Which Predictor Of Health Services Utilization Is Linked Most Closely With Biological Pathology?
Introduction
The ongoing pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome by coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to pose several diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. First reported from Wuhan in Prc in December 2019, the World Health Organization on February 11, 2020 officially named this infection, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-xix) and the virus as SARS-CoV-2 (1). It was declared every bit a pandemic on March 11, 2020 (ane). Every bit on December 9, 2020, there are more 67 one thousand thousand cases worldwide with more 1.v million deaths (2).
In adults, though SARS-CoV-2 typically causes pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), it is at present beingness recognized as a multisystem disease. In dissimilarity, well-nigh children are asymptomatic or have balmy to moderate illness. Severe or critical illness is rare (3, 4). A novel illness, termed multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is existence increasingly reported in children. Children with MIS-C are sicker, may have multiorgan dysfunction and often require intensive care (v–8).
Diagnosis of COVID-19 is confirmed by straight detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acids in respiratory tract specimens with a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (ix). A rapid and accurate diagnosis has broad implications for the patient, healthcare establishment, and the public health and authoritative personnel. In the electric current pandemic, healthcare systems are struggling to meet the increasing demands of the rapidly ascent infected population. Constructive utilization of available resources is paramount to saving the maximum number of lives. Clinical assessment is indispensable, just laboratory markers, or biomarkers, tin can provide boosted, objective information which tin significantly impact many components of patient care.
Despite the burgeoning COVID-xix literature database, the treating clinician needs to be effectively updated to offer the best care at the bedside. This review attempts to provide updated and applied information to clinicians on the role of biomarkers in COVID-19.
Potential Function of Biomarkers in COVID-xix
A biomarker is defined every bit a "characteristic that can be objectively measured and evaluated every bit an indicator of normal biological and pathological processes, or pharmacological responses to a therapeutic intervention" (x). Biomarkers in COVID 19 tin can exist useful in the post-obit areas:
(i) Early suspicion of disease
(ii) Confirmation and classification of affliction severity
(iii) Framing hospital admission criteria
(4) Identification of high adventure cohort
(v) Framing ICU admission criteria
(vi) Rationalizing therapies
(vii) Assessing response to therapies
(viii) Predicting outcome
(9) Framing criteria for belch from the ICU and/or the hospital
A strong working knowledge of the pathophysiology is essential for the initial identification of candidate biomarkers, which is, an understanding of what the virus does to the body and how the body reacts to it.
Pathogenesis of COVID-nineteen
Overview
It is handsomely evident that COVID-xix is not a localized "respiratory infection" but a "multisystem illness" caused by a lengthened systemic process involving a circuitous interplay of the immunological, inflammatory and coagulative cascades. Genetic and acquired differences in the host immune system further complicate the host repertoire leading to wide heterogeneity in the clinical pic, grade and upshot.
Viral Entry and Replication
Coronaviruses are spheroidal, single-stranded RNA viruses with a bore of 80–220 nm. Transmission of SARS-CoV-two occurs either through exposure to micro-droplets from infected individuals or by contact transmission through contaminated fomites. The virus reaches the smaller airways and alveoli, and targets the bronchial and alveolar epithelial cells.
The spike surface glycoprotein South on the virus binds to angiotensin-converting enzyme ii (ACE-2), a membrane carboxypeptidase present in distal airways and alveoli, particularly type 2 pneumocytes which have the highest expression of ACE-ii, along with alveolar macrophages and dendritic cells. ACE-two is also expressed on the vascular endothelium, nasal, oral, nasopharyngeal, and oropharyngeal epithelia, gut epithelia, cardiac pericytes, renal proximal tubular cells and in the peel, reticuloendothelial and the central nervous system (eleven). ACE-2 expression depends on age, gender, genetic factors, and presence of comorbid conditions such equally obesity, chronic cardiopulmonary disease, cancer, and employ of immunosuppressive drugs.
Renin cleaves angiotensinogen to produce angiotensin I which is further cleaved by ACE to produce angiotensin Ii having a dual role. Action through AT1R (angiotensin Ii blazon i receptor), facilitates vasoconstriction, fibrotic remodeling, and inflammation, while that through AT2R (angiotensin 2 blazon ii receptor) leads to vasodilation and growth inhibition. Angiotensin Ii is cleaved past ACE2 to Ang 1–vii which counteracts the harmful effects of the ACE/Ang II/AT1 axis. Thus ACE2 primarily plays a primal part to physiologically weigh ACE and regulate angiotensin Ii. Internalization of the ACE-2 after viral interaction leads to its downregulation, and consequent upregulation of angiotensin Ii. The latter interim through AT1R, activates the downstream inflammatory pathways, leading to the "cytokine tempest" that adversely affects multiple organs (12).
The alveolar epithelial cells, lymphocytes, and vascular endothelial cells are the primary targets of the virions. The virus inhibits the production of interferons which are part of cellular defense force mechanisms. Viral replication releases a large number of virions leading to infection of neighboring target cells and viremia, which so cause an exaggerated pulmonary and systemic inflammatory response respectively. This explains the clinical presentation of severe COVID-xix which is predominated by ARDS, shock, and coagulopathy.
The immunological, inflammatory, and coagulative cascades are closely interlinked. Table 1 lists the various biomarkers co-ordinate to the organ or system of origin, portraying the multisystem nature of COVID-19.
Tabular array ane. List of biomarkers in COVID-19 classified according to organ/system involved.
Subsequent Events and Organ Damage
Immune Response and Inflammation
SARS-CoV-ii infection triggers both innate and adaptive immune response (13). Excessive pro-inflammatory response of the former and dysregulated host response of the latter leads to tissue damage. The ensuing widespread uncontrolled immune dysregulation releases massive amounts of cytokines and chemokines what is typically called the "cytokine storm."
Both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells are antiviral. Of these, the latter account for about lxxx% of the total infiltrative inflammatory cells and tin impale virus infected cells. The sometime on the other hand, activate the T-dependent B cells which produce virus specific antibodies. The residuum between naïve and memory T cells is crucial for an efficient host defensive response (13). While naïve T cells are defense against new and previously unrecognized infection, memory T cells mediate antigen-specific immune response. An imbalance favoring naïve T cell action as against regulatory T cells, contributes to hyperinflammation through a massive, coordinated release of cytokines. Significant changes are besides seen in B cells.
The complement pathway too plays an important role in the hyperinflammation. C3a and C5a with strong pro-inflammatory properties, trigger inflammatory cell recruitment and neutrophil activation. Cytokine storm, the hallmark of SARS CoV2 infection, evolves through several pathways, like the NF-κB, JAK/STAT and the macrophage activation pathway, leading to the release of interleukin-vi (IL-6) and TNF-blastoff (13). IL-6 is a key player in the cytokine storm, activating several cell types and forming a positive feedback loop. The large-calibration unregulated production of interleukins, especially IL-6, farther stimulates several downstream pathways, increasing the production of acute-stage reactants like C-reactive poly peptide (CRP).
The Coagulative Cascade and Escalating Inflammation
The coagulative cascade involves endothelial cells, platelets, neutrophils, monocytes, and macrophages. A good for you vascular endothelium is both anti-thrombotic and anti-inflammatory. This protective barrier is disrupted in COVID-nineteen leading to thrombosis and inflammation (fourteen) primarily driven by thrombin (14).
Primary hemostasis begins with platelet activation. Platelets once activated recruit more platelets and crosslink with them via fibrinogen. Platelets secrete proinflammatory cytokines and proangiogenic factors similar vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and promote leukocyte activation and extravasation. The enhanced inflammatory land, thrombi germination and platelet consumption can lead to thrombocytopenia whilst the cytokine tempest causes thrombocytosis.
Neutrophils recruited to growing thrombi form neutrophil extracellular traps (NET), the organized extrusion of the chromatin of mature neutrophils. NETs are anti-bacterial and prothrombotic.
Macrophages, recruited to fibrin thrombi, generate plasmin, through which fibrin is degraded to D-dimers. Thus macrophages possibly contribute to the unusually extreme elevation of D-dimers seen in COVID-19.
Activated monocytes and impairment-associated molecular patterns from injured tissues produce inflammatory cytokines and chemokines which stimulate neutrophils, lymphocytes, platelets, vascular endothelial cells and monocytes to express tissue factor and phosphatidylserine and trigger coagulation.
Autopsy analyses accept revealed fibrin-rich thrombi containing neutrophils in the alveolar capillaries and increased lung megakaryocytes producing young platelets which are more than thrombogenic (14). Owing to the loftier fibrinolytic capacity of lungs, at that place is vigorous fibrinolysis leading to the production of D-dimers which spill into the blood.
Lymphocytopenia
Lymphocytopenia, a authentication of COVID-19, is attributed to multiple mechanisms including (i) direct viral invasion and lysis as lymphocytes express the ACE2 receptor on their surface (two) lymphocyte apoptosis induced past interleukins (iii) reduced lymphocyte turnover due to the "cytokine storm" induced atrophy of lymphoid organs, and (4) reduced lymphocyte proliferation due to lactic acidosis (15).
Cardiac Injury
Cardiac injury plays an important role in disease progression and outcome. Direct viral infection and damage and immune mediated damage are the two mechanisms proposed for cardiac injury (16). Viral infection of cardiomyocytes and intracellular replication leads to cardiomyocyte degeneration and necrosis, causing cardiac dysfunction and arrhythmia. The immune-mediated mechanism involves the cytokine storm leading to microcirculation defects, tissue ischemia, and hypoxia. The pro-inflammatory state is likewise said to aggravate atherosclerosis and allowed complex atmospheric precipitation which can increment the possibility of acute myocardial infarction.
Pathogenesis of MIS-C
The pathogenesis of MIS-C is not completely understood. It is suspected to coincide with the evolution of acquired immune response to the virus, rather than directly viral invasion. Antibody responses in children and adults have been constitute to be markedly unlike. Some of the postulated mechanisms include antibiotic-dependent enhancement of viral entry and replication, immune complex mediated triggering of the host inflammatory response or direct anti-tissue antibody activation or cellular activation, or both (17). Multiple autoantibodies are suspected to exist involved. The inflammatory response in MIS-C is dissimilar from the hypercytokinemia seen in astringent astute COVID-19. Although its clinical features overlap with that of Kawasaki disease, it differs from this status with respect to T cell subsets, interleukin (IL)-17A, and biomarkers associated with arterial harm (eighteen).
Biomarkers Studied in COVID-xix
In the following section, we discuss how the higher up knowledge on pathophysiology tin can translate into practice with the laboratory tests available to the clinician.
Hematological Parameters
Hemoglobin
In a retrospective study, anemia and contradistinct iron homeostasis were common in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Initial anemia was associated with increased bloodshed, and a college ferritin/transferrin ratio predicted demand for ICU admission and mechanical ventilation (xix).
Lymphocytes
Peripheral blood leukocyte and lymphocyte counts are normal or slightly reduced in early affliction, when symptoms tend to be non-specific (15). Approximately 7 to 14 days from the onset of symptoms, appearance of significant lymphopenia coincides with worsening clinical status, increment in inflammatory mediators and "cytokine storm."
Lymphocytopenia is straight correlated with disease severity and death. Lymphopenia on admission (defined every bit lymphocyte count ≤ 1,100 cells/μl) is associated with three-fold risk of poor consequence, in younger as compared to older patients (15). Lymphocyte counts were lower in patients with ARDS, severe disease requiring ICU care, and in not-survivors (20). A temporal model based on lymphocyte counts at two time points showed that patients with <20% and <v% lymphocytes at days 10–12 and 17–19 from the onset of symptoms respectively had the worst prognosis (21).
Severe disease was also characterized by marked reduction in the absolute number of circulating CD4+ cells, CD8+ cells, B cells and natural killers (NK) cells.; plasma cells are remarkably increased (thirteen, 22).
The highest values of inflammatory parameters firmly correlated with the decrease in CD8 T-cells, an consequence that was non seen with CD4 cells (23).
Neutrophils
Patients requiring admission to the ICU had college percentage and absolute number of neutrophils (23).
Eosinophils
A low pct of eosinophils and airway and serum eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN-1) tin be a potential biomarker of COVID pneumonia (24, 25). However farther studies are required to correlate EDN-1 with clinical, radiographic, and physiological parameters (25).
Monocytes and Basophils
Monocytes and basophils are too decreased alike to lymphocytes and eosinophils.
Platelets
Both thrombocytopenia and thrombocytosis take been observed. However astringent thrombocytopenia and bleeding are uncommon (26). Thrombocytopenia was shown to correlate with other coagulation parameters and increased risk of mortality (27).
Blended Hematological Markers
Putting it all together it is clear that astringent COVID 19 disease is associated with significantly increased leukocytes, neutrophils, infection biomarkers [such equally CRP, Pct and ferritin] and cytokine levels [IL-2R, IL-vi, IL-8, IL-10 and tumor necrosis cistron (TNF)-α] and decreased lymphocyte counts (28).
IL-2R levels correlated positively with the other cytokines and negatively with lymphocyte number. An elevated IL-2R to lymphocytes ratio was discriminative of severe and critical illness. In fact this ratio was superior to other markers for differentiation of critical illness. The ratio was significantly decreased in recovered patients, but further increased in patients who deteriorated, thus correlating with the result (28).
Zheng et al. devised a score based on the neutrophil, lymphocyte and platelet counts, with an "NLP score" of >half-dozen, predicting progression to severe disease (29). A loftier neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) at admission can be a skilful surrogate marker for diagnosis of COVID-19. A rising NLR tin as well be used as a prognostic marker for predicting poor outcomes. (30, 31). Another prognostic marker the lymphocyte-to-CRP ratio (LCR), used in several types of cancers, may also be helpful. A meta-assay on vi studies concluded that a rise in the NLR and decline in LCR correlates with the severity of COVID-19 (32). Specifically, a low LCR at presentation was seen to predict ICU admission and demand for invasive ventilation.
Inflammatory Parameters
CRP and Procalcitonin
In a written report, CRP was elevated in 60.vii% of patients, procalcitonin (Pct) in 5.5%, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) in 41% of patients (33). A cutting off of >10 mg/L and >0.v ng/ml for CRP and PCT respectively take been shown to exist predictors of poor outcome (34). A retrospective study showed that a CRP level of 26 mg/Fifty could serve as a cutting-off to predict progression to severe disease (35). A meta-analysis showed that elevated Percent values were associated with a nearly five-fold higher take a chance of severe infection (36).
Cytokines
IL-6 is dramatically increased in COVID-nineteen patients. More half of admitted patients were constitute to have elevated IL-6 levels (37). Higher baseline IL-half-dozen correlated with severity, bilateral interstitial lung involvement and other acute inflammatory markers (38). Several meta-analyses and systematic reviews have identified IL-half-dozen as an important mark of disease severity and predictor of bloodshed (Tabular array 2). Furthermore, IL 6 is good to monitor therapeutic response. Other pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1β, IL-2, IL-8, IL-17, Grand-CSF, GMCSF, IP-10, MCP-one, CCL3, and TNFα) are significantly increased in patients with severe disease (12, 13).
Table 2. Summary of the meta-analyses and systematic reviews investigating the role of biomarkers in COVID-19.
A small study showed that cytokine levels in COVID-19 patients with ARDS were lower than in those with septic daze, trauma or out of hospital cardiac abort, commensurate with lower leucocyte counts (52). These preliminary findings question the existence of cytokine storm and do good of anticytokine therapies.
Ferritin
Studies on ferritin levels in COVID-nineteen patients have yielded equivocal results. It is not clear whether it is a bystander or a truthful characteristic of the disease (53). Two retrospective studies accept reported minimal part of ferritin in predicting ICU access and need for ventilation and failure in predicting mortality (19, 54). Simply some other study and a meta-assay showed findings to the contrary; ferritin levels could predict astringent disease and mortality (34, 54).
Coagulative Parameters
Coagulopathy in COVID-xix differs from the usual disseminated intravascular coagulation, in having a loftier fibrinogen, normal or mildly prolonged prothrombin fourth dimension and activated fractional thromboplastin time, platelet count >100 × 10iii/ml, but no meaning haemorrhage (14).
Elevated D-dimer levels are very frequently seen in patients with COVID-19. Several meta-analyses take shown that D-dimer levels have prognostic value and correlate with disease severity and in-infirmary mortality (Table two). A level of >ii.0μg/ml on admission could predict mortality (55, 56). D-dimer can be an early marker to guide management of Covid-19 patients.
Cardiac Biomarkers
Cardiac biomarkers have been studied in diagnosis, triaging, treatment, and prognosis. Raised cardiac biomarkers including LDH, creatine kinase (CK), creatinine kinase-muscle/-brain activity (CK-MB), myoglobin (Mb), cardiac troponin I (cTnI), blastoff-hydroxybutyrate dehydrogenase (α-HBDH), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and Northward-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) have been seen in patients with COVID-19. Amongst these LDH, CK, α-HBDH, and AST are non myocardial specific and may exist elevated in injury to lungs, liver and kidneys.
On the other paw, CK-MB, cTnI, Mb, and NT-proBNP are more myocardial injury specific and increased to varying degrees, especially in severe and disquisitional illness. Furthermore, college levels were associated with college mortality (57, 58). Cut-offs of these biomarkers to predict mortality have been found to exist much lower than for regular heart disease (59). Troponin and natriuretic peptides have been studied for risk stratification, to aid decision making with regard to rational use of ECG/echocardiography and aggressive therapies, and prognostication (60).
Cardiac biomarkers take been seen to exist in tandem with other biomarkers; patients with myocardial injury had higher leukocyte, lower lymphocyte and lower platelet counts (48).
However, cardiac biomarkers need to be used judiciously every bit routine tests in all patients may be misleading.
Biochemical Parameters
Serum Albumin
Hypoalbuminemia in critically ill patients is multifactorial and is attributed to increased capillary permeability, decreased protein synthesis, increased turnover, decreased serum albumin total mass, increased volume of distribution, and increased expression of vascular endothelial growth cistron. Although common, the exact temporal clan of hypoalbuminemia is yet to be studied (61).
In COVID 19 disease a similar tendency was establish; a meta-analysis of 11 studies showed that the mean serum albumin on access was 3.50 g/dl and 4.05 g/dl in astringent and non-severe COVID-19, respectively (61).
LDH
Nearly 40% of patients presented with increased LDH levels. Elevated LDH has been associated with a higher hazard of ARDS, need for intensive care and bloodshed (15).
Urine Biochemical Parameters
Urine biochemical parameters have been studied to predict the severity of disease. The positive rates of urine glucose and poly peptide were higher in the astringent and critical groups compared to those in the moderate group. Urine occult blood and specific gravity were not associated with the severity (62).
Tabular array 2 summarizes the meta-analyses and systematic reviews investigating the part of various biomarkers in COVID-xix.
Comparison of Children and Adults
Children, fortunately are mostly asymptomatic or have a mild illness, compared to adults. In a meta-analysis on children, 20% were asymptomatic; 33% had a mild illness and 51%, a moderate affliction (iv). Critical cases were seen in fourteen% of infants. Another Chinese study reported astringent and disquisitional cases in x.half dozen, 7.3, 4.two, 4.1 and 3.0% for the age group of <1, 1–five, 6–10, 11–15, and >fifteen years, respectively (63).
Overall, laboratory abnormalities are uncommon in children and are predominantly confined to children with severe illness and MIS-C (64–67).
Like to adults, abnormal laboratory markers reported include serum D-dimer, Percent, creatine kinase, and IL-6 (68). The most normally reported abnormal laboratory parameters in children were leukopenia/lymphopenia (16–33%), leukocytosis (thirteen%), increased creatine kinase (v–37%), elevated D-dimer (12–52%), CRP (17–40%), AST (19%) and alanine aminotransferase (15%) (iv, 63, 68–70).
Children with severe respiratory disease and MIS-C have significantly higher CRP, procalcitonin, or troponin level, and a lower nadir ALC, platelet count, or serum sodium level compared to those with non-severe affliction (66, 71). Children requiring intensive care were more likely to have lower platelet counts, higher neutrophil counts and college CRP, but these differences were less marked when children with MIS-C were excluded (72).
Serum interleukin-17A and interferon-⋎ (IFN- ⋎), but non tumor necrosis factor– α (TNF-α) or IL-6, were inversely related to age. Neutralizing antibody titers correlated positively with historic period and negatively with IL-17A and IFN- ⋎ serum concentrations (71).
Laboratory biomarkers play a major role in the diagnosis, prognosis and management of children with MIS-C. Other than fever, which is universal, balance of the clinical manifestations are present in a variable percentage of patients. Hence, biomarkers are a valuable offshoot in timely diagnosis; appropriate therapy is lifesaving. Several diagnostic criteria have been proposed (73). Mandatory investigations for all children with suspected MIS-C, which are an essential role of the WHO criteria are the (i) inflammatory markers – ESR, C-reactive poly peptide, or procalcitonin, and ferritin, (ii) cardiac biomarkers – troponin/NT-proBNP, and (iii) markers of coagulopathy – PT, PTT, and d-dimers. Elevated fibrinogen, LDH, or IL-6, elevated neutrophils, reduced lymphocytes and low albumin, proteinuria, high CK, high TG, and transaminitis are present in a variable number of children.
A systematic review on children with MIS-C reported neutrophilia in 83% of cases, raised CRP in 94%, lymphopenia in l%, raised Troponin-T in 68% and raised proBNP in 77% of cases (74). With majority of patients having a high CRP, and values higher than 100 mg/L being common, CRP is a valuable, cheap initial investigation to screen patients for MIS-C every bit well as to monitor them afterward therapy (74, 75).
Temporal Trends in Biomarkers
As detailed above, there are numerous individual studies and several meta-assay on many potential biomarkers. Nearly of them mainly display the differential change in biomarkers betwixt disease categories and relation to outcomes like bloodshed, demand for ICU admission, mechanical ventilation and elapsing of hospital stay.
However, the temporal variation of biomarkers along the course of the illness is of import to define disease progression and therapeutic response.
A retrospective study from Wuhan, Cathay during the early pandemic showed that WBC and neutrophil counts were normal in the start week and increased later (76). Lymphopenia, more prominent in non-survivors, nevertheless persisted throughout in all patients. Thrombocytopenia noted in the offset week improved subsequently in survivors and persisted in non-survivors. D-dimer level was elevated in not-survivors later in the illness. Not-survivors as compared to survivors had higher levels of CK, CK-MB, LDH, AST, and ALT in the early function of the illness, and progressively rise claret urea and creatinine levels.
Another retrospective written report followed the tendency of blood counts forth the grade of the disease (77). In severe/critical cases, WBC, neutrophil and platelet counts progressively cruel to a nadir by twenty-four hours viii–nine of illness simply gradually recovered in the subsequent days. The lymphocyte count decreased gradually, the proportion of reactive and antibiotic synthesizing lymphocytes progressively increased toward day 15–16.
Hematological and immunological parameters assessed over fourth dimension showed that lymphocytes, T-cell subsets, eosinophils, and platelets were markedly low at admission, peculiarly in astringent/critical affliction and non-survivors. Survivors and not-survivors could be discriminated by increasing trend of eosinophils, lymphocytes, and platelets in the sometime compared to a pregnant drib in the latter. Restored levels of lymphocytes, eosinophils, and platelets could serve every bit predictors for recovery, whereas progressive increases in neutrophils, basophils, and IL-6 were associated with fatal consequence (37).
A pocket-sized retrospective written report revealed that ferritin was the last parameter to return to normal while loftier-sensitivity CRP, normalized about 5 days earlier ferritin (78) thus suggesting that ferritin is more than useful in assessment of the severity, rather than monitoring the course of the affliction.
A prospective report analyzed key immune mediators temporally over four weeks (79). MCP-1 and the inhibitory cytokines, IL-1RA and IL-10, were college in astringent cases in the first 2 weeks as compared to mild cases just not in the subsequent 2 weeks of affliction. IL-vi, IL-17, IL-12, IL-1β, IFN-γ, and IL-27 were elevated in severe cases about 4 weeks later on symptom onset. RANTES, too called CCL5, was elevated in balmy merely not severe cases throughout the first month of illness. Taken together, a combination of CCL5, IL-1RA, and IL-ten may be useful to predict patient outcomes in the starting time week of illness.
A report, classifying patients in three categories (balmy, astringent and fatal), estimated levels of 48 biomarkers (cytokines, chemokines and growth factors – CCGF) serially on days, 1, 5, x, and 14 later on diagnosis (80). Twelve of the CCGFs (including IFN-γ, IL-1Rα, IL-two, IL-2Rα, IL-6) were upregulated to like levels on days 1 and 5 in all 3 categories, merely were markedly further upregulated in fatal patients on day 14 afterwards diagnosis, while remaining at steady levels in survivors.
Table 3 summarizes the temporal course of diverse biomarkers.
Table 3. Temporal course of biomarkers in COVID-19.
Association of Biomarkers With Clinical Phenotype and Therapeutic Response
COVID, like ARDS of any other etiology, is a spectrum of varying phenotypes where customized therapy may assist more and damage less. Rello et al. take described five phenotypes ranging from the well-nigh beneficial (phenotype one) to increasing respiratory distress and hypoxemia (phenotypes 2 and 3) and ARDS (phenotypes iv and five) (81). IL-6 has been suggested as a differentiating characteristic betwixt phenotypes two and 3, and Per centum as a characteristic characteristic of phenotype 5. Defining phenotypes based on underlying risk factors, clinical and radiological features and biomarkers may help in predicting demand for ICU and optimizing therapy.
The correlation of biomarkers with clinical and radiological features and the viral load, and the effect of handling remain to exist studied in detail. None of the proposed anti-viral, anti-inflammatory, anticoagulant and anti-fibrotic therapeutic strategies take been proven to be conclusively benign.
One study assessed the changes in biomarkers with supportive therapy and a variable combination of abidol, lopinavir/ritonavir and methylprednisolone (82). Subsequently treatment, IL-2R, IL-vi, TNF-α, and CRP levels decreased significantly, followed by IL-8, IL-ten, and PCT. CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes increased significantly only B lymphocytes and natural killer cells showed no changes. Serum ferritin also did not subtract significantly.
D-dimer levels have been recommended equally a part of the gamble stratification criteria to decide anticoagulation (83).Handling with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is associated with reduction in levels of d-dimer and fibrin degradation products and likewise in IL-6 levels suggesting a potential anti-inflammatory result (84).
Tocilizumab has been considered for patients with severe and extensive lung disease with elevated IL-6 levels merely bear witness is conflicting (85–87).
Demote to Bedside
As the pandemic is evolving, strategies for testing, treatment and control are changing and will vary across countries and regions. Which biomarker needs to be evaluated when and in whom, and how best this information tin contribute to patient care are questions which currently lack disarming answers. Table 4 summarizes the role of biomarkers in the diagnosis and management of patients with COVID-19.
Table four. Role of biomarkers in various areas of patient management.
General Principles
• Diagnosis, especially in the first week of disease, will be established past using the standard clinical case definitions and molecular testing with RT-PCR.
• COVID-nineteen, specially MIS-C, can have a wide spectrum of presentation and needs to exist considered in any acute febrile illness, especially merely not necessarily with abdominal, and respiratory symptoms.
• Leukopenia, lymphopenia, a high NLR ratio, raised LDH and AST levels may help in differentiating COVID-19 from other similar illnesses.
• It is important to stratify patients based on severity determined by clinical and laboratory parameters. Multiple biomarkers have been seen to predict the severity of disease and have been listed in Tabular array 3.
• Serial trends rather than unmarried measurements combined with clinical assessment is the all-time method in deciding the COVID 19 specific treatment modalities.
• Biomarkers that predict a poor prognosis are listed in Tables 3 and 4. Information technology is important to consider the timing of testing and the trends to obtain a meaningful picture.
General Recommendations
Based on the currently available evidence, summarized in Tables 3 and 4, we would similar to offer the following recommendations with respect to the utilise of biomarkers in adults and children with COVID-nineteen, including children with MIS-C.
These are primarily based on the clinical categorization equally per the WHO guidelines (88), simply should be modified according to the clinical condition, presence of comorbidities, availability and cost.
• For patients who are asymptomatic or in the balmy category (without underlying comorbidity), no investigations are needed.
• For all patients in the mild category with associated comorbidity or patients in the moderate category, a consummate blood count (CBC), CRP, serum creatinine, and liver function tests are needed at access. If any of these markers are abnormal, farther investigations mentioned for patients in the severe category may be considered. If symptoms persist in the second week, CBC and CRP must be repeated to run across the trends to decide monitoring and further investigations.
• For all patients in the severe category, in addition to the markers mentioned to a higher place, PT, APTT, INR, serum ferritin, d-dimer and cardiac biomarkers (NT-pro-BNP and troponin I) are advisable.
• Patients in the disquisitional category, would need, in add-on to the markers mentioned in the above categories, serum IL-6 levels and series lactate levels.
• To monitor hospitalized patients on therapy, CBC and CRP should be repeated 48 to 72 h subsequently admission or before. Serum ferritin cannot exist recommended to monitor response to therapy based on current evidence.
• For children with suspected MIS-C, many investigations may be expensive, not easily available and fourth dimension consuming. A tiered testing strategy can be employed provided the patient's clinical condition permits (75, 89). Complete blood count, CRP, electrolytes and liver office tests form a part of testing of all febrile children admitted to the hospital. In the presence of "elevated ESR and/or CRP and at least 1 other suggestive laboratory characteristic (lymphopenia, neutrophilia, thrombocytopenia, hyponatremia, or hypoalbuminemia)," the side by side tier of investigations (ferritin, d-dimer, PT, PTT, fibrinogen, troponin I, NT-pro-BNP) should be performed (75). Cytokine levels (IL-six, IL-10) may support the diagnosis and are not required to determine treatment. IL-half dozen levels may be considered in treatment of refractory cases when specific therapies similar tocilizumab are considered. SARS-CoV-2 serology has been reported positive more often than PCR testing and both should be sent to evaluate the epidemiologic link to the infection. Response to therapy tin be monitored by repeating CBC and CRP 24 to 48 h after therapy.
Conclusion
COVID-19 is a heterogeneous disease spectrum with manifestations varying with age and presence of co-morbidities. Biomarkers will play a crucial role in early suspicion, diagnosis, monitoring, and recognition of complications, management and disposition of patients. Each of these components in turn can have crucial implications on the healthcare arrangement and the administrative machinery, directly impacting patient care. Needless to say, clinical evaluation volition exist paramount at every step and biomarkers will need to exist meaningfully integrated into bedside conclusion making. Biomarker panels rather than single biomarkers may provide more reliable data. Availability and cost issues cannot be ignored. It would exist incommunicable for clinicians to consolidate and critically analyse the enormous data that is continuously added to the COVID-nineteen literature to extract practically useful data for the benefit of patients. National or regional guidelines which tailor the information bachelor to suit the local population are essential.
Writer Contributions
MS performed the literature review and prepared the initial draft of the manuscript. MJ critically reviewed the manuscript and revised the initial draft. Both authors approved the final version.
Disharmonize of Interest
The authors declare that the inquiry was conducted in the absenteeism of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed equally a potential conflict of involvement.
References
iv. Cui X, Zhao Z, Zhang T, Guo Westward, Guo W, Zheng J, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of children with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-xix). J Med Virol. (2021) 93:1057–69. doi: 10.1002/jmv.26398
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
five. Singh-Grewal D, Lucas R, McCarthy G, Cheng AC, Wood N, Ostring G, et al. Update on the COVID-19-associated inflammatory syndrome in children and adolescents; paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome-temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2. J Paediatr Child Health. (2020) 56:1173–77. doi: ten.1111/jpc.15049
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
vi. Feldstein LR, Rose EB, Horwitz SM, Collins JP, Newhams MM, Son Thousand, et al. Overcoming COVID-nineteen Investigators and the CDC COVID-19 Response Team. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in U.S. children and adolescents. N Engl J Med. (2020) 383:334–46. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2021680
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
7. Davies P, Evans C, Kanthimathinathan HK, Lillie J, Brierley J, Waters 1000, et al. Intensive care admissions of children with paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with SARS-CoV-two (PIMS-TS) in the Uk: a multicentre observational study. Lancet Kid Adolesc Health. (2020) 4:669–77. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30215-vii
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
eight. Dhanalakshmi K, Venkataraman A, Balasubramanian Southward, Madhusudan G, Amperayani S, Putilibai S, et al. Epidemiological and clinical profile of pediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome—temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2 (PIMS-TS) in Indian children. Indian Pediatr. (2020) 57:1010–14. doi: 10.1007/s13312-020-2025-one
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
ix. Hanson KE, Caliendo AM, Arias CA, Englund JA, Lee MJ, Loeb 1000, et al. Infectious diseases social club of America guidelines on the diagnosis of COVID-19. Clin Infect Dis. (2020). doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa760. [Epub ahead of print].
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
10. Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. (2001) 69:89–95. doi: x.1067/mcp.2001113989
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
11. Bal A, Agrawal R, Vaideeswar P, Arava S, Jain A. COVID-xix: an up-to-appointment review—from morphology to pathogenesis. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. (2020) 63:358–66. doi: 10.4103/IJPMIJPM_779_20
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
12. D'Ardes D, Boccatonda A, Rossi I, Guagnano MT, Santilli F, Cipollone F, et al. COVID-xix and RAS: unravelling an unclear relationship. Int J Mol Sci. (2020) 21:3003. doi: 10.3390/ijms21083003
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
13. Catanzaro G, Fagiani F, Racchi One thousand, Corsini East, Govoni S, Lanni C. Immune response in COVID-19: addressing a pharmacological claiming by targeting pathways triggered by SARS-CoV-2. Point Transduct Target Ther. (2020) 5:84. doi: ten.1038/s41392-020-0191-1
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
15. Terpos E, Ntanasis-Stathopoulos I, Elalamy I, Kastritis E, Sergentanis TN, Politou Yard, et al. Hematological findings and complications of COVID-19. Amer J Hematol. (2020) 95:834–47. doi: ten.1002/ajh25829
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
16. Li L, Zhou Q, Xu J. Changes of laboratory cardiac markers and mechanisms of cardiac injury in coronavirus disease 2019. Biomed Res Int. (2020). doi: 10.1155/2020/7413673. [Epub ahead of print].
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
17. Jiang L, Tang K, Levin Grand, Irfan O, Morris SK, Wilson Yard, et al. COVID-19 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and adolescents. Lancet Infect Dis. (2020) xx:e276–88. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(xx)30651-four
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
18. Consiglio CR, Cotugno Northward, Sardh F, Pou C, Amodio D, Rodriguez L, et al. The immunology of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children with COVID-19. Prison cell. (2020) 183:968–81.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.prison cell.2020.09.016
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
19. Bellmann-Weiler R, Lanser L, Barket R, Rangger L, Schapfl A, Schaber G, et al. Prevalence and predictive value of anemia and dysregulated atomic number 26 homeostasis in patients with COVID-nineteen Infection. J Clin Med. (2020) 9:E2429. doi: 10.3390/jcm9082429
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
20. Huang I, Pranata R. Lymphopenia in severe coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19): systematic review and meta-analysis. J Intensive Care. (2020) 8:36. doi: x.1186/s40560-020-00453-4
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
21. Tan 50, Wang Q, Zhang D, Ding J, Huang Q, Tang YQ, et al. Lymphopenia predicts disease severity of COVID-19: a descriptive and predictive study. Indicate Transduct Target Ther. (2020) 5:33. doi: x.1038/s41392-020-0148-4
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
22. Liu R, Wang Y, Li J, Han H, Xia Z, Liu F, et al. Decreased T cell populations contribute to the increased severity of COVID-19. Clin Chim Acta. (2020) 508:110–iv. doi: x.1016/j.cca.2020.05019
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
23. Urra JM, Cabrera CM, Porras L, Ródenas I. Selective CD8 cell reduction by SARS-CoV-ii is associated with a worse prognosis and systemic inflammation in COVID-xix patients. Clin Immunol. (2020) 217:108486. doi: ten.1016/j.clim.2020108486
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
24. Yang J, Zhao Ten, Liu X, Dominicus West, Zhou 50, Wang Y, et al. Clinical characteristics and eosinophils in immature SARS-CoV-2-positive chinese travelers returning to shanghai. Front Public Health. (2020) 8:368. doi: x.3389/fpubh.202000368
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
25. Dosanjh A. Eosinophil-derived neurotoxin and respiratory tract infection and inflammation: implications for COVID 19 management. J Interferon Cytokine Res. (2020) 40:443–v. doi: 10.1089/jir.20200066
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
27. Bao C, Tao X, Cui Westward, Yi B, Pan T, Young KH, et al. SARS-CoV-ii induced thrombocytopenia every bit an important biomarker significantly correlated with abnormal coagulation function, increased intravascular blood clot risk and mortality in COVID-19 patients. Exp Hematol Oncol. (2020) 9:16. doi: 10.1186/s40164-020-00172-iv
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
28. Hou H, Zhang B, Huang H, Luo Y, Wu S, Tang Thou, et al. Using IL-2R/lymphocytes for predicting the clinical progression of patients with COVID-19. Clin Exp Immunol. (2020) 201:76–84. doi: ten.1111/cei13450
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
29. Zheng Y, Zhang Y, Chi H, Chen S, Peng Thousand, Luo 50, et al. The hemocyte counts as a potential biomarker for predicting disease progression in COVID-19: a retrospective written report. Clin Chem Lab Med. (2020) 58:1106–15. doi: 10.1515/cclm-2020-0377
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
30. Yan X, Li F, Wang X, Yan J, Zhu F, Tang S, et al. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio equally prognostic and predictive factor in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a retrospective cross-sectional study. J Med Virol. (2019) 92:2573–81. doi: 10.1002/jmv.26061
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
31. Ma A, Cheng J, Yang J, Dong K, Liao X, Kang Y. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio equally a predictive biomarker for moderate-severe ARDS in severe COVID-19 patients. Crit Intendance. (2020) 24:288. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03007-0
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
32. Lagunas-Rangel FA. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and lymphocyte-to-C-reactive protein ratio in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-xix): a meta-analysis. J Med Virol. (2020) 92:1733–four. doi: 10.1002/jmv25819
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
33. Guan WJ, ZY Ni, Hu Y, Liang WH, Ou CQ, He JX, et al. China medical handling expert grouping for Covid-19. Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med. (2020) 382:1708–20. doi: ten.1056/NEJMoa2002032
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
34. Huang I, Pranata R, Lim MA, Oehadian A, Alisjahbana B. C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, D-dimer, and ferritin in severe coronavirus disease-2019: a meta-analysis. Ther Adv Respir Dis. (2020) fourteen:1753466620937175. doi: ten.1177/1753466620937175
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
35. Wang G, Wu C, Zhang Q, Wu F, Yu B, Lv J, et al. C-Reactive poly peptide level may predict the risk of COVID-xix bedevilment. Open up Forum Infect Dis. (2020) seven:ofaa153. doi: x.1093/ofid/ofaa153
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
37. Chen R, Sang L, Jiang Grand, Yang Z, Jia N, Fu Due west, et al. Medical handling expert group for COVID-xix. Longitudinal hematologic and immunologic variations associated with the progression of COVID-19 patients in Communist china. J Allergy Clin Immmunol. (2020) 146:89–100. doi: x.1016/j.jaci.2020.05003
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
38. Liu T, Zhang J, Yang Y, Ma H, Li Z, Zhang J, et al. The role of interleukin-6 in monitoring severe case of coronavirus disease 2019. EMBO Mol Med. (2020) 12:e12421. doi: ten.15252/emmm202012421
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
39. Zeng F, Huang Y, Guo Y, Yin M, Chen X, Xiao L, et al. Association of inflammatory markers with the severity of COVID-19: a meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis. (2020) 96:467–74. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.05.055
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
twoscore. Wu X, Liu L, Jiao J, Yang L, Zhu B, Li X. Characterisation of clinical, laboratory and imaging factors related to mild vs. severe covid-19 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Med. (2020) 52:334–344. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2020.1802061
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
41. Zhu J, Pang J, Ji P, Zhong Z, Li H, Li B, et al. Coagulation dysfunction is associated with severity of COVID-19: a meta-assay. J Med Virol. (2021) 93:962–72. doi: ten.1002/jmv.26336
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
42. Lin J, Yan H, Chen H, He C, Lin C, He H, et al. COVID-nineteen and coagulation dysfunction in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Virol. (2021) 93:934–44. doi: ten.1002/jmv.26346
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
43. Tian W, Jiang W, Yao J, Nicholson CJ, Li RH, Sigurslid HH, et al. Predictors of mortality in hospitalized COVID-xix patients: A systematic review and meta-assay. J Med Virol. (2020) 92:1875–83. doi: x.1002/jmv.26050
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
44. Figliozzi S, Masci PG, Ahmadi Due north, Tondi L, Koutli E, Aimo A, et al. Predictors of agin prognosis in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-assay. Eur J Clin Invest. (2020) fifty:e13362. doi: 10.1111/eci.13362
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
45. Alnor A, Sandberg MB, Gils C, Vinholt PJ. Laboratory tests and issue for patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Appl Lab Med. (2020) v:1038–49. doi: x.1093/jalm/jfaa098
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
46. Ghahramani South, Tabrizi R, Lankarani KB, Kashani SMA, Rezaei S, Zeidi N, et al. Laboratory features of severe vs. non-severe COVID-19 patients in Asian populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Med Res. (2020) 25:30. doi: x.1186/s40001-020-00432-iii
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
47. Minno Di MND, Calcaterra I, Lupoli R, Storino A, Spedicato GA, Maniscalco Thou, et al. Hemostatic changes in patients with COVID-19: a meta-analysis with meta-regressions. J Clin Med. (2020) 9:2244. doi: 10.3390/jcm9072244
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
48. Henry BM, de Oliveira M, Benoit Southward, Plebani M, Lippi Yard. Hematologic, biochemical and immune biomarker abnormalities associated with severe illness and mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-nineteen): a meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med. (2020) 58:1021–8. doi: 10.1515/cclm-2020-0369
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
49. Pranata R, Huang I, Lukito AA, Raharjo SB. Elevated Due north-last pro-encephalon natriuretic peptide is associated with increased mortality in patients with COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis. Postgrad Med J. (2020) 96:387–391. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-137884
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
50. Soraya GV, Ulhaq ZS. Crucial laboratory parameters in COVID-19 diagnosis and prognosis: an updated meta-assay. Med Clin. (2020) 155:143–51. doi: ten.1016/j.medcle.2020.05.004
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
51. Toraih EA, Elshazli RM, Hussein MH, Elgaml A, Amin M, El-Mowafy M, et al. Association of cardiac biomarkers and comorbidities with increased mortality, severity, and cardiac injury in COVID-19 patients: a meta-regression and decision tree assay. J Med Virol. (2020) 92:2473–88. doi: ten.1002/jmv.26166
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
52. Kox M, Waalders NJB, Kooistra EJ, Gerretsen J, Pickkers P. Cytokine levels in critically Sick patients with COVID-19 and other conditions. JAMA. (2020) 324:1565–vii. doi: x.1001/jama.2020.17052
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
53. Kappert K, Jahić A, Tauber R. Assessment of serum ferritin as a biomarker in COVID-nineteen: bystander or participant? Insights by comparison with other infectious and non-infectious diseases. Biomarkers. (2020) 25:616–25. doi: x.1080/1354750X.20201797880
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
54. Lin Z, Long F, Yang Y, Chen X, Xu L, Yang Chiliad. Serum ferritin every bit an independent risk factor for severity in COVID-19 patients. J Infect. (2020) 81:647–79. doi: ten.1016/j.jinf.2020.06.053
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
55. Zhang 50, Yan X, Fan Q, Liu H, Liu X, Liu Z, et al. D-dimer levels on access to predict in-hospital mortality in patients with Covid-xix. J Thromb Haemost. (2020) 18:1324–nine. doi: 10.1111/jth.14859
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
56. Yao Y, Cao J, Wang Q, Shi Q, Liu K, Luo Z, et al. D-dimer as a biomarker for disease severity and bloodshed in COVID-19 patients: a case control written report. J Intensive Care. (2020) 8:49. doi: 10.1186/s40560-020-00466-z
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
57. Li JW, Han TW, Woodward M, Anderson CS, Zhou H, Chen YD, Neal B. The impact of 2019 novel coronavirus on centre injury: A Systematic review and Meta-analysis. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. (2020) 63:518–24. doi: 10.1016/j.pcad.2020.04.008
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
58. Deng P, Ke Z, Ying B, Qiao B, Yuan 50. The diagnostic and prognostic role of myocardial injury biomarkers in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Clin Chim Acta. (2020) 510:186–ninety. doi: x.1016/j.cca.2020.07018
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
59. Qin JJ, Cheng X, Zhou F, Lei F, Akolkar G, Cai J, et al. Redefining cardiac biomarkers in predicting bloodshed of inpatients with COVID-19. Hypertension. (2020) 76:1104–12. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.12015528
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
60. Mahajan Chiliad, Chand N.egi P, Ganju Due north, Asotra Southward. Cardiac biomarker-based risk stratification algorithm in patients with severe COVID-xix. Diabetes Metab Syndr. (2020) fourteen:929–31. doi: x.1016/j.dsx.2020.06027
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
61. Aziz M, Fatima R, Lee-Smith West, Assaly R. The association of low serum albumin level with severe COVID-xix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. (2020) 24:255. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02995-3
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
62. Liu R, Ma Q, Han H, Su H, Liu F, Wu K, et al. The value of urine biochemical parameters in the prediction of the severity of coronavirus disease 2019. Clin Chem Lab Med. (2020) 58:1121–iv. doi: 10.1515/cclm-2020-0220
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
63. Dong Y, Mo X, Hu Y, Qi F, Jiang H, Jiang Z, et al. Epidemiological characteristics of 2143 pediatric patients with 2019 coronavirus disease in Communist china. Pediatrics. (2020) 58:712–3. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0702
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
65. Bourkhissi L, Fakiri KE, Nassih H, Qadiry RE, Bourrahouat A, Ait Sab I, et al. Laboratory abnormalities in children with novel coronavirus affliction 2019. Clin Med Insights Pediatr. (2020) 14:1179556520955177. doi: 10.1177/1179556520955177
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
66. Fernandes DM, Oliveira CR, Guerguis S, Eisenberg R, Choi J, Kim M, et al. Tri-land pediatric COVID-19 research consortium authors. SARS-CoV-2 clinical syndromes and predictors of disease severity in hospitalized children and youth. J Pediatr. (2020). doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.11.016. [Epub ahead of print].
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
67. Prata-Barbosa A, Lima-Setta F, Santos GRD, Lanziotti VS, de Castro REV, de Souza DC, et al. Brazilian research network in pediatric intensive care, (BRnet-PIC). Pediatric patients with COVID-nineteen admitted to intensive intendance units in Brazil: a prospective multicenter study. J Pediatr (Rio J). (2020) 96:582–592. doi: x.1016/j.jped.2020.07.002
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
68. Hoang A, Chorath K, Moreira A, Evans 1000, Burmeister-Morton F, Burmeister F, et al. COVID-nineteen in 7780 pediatric patients: a systematic review. EClinicalMedicine. (2020) 24:100433. doi: ten.1016/j.eclinm.2020100433
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
70. Ma 10, Liu South, Chen L, Zhuang L, Zhang J, Xin Y. The clinical characteristics of pediatric inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a meta-assay and systematic review. J Med Virol. (2020). doi: 10.1002/jmv26208. [Epub ahead of impress].
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
71. Pierce CA, Preston-Hurlburt P, Dai Y, Aschner CB, Cheshenko Northward, Galen B, et al. Immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitalized pediatric and adult patients. Sci Transl Med. (2020) 12:eabd5487. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.abd5487
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
72. Swann OV, Holden KA, Turtle 50, Pollock L, Fairfield CJ, Drake TM, et al. ISARIC4C Investigators. Clinical characteristics of children and young people admitted to infirmary with covid-xix in United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland: prospective multicentre observational cohort study. BMJ. (2020) 370:m3249. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3249
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
73. Sperotto F, Friedman KG, Son MBF, VanderPluym CJ, Newburger JW, Dionne A. Cardiac manifestations in SARS-CoV-2-associated multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a comprehensive review and proposed clinical approach. Eur J Pediatr. (2020) 15:1–sixteen. doi: 10.1007/s00431-020-03766-vi
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
74. Radia T, Williams North, Agrawal P, Harman Thousand, Weale J, Cook J, et al. Multi-system inflammatory syndrome in children & adolescents (MIS-C): a systematic review of clinical features and presentation. Paediatr Respir Rev. (2020). doi: ten.1016/j.prrv.2020.08.001. [Epub alee of print].
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
75. Wahezi DM, Lo MS, Rubinstein TB, Ringold Southward, Ardoin SP, Downes KJ, et al. American College of Rheumatology Guidance for the Management of Pediatric Rheumatic Illness During the COVID-nineteen pandemic: version 1. Arthritis Rheumatol. (2020) 72:1809–19. doi: 10.1002/art.41455
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
76. Wang D, Yin Y, Hu C, Liu X, Zhang X, Zhou South, et al. Clinical course and upshot of 107 patients infected with the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, discharged from two hospitals in Wuhan, China. Crit Care. (2020) 24:188. doi: ten.1186/s13054-020-02895-6
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
77. Yip C, Yap ES, De Mel S, Teo W, Lee CT, Kan S, et al. Temporal changes in immune blood cell parameters in COVID-19 infection and recovery from severe infection. Br J Haematol. (2020) 190:33–6. doi: x.1111/bjh16847
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
78. Li Y, Hu Y, Yu J, Ma T. Retrospective analysis of laboratory testing in 54 patients with severe- or critical-type 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia. Lab Invest. (2020) 100:794–800. doi: 10.1038/s41374-020-0431-6
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
79. Zhao Y, Qin 50, Zhang P, Li K, Liang L, Sunday J, et al. Longitudinal COVID-nineteen profiling associates IL-1RA and IL-10 with affliction severity and RANTES with balmy disease. JCI Insight. (2020) 5:e139834. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight139834
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
fourscore. Xu ZS, Shu T, Kang 50, Wu D, Zhou X, Liao BW, et al. Temporal profiling of plasma cytokines, chemokines and growth factors from mild, astringent and fatal COVID-19 patients. Signal Transduct Target Therapy. (2020) 5:100. doi: 10.1038/s41392-020-0211-i
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
81. Rello J, Storti East, Belliato M, Serrano R. Clinical phenotypes of SARS-CoV-2: implications for clinicians and researchers. Eur Respir J. (2020) 55:2001028. doi: 10.1183/1399300301028-2020
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
82. Ni M, Tian FB, Xiang DD, Yu B. Characteristics of inflammatory factors and lymphocyte subsets in patients with severe COVID-19. J Med Virol. (2020) 92:2600–6. doi: x.1002/jmv.26070
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
84. Shi C, Wang C, Wang H, Yang C, Cai F, Zeng F, et al. The potential of low molecular weight heparin to mitigate cytokine storm in astringent COVID-nineteen patients: a retrospective cohort written report. Clin Transl Sci. (2020) xiii:1087–95. doi: 10.1111/cts.12880
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
86. Petrak RM, Skorodin NC, Van Hise NW, Fliegelman RM, Pinsky JP, Didwania V, et al. Tocilizumab every bit a therapeutic amanuensis for critically Ill patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Clin Transl Sci. (2020). doi: 10.1111/cts.12894. [Epub alee of impress].
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
89. Dove ML, Jaggi P, Kelleman Grand, Abuali M, Ang JY, Ballan W, et al. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: survey of protocols for early infirmary evaluation and management. J Pediatr. (2020). doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.10026. [Epub ahead of impress].
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Which Predictor Of Health Services Utilization Is Linked Most Closely With Biological Pathology?,
Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fped.2020.607647/full
Posted by: richardsonscance.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Which Predictor Of Health Services Utilization Is Linked Most Closely With Biological Pathology?"
Post a Comment