| Literature DB >> 35365705 |
Carla Diaz-Louzao1,2,3, Lucia Barrera-Lopez4, Maria Lopez-Rodriguez4, Clara Casar4, Nestor Vazquez-Agra4, Hadrian Pernas-Pardavila4, Ana Marques-Afonso4, Martin Vidal-Vazquez4, Jonathan G Montoya4, Ariadna H Andrade4, Ivan Fernandez-Castro4, Pablo Varela4, Arturo Gonzalez-Quintela4, Esteban Otero4, Francisco Gude5, Carmen Cadarso-Suarez2,3, Santiago Tome6,7.
Abstract
The mechanisms underlying liver disease in patients with COVID-19 are not entirely known. The aim is to investigate, by means of novel statistical techniques, the changes over time in the relationship between inflammation markers and liver damage markers in relation to survival in COVID-19. The study included 221 consecutive patients admitted to the hospital during the first COVID-19 wave in Spain. Generalized additive mixed models were used to investigate the influence of time and inflammation markers on liver damage markers in relation to survival. Joint modeling regression was used to evaluate the temporal correlations between inflammation markers (serum C-reactive protein [CRP], interleukin-6, plasma D-dimer, and blood lymphocyte count) and liver damage markers, after adjusting for age, sex, and therapy. The patients who died showed a significant elevation in serum aspartate transaminase (AST) and alkaline phosphatase levels over time. Conversely, a decrease in serum AST levels was observed in the survivors, who showed a negative correlation between inflammation markers and liver damage markers (CRP with serum AST, alanine transaminase [ALT], and gamma-glutamyl transferase [GGT]; and D-dimer with AST and ALT) after a week of hospitalization. Conversely, most correlations were positive in the patients who died, except lymphocyte count, which was negatively correlated with AST, GGT, and alkaline phosphatase. These correlations were attenuated with age. The patients who died during COVID-19 infection displayed a significant elevation of liver damage markers, which is correlated with inflammation markers over time. These results are consistent with the role of systemic inflammation in liver damage during COVID-19.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35365705 PMCID: PMC8972986 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-09290-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Baseline characteristics of the study population, stratified by outcome.
| Total | Exitus | Alive | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Period under study | 01/03/2020—19-06-2020 | ||||
| Number of patients | 68.40 [56.58, 77.18] | n = 212 | n = 37 | n = 175 | |
| Age (years) | 120 (56.60%) | 82.52 [73.35, 86.65] | 65.48 [55.10. 74.57] | < 0.001 | |
| Male | 190 (89.62%) | 27 (72.97%) | 93 (53.14%) | 0.030 | |
| Lopinavir/Ritonavir and/or Hydroxychloroquine | 78 (36.79%) | 31 (83.78%) | 159 (90.86%) | 0.233 | |
| Statins | 19 (7.55%) | 15 (45.86%) | 63 (36.00%) | 0.708 | |
| Ischemic Heart Disease | 48 (22.64%) | 9 (24.32%) | 10 (5.71%) | 0.001 | |
| Diabetes | 1 (0.56%) | 17 (45.95%) | 31 (17.71%) | < 0.001 | |
| HCV* | 12 (6.63%) | 0 (0.00%) | 1 (0.64%) | 1.000 | |
| HBV** | 13 (6.13%) | 1 (4.35%) | 11 (6.96%) | 1.000 | |
| Chronic Liver Disease | 0 (0.00%) | 13 (7.43%) | 0.131 | ||
| High liver enzymes | AST | 112/212 (52.83%) | 19/37 (51.35%) | 93/175 (53.14%) | 0.858 |
| ALT | 119/212 (56.13%) | 10/37 (27.03%) | 109/175 (62.29%) | < 0.001 | |
| GGT | 90/212 (42.45%) | 13/37 (35.14%) | 77/175 (44.00%) | 0.364 | |
| ALP*** | 23/121 (19.01%) | 7/24 (29.17%) | 16/97 (16.49%) | 0.160 | |
| Hepatocellular pattern | 15/121 (12.40%) | 2/24 (8.33%) | 13/97 (13.40%) | 0.078 | |
| Cholestatic pattern | 60/121 (49.59%) | 17/24 (70.83%) | 43/97 (44.33%) | ||
| Mixed pattern | 46/121 (38.02%) | 5/24 (20.83%) | 41/97 (42.27%) | ||
| High bilirubin | 48 (22.64%) | 10 (27.03%) | 38 (21.71%) | 0.518 | |
| AST | 30 [22, 45] | 37 [24, 59] | 29 [22, 42] | < 0.001 | |
| ALT | 35 [22, 61] | 31 [18, 64] | 36 [23, 60] | 0.007 | |
| GGT | 45 [26, 86] | 59 [29, 102] | 44 [26, 80] | 0.007 | |
| ALP | 111 [79, 166] | 152 [98, 219] | 102 [70, 146] | < 0.001 | |
| Bilirubin | 0.5 [0.4, 0.8] | 0.5 [0.4, 0.8] | 0.5 [0.4, 0.8] | 0.615 | |
| CRP | 4.16 [1.27, 9.24] | 7.82 [3.30, 15.23] | 3.64 [1.08, 8.54] | < 0.001 | |
| D-Dimer | 764 [470, 1411] | 1262 [690, 4616] | 717 [465, 4335] | < 0.001 | |
| IL-6 | 7.47 [7.40, 19.23] | 7.40 [7.34, 17.68] | 7.49 [7.43, 19.40] | < 0.001 | |
| Lymphocytes | 16.30 [8.50, 24.80] | 6.90 [4.90, 10.95] | 18.85 [11.20, 27.02] | < 0.001 | |
| BMI (kg/m2)**** | 30.12 [27.22, 34.05] | 32.71 [30.03, 34.18] | 29.73 [26.91, 33.34] | 0.089 | |
| Oxygen saturation (%) | 96 [96, 97] | 94 [94, 97] | 96 [95, 97] | < 0.001 | |
Age, AST, ALT, GGT, ALP, Bilirubin, CRP, D-Dimer, IL-6, Lymphocytes, BMI, and oxygen saturation: Median (interquartile range). (*) The effective “n” was a total of 180: 23 exitus and 157 living; ** The effective “n” was a total of 181: 23 exitus and 158 living. (***) The effective “n” was a total of 121: 24 exitus and 97 living. (****) The effective “n” was a total of 93 patients.
Figure 1Exploratory curves for weighted values (when necessary) of transaminases (left) and inflammation markers (right) over time for deceased (pink) and living (blue) patients, along with 95% confidence intervals. Estimation made using a lasso regression analysis.
Time course of transaminase levels according to final outcome.
| Day 0 | Day 7 | Day 14 | Day 21 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AST (UI/L) | Deceased | 34 [20, 47] | 69 [22, 89] | 42 [39, 55] | 40 [30, 50] |
| Living | 32 [25, 44] | 28 [21, 44] | 28 [24, 52] | 24 [20, 29] | |
| ALT (UI/L) | Deceased | 20 [17, 33] | 98 [28, 118] | 71 [31, 150] | 106 [90, 121] |
| Living | 33 [25, 52] | 39 [27, 72] | 66 [43, 137] | 57[41, 74] | |
| GGT (UI/L) | Deceased | 39 [23, 70] | 53 [46, 87] | 110 [91, 125] | 176 [138, 214] |
| Living | 42 [27, 64] | 42 [27, 60] | 74 [32, 102] | 113 [83, 153] | |
| ALP (UI/L) | Deceased | 130[91, 265] | 210 [181, 235] | 111 [93, 197] | 223[173, 272] |
| Living | 85 [63, 138] | 124 [79, 157] | 115 [80, 122] | 88 [67, 94] | |
| Bilirubin (mg/dL) | Deceased | 0.6 [0.4, 0.8] | 0.7 [0.5, 1.3] | 0.4 [0.4, 0.8] | 0.4 [0.4, 0.5] |
| Living | 0.5 [0.4, 0.7] | 0.6 [0.4, 0.7] | 0.4 [0.3, 0.5] | 0.3 [0.3, 0.7] | |
| CRP (mg/dL) | Deceased | 7.8 [4.8, 12.1] | 4.3 [1.3, 9.2] | 9.2 [1.4, 18.2] | 11.9 [6.0, 17.8] |
| Living | 6.0 [2.4, 10.2] | 1.9 [0.8, 4.7] | 1.3 [0.5, 3.5] | 0.2 [0.1, 1.0] | |
| D-dimer (ng/mL) | Deceased | 949 [637, 1452] | 835 [777, 1010] | 897 [611, 1843] | 3999 [3999, 3999] |
| Living | 644 [417, 1112] | 709 [490, 1024] | 1050 [582, 1596] | 600 [361, 1096] | |
| IL-6 (pg/mL) | Deceased | 7.4 [7.4, 7.5] | 7.5 [7.4, 76.8] | 7.4 [7.3, 7.4] | 7.3 [7.3, 7.4] |
| Living | 7.5 [7.4, 8.9] | 7.5 [5.1, 10.1] | 7.5 [7.5, 22.3] | 7.4 [7.4, 44.5] | |
| Lymphocytes (× 109) | Deceased | 11 [6, 18] | 5 [2, 8] | 5 [4, 5] | 6 [5, 7] |
| Living | 18 [12, 27] | 17 [8, 25] | 18 [11, 21] | 19 [11, 24] | |
| O2 Sat (%) | Deceased | 95 [93, 97] | 94 [90, 97] | 93 [91, 95] | – |
| Living | 96 [95, 98] | 96 [95, 97] | 96 [94, 97] | 96 [96, 98] | |
Data are expressed in medians and interquartile ranges (between brackets).
Results for the multivariate regression models for the weighted and Box–Cox-transformed values of transaminases.
| Outcome | Variables | Estimate (β) | SE | edf | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AST (UI/L) | Intercept | − 2.697 | 1.090 | 1.000 | 0.014 |
| Exitus (Ref: Alive) | 0.060 | 0.108 | 1.000 | 0.579 | |
| D-dimer | 0.952 | 0.452 | 1.000 | 0.036 | |
| IL-6 | 0.102 | 0.029 | 1.000 | < 0.001 | |
| s(Age) | See Fig. | 1.000 | 0.715 | ||
| s(Time) (Alive) | See Fig. | 4.892 | < 0.001 | ||
| s(Time) (Deceased) | See Fig. | 1.001 | 0.270 | ||
| ALT (UI/L) | Intercept | − 1.657 | 0.713 | 1.000 | 0.020 |
| Exitus (Ref: Alive) | − 0.251 | 0.126 | 1.000 | 0.046 | |
| CRP | − 0.008 | 0.001 | 1.000 | < 0.001 | |
| D-dimer | 0.579 | 0.265 | 1.000 | 0.029 | |
| s(Age) | See Fig. | 2.988 | 0.003 | ||
| s(Time) (Alive) | See Fig. | 4.689 | < 0.001 | ||
| s(Time) (Deceased) | See Fig. | 3.965 | < 0.001 | ||
| GGT (UI/L) | Intercept | − 4.028 | 1.135 | 1.000 | < 0.001 |
| Sex (Ref: Male) | 0.339 | 0.126 | 1.000 | 0.008 | |
| Exitus(Ref: Alive) | − 0.131 | 0.190 | 1.000 | 0.490 | |
| CRP | − 0.002 | 0.002 | 1.000 | 0.373 | |
| D-dimer | 1.549 | 0.465 | 1.000 | < 0.001 | |
| IL-6 | − 0.017 | 0.030 | 1.000 | 0.566 | |
| Lymphocytes | − 0.007 | 0.003 | 1.000 | 0.021 | |
| s(Age) | See Fig. | 2.777 | 0.085 | ||
| s(Time) (Alive) | See Fig. | 5.103 | < 0.001 | ||
| s(Time) (Deceased) | See Fig. | 4.194 | < 0.001 | ||
| ALP (UI/L) | Intercept | − 0.584 | 0.055 | 1.000 | < 0.001 |
| Exitus (Ref: Alive) | 0.242 | 0.131 | 1.000 | 0.065 | |
| s(Age) | See Fig. | 2.054 | 0.569 | ||
| s(Time) (Alive) | See Fig. | 4.397 | 0.004 | ||
| s(Time) (Deceased) | See Fig. | 3.871 | < 0.001 | ||
SE means standard error. The edf number represents the parameters needed to estimate the effect of a covariate, indicating the complexity of the functional form of the smooth effect.
Figure 2Estimated centered smooth effect (with 95% CI) of time (left) and age (right) over the weighted and Box–Cox-transformed transaminases extracted from the generalized additive multivariate models in Table 3. Pink stands for deceased patients, blue for the living, and black for the total number of patients. The horizontal line indicates zero, and when it lies inside the 95% CI, no statistical significance was found.
Regression models for correlation between weighted and Box–Cox-transformed values of transaminases and weighted and/or Box–Cox-transformed (if required) inflammation markers (†).
| Cor(AST, CRP) ~ s(Age) + s(Time)*Exitus |
| Cor(AST, D-Dimer) ~ Sex + s(Age) + s(Time)* Exitus |
| Cor(AST, IL-6) ~ s(Age) + s(Time)*Exitus |
| Cor(AST, Lymphocytes) ~ Sex + s(Age) + s(Time)*Exitus |
| Cor(ALT, CRP) ~ Sex + s(Age) + s(Time)*Exitus |
| Cor(ALT, D-Dimer) ~ Sex + s(Age) + s(Time)* Exitus |
| Cor(ALT, IL-6) ~ s(Age) + s(Time)*Exitus |
| Cor(ALT, Lymphocytes) ~ Exitus + s(Time)*Exitus |
| Cor(GGT, CRP) ~ Sex + s(Age) + s(Time)*Exitus |
| Cor(GGT, D-Dimer) ~ Exitus + Antiviral Treatment + s(Age) + s(Time)* Exitus |
| Cor(GGT, IL-6) ~ s(Time)*Exitus |
| Cor(GGT, Lymphocytes) ~ Sex + s(Age) + s(Time)*Exitus |
| Cor(ALP, CRP) ~ Antiviral Treatment + s(Age) + s(Time)*Exitus |
| Cor(ALP, D-Dimer) ~ s(Age) + s(Time)* Exitus |
| Cor(ALP, IL-6) ~ s(Time)*Exitus |
| Cor(ALP, Lymphocytes) ~ Sex + s(Age) + s(Time)*Exitus |
s() indicates the smooth effect of the covariate. * indicates association. For sex, the reference level is “Male”. For Exitus, the reference level is “Living”. For antiviral treatment, the reference level is “No”. The centered smooth effects of s(Time) and s(Age) in the correlation are depicted in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively. (†): From the general model type 2 every regression model in this table only includes the covariates that were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Time variation of the correlation between the weighted and Box–Cox-transformed transaminases and the weighted and/or Box–Cox-transformed (if required) inflammation markers for deceased (pink) and living (blue) patients, expressed by means of Kendall’s τ coefficient (with 95% CI). The horizontal line indicates zero correlation, and when it lies inside the 95% CI, no correlation was found.
Figure 4Variation of the correlation between the weighted and Box–Cox-transformed transaminases and the weighted and/or Box–Cox-transformed (if required) inflammation markers across the age of the patients, expressed by means of Kendall’s τ coefficient (with 95% CI). The horizontal red line indicates zero correlation, and when it lies inside the 95% CI, no correlation was found.