ABSTRACT
SummaryBackground Data on the prevalence of cancer in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-infected patients and the severe illness incidence and mortality of COVID-19 patients with cancers remains unclear. MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, from database inception to July 15, 2020, for studies of patients with COVID-19 infection that had available comorbidity information on cancer. The primary endpoint was the pooled prevalence of cancer in COVID-19 patients and the secondary endpoint was the outcomes of COVID-19-infected cancer patients with incidence of severe illness and death rate. We calculated the pooled prevalence and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) using a random-effects model, and performed meta-regression analyses to explore heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on continent, country, age, sample size and study design. FindingsA total of 107 eligible global studies were included in the systematic review. 90 studies with 94,845 COVID-19 patients in which 4,106 patients with cancer morbidity were included in the meta-analysis for prevalence of cancer morbidity among COVID-19 patients. 21 studies with 70,969 COVID-19 patients in which 3,351 patients with cancer morbidity who had severe illness or death during the studies. The overall prevalence of cancer among the COVID-19 patients was 0.07 (95% CI 0.05{bsim}0.09). The cancer prevalence in COVID-19 patients of Europe (0.22, 95% CI 0.17{bsim}0.28) was higher than that in Asia Pacific (0.04, 95% CI 0.03{bsim}0.06) and North America (0.05, 95% CI 0.04{bsim}0.06). The prevalence of COVID-19-infected cancer patients over 60 years old was 0.10 (95% CI 0.07{bsim}0.14), higher than that of patients equal and less than 60 years old (0.05, 95% CI 0.03{bsim}0.06). The pooled prevalence of severe illness among COVID-19 patients with cancers was 0.35 (95% CI 0.27{bsim}0.43) and the pooled death rate of COVID-19 patients with cancers was 0.18 (95% CI 0.14{bsim}0.18). The pooled incidence of severe illness of COVID-19 patients with cancers from Asia Pacific, Europe, and North America were 0.38(0.24, 0.52), 0.36(0.17, 0.55), and 0.26(0.20, 0.31), respectively; and the pooled death rate from Asia Pacific, Europe, and North America were 0.17(0.10, 0.24), 0.26(0.13, 0.39), and 0.19(0.13, 0.25), respectively. InterpretationTo our knowledge, this study is the most comprehensive and up-to-date metaanalysis assessing the prevalence of cancer among COVID-19 patients, severe illness incidence and mortality rate. The prevalence of cancer varied significantly in geographical continents and age. The COVID-19 patients with cancer were at-risk for severe illness and a high death rate. The European COVID-19 patients had the highest cancer prevalence among the three continents examined and were also the most likely to progress to severe illness and death. Although the Asia Pacific COVID-19 patients had the lowest cancer prevalence, their severe illness rate was similar to that of Europeans. Research in context Evidence before this studyCoronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a newly discovered coronavirus, which leads to respiratory illness and can be transmitted from person to person. As the infection has become widespread, concern for the influence of COVID-19 on patients with cancer has grown. Previous studies suggest that patients with a history of active malignancy might be at increased risk for COVID-19, developing COVID-19-related complications and having a poorer prognosis. Until now, however, few studies explored the following two questions: 1) what is the estimated prevalence of cancer patients with COVID-19 infection; and 2) do COVID-19-infected cancer-patients have distinct clinical courses and worse outcomes compared with COVID-19-infected patients without cancers. The latter is based on the former to further explore the characteristics of clinical outcomes of such patients. The clarification of these two questions will greatly help to understand the relationship between COVID-19 and cancer in terms of clinical epidemiology, and thus facilitate the formulation of targeted and relevant public health policies. Added value of this studyTo our knowledge, this systematic review and meta-analysis of 107 studies is the most comprehensive and up-to-date assessing the prevalence of cancer among COVID-19 patients, the incidence of severe illness and mortality rate of COVID-19 patients with cancers. We provided a relatively accurate overall cancer prevalence among the all COVID-19 patients (7%), stratified by geographical continent, country, age, study sample size, and study design type. We also presented the pooled severe illness and mortality rates stratified by continent. European COVID-19-infected cancer patients seemed the most likely to both develop cancer and progress to severe illness and death. Implications of all the available evidenceOur findings have reinforced important considerations of clinical care and emphasized the urgent unmet needs for COVID-19 patients with cancers using the pooled prevalence, incidence of severe illness, and death rates as evidence. Also, after comparing the cancer prevalence, incidence of severe illness, and death rate of COVID-19 patients from different continents, European population may require stronger control measures than the Asia Pacific and North American populations. In the future, as more data will be available, it will be interesting to further investigate the differences of sociodemographic and climcopathological features between COVID-19-infected patients with cancer and without cancer.
ABSTRACT
[Abstrct] More and more laboratory indicators including serum creatinine , serum cystatin C , urinary microalbumin, N-acetyl-beta-D-Glucosaminidase (NAG), kidney injury molecule 1 (KIM-1), neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), interleukin 18 (IL-18) and L type fatty acid binding protein (L-FABP) are used to diagnose and monitor acute kidney injury (AKI).However, the clinical applicability and limitations of these indicators , as well as the detection effect factors and biological variation on the diagnosis and monitoring of AKI are very important , especially how to combine the detection effect factors and biological variation to interpret test result is attached great importance by the laboratory personnel .
ABSTRACT
Objective To assess the interference by calcium dobesilatein 7 peroxidase-baseduric acid assays and to determine its clinical significance.Methods In the in vitro experiments, uric acid in pooled serum with final concentrations of calcium dobesilate additions (0, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64μg/ml) were measured by 7 peroxidase-based assays.Percent Bias (%) was calculated relative to the drug-free specimen.In the in vivo experiments, changes in serum uric acid and calcium dobesilate concentrations were observed before and after calcium dobesilate administration ( baseline, 0 h, 1 h, 2 h, 3 h, 4 h, 6 h ) involunteers.The interference in different assays was assessed compared with LC-IDMS/MS method. Calcium dobesilate levels in 40 specimens from those taking calcium dobesilate were measured by HPLC method.Of the 40 specimens, 10 were selected to analyse the levels of uric acid by both peroxidase and UV measurement method to assess the impact in clinical status.Results In the in vitro study, concentrations of uric acid measured by 7 peroxidase-based assays were reduced by -6.3%to -21.2%compared with drug-free serum, when theconcentration of calcium dobesilate was16μg/ml.In the in vivo study, comparedto UA levels at 0 h, the biasesof serum uric acid determined by peroxidase method after calcium dobesilate administration(1 h, 2 h, 3 h, 4 h, 6 h) were of -3.33%, -6.79%, -7.49%, -6.07%, -4.09%, respectively.The observed uric acid concentrations for 8 participants measured by enzymatic assays were inhibited by -3.75% to -6.89% at 0 hour and by -16.9% to-22.22% at 2 hours relative to the concentrations measured by the LC-IDMS/MS method. Conclusions Calcium dobesilate produced a clinically significant negative interference with uric acid in all peroxidase-based uric acid assays,which may result in false evaluation of uric acid level in clinical status.Significant differences in the degree of interference were observed among the assays.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Two kinds of analytical system are used to analyze urea concentration, one is the homogeneous ana- lytical system and the other is the heterogeneous analytical system. No matter which analytical systems are used, their performance characteristics must be evaluated. Here, the performance of a heterogeneous analytical system is evaluated. METHODS: The UV urease-glutamate dehydrogenase (GLDH) reference method was reproduced and its accuracy and precision were verified. The performance characteristics of the Biosino urea reagent kit were evaluated ac- cording to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) EP15-A2, EP6-A, and EP9-A2 guidelines. RESULTS: The performance characteristics of the UV urease-GLDH reference method demonstrate that the urea concentrations of the standard reference material (SRM) 909b I and II are within their prescriptive ranges, the within-run CVs are 0.39% and 0.16%, and the within-laboratory CVs are 0.63% and 0.40%, respectively. The performance characteristics of the Biosino urea reagent kit demonstrate that the within-run CVs are 0.84% and 0.78%, the within-laboratory CVs are 2.26% and 0.92%, the ranges of interference are 0-2.84% (0-1 g/L vitamin C), 0 - -2.86% (0-10 g/L intralipid), 0-2.81% (0-10 g/L hemoglobin), 0 - -2.1% (0-0.4 g/L conjugated bilirubin), 0 - -2.1% (0-0.4 g/L unconjugated bilirubin), and the analytical results are linear within the range of 1.8- 35.0 mmol/L. The analytical results of the Biosino urea analytical method and UV urease-GLDH, Olympus and Beckman urea analytical methods are strongly correlated (r > 0.998; p < 0.001), and the predicted biases are con- sidered acceptable at the three medical decision levels for urea. CONCLUSIONS: The Biosino urea reagent kit can provide reliable analytical results and the results are suitable for clinical uses.
Subject(s)
Blood Chemical Analysis , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic , Urea/blood , Biomarkers/blood , Blood Chemical Analysis/standards , Calibration , Humans , Linear Models , Predictive Value of Tests , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic/standards , Reference Standards , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
Objective To assess the consistency of four standardized cystatin C particle-enhanced turbidimetric assay (PETIA) and one particle-enhanced nephelometric immunoassay (PENIA) measurement systems Methods Performance verification test was conducted according to CLSI EP 15-A2 and EP9-A2. Fourty serum samples in comparative test were obtained from the remaining serum samples of outpatients in Peking Union Medical College Hospital in March 2013.Fourty serum samples were tested on Olympus AU5400 automatic biochemical analyzer ( four PETIA Cys C reagents:Shanghai Jingyuan Co ., Ltd, Beijing Leadman Biochemistry Co ., Ltd, Beijing Strong Biotechnologies , Maker Biotechnology in Sichuan , and labelled as A, B, C, D respectively) and PENIA N Latex Cys C measurement system on Siemens BNⅡ(labelled as E).Correlation analysis were performed among four PETIA methods one PENIA method Differences of each detection system were compared in the medical decision level 1,2,3,4 mg/L.The reference material ERM-DA471/IFCC was measured by five systems and bias ( percentage bias ) was calculate for each system.Results Results of systems A, B, C, D, E were 1.29(0.89-2.43), 1.30 (0.96-2.59), 1.22(0.90-2.44), 1.27(0.96-2.47), 1.14(0.82-2.05)mg/L.Chart shows bias among these five systems was small when Cys C concentration was less than 4mg/L.PETIA method A, B, C, D correlated with their mean value well , with the average deviation from their mean value ( percent deviation) at -0.017 -0.031 mg/L ( -3.1%-2.1%), and all were less than allowed bias from the biological variation (3.4%).The deviation of PETIA method A, B, C, D with their mean value in medical decision level at -0.176 -0.178 mg/L.Systems A, B, C, D correlated well with the result of PENIA method system E , and the mean deviation ( percent deviation ) was at 0.278 -0.326 mg/L ( 12.6%-18.5%) , and the deviation ( percent deviation ) in the medical decision level 0.055 -1.079 mg/L (5.51%-26.98%).Bias of PETIA method A, B, C, D Cys C system measuringERM -DA471/IFCC ranged from 0.22 to 0.39 mg/L ( 3.9%-7.0%) , which exceeded the allowable range of the reference material target value, and were larger than the allowable bias from biological variation (3.4%).Bias ( percent ) of PENIA method system E was -0.1 mg/L ( -1.7%) , within the allowable range of ERM-DA471/IFCC target value .Conclusions The consistency of four assesed PETIA Cys C reagents was relatively ideal, and improved markably after being traced to ERM-DA471/IFCC.Besides, the results of PETIA were higher than those of PENIA .Bias among these five systems was small when Cys C concentration was less than 4 mg/L, and the bias became larger in higher Cys C concentration.
