LDH, CRP and ALB predict nucleic acid turn negative within 14 days in symptomatic patients with COVID-19.

AIMS: To search for biochemical indicators that can identify symptomatic patients with COVID-19 whose nucleic acid could turn negative within 14 days, and assess the prognostic value of these biochemical indicators in patients with COVID-19. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We collected the clinical data of patients with COVID-19 admitted to our hospital, by using logistic regression analysis and AUC curves, explored the relationship between biochemical indicators and nucleic acid positive duration, the severity of COVID-19, and hospital stay respectively. RESULTS: A total of two hundred and thirty-three patients with COVID-19 were enrolled in the study. We found patients whose nucleic acid turned negative within 14 days had lower LDH, CRP and higher ALB (P < 0.05). ROC curve results indicated that lower LDH, TP, CRP and higher ALB predicted the nucleic acid of patients turned negative within 14 days with statistical significance(P < 0.05), AST, LDH, CRP and PCT predicted the severe COVID-19 with statistical significance, and CRP predicted hospital stay >31days with statistical significance (P < 0.05). After verification, the probability of nucleic acid turning negative within 14 days in patients with low LDH (<256 U/L), CRP (<44.5 mg/L) and high ALB (>35.8 g/L) was about 4 times higher than that in patients with high LDH, CRP and low ALB (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: LDH, CRP and ALB are useful prognostic marker for predicting nucleic acid turn negative within 14 days in symptomatic patients with COVID-19.

The role of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and lymphocyte-monocyte ratio in the prognosis of type 2 diabetics with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the prognostic value of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, lymphocyte-monocyte ratio and red cell distribution width in type 2 diabetics with COVID-19. METHODS: We collected the data of type 2 diabetics with COVID-19 treated in our hospital from January 28 to March 15, 2020 and performed a retrospective analysis. Using severity, duration of hospital stay, and the time required for nucleic acid results became negative as prognostic indicators, we explored the relationship between these inflammation-based markers and prognosis of type 2 diabetics with COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 134 type 2 diabetics with COVID-19 were selected for this study. Correlation analysis showed that NLR, LMR and RDW were correlated with prognosis (P < 0.05). In multivariate regression analysis after controlling for the relevant confounding factors, COVID-19 diabetes patients with higher NLR had heavier severity, longer duration of hospital stay, more time required for nucleic acid results became negative, and heavier hospital expenses (P < 0.05). ROC curve result displayed that higher NLR predicted all prognostic indicators with statistical significance, and lower LMR predicted severe and extremely severe with statistical significance (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: NLR is a more powerful and practical marker for predicting the prognosis of type 2 diabetic COVID-19 patients that is simple and fast.

Clinical significance of nutritional risk screening for older adult patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the nutritional risks among older patients with COVID-19 and their associated clinical outcomes using four nutritional risk screening (NRS) tools: Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Mini Nutrition Assessment Shortcut (MNA-sf), and Nutrition Risk Index (NRI). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with COVID-19 older than 65 years who were treated in our hospital from January 28, 2020 to March 5, 2020, and explored the relationship between nutritional risk and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 141 patients with COVID-19 (46 common COVID-19, 73 severe COVID-19, and 22 extremely severe COVID-19) were enrolled in the study. NRS 2002 identified 85.8% of patients as having risk, with being identified 41.1% by MUST, 77.3% by MNA-sf, and 71.6% by NRI. The agreement strength was moderate between NRS 2002 and MNA-sf, NRI, fair between MUST and MNA-sf, NRI, fair between MNA-sf and NRI, poor between NRS 2002 and MUST (P < 0.01). After adjustment for confounding factors in multivariate regression analysis, patients in the risk group had significantly longer LOS, higher hospital expenses (except MNA-sf), poor appetite, heavier disease severity, and more weight change(kg) than normal patients by using NRS 2002, MNA-sf, and NRI(P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The NRS 2002, MNA-sf, and NRI are useful and practical tools with respect to screening for patients with COVID-19 who are at nutritional risk, as well as in need of additional nutritional intervention.