A comprehensive analysis of systematically screened laboratory tests: based on a COVID-19 cohort.

INTRODUCTION: The study aimed at screening indicators with differential diagnosis values and investigating the characteristics of laboratory tests in COVID-19 patients. METHODOLOGY: All the laboratory tests from COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 patients in this cohort were included. Test values from the groups during the course, days 1-7, and days 8-14 were analyzed. Mann-Whitney U test, univariate logistic regression analysis, and multivariate regression analysis were performed. Regression models were established to verify the diagnostic performance of indicators. RESULTS: 302 laboratory tests were included in this cohort, and 115 indicators were analyzed; the values of 61 indicators had significant differences (p < 0.05) between groups, and 23 indicators were independent risk factors of COVID-19. During days 1-7, the values of 40 indicators had significant differences (p < 0.05) between groups, while 20 indicators were independent risk factors of COVID-19. During days 8-14, the values of 45 indicators had significant differences (p < 0.05) between groups, and 23 indicators were independent risk factors of COVID-19. About 10, 12, and 12 indicators showed significant differences (p < 0.05) in multivariate regression analysis in different courses respectively, and the diagnostic performance of the model from them was 74.9%, 80.3%, and 80.8% separately. CONCLUSIONS: The indicators obtained through systematic screening have preferable differential diagnosis values. Compared with non-COVID-19 patients, the screened indicators indicated that COVID-19 patients had more severe inflammatory responses, organ damage, electrolyte and metabolism disturbance, and coagulation disorders. This screening approach could find valuable indicators from a large number of laboratory test indicators.

A quantitative exploration of symptoms in COVID-19 patients: an observational cohort study.

Background: As the spreading of the COVID-19 around the global, we investigated the characteristics and changes of symptoms in COVID-19 patients. Methods: This was an ambispective observational cohort study, and 133 confirmed COVID-19 patients were included and all symptoms over the course were analyzed qualitatively. The symptoms, their changes over the course in the cohort and in the different clinical types, etc. were illustrated. Differences in different periods and severities were analyzed through Chi square test, association with severity was analyzed through LASSO binomial logistic regression analysis. Inter-correlation and classification of symptoms were completed. Major symptoms were screened and their changes were illustrated. Results: A total of 43 symptoms with frequencies as 6067 in this cohort. Differences of symptoms in different stages and clinical types were significant. Expectoration, shortness of breath, dyspnea, diarrhea, poor appetite were positively but vomiting, waist discomfort, pharyngeal discomfort, acid reflux were negatively correlated with the combined-severe and critical type; dyspnea was correlated with the critical type. The 17 major symptoms were identified. The average daily frequency of symptoms per case was decreased continuously before the transition into the severe type and increased immediately one day before the transition and then decreased. It was decreased continuously before the transition date of the critical type and increased from the transition into the critical type to the next day and decreased thereafter. Dyspnea (P<0.001), shortness of breath (P<0.01) and chest distress (P<0.05) were correlated with death and their corresponding coefficient was 0.393, 0.258, 0.214, respectively. Conclusion: The symptoms of COVID-19 patients mainly related to upper respiratory tract infection, cardiopulmonary function, and digestive system. The mild type and the early stage in other types mainly related to upper respiratory tract infection. The cardiopulmonary function and digestive system associated symptoms were found in all other types and stages. Dyspnea was correlated with critical type, and dyspnea, shortness of breath and chest distress were correlated with death. Respiratory dysfunction (or incompleteness) associated symptoms were the characteristic symptoms. The changes of symptoms did not synchronously with the changes of severity before the transition into the severe or critical type.

Features of α-HBDH in COVID-19 patients: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has spread all over the world and brought extremely huge losses. At present, there is a lack of study to systematically analyze the features of hydroxybutyrate dehydrogenase (α-HBDH) in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Electronic medical records including demographics, clinical manifestation, α-HBDH results and outcomes of all included patients were extracted. RESULTS: α-HBDH in COVID-19 group was higher than that in excluded group (p < 0.001), and there was no significant difference in α-HBDH before and after the exclusion of 5 patients with comorbidity in heart or kidney (p = 0.671). In COVID-19 group, the α-HBDH value in ≥61 years old group, severe group, and critical group, death group all increased at first and then decreased, while no obvious changes were observed in other groups. And there were significant differences of the α-HBDH value among different age groups (p < 0.001), clinical type groups (p < 0.001), and outcome groups (p < 0.001). The optimal scale regression model showed that α-HBDH value (p < 0.001) and age (p < 0.001) were related to clinical type. CONCLUSIONS: α-HBDH was increased in COVID-19 patients, obviously in ≥61 years old, death and critical group, indicating that patients in these three groups suffer from more serious heart and kidney and other tissues and organs damage, higher α-HBDH value, and risk of death. The difference between death and survival group in early stage might provide a approach to judge the prognosis. The accuracy of the model to distinguish severe/critical type and other types was 85.84%, suggesting that α-HBDH could judge the clinical type accurately.