ABSTRACT
Objective@#To assess the association between D-dimer and clinical outcomes in adults with COVID-19. @*Methods@#We reviewed published articles and preprints from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Cornell Open Access Publication (COAP), MedRxiv, and BioRxiv databases. We included cohort studies on the association between D-dimer and the outcomes of thromboembolism, mortality, and worsening severity among hospitalized adults with COVID-19. @*Results@#We found 25 observational studies on the association between D-dimer and the outcomes of thromboembolism, mortality, or worsening severity. There was an increased risk of thromboembolism (OR 5.61 [95% CI 3.97, 7.94]) with higher D-dimer levels across different COVID-19 severities. D-dimer levels are associated with higher in-hospital mortality (OR 5.57 [95% CI 2.74, 11.31]) and worsening severity manifesting as critical illness (OR 1.91 [95% CI 1.05, 3.48] to 2.58 [95% CI 1.57, 4.24]), disease progression (HR 2.846 [95% CI 2.10, 3.85]), or need for mechanical ventilation (HR 3.28 [95% CI 1.07, 10.10]). However, some methodological flaws, such as incomplete laboratory or follow-up data and concern on varied D-dimer cut-offs and definitions of worsening disease, raise some uncertainty in the widespread use of D-dimer as a prognostic marker. @*Conclusion@#A higher D-dimer value is associated with worse clinical outcomes among hospitalized adults with COVID-19 and may be a useful prognostic indicator.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Objective@#To assess the performance of prognostic models in predicting mortality or clinical deterioration among patients with COVID-19, both hospitalized and non-hospitalized @*Methods@#We conducted a systematic review of the literature until March 8, 2021. We included models for the prediction of mortality or clinical deterioration in COVID-19 with external validation. We used the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) and the GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool (GDT) to assess the evidence obtained. @*Results@#We reviewed 33 cohort studies. Two studies had a low risk of bias, four unclear risks, and 27 with a high risk of bias due to participant selection and analysis. For the outcome of mortality, the QCOVID model had excellent prediction with high certainty of evidence but was specific for use in England. The COVID Outcome Prediction in the Emergency Department (COPE) model, the 4C Mortality Score, the Age, BUN, number of comorbidities, CRP, SpO2/FiO2 ratio, platelet count, heart rate (ABC2-SPH) risk score, the Confusion Urea Respiration Blood Pressure (CURB-65) severity score, the Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), and the Risk Stratification in the Emergency Department in Acutely Ill Older Patients (RISE UP) score had fair to good prediction of death among inpatients, while the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score had poor to fair prediction. The certainty of evidence for these models was very low to low. For the outcome of clinical deterioration, the 4C Deterioration Score had fair prediction, the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) score poor to good, and the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) had poor prediction. The certainty of evidence for these three models was also very low to low. None of these models had been validated in the Philippine setting. @*Conclusion@#The QCOVID, COPE, ABC2-SPH, 4C, CURB-65, REMS, RISE-UP models for prediction of mortality and the 4C Deterioration and NEWS2 models for prediction of clinical deterioration are potentially useful but need to be validated among patients with COVID-19 of varying severity in the Philippine setting.