Identification of Parameters Representative of Immune Dysfunction in Patients with Severe and Fatal COVID-19 Infection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Abnormal immunological indicators associated with disease severity and mortality in patients with COVID-19 have been reported in several observational studies. However, there are marked heterogeneities in patient characteristics and research methodologies in these studies. We aimed to provide an updated synthesis of the association between immune-related indicators and COVID-19 prognosis. We conducted an electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, Willey, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and CNKI for studies reporting immunological and/or immune-related parameters, including hematological, inflammatory, coagulation, and biochemical variables, tested on hospital admission of COVID-19 patients with different severities and outcomes. A total of 145 studies were included in the current meta-analysis, with 26 immunological, 11 hematological, 5 inflammatory, 4 coagulation, and 10 biochemical variables reported. Of them, levels of cytokines, including IL-1ß, IL-1Ra, IL-2R, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-18, TNF-α, IFN-γ, IgA, IgG, and CD4+ T/CD8+ T cell ratio, WBC, neutrophil, platelet, ESR, CRP, ferritin, SAA, D-dimer, FIB, and LDH were significantly increased in severely ill patients or non-survivors. Moreover, non-severely ill patients or survivors presented significantly higher counts of lymphocytes, monocytes, lymphocyte/monocyte ratio, eosinophils, CD3+ T,CD4+T and CD8+T cells, B cells, and NK cells. The currently updated meta-analysis primarily identified a hypercytokinemia profile with the severity and mortality of COVID-19 containing IL-1ß, IL-1Ra, IL-2R, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-18, TNF-α, and IFN-γ. Impaired innate and adaptive immune responses, reflected by decreased eosinophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, B cells, NK cells, T cells, and their subtype CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, and augmented inflammation, coagulation dysfunction, and nonpulmonary organ injury, were marked features of patients with poor prognosis. Therefore, parameters of immune response dysfunction combined with inflammatory, coagulated, or nonpulmonary organ injury indicators may be more sensitive to predict severe patients and those non-survivors.

Clinical relevance of serum Krebs von den Lungen-6 levels in patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

The clinical relevance of Krebs von den Lungen-6 (KL-6) levels in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between KL-6 levels, laboratory parameters, and clinical outcomes. We enrolled 364 patients with confirmed COVID-19 who were hospitalized within 1 week of symptom onset. Their serum KL-6 level was measured on admission. Demographic data, symptoms, comorbidities, and laboratory parameters were recorded at the time of admission. Days to nucleic acid conversion and days of hospitalization were defined as clinical outcomes for evaluating the clinical relevance of serum KL-6 levels in COVID-19. Patients with elevated KL-6 levels were significantly older; had more reported instances of fever, cough, fatigue, and wheezing; and a longer hospital stays than those with normal KL-6 levels; the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Furthermore, KL-6 levels was associated with the days of hospitalization and various laboratory parameters that influence the severity and prognosis of COVID-19. Elevated KL-6 levels have also been shown to be an independent risk factor for prolonged hospitalization. Our data suggest that serum KL-6 levels on admission can serve as an indicator for assessing the clinical outcomes of COVID-19.

Characteristics of COVID-19 Patients Based on the Results of Nucleic Acid and Specific Antibodies and the Clinical Relevance of Antibody Levels.

Combination of nucleic acid and specific antibody testing is often required in the diagnosis of COVID-19, but whether patients with different nucleic acid and antibody results have different laboratory parameters, severities and clinical outcomes, has not yet been comprehensively investigated. Thus, according to different groups of nucleic acid and antibody results, we aimed to investigate the differences in demographic characteristics, and laboratory parameters among the different groups and predict their clinical outcomes. In our study, nasopharyngeal swab nucleic acids and antibodies were detected by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction and chemiluminescence, respectively. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 with different severities, were divided into the PCR+Ab+, PCR+Ab-, and PCR-Ab+ groups. Demographic characteristics, symptoms, comorbidities, laboratory parameters, and clinical outcomes were compared among the three groups. The correlation of antibodies with laboratory parameters and clinical outcomes was also explored, and antibodies were used to predict the timing of nucleic acid conversion. We found that a total of 364 COVID-19 patients were included in the final analysis. Of these, a total of 184, 37, and 143 patients were assigned to the PCR+Ab+, PCR+Ab-, and PCR-Ab+ groups, respectively. Compared to patients in the PCR+Ab- or PCR- Ab+ groups, patients in the PCR+Ab+ group presented worse symptoms, more comorbidities, more laboratory abnormalities, and worse clinical outcomes (P < 0.05). In addition, the levels of IgG, IgM, and IgA were all significantly correlated with the days of hospitalization, days of PCR turning negative, and multiple laboratory parameters (P < 0.05). Meanwhile, combined IgM, IgA, and IgG predicted the days of PCR turning negative within 1 week. The best performance was achieved when the cut-off values of IgM, IgG, and IgA were 3.2, 1.8 and 0.5, respectively, with a sensitivity of 73% and specificity of 82%. In conclusion, COVID-19 patients who were both positive for nucleic acids and antibodies presented with worse clinical features, laboratory abnormalities, and clinical outcomes. The three specific antibodies were positively correlated with clinical outcomes and most laboratory parameters. Furthermore, antibody levels can predict the time of nucleic acid conversion.

Clinical applications of detecting IgG, IgM or IgA antibody for the diagnosis of COVID-19: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a devastating impact worldwide, and timely detection and quarantine of infected patients are critical to prevent spread of disease. Serological antibody testing is an important diagnostic method used increasingly in clinics, although its clinical application is still under investigation. METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the diagnostic performance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 antibody tests in patients with COVID-19. The test results analysed included: (1) IgM-positive but IgG-negative (IgM+IgG-); (2) IgG-positive but IgM-negative (IgG+IgM-); (3) both IgM-positive and IgG-positive (IgM+IgG+); (4) IgM-positive without IgG information (IgM+IgG+/-); (5) IgG-positive without IgM information (IgG+IgM+/-); (6) either IgM-positive or IgG-positive (IgM+ or IgG+); and (7) IgA-positive (IgA+). RESULTS: Sixty-eight studies were included. Pooled sensitivities for IgM+IgG-, IgG+IgM-, IgM+IgG+, IgM+IgG+/-, IgG+IgM+/-, and IgM+ or IgG+ were 6%, 7%, 53%, 68%, 73% and 79% respectively. Pooled specificities ranged from 98% to 100%. IgA+ had a pooled sensitivity of 78% but a relatively low specificity of 88%. Tests conducted 2 weeks after symptom onset showed better diagnostic accuracy than tests conducted earlier. Chemiluminescence immunoassay and detection of S protein as the antigen could offer more accurate diagnostic results. DISCUSSION: These findings support the supplemental role of serological antibody tests in the diagnosis of COVID-19. However, their capacity to diagnose COVID-19 early in the disease course could be limited.