A Combination of Inflammatory and Hematological Markers is Strongly Associated with the Risk of Death in Both Mild and Severe Initial Disease in Unvaccinated Individuals with COVID-19 Infection

Background Inflammatory and hematological markers are used extensively for early prognostication and monitoring in COVID-19. We aimed to determine whether routinely prescribed laboratory markers can predict adverse outcome at presentation in COVID-19. Methods This retrospective observational study was performed on 401 samples collected between July to December 2020 from COVID-19 positive subjects, admitted at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, India. Clinical details and laboratory investigations within 3 days of COVID-19 positivity were obtained. Clinical outcomes were noted from patient medical records, till discharge or death. Laboratory parameters, with individually defined cut-offs, were used, either singly or in combination to distinguish survival and death for those having severe and non-severe disease at initial presentation. Findings Total Leukocyte count, Absolute neutrophil count, Neutrophil to Lymphocyte ratio, C-Reactive Protein (CRP), Interleukin-6 (IL-6), Lactate Dehydrogenase, Ferritin and Lymphocyte to CRP ratio (LCR) were significantly altered at presentation in severe COVID-19 as compared to non-severe cases;and, also in those who died due to COVID-19 compared to those who survived. A combination of four markers, CRP (≥3.9mg/dL);IL-6 (≥45.37pg/ml);Ferritin (≥373ng/mL);1/LCR ≥0.405 was found to strongly predict mortality in cases with non-severe presentation as also in severe cases. Conclusion and Interpretation The combination of routinely used markers, CRP, IL-6, Ferritin and 1/LCR can be used to predict adverse outcomes, even in those presenting with mild to moderate disease. This would identify subset of patients who would benefit from closer monitoring than usual for non-severe disease.

Test concordance and diagnostic accuracy of three serological assays for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody: result from a population-based sero-epidemiological study in Delhi.

BACKGROUND: Several methodological tests are available to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibody. Tests are mostly used in the aid of diagnosis or for serological assessment. No tests are fully confirmatory and have variable level of diagnostic ability. We aimed at assessing agreement with three serological tests: quantitative anti receptor binding domain ELISA (Q-RBD), qualitative ELISA (WANTAI SARS-CoV-2 Ab) and qualitative chemiluminescence assay (CLIA). METHODS: This study was a part of a large population based sero-epidemiological cohort study. Participants aged 1 year or older were included from 25 randomly selected clusters each in Delhi urban (urban resettlement colony of South Delhi district) and Delhi rural (villages in Faridabad district, Haryana). Three type of tests were applied to all the baseline blood samples. Result of the three tests were evaluated by estimating the total agreement and kappa value. RESULTS: Total 3491 blood samples collected from March to September, 2021, out of which 1700 (48.7%) from urban and 1791 (51.3%) from rural. Overall 44.1% of participants were male. The proportion of sero-positivity were 78.1%, 75.2% and 31.8% by Wantai, QRBD and CLIA tests respectively. The total agreement between Wantai and QRBD was 94.5%, 53.1% between Wantai and CLIA, and 56.8% between QRBD and CLIA. The kappa value between these three tests were 0.84 (95% CI 0.80-0.87), 0.22 (95% CI 0.19-0.24) and 0.26 (95% CI 0.23-0.28). CONCLUSIONS: There was strong concordance between Wantai and QRBD test. Agreement between CLIA with other two tests was low. Wantai and QRBD tests measuring the antibody to same S protein can be used with high agreement based on the relevant scenario.

Outcomes of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children temporally related to COVID-19: a longitudinal study.

To study the clinical, laboratory characteristics and outcomes of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) temporally related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a resource-limited setting. All children meeting the World Health Organization case definition of MIS-C were prospectively enrolled. Baseline clinical and laboratory parameters were compared between survivors and non-survivors. Enrolled subjects were followed up for 4-6 weeks for evaluation of cardiac outcomes using echocardiography. The statistical data were analyzed using the stata-12 software. Thirty-one children with MIS-C were enrolled in an 11-month period. Twelve children had preexisting chronic systemic comorbidity. Fever was a universal finding; gastrointestinal and respiratory manifestations were noted in 70.9% and 64.3%, respectively, while 57.1% had a skin rash. Fifty-eight percent of children presented with shock, and 22.5% required mechanical ventilation. HSP like rash, gangrene and arthritis were uncommon clinical observations.The median duration of hospital stay was 9 (6.5-18.5) days: four children with preexisting comorbidities succumbed to the illness. The serum ferritin levels (ng/ml) [median (IQR)] were significantly higher in non-survivors as compared to survivors [1061 (581, 2750) vs 309.5 (140, 720.08), p value = 0.045]. Six patients had coronary artery involvement; five recovered during follow-up, while one was still admitted. Twenty-six children received immunomodulatory drugs, and five improved without immunomodulation. The choice of immunomodulation (steroids or intravenous immunoglobulin) did not affect the outcome. Most children with MIS-C present with acute hemodynamic and respiratory symptoms.The outcome is favorable in children without preexisting comorbidities.Raised ferritin level may be a poor prognostic marker. The coronary outcomes at follow-up were reassuring.

Detection of three pandemic causing coronaviruses from non-respiratory samples: systematic review and meta-analysis.

SARS-CoV-2 has posed an unprecedented challenge to the world. Pandemics have been caused previously by viruses of this family like Middle East Respiratory Corona Virus (MERS CoV), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus (SARS CoV). Although these viruses are primarily respiratory viruses, but they have been isolated from non-respiratory samples as well. Presently, the detection rate of SARS-CoV-2 RNA from different clinical specimens using Real Time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerized Chain Reaction (qRT-PCR) after onset of symptoms is not yet well established. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to establish the profile of detecting SARS-CoV-2, MERS CoV, SARS CoV from different types of clinical specimens other than the respiratory using a standard diagnostic test (qRT-PCR). A total of 3429 non-respiratory specimens were recorded: SARS CoV (total sample-802), MERS CoV (total sample-155), SARS CoV-2 (total sample-2347). Out of all the samples studied high positive rate was seen for saliva with 96.7% (14/14; 95% CI 87.6-100.0%) for SARS CoV and 57.5% (58/250; 95% CI - 1.2 to 116.2%) for SARS CoV-2, while low detection rate in urine samples for SARS CoV-2 with 2.2% (8/318; 95% CI 0.6-3.7%) and 9.6% (12/61; 95% CI - 0.9 to 20.1%) for SARS CoV but there was relatively higher positivity in urine samples for MERS CoV with detection rate of 32.4% (2/38; 95% CI - 37.3 to 102.1%). In Stool sample positivity was 54.9% (396/779; 95% CI 41.0-68.8%), 45.2% (180/430; 95% CI 28.1-62.3%) and 34.7% (4/38; 95% CI - 29.5 to 98.9%) for SARS CoV-2, MERS CoV, and SARS CoV, respectively. In blood sample the positivity was 33.3% (7/21; 95% CI 13.2-53.5%), 23.7% (42/277; 95% CI 10.5-36.9%) and 2.5% (2/81; 95% CI 0.00-5.8%) for MERS CoV, SARS CoV-2 and SARS CoV respectively. SARS-CoV-2 along with previous two pandemic causing viruses from this family, were highly detected stool and saliva. A low positive rate was recorded in blood samples. Viruses were also detected in fluids along with unusual samples like semen and vaginal secretions thus highlighting unique pathogenic potential of SARS-CoV-2.

Rapid chromatographic immunoassay-based evaluation of COVID-19: A cross-sectional, diagnostic test accuracy study & its implications for COVID-19 management in India.

Background & objectives: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has so far affected over 41 million people globally. The limited supply of real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) kits and reagents has made meeting the rising demand for increased testing incompetent, worldwide. A highly sensitive and specific antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (RDT) is the need of the hour. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of a rapid chromatographic immunoassay-based test (index test) compared with a clinical reference standard (rRT-PCR). Methods: A cross-sectional, single-blinded study was conducted at a tertiary care teaching hospital in north India. Paired samples were taken for RDT and rRT-PCR (reference standard) from consecutive participants screened for COVID-19 to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of the RDT. Further subgroup analysis was done based on the duration of illness and cycle threshold values. Cohen's kappa coefficient was used to measure the level of agreement between the two tests. Results: Of the 330 participants, 77 were rRT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sixty four of these patients also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RDT. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 81.8 and 99.6 per cent, respectively. The sensitivity of RDT was higher (85.9%) in participants with a duration of illness ≤5 days. Interpretation & conclusions: With an excellent specificity and moderate sensitivity, this RDT may be used to rule in COVID-19 in patients with a duration of illness ≤5 days. Large-scale testing based on this RDT across the country would result in quick detection, isolation and treatment of COVID-19 patients.