Evaluation of coagulation parameters according to serum CRP levels in early stage COVID-19 patients

Objectives: An increase in the levels of inflammatory biomarkers is observed in coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Coagulopathy occurring during the course of the disease has also been associated with inflammation. In our study, we aimed to evaluate the coagulation parameters according to the severity of inflammation in patients with early stage COVID-19 disease. Methods: The study was carried out retrospectively in a third-level hospital between April 8 and August 20, 2020. The patients were divided into two groups according to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results. Non-COVID-19 group consisted of 72 patients with negative, and COVID-19 group consisted of 247 patients with positive PCR results. According to the serum C-reactive protein (CRP) levels the COVID-19 patients were divided into three groups as follows: Group1 (CRP<10 mg/L;n=105), Group 2 ( CRP 10-50 mg/L;n=72), and Group 3 (CRP >50 mg/L;n=70). Age, CRP, and coagulation parameters including fibrinogen, D-dimer, aPTT, and PT were compared between the groups. Results: There were significant differences between the non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 patients in terms of age, CRP and coagulation parameters. Likewise, there was a significant difference among 3 groups regarding coagulation parameters. In the multinomial logistic regression analysis, only level of D-dimer was an independent risk factor among all groups, while PT was an independent risk factor between Groups 1, and 3. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that coagulopathy occurs in the early stage in relation to the severity of inflammation. For the diagnosis of COVID-19 disease and the detection of thrombotic complications;it is important to monitor results of the coagulation tests along with markers of inflammation from the early stages of the disease. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of International Journal of Medical Biochemistry is the property of KARE Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Coronavirus disease 2019 in healthy children: What is the effect of household contact?

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in children is milder than in adults. Household virus exposure may affect clinical severity. We aimed to determine the household contact history of patients and its influence on the clinical stage. METHODS: One hundred and seventy-three pediatric patients with COVID-19 as diagnosed with positive real-time polymerase chain reaction for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 aged 1 month to 18 years were included. Demographic data, laboratory and clinical findings, and the history of household contact of the patients were obtained. They were classified according to their clinical stage as mild or moderate-severe. RESULTS: Sixty patients (34.7%) were asymptomatic, and 113 were symptomatic (65.3%). Of the 173 patients, 138 (79.8%) had at least one family member in the household who was diagnosed as having COVID-19. Hemoglobin, absolute neutrophil count, and absolute neutrophil count /absolute lymphocyte count ratio decreased significantly in patients with household contact. The presence of a household contact did not have a significant effect on the presence of symptoms, clinical course, age, and the sex of the patients. The need for hospitalization was less in the group that had household contact. Being 0-12 months, being female, and being a patient without household contact were independent factors associated with higher hospitalization ratios in logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that household contact history did not significantly affect presenting symptoms and clinical course. We detected the rate of hospitalization to be less in the group with only household contact.

Evaluation of D-dimer levels measured by different analytical methods in COVID-19 patients.

Clinicians experience some challenges due to the lack of standardization of test, although D-dimer is a prognostic marker for COVID-19. We compared the clinical and analytical performances of D-dimer results obtained from different devices, kits and methods in patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19. Thirty-nine patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 and 24 healthy individuals were included in the study. D-dimer levels were measured with Innovance D-DIMER kit (immunoturbidimetric method) on Sysmex CS-2500 and BCS XP and VIDAS D-Dimer Exclusion II kit (enzyme-linked fluorescence method) on mini VIDAS. The studies of precision, method comparison and clinic performance were performed. The variation coefficients in all systems were within the acceptable imprecision (7.8%). Bias%(12.5%) between BCS XP and Sysmex CS-2500 was lower than the acceptable Bias%(15.5%). Bias% values (19.2% and 33.3%, respectively) between Mini VIDAS with BCS XP and Sysmex CS-2500 were higher than the acceptable Bias%. The correlation coefficients among all systems were 0.89-0.98. For 500 ng/ml FEU, there was almost perfect agreement between BCS XP and Sysmex CS-2500, a moderate agreement between Mini VIDAS and BCS XP and Sysmex CS-2500. The cut-off values for distinguishing between individuals with and withoutCOVID-19 were Mini VIDAS, Sysmex CS-2500 and BCS XP 529, 380 and 390 ng/ml FEU, respectively. The immunoturbidimetric method can be used as an alternative to the enzyme-linked fluorescent method because of satisfactory agreement at the different thresholds proposed for venous thromboembolism. However, it is recommended to follow up COVID-19 with the D-dimer results obtained by the same assay system.

Usefulness of laboratory parameters and chest CT in the early diagnosis of COVID-19.

In the present study, the importance of laboratory parameters and CT findings in the early diagnosis of COVID-19 was investigated. To this end, 245 patients admitted between April 1st, and May 30th, 2020 with suspected COVID-19 were enrolled. The patients were divided into three groups according to chest CT findings and RT-PCR results. The non-COVID-19 group consisted of 71 patients with negative RT-PCR results and no chest CT findings. Ninety-five patients with positive RT-PCR results and negativechest CT findings were included in the COVID-19 group; 79 patients with positive RT-PCR results and chest CT findings consistent with COVID-19 manifestations were included in COVID-19 pneumonia group. Chest CT findings were positive in 45% of all COVID-19 patients. Patients with positive chest CT findings had mild (n=30), moderate (n=21) andor severe (n=28) lung involvement. In the COVID-19 group, CRP levels and the percentage of monocytes increased significantly. As disease progressed from mild to severe, CRP, LDH and ferritin levels gradually increased. In the ROC analysis, the area under the curve corresponding to the percentage value of monocytes (AUC=0.887) had a very good accuracy in predicting COVID-19 cases. The multinomial logistic regression analysis showed that CRP, LYM and % MONO were independent factors for COVID-19. Furthermore, the chest CT evaluation is a relevant tool in patients with clinical suspicion of COVID-19 pneumonia and negative RT-PCR results. In addition to decreased lymphocyte count, the increased percentage of monocytes may also guide the diagnosis.

Could presepsin be an alternative marker in the early diagnosis of sepsis in COVID-19?

In critical patients with Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), we investigated the diagnostic value of presepsin in the early diagnosis of superinfection with sepsis, and the effect of antibiotic treatment (AT) in the levels of presepsin and procalcitonin and C-reactive protein. A total of 68 critical patients with sepsis and septic shock in the intensive care unit and 20 outpatients (control group) with COVID-19 were taken. ICU patients (n = 68) were further divided into three groups. C(-)AT(-) had negative blood or tracheal aspirate cultures (C) and not AT on admission to ICU (n = 18), C(-)AT(+) had negative C and AT on admission to intensive care unit (n = 31) and C(+) had positive C (n = 19). Presepsin, procalcitonin, C-reactive protein results were compared between the groups. There were no significant relationships between presepsin levels with sepsis, septic shock, mortality, or length of stay in ICU in patients with COVID-19. For procalcitonin and C-reactive protein levels in C(-)AT(+) and C(+) groups were significantly higher than in control and C(-)AT(-) groups (p < .001). C-reactive protein levels in C(-)AT(-) group were significantly higher than in the control group (p < .001). PCT and CRP, there was no difference between C(-)AT(+) and C(+) groups, and procalcitonin there was no difference between control and C(-)AT(-) groups. Presepsin was not found as a useful biomarker for the prediction of sepsis in COVID-19 patients. These study findings indicate that procalcitonin and C-reactive protein may be an indicator of an early diagnostic marker for superinfection in critical COVID-19 patients.

Diagnostic utility of C-reactive protein to albumin ratio as an early warning sign in hospitalized severe COVID-19 patients.

C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio (CAR) has been used as an indicator of prognosis in various diseases. Here, we intended to assess the CAR's diagnostic power in early differentiation of hospitalized severe COVID-19 cases. In this retrospectively designed study, we evaluated 197 patients in total. They were divided into two groups based on their severity of COVID-19 as non-severe (n = 113) and severe (n = 84). The comparison of groups' demographic data, comorbidities, clinical symptoms, and laboratory test results were done. Laboratory data of the patients within the first 24 h after admission to the hospital were evaluated. The calculation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the diagnostic power of CAR in differentiating severity of COVID-19. Independent risk factors predictive of COVID-19 severity were determined by using logistic regression analysis. Although lymphocyte count levels were lower, severe COVID-19 patients had higher mean age, higher levels of neutrophil count, CRP, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), ferritin, and prothrombin time (P < 0.05). Compared with non-severe patients (median, 0.23 [IQR = 0.07-1.56]), patients with severe COVID-19 had higher CAR levels (median, 1.66 [IQR = 0.50-3.35]; P < 0.001). Age (OR = 1.046, P = 0.003), CAR (OR = 1.264, P = 0.037), and AST (OR = 1.029, P = 0.037) were independent risk factors for severe COVID-19 based on the multivariate logistic regression analysis. ROC curve analysis assigned 0.9 as the cut-off value for CAR for differentiation of severe COVID-19 (area under the curve = 0.718, 69.1% sensitivity, 70.8% specificity, P < 0.001). CAR is a useful marker in early differentiation of severity in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 that have longer hospital stay and higher mortality.