia (RR =1.86, 95%CI: 1.59;2.17; P-value: < 0.001; n = 1226) but not leukopenia (RR =0.93,95%CI: 0.46;1.86; P-value: 0.81; n = 1684) (Table 4). More details on the meta-analysis and forest plots are available in the appendix (Supplementary file).
Table 4

Summary results of the meta-analysis of odd ratio of each Biomarker in severe vs non-severe cases

AnomaliesRR (95% CI)P-valueHeterogeneityI2 (%)Number of studiesSample size for severeSample size for non-severe
Inflammation
 Eleveted procalcitonin2.94 (2.09; 4.15)< 0.001329321941
 Eleveted CRP1.41 (1.17; 1.70)0.003083281021
Blood routine
 Lymphopenia1.66(1.26;2.20)0.00230114111225
 Leucopenia0.93(0.46;1.86)0.8183103841300
 Thrombocytopenia1.86(1.59;2.17)< 0.00105250976
 Thrombocytosis0.88(0.26;2.95)0253122
Biochemestry
 Eleveted LDH2.03(1.42;2.90)0.003577239899
 Eleveted ASAT2.27(1.76;2.94)< 0.0012683541184
 Eleveted ALAT160(1.34;1.90)0.0026052831042
 Eleveted CK2.61(1.35;5.05)0.01376248841
 Eleveted Creatininemia3.66(1.53; 8.81)0.0204227857
 Eleveted total bilirubin1.42(0.18;11.26)0.2802158725
Blood clothing
 D-dimer1.50(0.89; 2.56)0.0803156510

OR odd ratio; CRP C-reactive protein; CK Creatine kinase; IL-6 interleukin-6; ALAT alanine amino-transferase;

ASAT aspartate amino-transferase; LDH Lactate dehydrogenese

Summary results of the meta-analysis of odd ratio of each Biomarker in severe vs non-severe cases OR odd ratio; CRP C-reactive protein; CK Creatine kinase; IL-6 interleukin-6; ALAT alanine amino-transferase; ASAT aspartate amino-transferase; LDH Lactate dehydrogenese

Blood clotting abnormalities

There was a significant difference in D-dimer and prothrombin time (PT) between severe and non-severe cases, with severe cases having a higher D-dimer level (SMD = 0.54,95%CI:0.31;0.77; P-value: < 0.001; n = 1583) and prothrombin time (SMD = 0.48, 95%CI:0.23;0.73; P-value: < 0.001; n = 357).

Increased cardiac injury biomarkers in severe cases

Troponin I blood level were significantly higher in severe patients (SMD = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.42;1.00; P-value:< 0.001; n = 430) as well as CK-MB levels (SMD = 0.68,95%CI: 0.48;0.87; P-value:< 0.001; n = 1150), and this was consistent across all studies included in the meta-analysis of the above-mentioned biomarkers (Table 2).

Inflammation

Severe COVID-19 cases had significantly higher blood level of procalcitonin (SMD = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.34;1,11; P-value: < 0.001; n = 1509), interleukin-6 (SMD = 0.93, 95%CI: 0.25;1.61; P-value: 0.007; n = 875),and C-reactive protein (SMD = 1.34, 95%CI:0.83;1.86; P-value: < 0.001; n = 1974) (Table 2). Moreover, IL-6 was significantly higher in non-survivor compare to survivor cases (SMD = 1.23, 95%CI: 0.77;1.68; P-value:< 0.001; n = 275). Severe cases were more likely to have a higher procalcitonin level (RR =2.94, 95%CI: 2.09; 4.15; P-value: < 0.001; n = 1262), and CRP (RR =1.41,95%CI: 1.17; 1.70; P-value: 0.003; n = 1349) (Table 4).

Biochemical abnormalities

Overall, severe COVID-19 cases were found to have higher level of ALAT (SMD = 0.53, 95%CI: 0.34;0,71; P-value: < 0.001; n = 2292) and ASAT (SMD = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.58;1.34; P-value: < 0.001; n = 2103), LDH (SMD = 1.36, 95%CI: 0.75;1.98; P-value: < 0.001; n = 1660), CK (SMD = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.10;0.87; P-value:0.01; n = 1660), total bilirubin (SMD = 0.32, 95%CI: 0.18;0.47; P-value: < 0.001; n = 1597), γ-GT (SMD = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.83;1.22;P-value:< 0.001; n = 616), myoglobin (SMD = 1.14, 95%CI: 0.81;1.47; P-value: < 0.001; n = 1012) and blood urea nitrogen (SMD = 0.32, 95%CI: 0.18;0.47; P-value:0.001; n = 1197) and Creatininemia (SMD = 0.18, 95%CI: 0.01;0.35; P-value: 0.04; n = 1785). Albuminemia was found to be lower in severe cases (SMD-1.67,95%CI -2.40; − 0.94; P-value:< 0.001; n = 1040) (Table 2). Severe COVID-19 cases were more likely to have higher blood level of ASAT(RR = 2.27, 95%CI: 1.76;2.94; P-value:< 0.001; n = 1538), CK(RR = 2.61, 95%CI: 1.35;5.05; P-value: 0.01; n = 1086), Creatininemia (RR =3.66, 95%CI: 1.53; 8.81; P-value: 0.02; n = 1084), LDH (RR =2.03, 95%CI: 1.42;2.90; P-value: 0.003; n = 1138) (Table 4). Concerning non-survivors, total bilirubin (SMD = 0.55,95%CI: 0.20;0.89; P-value: 0.002; n = 136) and LDH (SMD = 1.48,95%CI: 0.57;2.40; P-value: 0.002; n = 268) were significantly higher in non-survivors compare to survivors (Table 3).

Discussion

This review shows that patients with a severe form of COVID-19 have higher level of CK-MB,troponin I, D-dimer, prothrombin time, procalcitonin, interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, ALAT, ASAT, LDH, CK, total bilirubin, γ-GT, myoglobin, blood urea nitrogen, creatininemia and lower level of lymphocyte, thrombocytes, eosinophils, haemoglobin and albuminemia.

Inflammation and COVID-19

It has been shown that COVID-19 infection is associated with a severe systemic immune response drive by a “cytokine storm”. [42-44] Our data point to an association between procalcitonin (PCT), CRP levels and the severity of the disease. This is supported by previous findings which has reported elevated levels of several pro inflammatory cytokines including IL-2, IL-6, IL-7, MCP1, and TNF alpha, which contributes to increase classical inflammatory biomarkers such as PCT and CRP and are found to be higher in the severe forms of the disease. [42, 43, 45] Mechanistically, it has been show that, after the virus entry in the pneumocytes via the ACE2 receptor, it triggers a systemic inflammatory response, creating an immune dysfunction with a hyperactivity of T lymphocytes and the release of pro inflammatory cytokines mentioned above. [42, 43, 46] If the inflammation is initially protective, it appears secondarily that most cellular and tissue lesions are more the result of hyperinflammation than of the direct effect of the virus. [42, 43] These two phenomena may favor at the respiratory level, pulmonary lesions, by hypercapillary permeability and pulmonary edema, leading to acute respiratory distress. [42, 47] Hyperinflammation at the systemic level may lead to vascular, thrombotic and cytokines’ toxicity phenomena, resulting in multisystemic lesions. [43, 44, 48] Moore et al. showed that, these severe, multi-organ damage may worsen the prognosis despite supportive therapies. [49] Thus for clinicians, the measurement of classical and accessible inflammatory markers namely PCT and CRP, may help assessing the hyper inflammatory activity, and thus the severity of cases of severe infections. Furthermore, the use of therapies targeting inflammation to reduce the deleterious effects of the cytokine storm appear to be necessary. In this line, some studies have reported the beneficial effects of immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory therapies. [50-52] However, the benefit of the use of corticosteroids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to reduce hyperinflammation during the 2019-nCoV infection is still controversial. [39-41]

Cardiac biomarkers imbalanced and COVID-19

Our analysis revealed that severe COVID-19 cases have elevated levels of biomarkers of cardiomyocytes injury such as Troponin I, CK-MB, CK and myoglobin. Numerous previous researches have reported a cardiac involvement in patients with 2019-nCoV. [53-56] In a recently published study, Lippi and colleagues reported that the values of cardiac Troponin I were significantly increased in COVID-19 cases with severe disease than in those without. [55] Notwithstanding the incomplete knowledge on its pathophysiology, the mainly suggested mechanisms are: myocardial ischemia due to increased oxygen demand but in the context of hypoxemia and plaque disruption triggered by cytokine storm; these two being most frequently encountered among patients with coronary artery disease. [57-60] Also, myocardial inflammation, which can be the result of systemic immune response is another mechanism of heart injury among COVID-19 cases. [61, 62] Likewise, it has been hypothesised a direct viral toxicity through the interaction with ACE2 receptors highly expressed by some pericytes. [59] A thorough cardiac assessment should therefore be conducted in the follow-up of severe COVID-19 cases and manage properly to avoid adverse outcome.

Lymphopenia and other full blood count imbalance in severe COVID-19 cases

Hematological changes encountered in the course of the novel coronavirus infection are common and concern mainly white blood cells and platelets. [63] In our study, some keys parameters modifications, notably lymphopenia and thrombocytopenia, are associated with severe form of the disease. [64] Indeed, we found decreased overall mean levels of lymphocyte count among severe 2019-nCoV patients. Moreover, patients with severe 2019-nCoV infection were more likely to have lymphopenia. Low lymphocyte count has also been reported for other viral respiratory infection such as the one due to Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV). [65] This immune response marked by a profound lymphopenia seem to be is delay complication that come after an early massive release of cytokine during the course of the SRAS-Cov-2 lung injury. [66-68] The effects of COVID-19 on lymphocytes can be explained by direct and/or indirect mechanisms. The direct insult could be related to 2019-nCoV cytotoxicity, sustained by active viral replication within pool of infected lymphocytes. [67, 69] However, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) has been identified as a functional cellular receptor for the COVID-19, a protein that is not expressed on circulating B or T lymphocytes. [66, 70] Studies suggested a potential role of alveolar macrophages which can promote viral entry via antigen presentation to T lymphocytes. [66, 67] Indirect lymphocytes damage could appear through huge cytokines release which can induce cells apoptosis. [66, 68, 69] In addition, high glucocorticoids levels induced by severe 2019-nCov can pertain to the down regulation of proinflammatory lymphokine ultimately lead to the lymphocyte activation and proliferation alteration . [67, 68]. [71] Clinicians should therefore keep in mind that severe cases of COVID-19 have depressed lymphocyte levels and are therefore more prone to infection. Another key hematological disturbance found in our review was thrombocytopenia. Indeed, our analysis revealed significantly reduced mean platelets count in cases with severe COVID-19. Moreover, patients with severe form of the disease were more likely to have low platelets counts. Some potential mechanisms of SRAS-associated thrombocytopenia have been proposed. Coronavirus can infect bone marrow cells and thereby reduce platelet production. [72] Indeed some strains of coronavirus like HCoV-229 have their receptor on humans cells like those of kidney, lung and platelets, named Human amino peptidase N (CD13). [73] 2019-nCoV infection may also increase peripheral destruction of platelet [72, 74] by immunological mechanism by generating auto antibodies and immune complex. [75] Similar response have been reported for other viruses like HIV 1 in which Anti-platelet membrane GPIIIa49–66 IgG antibodies can cross-react with the HIV-1GP 160/120 antigen. [75] Other pathways can be the consumption of platelet following severe lung inflammation result in platelets activation and formation of microthrombi. [72] Thrombocytopenia, which makes cases with severe forms of the disease susceptible to primary coagulation impairment, is therefore an important element to consider and address in the daily management and evaluation of these patients.

COVID-19 and blood coagulation

Four main coagulation biomarkers disturbances were found in severe COVID-19 cases namely higher serum D-dimers, longer prothrombin time (PT), and lower platelets counts. Moreover, we found that patients with severe 2019-nCoV infection are more likely to have increase serum D-dimers. Coronavirus disease 2019 can affect haemostasis and blood coagulation in many ways, both regarding abnormal bleeding risk and thromboembolism. [72, 76–79] In addition to thrombocytopenia mechanistic hypotheses stated earlier, it must be suggest the potential implication of COVID-19 liver injury an aetiological element of haemostasis disorder though the impaired production of coagulation factors. [72, 76, 77] Concerning D-dimers, increased levels might be the result of the sepsis-induced disseminated intravascular coagulation and reflect thromboembolic risk in severe COVID-19 cases. [80-82] There are mounting evidences supporting the key pathological role of thromboembolic processes in SARS-CoV-2 disease and severity. [83-86] Due to the low specificity of this biomarker, its results in Covid-19 patients should be interpreted in the context of other associated conditions that may also potentially increase D-dimer levels. Decreased platelet counts and increased prothrombin time in patients with covid-19 are probably due to consumption coagulopathy. The latter occurs as a result of an abnormal increase in the activation of procoagulant pathways which induces a decrease in plasma concentrations of fibrinogen, platelets and other clotting factors. [87] A daily assessment of the coagulation profile of cases with severe forms of the disease appears vital and the correction of those abnormalities unavoidable to improve the prognosis. Cases of COVID-19 with blood-clotting abnormalities should be managed very closely and invasive treatments that may lead to bleeding should be avoided.

Biochemical abnormalities in severe COVID-19 cases

Numerous liver biomarkers abnormalities have been described as being associated with COVID-19 encompassing increased levels of total bilirubin, transaminases, γ-GT, LDH, and low albumin levels. [88-91] Our results revealed that some of these biomarkers (ASAT/ALAT, γ-GT, LDH) have a significantly higher level in severe cases, and that severe cases are more likely to have high levels of ASAT and LDH. It has been reported a virus-induced cytopathic effect notably through the binding with the ACE2 receptor for its target cells entry. [91, 92] Another potential triggering factor of detrimental liver consequences is immune-mediated inflammation in parallel with the “cytokine storm”. [76, 93, 94] Moreover, the immune responses ensured by B and T cells lymphocytes can also sustain this inflammation. [67, 68] It has also been put forward stress on sepsis related ischemic/hypoxic liver injury as putative mechanisms of abnormal hepatic function. [95, 96] Hepatic sinuses congestion related to thrombosis and/or high levels of positive end expiratory pressure can also be a contributing explanatory mechanisms of liver damage. [93, 95, 97] Likewise, COVID-19 patients may experience drug-induced liver injury (DILI), [93, 98] and reactivation of pre-existing hepatic conditions (going from viral hepatitis to liver cirrhosis). [90, 97, 99] Therefore, drugs which are known to be hepatotoxic or which are metabolized by the liver should be administered with caution or should be avoided in severe cases. Nevertheless, the results of liver biomarkers in COVID-19 cases must be interpreted in the context of the presence of other comorbidities that may induce an increase in these biomarkers. Our findings point to an overall higher levels of urea nitrogen and creatinine among COVID-19 severe cases. Further studies are needed to better understand renal involvement in severe COVID-19 cases, especially since some pathophysiological hypotheses suggest the possibility of kidney damages related to COVID-19 infection. [100-103] The current research provides evidence-based elements that can help clinicians in decision making when dealing with COVID-19 cases. Future studies should explore novel biomarkers, such as non-coding RNAs or proteomics, for disease progression and severity of COVID-19 and similar diseases in order to build powerful prediction tools. The results of the current review should be interpreted in the context of some limitations. Firstly, it was not possible to assess the dynamic of biomarkers and to determine whether the samples were taken on admission or later during hospitalization. Therefore, the kinetic of biomarkers during the disease progression to severity cannot be established. Secondly, all the studies included in the meta-analysis were from China. Different biological patterns might be observed across populations from various geographical and ethnic background. Therefore, this limits the generalizability of our findings and call to more research on the topic in population from different countries and ethnicities. Thirdly, the measurement of biomarkers was probably different between studies, with various devices and diagnostic reference values. However, in most studies, there was low to moderate heterogeneity, suggesting that observations were consistent across studies. Nevertheless, this study is one of the first to analyse potential biomarkers associated with the severity of 2019-nCoV infection. We used state-of-the-art statistical methods in order to derive the most accurate estimates.

Conclusion

Some inflammatory (procalcitonin, CRP), haematologic (lymphocyte, Thrombocytes), and biochemical (CK-MB, Troponin I, D-dimer, ASAT, ALAT, LDH, γ-GT) biomarkers are significantly associated with severe COVID-19. These biomarkers might help in prognostic risk stratification of patients with COVID-19. Our findings could also contribute in the establishment of an accurate and reproducible COVID-19 biological severity score. Additional file 1 Supplementary Table 1. Search strategy in PubMed. Supplementary Table 2. Search strategy in EMBASE. Supplementary Figure 1. The review process.
  77 in total

1.  Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.

Authors:  M Egger; G Davey Smith; M Schneider; C Minder
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-09-13

2.  Prominent changes in blood coagulation of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Authors:  Huan Han; Lan Yang; Rui Liu; Fang Liu; Kai-Lang Wu; Jie Li; Xing-Hui Liu; Cheng-Liang Zhu
Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med       Date:  2020-06-25       Impact factor: 3.694

3.  Clinical and immunological features of severe and moderate coronavirus disease 2019.

Authors:  Guang Chen; Di Wu; Wei Guo; Yong Cao; Da Huang; Hongwu Wang; Tao Wang; Xiaoyun Zhang; Huilong Chen; Haijing Yu; Xiaoping Zhang; Minxia Zhang; Shiji Wu; Jianxin Song; Tao Chen; Meifang Han; Shusheng Li; Xiaoping Luo; Jianping Zhao; Qin Ning
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 14.808

4.  Risk Factors Associated With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Death in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia in Wuhan, China.

Authors:  Chaomin Wu; Xiaoyan Chen; Yanping Cai; Jia'an Xia; Xing Zhou; Sha Xu; Hanping Huang; Li Zhang; Xia Zhou; Chunling Du; Yuye Zhang; Juan Song; Sijiao Wang; Yencheng Chao; Zeyong Yang; Jie Xu; Xin Zhou; Dechang Chen; Weining Xiong; Lei Xu; Feng Zhou; Jinjun Jiang; Chunxue Bai; Junhua Zheng; Yuanlin Song
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 21.873

5.  Clinical predictors of mortality due to COVID-19 based on an analysis of data of 150 patients from Wuhan, China.

Authors:  Qiurong Ruan; Kun Yang; Wenxia Wang; Lingyu Jiang; Jianxin Song
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2020-03-03       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Clinical Characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China.

Authors:  Wei-Jie Guan; Zheng-Yi Ni; Yu Hu; Wen-Hua Liang; Chun-Quan Ou; Jian-Xing He; Lei Liu; Hong Shan; Chun-Liang Lei; David S C Hui; Bin Du; Lan-Juan Li; Guang Zeng; Kwok-Yung Yuen; Ru-Chong Chen; Chun-Li Tang; Tao Wang; Ping-Yan Chen; Jie Xiang; Shi-Yue Li; Jin-Lin Wang; Zi-Jing Liang; Yi-Xiang Peng; Li Wei; Yong Liu; Ya-Hua Hu; Peng Peng; Jian-Ming Wang; Ji-Yang Liu; Zhong Chen; Gang Li; Zhi-Jian Zheng; Shao-Qin Qiu; Jie Luo; Chang-Jiang Ye; Shao-Yong Zhu; Nan-Shan Zhong
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Disseminated intravascular coagulation in patients with 2019-nCoV pneumonia.

Authors:  David Lillicrap
Journal:  J Thromb Haemost       Date:  2020-03-24       Impact factor: 5.824

8.  Epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of 91 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Zhejiang, China: a retrospective, multi-centre case series.

Authors:  G-Q Qian; N-B Yang; F Ding; A H Y Ma; Z-Y Wang; Y-F Shen; C-W Shi; X Lian; J-G Chu; L Chen; Z-Y Wang; D-W Ren; G-X Li; X-Q Chen; H-J Shen; X-M Chen
Journal:  QJM       Date:  2020-07-01

9.  Tissue distribution of ACE2 protein, the functional receptor for SARS coronavirus. A first step in understanding SARS pathogenesis.

Authors:  I Hamming; W Timens; M L C Bulthuis; A T Lely; G J Navis; H van Goor
Journal:  J Pathol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 7.996

10.  Clinical and Transmission Characteristics of Covid-19 - A Retrospective Study of 25 Cases from a Single Thoracic Surgery Department.

Authors:  Yang-Kai Li; Shu Peng; Le-Qun Li; Qi Wang; Wei Ping; Ni Zhang; Xiang-Ning Fu
Journal:  Curr Med Sci       Date:  2020-03-30
View more
  40 in total

1.  CHARACTERIZATION OF PATIENTS IN THE POST-ACUTE PHASE OF COVID-19 WHO PRESENTED THEMSELVES TO AN EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT.

Authors:  S Nica; A Albu; C Ştefani; I A Eremia; F A Cofaru; M I Nica; C M Ciornei; D G Cimponeriu; R I Nica
Journal:  Acta Endocrinol (Buchar)       Date:  2022 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 1.104

2.  Epidemiological Characteristics and Mortality Risk Factors Comparison in Dialysis and Non-Dialysis CKD Patients with COVID-19-A Single Center Experience.

Authors:  Andrei Niculae; Ileana Peride; Ana-Maria Nechita; Lucian Cristian Petcu; Mirela Tiglis; Ionel Alexandru Checherita
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-06-13

3.  SARS-Cov-2 Infection in Severe Asthma Patients Treated With Biologics.

Authors:  Andriana I Papaioannou; Evangelia Fouka; Nikolaos Tzanakis; Katerina Antoniou; Konstantinos Samitas; Eleftherios Zervas; Konstantinos Kostikas; Konstantinos Bartziokas; Konstantinos Porpodis; Despoina Papakosta; Argyris Tzouvelekis; Irini Gerogianni; Ourania Kotsiou; Michael Makris; Nikoletta Rovina; Garyfallia Vlachou; Miltiadis Markatos; Stelios Vittorakis; Konstantinos Katsoulis; Ilias Papanikolaou; Andreas Afthinos; Paraskevi Katsaounou; Paschalis Steiropoulos; Dimitrios Latsios; Katerina Dimakou; Sofia Koukidou; Georgios Hillas; Stavros Tryfon; Maria Kallieri; Athina Georgopoulou; Pantelis Avarlis; Petros Bakakos; Katerina Markopoulou; Eleni Gaki; Asimina Paspala; Zacharoula Kyriakaki; Konstantinos I Gourgoulianis; Spyridon Papiris; Stelios Loukides
Journal:  J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract       Date:  2022-06-23

4.  Thrombocytopenia and increased risk of adverse outcome in COVID-19 patients.

Authors:  Yang Yuan; Gang Wang; Xi Chen; Xiao-Lei Ye; Xiao-Kun Li; Rui Li; Wan-Li Jiang; Hao-Long Zeng; Juan Du; Xiao-Ai Zhang; Hao Li; Li-Qun Fang; Qing-Bin Lu; Wei Liu
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 3.061

5.  Skeletal Muscle Manifestations and Creatine Kinase in COVID-19.

Authors:  Sarah A Friedman; Zeinab Charmchi; Michael Silver; Nuri Jacoby; Jonathan Perk; Yaacov Anziska
Journal:  Neurohospitalist       Date:  2022-06-01

6.  Machine learning decision tree algorithm role for predicting mortality in critically ill adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU.

Authors:  Alyaa Elhazmi; Awad Al-Omari; Hend Sallam; Hani N Mufti; Ahmed A Rabie; Mohammed Alshahrani; Ahmed Mady; Adnan Alghamdi; Ali Altalaq; Mohamed H Azzam; Anees Sindi; Ayman Kharaba; Zohair A Al-Aseri; Ghaleb A Almekhlafi; Wail Tashkandi; Saud A Alajmi; Fahad Faqihi; Abdulrahman Alharthy; Jaffar A Al-Tawfiq; Rami Ghazi Melibari; Waleed Al-Hazzani; Yaseen M Arabi
Journal:  J Infect Public Health       Date:  2022-06-17       Impact factor: 7.537

7.  A simple and readily available inflammation-based risk scoring system on admission predicts the need for mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19.

Authors:  Luis M Amezcua-Guerra; Karen Audelo; Juan Guzmán; Diana Santiago; Julieta González-Flores; Carlos García-Ávila; Zaira Torres; Francisco Baranda-Tovar; Claudia Tavera-Alonso; Julio Sandoval; Héctor González-Pacheco
Journal:  Inflamm Res       Date:  2021-05-10       Impact factor: 4.575

Review 8.  Emerging Electrochemical Biosensing Trends for Rapid Diagnosis of COVID-19 Biomarkers as Point-of-Care Platforms: A Critical Review.

Authors:  Sasya Madhurantakam; Sriram Muthukumar; Shalini Prasad
Journal:  ACS Omega       Date:  2022-04-05

9.  Chitinase-3-like protein-1 at hospital admission predicts COVID-19 outcome: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Rebecca De Lorenzo; Clara Sciorati; Nicola I Lorè; Annalisa Capobianco; Cristina Tresoldi; Daniela M Cirillo; Fabio Ciceri; Patrizia Rovere-Querini; Angelo A Manfredi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 4.996

10.  Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio in Patients with COVID-19 as a Simple Tool to Predict Requirement of Admission to a Critical Care Unit.

Authors:  Sagar S Maddani; Nitin Gupta; Shashikiran Umakanth; Sowmya Joylin; Kavitha Saravu
Journal:  Indian J Crit Care Med       Date:  2021-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.