ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Although many demographic and clinical predictors of mortality have been studied in relation to COVID-19, little has been reported about the prognostic utility of inflammatory biomarkers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study. All patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 treated in a hospital emergency department were included consecutively if baseline measurements of the following biomarkers were on record: lymphocyte counts, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio NRL, and C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) levels. We analyzed associations between the biomarkers and all-cause 30-day mortality using Cox regression models and dose-response curves. RESULTS: We included 896 patients, 151 (17%) of whom died within 30 days. The median (interquartile range) age was 63 (51-78) years, and 494 (55%) were men. NLR, CRP and PCT levels at ED presentation were higher, while lymphocyte counts were lower, in patients who died compared to those who survived (P .001). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves revealed the PCT concentration (0.79;95% CI, 0.75-0.83) to be a better predictor of 30-day mortality than the lymphocyte count (0.70;95% CI, 0.65-0.74;P .001), the NLR (0.74;95% CI, 0.69-0.78;P = .03), or the CRP level (0.72;95% CI, 0.68-0.76;P .001). The proposed PCT concentration decision points for use in emergency department case management were 0.06 ng/L (negative) and 0.72 ng/L (positive). These cutoffs helped classify risk in 357 patients (40%). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that the PCT concentration had the strongest association with mortality. CONCLUSION: PCT concentration in the emergency department predicts all-cause 30-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 better than other inflammatory biomarkers.
ABSTRACT
Early detection of SARS-CoV-2 is essential for a timely update of health policies and allocation of resources. Particularly, serological testing may allow individuals with low-risk of being contagious of SARS-CoV-2 to return to daily activities. Both private and academic initiatives have sought to develop serological assays to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Herein, we compared five different assays in active healthcare personnel exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in a large center in Madrid, Spain, in a retrospective study. Median time lapse between polymerase chain-reaction (PCR) and serological testing was 11 days (7-21). All tests assessed IgM/IgG titers except for Euroimmun (IgA/IgG) and The Binding-Site (IgA/IgM/IgG). The highest concordance rate was observed between Dia.Pro and Euroimmun (75.76%), while it was lowest between The Binding-Site and Euroimmun (44.55%). The Binding-Site assay showed the highest concordance (85.52%) with PCR results. Considering PCR results as reference, Dia.Pro was the most sensitive test, although The Binding-Site assay exhibited the highest area under the curve (AUC;0.85). OrientGene and MAGLUMI tests were performed in a smaller cohort with confirmed infection and thus were not adequate to estimate sensitivity and specificity. The Binding-Site assay presented the best joint sensitivity and specificity among all the tests analyzed in our cohort. Likewise, this serological assay presents a greater repertoire of antibodies and antigen-regions tested, which is why each individual's humoral immunity is more accurately reflected. The better the immunity test, the most adequate the health strategy to take in terms of organization of consultations, surgery, and treatments in vulnerable patients. The three antibody classes (IgG/IgM/IgA) were determined jointly, which translates to an economic impact on healthcare. While their role in the protection status remains elusive, serological tests add a valuable tool in the early management of SARS-CoV-2 after known exposition.