Nonspecific blood tests as proxies for COVID-19 hospitalization: are there plausible associations after excluding noisy predictors?

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 (Corona virus disease 19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 (acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) stands out for its high rate of hospitalization and long hospital stay and in intensive care units (ICU). COVID-19 disease severity can be mild, moderate, severe, and critical [1]. While 81% of those infected with COVID-19 have mild or moderate symptoms, World Health Organization estimates that 14% of those infected with COVID-19 are severe and require hospitalization and oxygen support, and 5% are critical and admitted to intensive care units [1]. Reported median hospital length of stay (LoS) was from 4 to 21 days (outside China) and ICU LoS was from 4 to 19 days [2].

The severity of COVID-19 states is associated with many risk factors. Early reports suggest advanced age, morbidities, multi-morbidities, and immunosuppression [3,4]. The enlarging list includes cardiac, chronic lung, cerebrovascular, chronic kidney, and liver diseases, cancer, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, dyspnea, fatigue, and anorexia [1,5,6].

Early identification of severe cases allows for optimizing emergency care support [1] and improving patient outcomes [7]. However, patients who do not yet meet supportive care criteria may fail to receive the necessary care, when there is rapid deterioration or inability to promptly go to a hospital. In the transition from moderate to severe cases there can be avoidable delays in life support interventions with non-optimized treatments.

Together with high hospitalization rates [1] and lengthy stay [2], the superposition of COVID-19 waves and sustained transmission [8] are causing prolonged depletions of health care resources in many countries. Prognosis tools may play a role in planning and in improving the access to supportive treatments by allowing timely allocation of scarce resources to better cope with COVID-19. Indeed, there is widespread interest in predictive models of COVID-19 outcomes [7,9], but a review of 50 prognostic models concluded that they are at high risk of bias [9]. As they focus on statistical findings, our concern is with lack of minimum causal criteria to identify associations that are effectively related to COVID-19.

In this context, a path to optimized supportive treatments is more reliable assessments of the transition from moderate to severe cases of COVID-19 inflammation. We choose nonspecific blood tests as they are widely available, and hospitalization decision as a proxy to characterize the transition from moderate to severe cases (when not constrained by inpatients availability). After formalizing an analytical framework with causal reasoning, the goal is to identify candidate sets of blood tests associated with hospitalization (with risk factors), excluding noisy predictors that are not related to COVID-19 inflammation.

METHODS

Whereas causal effects are clearly predictive, prediction studies usually refer to noncausal analysis that uses observational data to make predictions beyond the observed ones and confounding bias is generally considered a nonissue [10]. But when one needs more reliable predictions, confounding bias and causality should be accounted for in associations. This study applies analytical tools from the causal effect estimation of directed acyclic graph theory [11] to investigate associations considering covariates.

The strength of the association depends on the specificity and sensitivity of the inflammation pattern, as a kind of distinctive signature of the disease. A low association can also occur and means that the pattern with that set of variables allows weak inferences. If a substantial association due to COVID-19 is identified and it is also stable and representative of the target population, then these blood tests may be useful as proxies in surveillance protocols and screening interventions.

Theoretical framework

The theory of directed acyclic graph (DAG) provides graphical notation and a non-parametric probabilistic terminology to describe and evaluate causal relationships [11]. The use of DAGs in epidemiology is emergent [12] and it is especially helpful with multiple potential confounders [12,13] that may introduce systematic bias [10,14]. In DAGs, confounding associations between two variables may come from unblocked backdoor paths [13] that can be graphically identified because they share parent nodes. With a formal definition of backdoor path, for instance, DAG provides a general explanation of the Simpson’s paradox [15], where a phenomenon appears to reverse the sign of the estimated association in disaggregated subsets in comparison to the whole population. As a framework, DAG supplies analytical tools to evaluate which adjustment is mandatory (to predict a noncausal sign reverse) and which covariate should be omitted (to estimate the causal effect), thereby enforcing the elicitation of qualitative causal assumptions [11,12,14].

A hypothetical DAG model with latent variable was conceived to evaluate the influence of various types of covariates on the focal association. Initially we drew the main causal path from exposure to outcome. The DAG in Figure 1 starts from the infection by SARS-CoV-2 (exposure E) that, in some cases, leads to “Moderate to Severe Inflammation due to COVID-19” (MSIC, hypothetical latent variable [E→MSIC]), and that inflammation causes two outcomes (mutual dependent relationship [H←MSIC→B]): (H) hospitalization decision; and (B={B₁,…,B_k}) blood tests measured at hospital admission. The blood tests are selected according to their strength with hospitalization. The focal outcomes under investigation are hospitalization (H) and blood tests (B).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1

Initial hypothetical directed acyclic diagram with the main causal path of a moderate to severe COVID-19 inflammation (MSIC), one risk factor (RF3) and one confounder (BOC1) of the focal outcomes (H and B1).

MSIC is a latent variable (unmeasured); Outcomes are H: hospitalization (H={regular ward, semi-intensive care, intensive care unit}); and B: blood test (B={B₁})

Considering the initial DAG plausible, we hypothesized candidate covariates that are parents of the variables and may open back-door paths, Figure 1 shows one risk factor (RF3) and one confounder (BOC1). Figure 2 is an enhancement of the initial DAG with potential risk factors, confounders of the focal association, and other covariates. Risk factors contribute directly to the development of COVID-19 inflammation (RF={RF₁,…,RF_L}, mutual causation relationships [RF_i→MSIC←RF_j]) and they can also affect other variables. Figure 2 also distinguishes the covariates in terms of their confounding potential on the association between H and B. Covariates that affect both focal outcomes are identified as Both-Outcomes-Confounders (BOC={BOC₁,…,BOC_m}), as they are correlated to the focal outcomes but not to COVID-19, and when affect one outcome as Single-Outcome-Covariate (SOC={SOC₁,…,SOC_n}). These covariates are not exhaustive but to generate causal graph criteria for handling confounding factors.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2

Hypothetical directed acyclic diagram of a COVID-19 inflammation causal path with risk factors, confounders and other covariates

Exposure = SARS-CoV-2 (E) (acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2); Outcomes are H: hospitalization (H={regular ward, semi-intensive care, intensive care unit}), and B: blood tests (B={B₁,…,B₁}); Covariates are RF: risk factor (RF={RF₁,…,RF_4A, RF_4B,RF₅}), SOC: single outcome covariate (SOC={SOC₁,…,SOC₅}), and BOC: both outcomes confounder (BOC={BOC₁,BOC₂})

Causal relationships in DAGs are defined with the do(.) operator that performs a theoretical intervention by holding constant the value of a chosen variable [11,16]. The association caused by COVID-19 inflammation can be understood as a comparison of the conditional probabilities of hospitalization (H) given a set of blood tests (B) under intervention to SARS-CoV-2 infection (do(SARS-CoV-2)=1) and intervention without infection (do(SARS-CoV-2)=0): Where P[H|B=b,do(SARS-CoV-2=1)] represents the population distribution of H (hospitalization) given a set of blood tests equal to b, if everyone in the population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. And P[H|B=b’,do(SARS-CoV-2=0)] if everyone in the population had not been infected. Of interest is the comparison of these distributional probabilities for each intervention.

The interventions with do(.) generate two modified DAGs:

• The do(SARS-CoV-2=0) eliminates all arrows directed towards SARS-CoV-2 and to MSIC (Figure 3). Ignoring the floating covariates, there are single arrow covariates pointing to hospitalization (RF3, RF4A, SOC1, SOC3) and to blood tests (RF4B, SOC2, SOC4) and fork covariates pointing to both outcomes (BOC1, BOC2, RF5).

  

  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab

  Figure 3

  Modified directed acyclic diagram with intervention at no exposure (do(SARS-CoV-2=0)) to evaluate the influence of covariates on the focal outcomes (H and B)

  Exposure = SARS-CoV-2 (E) (acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2); Outcomes are H: hospitalization (H={regular ward, semi-intensive care, intensive care unit}), and B: blood tests (B={B₁,…,B_K}); Covariates are RF: risk factor (RF={RF₁,…,RF_4A, RF_4B,RF₅}), SOC: single outcome covariate (SOC={SOC₁,…,SOC₅}), and BOC: both outcomes confounder (BOC={BOC₁,BOC₂})

• Similarly, the modified graph of do(SARS-CoV-2=1) is equal to the former by adding single arrows from RF1 and RF2 to MSIC; and converting RF3, RF4A, RF4B, and RF5 to fork types with arrows directed to MSIC.

As most covariates are either unmeasured or unknown, the effect of their absence can be evaluated following the d-separation concept [11]. This concept attempts to separate (make independent) two focal sets of variables by blocking the causal ancestors (or back-door paths) and by avoiding statistical control for mutual causal descendants [11]. Differently, to preserve the association between descendants of MSIC (Figure 2), the focal outcomes (H and B) must remain d-connected (dependent on each other only through MSIC) and their relations with other covariates (that may introduce systematic bias) should be d-separated (conditionally independent). Figure 3, at the negative stratum, shows the confounders that may introduce systematic bias into both outcomes: BOC1, BOC2, RF5. The influence of these confounders on the focal association can be estimated with the modified model at the negative strata. A strong association of the outcomes without infection can be due to these confounders and suggest efforts to measure and control for them (as they have to be d-separated). Another pragmatic possibility is to exclude the noisy exams affected by these confounders. The other covariates are single arrows or they affect only one outcome (H or B) – their absence should not be critical because they are likely to be discarded due to poor discriminative performance.

RESULTS

Of the 5644 patients, 558 presented positive results for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. Of the 170 patients hospitalized (in regular ward, semi-intensive unit or intensive care unit), 52 were positive (9,3% rate of hospitalization due to COVID-19). Patient age quantile, from 0 to 19, with sample mean of 9,32, was the only demographic variable available. Age was not conditionally independent with SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR exam. Only 0,9% were positive in the age quantile 0, 1, and 2 (8 positive cases in 883 exams) while the incidence (not weighted) in the age quantile from 3 to 19 was 11,7% ± 2,6%.

In the first round, 15 blood tests were discarded because of poor performance of the univariate model when SARS-CoV-2=1 (Table 1). The remaining blood tests were creatinine, C-Reactive Protein (CRP), eosinophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, and neutrophils (Table 1). Only creatinine was not related with the immune system directly and was evaluated as a risk factor. Of the 5644 patients, 602 patients presented values of eosinophils, 602 lymphocytes, 601 monocytes, 513 neutrophils, 506 CRP, and 424 creatinine. Regarding missing cases, all observations with the required data were included (available-case analysis).

CRP is a biomarker of various types of inflammation [19,20]. At SARS-CoV-2=1, the model with CRP and age had good discriminative ability with AUC of, 872. But at SARS-CoV-2=0, AUC=,680 was also substantial and the difference of the discriminative ability Δ=,192 was moderate (candidate models should present higher differences); the corresponding ROC curve in Figure 4 show overlapping curves up to sensitivity of 0,5 to 0,6. Models with CRP demonstrated sensitivity to resampling within the dataset [17], the coefficient significance moved from, 005 to, 144. Similar effects were found in models that include CRP with other blood tests and sensitivity to bootstrapping was reduced by dichotomizing CRP (reactive/not-reactive). Models with CRP_reactive, neutrophils, and age generated AUC of, 901 and, 730 in the positive and negative strata (Δ=0,171), and CRP_reactive, monocytes, neutrophils, and age generated AUC of, 921 and, 706, respectively (Δ=,215). CRP is a predictor of hospitalization in general, but high levels of AUC at the negative stratum mean that CRP is a response with significant bias due to other causes than COVID-19. Differently from other prognostic studies [21,22,23,24,25,26], CRP was excluded as candidate.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4

ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) curves of the logistic regression model for hospitalization prediction with C-reactive Protein (CRP) controlled for age quantile at both strata (with and without exposure to SARS-CoV-2)

Null – Area of the null hypothesis model is 0,5

The Neutrophils to Lymphocytes Ratio (NLR) is considered a possible indicator of severity [21,24,27,28] of COVID-19, but NLR could not be evaluated as all variables were standardized (division by zero). Lymphocytes presented inconsistent behavior across models. Single exam models indicated lymphopenia at SARS-CoV-2=1, as expected [29,30]. But lymphocytes reversed the sign in the model with neutrophils and age (SARS-CoV-2=1), possibly, due to collinearity between them (Pearson correlation of -,925 and -,937 at positive and negative strata, both significant at, 01 (2-tail)). As there are indications of collinearity issues at both strata, lymphocyte and neutrophils should not be in the same model as independent variables, and this is an indication that NLR may be a noisy association with hospitalization. As models with combinations of neutrophils were slightly better than with lymphocyte, lymphocyte was dropped from analysis.

In the second round, combinations of eosinophils, monocytes, and neutrophils with age were tested systematically. Table 2 presents parameters of models combining eosinophils, monocytes, and neutrophils (with age) and the best model with creatinine (as risk factor). Table 3 presents AUCs for each model with the difference of discriminative ability between strata.

Considered individually, eosinophils, monocytes, and neutrophils generated models with good performance to estimate the probability of hospitalization (models 1, 2, 3 with AUC>,810 at positive stratum). The combinations of these blood tests generated models (4, 5, 6, 7) with better discriminative ability (AUC>,856 at SARS-CoV-2=1). The AUC at SARS-CoV-2=0 is a simplified measure of the systematic bias in both outcomes: models 1, 2, and 4 presented low values (with AUC<,564) and the others presented relevant noisy associations (AUC from, 600 up to, 665), but with better difference in discriminative ability Δ>,252 in models with two or more exams.

Two patterns of associations were more salient: (1) age as a risk factor with combinations of eosinophils, monocytes, and neutrophils as predictors; (2) age and creatinine as risk factors with monocytes and neutrophils as predictors. The interpretation of the conditional probabilities will focus on models 7 and 8, but models with at least two blood tests (4 to 8) are potential candidate associations. Considering creatinine as a marker of the renal function, model 8 is the overall best model with significant coefficients at p<,05 and has the highest difference of discriminative ability between strata (Δ=,313). Comparative ROC curves for models 7 and 8 are shown in Figures 5 and 6, where there is a substantial discriminative difference between both strata of SARS-CoV-2; confidence intervals at 95% of AUC values are in Table 3.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5

ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) curves of model 7 to predict hospitalization at both strata (with and without exposure to SARS-CoV-2)

Null – Area of the null hypothesis model is 0,5; Model 7 – Logistic regression with Eosinophils, Monocytes, and Neutrophils controlled for age quantile

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 6

ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) curves of model 8 to predict hospitalization at both strata (with and without exposure to SARS-CoV-2)

Null – Area of the null hypothesis model is 0,5; Model 8 – Logistic regression with Monocytes and Neutrophils controlled for Creatinine and age quantile

When the coefficients of model 7 (Table 2) are converted to conditional probabilities we find that at average age quantile (9,32) and average monocyte and neutrophil levels, there is a hospitalization probability of 51,1% with eosinophils at -1 standard deviation (SD); and 90,2% when age quantile is 15. Model 8 with creatinine has different responses: age quantile coefficient is more pronounced and the odds ratio of creatinine is steep (8,338), so average levels of creatinine result in a probability of hospitalization >50% for age quantile >9 (with monocytes and neutrophils at average). When creatinine is +1 SD at age quantile 9, hospitalization probability is 85,9% (monocytes and neutrophils at average). Only below average levels of creatinine lower hospitalization probabilities. Monocytes and neutrophils are also steeper than model 7. At age quantile 9, +1/2 SD of creatinine, -1/2 SD of monocytes, and +1/2 SD of neutrophils result in a hospitalization probability of 92,5%.

Model biases may be due to missing cases selection. Most likely, missing data are not at random (MNAR). We performed the bootstrapping procedure to identify potential sensitivity to resampling and, indirectly, to selection bias. The selected models maintained the magnitude and statistical significance of the coefficients. Apparently, as no significant deviation was detected, the missing cases bias may not be an issue.

ROC and AUC calculations used the same data for model fitting. Because of limited sample size, it was not suitable to apply the approach of splitting the database for training and then prediction. After dividing the sample in two groups, most coefficients were not significant at p>0,10 (Table 4) at least in one group. Notwithstanding, classification tables were coherent between sub-sets and we found no clear indication of model misspecification.

DISCUSSION

We focused on models with discriminative ability to identify peculiar responses in the transition from moderate to severe inflammation only due to COVID-19. The AUC evaluation at the negative SARS-CoV-2 stratum to estimate the influence of unwanted confounders into the focal association together with equivalent criteria of severity state at both strata is, to the best of our knowledge, a needed improvement in prognosis studies of COVID-19.

In comparison to other prediction studies, we identified a few focused on the transition from moderate to severe cases of COVID-19 [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. None of them considered data from the negative stratum of SARS-CoV-2, therefore, these models are biased by not excluding noisy predictors.

We eliminated variables with “high” AUC at SARS-CoV-2=0, so that variables with more peculiar responses to COVID-19 were included. Reactive levels of CRP together with SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR exam may be a predictor of hospitalization, but this can happen due to causes other than COVID-19 (most cases of COVID-19 are asymptomatic to mild). To include it in a model, one should control for all other causes of CRP reactive.

We evaluated age and creatinine as risk factors. Controlling for age improved the AUC of all models at the positive stratum of SARS-CoV-2. The difference between risk factor and outcome among blood tests is subtle. The emergent literature is cautious about whether eosinopenia may be a risk factor [31] and whether creatinine (and other renal markers) may be associated with COVID-19 renal inflammatory response [32]. As an acute inflammatory kidney response to COVID-19, the interpretation changes and further refinement of the framework is necessary. If eosinopenia is a risk factor, the prevalence of this condition should be considered and must be properly diagnosed at admission, and the models should be reviewed with new data.

As we drop noisy predictors, we are effectively dealing with hypothesis about the physiopathology of COVID-19 inflammation. Although not as frequent as the mentions of neutrophils, there are studies on the complex role of eosinophils [31,33] and monocytes [34,35] in COVID-19 inflammation indicating eosinopenia in severe cases and monocytopenia in some phase of the cytokine storm and other COVID-19 pathologies [36].

We selected two patterns of blood tests that are associated with hospitalization due to COVID-19 inflammation: age with combinations of eosinophils, monocytes and neutrophils; and age and creatinine with monocytes and neutrophils. The model findings are aligned with the known physiopathology of COVID-19 but in a more integrative framework of analysis (not as individual predictors, but as a set that is related to risk factors). The selected blood tests are broadly available even in regions with scarce health care resources. It is unlikely that we will have just one or two overall best models; given different sets of risk factors, we should expect a few representative patterns of the COVID-19 inflammation from moderate to severe.

Author Contributions

G. Ishikawa: Conceptualization, methodology, and formal analysis

G. Argenti: Conceptualization, formal analysis, and clinical and epidemiological validation

C. B. Fadel: Clinical and epidemiological validation and critical review

All authors: Writing, editing, visualization, review and final approval of manuscript

Statements

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

This paper has not been published previously in whole or part.

The data that support the results of this study are openly available in reference number [18].

Although this research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors, as institutionally required we inform that “this study was financed in part by the Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001”.