Lymphocyte count is a universal predictor to the health status and outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-regression analysis

Kuan-Lang Lai, Fu-Chang Hu, Fang-Yu Wen, Ju-Ju Chen
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.02.21261505

Summary

Background This study aimed to evaluate the prediction capabilities of clinical laboratory biomarkers to the prognosis of COVID-19 patients.

Methods Observational studies reporting at least 30 cases of COVID-19 describing disease severity or mortality were included. Meta-data of demographics, clinical symptoms, vital signs, comorbidities, and 14 clinical laboratory biomarkers on initial hospital presentation were extracted. Taking the outcome group as the analysis unit, meta-regression analysis with the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method for clustered data was performed sequentially. The unadjusted effect of each potential predictor of the three binary outcome variables (i.e., severe vs. non-severe, critically severe vs. non-critically severe, and dead vs. alive) was examined one by one by fitting three series of simple GEE logistic regression models due to missing data. The worst one was dropped one at a time. Then, a final multiple GEE logistic regression model for each of the three outcome variables was obtained.

Findings Meta-data was extracted from 76 articles, reporting a total of 26,627 cases of COVID-19. Patients were recruited across 16 countries. The number of studies (patients) included in the final models of the analysis for severity, critical severity, and mortality was 38 studies (9,764 patients), 21 studies (4,792 patients), and 24 studies (14,825 patients), respectively. After adjusting for the effect of age, lymphocyte count mean or median ≤ 1.03 (estimated hazard ratio [HR] = 46.2594, p < 0.0001), smaller lymphocyte count mean or median (HR < 0.0001, p = 0.0028), and lymphocyte count mean or median ≤ 0.8714 (HR = 17.3756, p = 0.0079) were the strongest predictor of severity, critical severity, and mortality, respectively.

Interpretation Lymphocyte count should be closely watched for COVID-19 patients in clinical practice.

Introduction

Although numerous treatment options and vaccines are authorized for COVID-19,1, 2 the situation of a global pandemic is still continuing. Each day over four hundred thousand new cases are identified even in time of July 2021.3 COVID-19, the illness caused by infection with SARS-nCoV2,4 is spreading since December 2019 from Wuhan, China, and has accumulated more than 192 million cases and more than 4 million deaths in over 219 countries, area or territories up to 23 July 2021.5 During pandemic period medical care system started to overwhelmed in bunch communities no matter from economically developed or underdeveloped regions.6–13 How to use simple tools to differentiate, triage patients is crucial.

Several laboratory data have been identified as predictors for disease severity or mortality of COVID-19 patients, e.g., lymphocyte count, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), D-dimer, C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT).14–26 However, since many studies were conducted at the same region during a short period of time,14–22, 26, 27 potential bias of subject duplication cannot be ruled out for the following meta-analysis.28–34 Additionally the relative strength of broader spectrum lab data for their prediction capability has not been explored on a head-to-head basis. This study aimed to investigate whether laboratory data at hospital presentation play a role in distinguishing severity or predicting mortality for COVID-19 patients and to explore the relative significance of these predictors across regions.

Research in context

Evidence before This Study

Plentiful tools, e.g., demographics, symptoms, vital signs, comorbidity, imaging, and lab data have been explored to their prediction capability for COVID-19 patients. Several lab data such as lymphocyte, NLR, LDH, CRP, PCT have been identified to distinguish the severity or to predict the survival of COVID-19 patients. However, most of the meta-analysis research conducted in a specific region at the early stage of the pandemics and subject duplication concerns cannot be ignored due to the large amount papers published within a short period. In addition, the relative strength of these lab items for predictions has not been tested under a broader spectrum which including severity, critical severity, and mortality and across different regions.

Added Value of This Study

Our study proves that several lab data (e.g., WBC count, lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, platelet count, LDH, D-dimer, CRP, and PCT) of COVID-19 patients at initial hospital presentation holds the values to differentiate disease severity (severe vs. non-severe, critically severe vs. non-critically severe) and to predict the final consequence, mortality (dead vs. alive). After comparisons lymphocyte count was the most powerful predictor among the fourteen explored lab data.

The implication of All Available Evidence

Early observing essential lab data for a COVID-19 patient can help to scan the health situation, triage the patient, aid for clinical judgment, predict the severity of disease, and from a pragmatic aspect to allocate medical resources appropriately. Under pandemic condition whereas medical resource is constrained, routine lab testing, which is relatively easy access, self-explanation, cost-effectiveness, could be a valuable tool to help for compacting disease. How to maintain or improve good immunity levels for the general population in daily life can be a crucial strategy to stakeholders in facing life-threatening infectious diseases such as COVID-19.

Methods

Literature Search Strategy

We used the search terms “COVID-19”, “2019-nCoV”, and “coronavirus” in the search field “Title/Abstract”, at the electronic databases: MEDLINE, and EMBASE. The searches were completed on 10 October 2020.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The eligibility criteria for the inclusion of literature in the meta-analysis were as follows: (1) the literature is the original research; (2) the literature was a study with COVID-19 confirmed patients; (3) the literature was published in English with the full text available; (4) source of subjects, recruitment situation were clearly stated. Literature was excluded from the meta-analysis when (1) disease severity or survival status was not well defined; (2) pediatric study or particular subject group, e.g., specific disease apart from COVID-19; (3) desired lab data at hospital administration for COVID-19 was not available which fourteen lab items were: white blood cell (WBC), neutrophil, lymphocyte, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), creatinine, D-dimer, C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and hypersensitive troponin I (hs-cTnI); (4) subjects number below thirty; (5) research subjects may duplicate from other studies after investigation of the sites and the recruitment period. Under condition (5), the study with utmost information by calculating (the number of study subjects) × (number of lab data items)] was selected.

At the initial stage, after duplicates were removed, 1,126 records were identified from MEDLINE or EMBASE databases. Of the leaving records, after the title and abstract review, 660 documents were excluded. The leaving 466 articles were carefully and detailed evaluated. At last, 390 articles were excluded, because the studies did not meet the criteria we have set. Finally, a total of 76 studies with 26,627 patients were included in qualitative synthesis (Figure 1). Among the 76 studies, based on the features of data, a total of 38 studies, 21 studies, and 24 studies were incorporated in the analysis for severity, critical severity, and mortality respectively. After all, a total of 35 studies, 15 studies, and 19 studies were presented in the meta-regression analyses, respectively.

Figure 1:
Figure 1:

Flow diagram of literature search and study selection (PRISMA chart).

Data Extraction

The following data were extracted from the qualified studies: first author, year/month of the publication, location (city-country), hospital name, definition of disease severity, subject number, number of COVID-19 patients in each health status, age, male to female ratio, vital sign, clinical feature (12 symptoms), comorbidity (any; 8 main diseases), and desired 14 lab data [Appendix I, Appendix II). Lab data on the initial hospital presentation were classified as blood routine, blood biochemistry, coagulation functions, inflammatory markers, myocardial injury markers (see Appendix II).

View this table:
Appendix I:

The profile of the collected 76 studies with a total of 26,627 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients.1

The primary outcome measures were to compare the level of laboratory data and their impact on different health outcomes (non-severe vs. severe, non-critically severe vs. critically severe, and alive vs. dead) after adjusting the effects of other covariates.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using the R 4.1.0 software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Two-sided p value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. We chose the outcome groups in the collected studies as the analysis unit ― instead of the collected studies themselves ― in this meta-analytical study. The distributional properties of continuous variables were expressed by mean ± standard deviation (SD), median, interquartile range (IQR), and categorical variables were presented by frequency and percentage (%). In univariate analysis, the unadjusted effect of each potential risk factor, prognostic factor, or predictor of the three binary outcome variables (i.e., severe vs. non-severe, critically severe vs. non-critically severe, and dead vs. alive) was examined respectively using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Chi-square test, and Fisher’s exact test as appropriate for the data type. Next, multivariate analysis was conducted by fitting the logistic regression models to estimate the adjusted effects of potential risk factors, prognostic factors, or predictors on the three binary outcome variables (i.e., severe vs. non-severe, critically severe vs. non-critically severe, and dead vs. alive) respectively with the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method. The GEE method was used to account for the correlation between the two outcome groups within a collected study.35 Computationally, we used the geeglm function (with the specified “exchangeable” correlation structure and the default robust estimator of standard error) of the geepack package36, 37 to fit GEE logistic regression models for the three sets of correlated binary responses (i.e., severe vs. non-severe, critically severe vs. non-critically severe, and dead vs. alive) respectively in R.

To ensure a good quality of analysis, the model-fitting techniques for (1) variable selection, (2) goodness-of-fit (GOF) assessment, and (3) regression diagnostics and remedies were used in our GEE logistic regression analyses. All the univariate significant and non-significant relevant covariates (listed in Appendix II) were put on the variable list to be selected. However, each of the collected studies selectively reported the potential risk factor, prognostic factor, or predictor of the three binary outcome variables. If we wanted to assess simultaneously the effects of all the relevant covariates (listed in Appendix II), then the number of studies without missing values would be very few. Thus, our meta-regression analysis was performed by fitting a series of simple GEE logistic regression models and then dropping the worst one at a time to maximally use all the available information. Then, a final multiple GEE logistic regression model for each of the three outcome variables was obtained. Any discrepancy between the results of univariate analysis and multivariate analysis was likely due to the variation in the number of studies without missing values or the confounding effects of uncontrolled covariates in univariate analysis.

View this table:
Appendix II-1:

The summary statistics of the demographics, clinical characteristics, comorbidities, and laboratory data of the COVID-19 patients on initial hospital presentations from the collected 38 studies for the assessment of severity.

The GOF measures, including the estimated area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (also called the c statistic) and adjusted generalized R2, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow GOF test were examined to assess the GOF of the fitted GEE logistic regression model. The value of the c statistic (0 ≤ c ≤ 1) ≥ 0.7 suggests an acceptable level of discrimination power. Larger p values of the Hosmer-Lemeshow GOF test imply better fits of logistic regression model.

Simple and multiple generalized additive models (GAMs) were fitted to draw the GAM plots for detecting nonlinear effects of continuous covariates and then for identifying the appropriate cut-off point(s) to discretize continuous covariates, if necessary, during the above variable selection procedure. Computationally, we used the vgam function of the VGAM package with the default values of the smoothing parameters (e.g., s(age, df=4, spar=0) for the cubic smoothing splines) to fit the GAMs for our binary responses, and then used the plotvgam function of the same package to draw the GAM plots for visualizing the linear or nonlinear effects of continuous covariates in R.36, 38, 39 If a separation or high discrimination problem occurred in logistic regression analysis, we fitted the Firth’s bias-reduced logistic regression model using the logistf function of the logistf package in R.40 Finally, the statistical tools of regression diagnostics for residual analysis, detection of influential cases, and check of multicollinearity were applied to discover any model or data problems. The values of the variance inflating factor (VIF) ≥ 10 in continuous covariates or VIF ≥ 2.5 in categorical covariates indicate the occurrence of the multicollinearity problem among some of the covariates in the fitted logistic regression model.

Results

Literature Search and Study Characteristics

Based on the search strategy, 76 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis10, 14, 16–25, 41– 104 including 26,627 COVID-19 confirmed patients (Figure 1, Appendix I). The number of studies (patients) included for the analysis of severity, critical severity, and mortality was 38 studies (9,764 patients), 21 studies (4,792 patients), and 24 studies (14,825 patients) respectively (Figure 1, Appendix I). Patient demographics, clinical features, comorbidities, lab items for each health status were shown (Appendix, Appendix II). All of the selected articles were published in 2020 with patient sizes ranged from 38 to 4,035 subjects. All of the articles were retrospective, observational studies with COVID-19 patients recruited between 1 December 2019 and 27 Jun 2020, from sixteen countries. The majority of studies were conducted in China (46 studies, 60.5%), followed by Italy (5 studies, 6.6%) and the US (5 studies, 6.6%). Most of the subjects come from China (13,483 patients, 50.6%), followed by Spain (4,035 patients, 15.2%) and US (2,691 patients, 10.1%). Except for 21 sole mortality studies, 55 studies incorporated disease severity definitions (Appendix I). Most (49, 89.1%) of the studies were based on the WHO interim guidance105 or national guidance modified from the WHO principles91, 106, 107, followed by the American Thoracic Society Guideline (5, 9.1%) and the International Guideline for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (1, 1.8%). Since the contents of the above guidelines were similar, they were all included in the analysis. In general, disease severity is classified into four types: mild, moderate, severe, and critically severe. Severe: Meet any of the following (1) Shortness of breath, RR>30 times per minute; At room air, SpO2 lower than 93%; (3) The partial pressure of Arterial blood oxygen (PaO2)/the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ≤ 300mmHg; (4) CT chest imaging shows that lung damage develops significantly within 24 to 48 hours. Critically severe: Meet any of the following (1) Respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation; (2) Signs of septic shock; Multiple organ failure requiring ICU admission. For comparison purposes in this study, the subjects in the mild and the moderate conditions were assembled into the non-severe group; subjects in the mild, moderate, and severe were assembled into the non-critical group. There were therefore six health outcomes classified into three pairs in this study: severe vs. non-severe, critically severe vs. non-critically severe, dead vs. alive.

Patient Demographics, Clinical Characteristics, Comorbidities, and Lab Data

Summary statistics of the demographics, clinical characteristics, comorbidities, and laboratory data of the COVID-19 patients on initial hospital presentations for the assessment of severity, critical severity, and mortality were shown in Appendix II-1, Appendix II-2, and Appendix II-3, respectively.

View this table:
Appendix II-2:

The summary statistics of the demographics, clinical characteristics, and biomarkers of the COVID-19 patients on initial hospital presentations from the collected 21 studies for the assessment of critical severity.

View this table:
Appendix II-3:

The summary statistics of the demographics, clinical characteristics, and biomarkers of the COVID-19 patients on initial hospital presentations from the collected 24 studies for the assessment of mortality.

Not every desired lab parameter was collected for each study ― for example, NLR and hs-cTnI were rarely reported. Most of the lab data had statistical significance (all p < 0.05) between the two groups except less collected parameters to the disease severity (Appendix II-1, Appendix II-2); ALT, total bilirubin to the mortality (Appendix II-3).

Predictors for Severity (Severe vs. Non-severe)

Results of univariate analyses of the predictors for severity (severe vs. non-severe) were shown in Table 1-A. As less effect lab items judged by the AUC of ROC kicked out from the model, more and more arms, from m = 14 to m = 70 at the different runs, were recruited in the meta-regression analysis. At the final run (seventh, m = 70) only lymphocyte count (AUC = 0.938) or lymphocyte count ≤ 1.03 or > 2.06 (0.929) and age (AUC = 0.855) or age > 55.02 (AUC = 0.800) existed in the final univariate analyses. Table 1-B listed the result of multivariate analysis for the prediction of severity (severe vs. non-severe). Age mean or median > 55.02 presented a higher risk to the severity (estimated hazard ratio [HR] = 5.7921, p = 0.0058) while lymphocyte count mean or median ≤ 1.03 or > 2.06 showed a strong risk to the severity (HR = 46.2594, p < 0.0001).

View this table:
Table 1-A:

Univariate analyses of the predictors for severity (severe vs. non-severe) by fitting a series of simple logistic regression models with the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method (assuming an ‘exchangeable’ working correlation structure).

View this table:
Table 1-B:

Multivariate analysis of the predictors for severity (severe vs. non-severe) by fitting a final multiple logistic regression model with the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method (assuming an ‘exchangeable’ working correlation structure).1

Predictors for Critical Severity (Critically Severe vs. Non-critically severe)

Results of univariate analyses of the predictors for critical severity (critically severe vs. non-critically severe) were shown in Table 2-A. At the last run (seventh, m = 30) only lymphocyte count (AUC = 0.933) and age (AUC = 0.829) or age > 59.82 (AUC = 0.767) were existed in the final univariate analyses. Table 2-A listed the result of multivariate analysis for the predictors to critical severity (critically severe vs. non-critically severe). Age and lymphocyte count were in the final meta-regression model. We found that higher lymphocyte count mean or median had an extremely lower risk of critical severity (HR < 0.0001, p = 0.0284) while age mean or median > 59.82 have a higher risk of critical severity (HR = 307.6130, p = 0.0009).

View this table:
Table 2-A:

Univariate analyses of the predictors for critical severity (critically severe vs. non-critically severe) by fitting a series of simple logistic regression models with the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method (assuming an ‘exchangeable’ working correlation structure).

View this table:
Table 2‒B:

Multivariate analysis of the predictors for critical severity (critically severe vs. non-critically severe) by fitting a final multiple logistic regression model with the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method (assuming an ‘exchangeable’ working correlation structure).1

Predictors for Mortality (Dead vs. Alive)

Results of univariate analyses of the predictors for mortality (dead vs. alive) were shown in Table 3-A. At the last run (seventh, m = 38) only lymphocyte count (AUC = 0.935) or lymphocyte count ≤ 0.87 (AUC = 0.895) and age (AUC = 0.913) or age > 67.28 (AUC = 0.895) existed in the final univariate analyses. Table 3-B listed the result of multivariate analysis for the predictors of mortality. Older age mean or median > 67.28 have a higher risk of mortality (HR = 17.3756, p = 0.0079) while lower lymphocyte count mean or median ≤ 0.87 had a higher risk of mortality (HR = 17.3756, p = 0.0079).

View this table:
Table 3-A:

Univariate analyses of the predictors for mortality (dead vs. alive) by fitting a series of simple logistic regression models with the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method (assuming an ‘exchangeable’ working correlation structure).

View this table:
Table 3-B:

Multivariate analysis of the predictors for mortality (dead vs. alive) by fitting a final multiple logistic regression model with the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method (assuming an ‘independence’ working correlation structure).1

Discussion

The results of this study provide numerous imperative insights. After comparisons lymphocyte count was the most powerful predictor among the fourteen explored lab items. Single lab data, lymphocyte count at initial hospital presentation together with age can be remarkable indicators to discriminate the health status (severe vs. non-severe, critically severe vs. non-critically severe) or the final consequence (dead vs. alive) for COVID-19 patients. Compared with vital signs, symptoms, comorbidities, several lab data (CRP, D-dimer, lymphocyte, neutrophil, platelet, LDH) holds the value to differentiate disease severity and to predict the mortality of COVID-19 patients. To the best of our knowledge, this was the first meta-analysis study that potential bias of subject duplication of COVID-19 patients in studies has been eliminated before analyses.

After SARS-CoV2 infection, multiple mechanisms of the human body triggered, e.g., immune (ex. WBC, lymphocyte, neutrophil) responses, inflammatory cataracts (ex. CRP, PCT), and the activation of coagulation cascades (ex. platelet count, D-dimer).108–111 After virus invasion to the tissues which starts early, the inflammation situation intensifies110, 112, the inflammatory indicators will increase dramatically.15, 28, 29, 113, 114 The wide distribution of the COVID-19 receptors, e.g., angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) receptors, abundantly expressed in a variety of cells residing in many human organs, could exaggerate systemic failure due to direct organ injury.115, 116 Organ (ex. lung, liver, kidney, heart, brain, etc.) damage indicators such as ALT, AST, total bilirubin, LDH, hypersensitive troponin I, etc. will be augmented to reflecting the impairment situation.30, 117, 118 Our study confirmed again that levels of several laboratory data although not all are profound predictors to disease severity or mortality for COVID-19 patients as compared with previous studies.15, 28, 29, 30, 114

It is no surprise that lymphocyte count played such an important role to COVID-19 patients in defending SARS-CoV-2.28, 109, 112 Adaptive immune cells such as lymphocytes are essential for virus clearance as well as for recovery from the disease.109, 112, 119 Interaction between SARS-CoV-2 and the immune system of an individual results in a diverse clinical manifestation.16, 75, 88, 94, 96, 112 Our study reveals that lymphocyte count offerings a defensive feature to COVID-19 patients within a certain range (Table 1-B, Table 3-B). Lower lever (e.g., lymphocyte count ≤ 1.03) or extreme lower (e.g., lymphocyte count ≤ 0.87) implies immune weakness and worsens outcomes to disease severity or mortality. However, a too high level of immune response becomes another issue, which may induce unintended results such as cytokine storm.75, 88 In our study, a higher level of lymphocyte count (e.g., lymphocyte count > 2.06) revealed a more severe status to severity (Table 1-B). A current hypothesis is that a cytokine storm can induce or further aggravate SARS-CoV-2 infection.120, 121 The degree to which SARS-CoV-2 targets immune cells remains poorly defined. It is crucial to understand more about the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 with the host immune system and the subsequent contribution to the organ functions and disease progression.

Plentiful tools, e.g., demographics, symptoms, vital signs, comorbidities, imaging, etc., have been explored to their prediction capability for COVID-19 patients.28, 78, 114 However, such data has its limitations. Routine lab data retains several advantages, which can indicate the whole body situation of a COVID-19 patient whose functions can be changed dramatically in few days.122 Additionally lab testing is easy to access, repeatable, self-explain, relatively cheap, and therefore can be a cost-effective tool under pandemic circumstances.

Current criteria to judge the severity, to triage or referral COVID-19 patients, are based on imaging, demographics, comorbidities, vital signs, or symptoms.6, 123, 124 Based on our study results single lab data, lymphocyte count at administration plus age can be useful for the purposes. Early and continue monitoring lab data for a COVID-19 patient can help to understand the health state, triage the patient, predict the severity of disease, predict the health consequences, and workout treatment judgment appropriately.

Our study has several limitations. Due to the lack of non-English articles, pediatric study and specific disease groups, interpretation of the results must be cautious. Ideally, all desired lab data should be collected and analyzed in all studies. However, it is not realistic in the real world because of wide-ranging medical resource deficiency that existed across countries. We suggest collecting essential data through a standardized list while clinical presentation, medical history, imaging information, comprehensive lab data, and other valuable factors, can be assembled and analyzed which will accelerate knowledge accumulation in particular under global pandemics. Retrospective observational study conducted at the level of hospital or community, characteristics of individual patients could not be retrieved. In addition, the dynamic relationship among various lab data, the status of disease progression, functions, and feelings of the patient, have not been explored due to inadequate data. More extensive and large-scale studies are required to double confirm the findings of this study.

Conclusion

Our study involved 26,627 confirmed COVID-19 patients across sixteen countries provides evidence for defending disease under pandemics. Results prove that lymphocyte count is a universal biomarker to disease severity and mortality across regions. Several routine lab data at the initial hospital presented good prediction capability. Routine lab testing could be a useful tool in particular under a pandemic condition whereas medical resource is constrained. How to maintain or improve good immunity levels for the general population in daily life can be a crucial strategy to stakeholders in facing life-threatening infectious diseases such as COVID-19.

Data Availability

The data of this study were available from the corresponding author on request.

Contributors

KLL and FCH designed the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. JJC and KLL were in charge of the systematic review and data collection. FCH and FYW conducted the statistical analysis. KLL and FGH contributed to the writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed to data interpretation, reviewed, and approved the final version.

Declaration of interests

All authors declared no competing interests.

Data sharing

The data of this study were available from the corresponding author on request.

Funding

None.

Ethical statement

The study was a systematic review and meta-regression analysis so that ethical approval was not needed.

Supplementary material

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://.

Acknowledgments

None.

Footnotes

  • (conrad{at}cjc.expert), (fuchang.hu{at}gmail.com), (bagausagi{at}gms.tku.edu.tw), (jjchen092000{at}gmail.com)

References

  1. 1.↵
    Bartoli A, Gabrielli F, Alicandro T, Nascimbeni F, Andreone P. COVID-19 treatment options: a difficult journey between failed attempts and experimental drugs. Intern Emerg Med 2021;16(2):281–308. doi:10.1007/s11739-020-02569-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    CDC. Different COVID-19 Vaccines. Accessed April 26, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines.html
  3. 3.↵
    WHO. Weekly epidemiological update on COVID-19-20 July 2021. Accessed July 23, 2021. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/weekly-epidemiological-update-on-covid-19---20-july-2021
  4. 4.↵
    Hu B, Guo H, Zhou P, Shi ZL. Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Nat Rev Microbiol 2021;19(3):141–154. doi:10.1038/s41579-020-00459-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. COVID-19 Map. Accessed July 23, 2021. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
  6. 6.↵
    Chen S, Zhang Z, Yang J, et al. Fangcang shelter hospitals: a novel concept for responding to public health emergencies. Lancet 2020;395(10232):1305–1314. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30744-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.
    Remuzzi A, Remuzzi G. COVID-19 and Italy: what next? Lancet 2020;395(10231):1225–1228. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30627-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.
    Setiati S, Azwar MK. COVID-19 and Indonesia. Acta Medica Indones 2020;52(1):84–89. PMID: 32291377
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.
    Legido-Quigley H, Mateos-Garcia JT, Campos VR, Gea-Sanchez M, Muntaner C, McKee M. The resilience of the Spanish health system against the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet 2021;5(5):E251–E252. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30060-8
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    Ghweil AA, Hassan MH, Khodeary A, et al. Characteristics, outcomes and indicators of severity for covid-19 among sample of ESNA quarantine hospital’s patients, Egypt: A retrospective study. Infect Drug Resist 2020;13:2375–2383. doi:10.2147/IDR.S263489
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.
    Chen C, Zhao B. Makeshift hospitals for COVID-19 patients: where health-care workers and patients need sufficient ventilation for more protection. J Hosp Infect 2020;105(1):98–99. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2020.03.008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.
    Ammar A, Stock A, Holland R, Gelfand Y, Altschul D. Managing a specialty service during the COVID-19 crisis: lessons from a New York City health system. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Acad Med 2021;95(10):1495–1498. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000003440.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. 13.↵
    Paintsil E. COVID-19 threatens health systems in sub-Saharan Africa: The eye of the crocodile. J Clin Invest 2020;130(6):2741–2744. doi:10.1172/JCI138493
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Zhang W, Li L, Liu J, et al. The characteristics and predictive role of lymphocyte subsets in COVID-19 patients. Int J Infect Dis 2020;99:92–99. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.06.079
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. 15.↵
    Xu J bo, Xu C, Zhang R bing, et al. Associations of procalcitonin, C-reaction protein and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio with mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in China. Sci Rep 2020;10(1):1–10. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-72164-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Qun S, Wang Y, Chen J, et al. Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratios Are Closely Associated With the Severity and Course of Non-mild COVID-19. Front Immunol 2020;11:2160. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2020.02160
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.
    Huang H, Song B, Xu Z, et al. Predictors of coronavirus disease 2019 severity: A retrospective study of 64 cases. Jpn J Infect Dis 2021;74(1):54–60. doi:10.7883/yoken.JJID.2020.298
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.
    Chen L, Yu J, He W, et al. Risk factors for death in 1859 subjects with COVID-19. Leukemia 2020;34:2173–2183. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-020-0911-0
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.
    Sun H, Ning R, Tao Y, et al. Risk Factors for Mortality in 244 Older Adults With COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: A Retrospective Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2020;68(6):E19–E23. doi:10.1111/jgs.16533
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.
    Zheng Y, Zhang Y, Chi H, Chen S, Peng M, Luo L, Chen L, Li J, Shen B, Wang D. The hemocyte counts as a potential biomarker for predicting disease progression in COVID-19: A retrospective study. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58(7):1106–1115. doi:10.1515/cclm-2020-0377
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.
    Shu Z, Zhou Y, Chang K, et al. Clinical features and the traditional Chinese medicine therapeutic characteristics of 293 COVID-19 inpatient cases. Front Med 2020;14(6):760–775. doi:10.1007/s11684-020-0803-8
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.↵
    Zhang SY, Lian JS, Hu JH, et al. Clinical characteristics of different subtypes and risk factors for the severity of illness in patients with COVID-19 in Zhejiang, China. Infect Dis Poverty 2020;9(1):85. doi:10.1186/s40249-020-00710-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. 23.
    Ciceri F, Castagna A, Rovere-Querini P, De Cobelli F, Ruggeri A, Galli L, Conte C, De Lorenzo R, Poli A, Ambrosio A, Signorelli C, Bossi E, Fazio M, Tresoldi C, Colombo S, Monti G, Fominskiy E, Franchini S, Spessot M, Martinenghi C, Carlucci M, Beretta L, Scandroglio AM, Clementi M, Locatelli M, Tresoldi M, Scarpellini P, Martino G, Bosi E, Dagna L, Lazzarin A, Landoni G, Zangrillo A. Early predictors of clinical outcomes of COVID-19 outbreak in Milan, Italy. Clin Immunol 2020;217:108509. doi: 10.1016/j.clim.2020.108509.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.
    Bahl A, Van Baalen MN, Ortiz L, et al. Early predictors of in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 in a large American cohort. Intern Emerg Med 2020;15(8):1485–1499. doi:10.1007/s11739-020-02509-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. 25.↵
    Bonetti G, Manelli F, Patroni A, et al. Laboratory predictors of death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the area of Valcamonica, Italy. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58(7):1100–1105. doi:10.1515/cclm-2020-0459
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Liu J, Liu Y, Xiang P, et al. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio predicts critical illness patients with 2019 coronavirus disease in the early stage. J Transl Med 2020;18:206. doi:10.1186/s12967-020-02374-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    Nanshan Chen, Min Zhou, Xuan Dong, et al. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study. Lancet 2020;395:507–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30211-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Cardona-Ospina JA, Gutiérrez-Ocampo E, et al. Clinical, laboratory and imaging features of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Travel Med Infect Dis 2020;34:101623. doi:10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101623
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    Zeng F, Huang Y, Guo Y, et al. Association of inflammatory markers with the severity of COVID-19: A meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis 2020;96:467–474. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.05.055
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    Kermali M, Khalsa RK, Pillai K, Ismail Z, Harky A. The role of biomarkers in diagnosis of COVID-19 – A systematic review. Life Sci 2020;254:117788. doi:10.1016/j.lfs.2020.117788
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.
    Alnor A, Sandberg MB, Gils C, Vinholt PJ. Laboratory Tests and Outcome for Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Appl Lab Med. 2020 Sep 1;5(5):1038–1049. doi: 10.1093/jalm/jfaa098.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. 32.
    Pormohammad A, Ghorbani S, Baradaran B, Khatami A, J Turner R, Mansournia MA, Kyriacou DN, Idrovo JP, Bahr NC. Clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, radiographic signs and outcomes of 61,742 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Microb Pathog. 2020 Oct;147:104390. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2020.104390.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. 33.
    Deng X, Liu B, Li J, Zhang J, Zhao Y, Xu K. Blood biochemical characteristics of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systemic review and meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020 Jul 28;58(8):1172–1181. doi: 10.1515/cclm-2020-0338.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. 34.↵
    Patel U, Malik P, Usman MS, Mehta D, Sharma A, Malik FA, Khan N, Siddiqi TJ, Ahmed J, Patel A, Sacks H. Age-Adjusted Risk Factors Associated with Mortality and Mechanical Ventilation Utilization Amongst COVID-19 Hospitalizations-a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. SN Compr Clin Med 2020;1–10. doi: 10.1007/s42399-020-00476-w.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. 35.↵
    Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 1986;73(1):13–22. doi:10.1093/biomet/73.1.13
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  36. 36.↵
    Yee TW. Vector Generalized Linear and Additive Models: With an Implementation in R. Springer Science and Business Media, LLC; 2015. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2818-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37.↵
    Halekoh U, Højsgaard S, Yan J. The R package geepack for generalized estimating equations. J Stat Softw 2006;15(2):1–11. doi:10.18637/jss.v015.i02
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    Package “VGAM.” Published online 2021. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2818-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.↵
    Yee TW, Wild CJ. Vector Generalized Additive Models. J R Stat Soc Ser B 1996;58(3):481–493. doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02095.x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. 40.↵
    Heinze, G., Ploner, M., Dunkler, D., Southworth, H., and Jiricka, L. 2020. logistf: Firth’s bias-reduced logistic regression. R package, version 1.24 (URL: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=logistf). - Google Search. Accessed May 8, 2021.
  41. 41.
    Almazeedi S, Al-Youha S, Jamal M, et al. Characteristics, risk factors and outcomes among the first consecutive 1096 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in Kuwait. EClinicalMedicine 2020;24:100448. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100448
  42. 42.
    Berenguer J, Ryan P, Rodríguez-Baño J, et al. Characteristics and predictors of death among 4035 consecutively hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Spain. Clin Microbiol Infect 2020;26(11):1525–1536. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.07.024.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.
    Botero DMR, Omar AMS, Sun HK, et al. Covid-19 in the healthy patient population demographic and clinical phenotypic characterization and predictors of in-hospital outcomes. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2020;40(11):2764–2775. doi:10.1161/ATVBAHA.120.314845
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. 44.
    Brill SE, Jarvis HC, Ozcan E, et al. COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study with focus on the over-80s and hospital-onset disease. BMC Med 2020;18(1). doi:10.1186/s12916-020-01665-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.
    Cai Q, Huang D, Ou P, et al. COVID-19 in a designated infectious diseases hospital outside Hubei Province, China. Allergy Eur J Allergy Clin Immunol 2020;75(7):1742–1752. doi:10.1111/all.14309
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. 46.
    Chen T, Wu D, Chen H, et al. Clinical characteristics of 113 deceased patients with coronavirus disease 2019: retrospective study. BMJ 2020;368:m1091. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1091
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.
    Cipriani A, Capone F, Donato F, et al. Cardiac injury and mortality in patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): insights from a mediation analysis. Intern Emerg Med 2021;16(2):419–427. doi:10.1007/s11739-020-02495-w
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.
    Fan BE, Chong VCL, Chan SSW, et al. Hematologic parameters in patients with COVID-19 infection. Am J Hematol 2020;95(6):E131–E134. doi:10.1002/ajh.25774
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.
    Ferguson J, Rosser J, Quintero O, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of coronavirus disease patients under nonsurge conditions, Northern California, USA, March–April 2020. Emerg Infect Dis 2020;26(8):1679–1685. doi: 10.3201/eid2608.201776
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.
    Gao Y, Li T, Han M, et al. Diagnostic utility of clinical laboratory data determinations for patients with the severe COVID-19. J Med Virol 2020;92(7):791–796. doi:10.1002/jmv.25770
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.
    Gayam VR, Ditah C, Lamichhane S. Clinical characteristics and predictors of mortality in African-Americans with COVID-19 from an inner-city community teaching hospital in New York. Artic J Med Virol 2020;93(2):812–819. doi:10.1002/jmv.26306
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. 52.
    Giacomelli A, Ridolfo A, Milazzo L, et al. 30-day mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the first wave of the Italian epidemic: a prospective cohort study. Pharmacol Res 2020;158:104931. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2020.104931
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.
    He L, Zhang Q, Li Z, et al. Incorporation of urinary neutrophil gelatinase-Associated lipocalin and computed tomography quantification to predict acute kidney injury and in-hospital death in COVID-19 patients. Kidney Dis 2021;7:120–130. https://doi.org/10.1159/000511403
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  54. 54.
    Hong K, Lee K, Chung J, et al. Clinical features and outcomes of 98 patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection in Daegu, South Korea: a brief descriptive study. Yonsei Med J 2020;61(5):431–437. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2020.61.5.431
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.
    Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet 2020;395(10223):497–506. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.
    Israelsen S, Kristiansen K, Hindsberger B, et al. Characteristics of Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia at Hvidovre Hospital, March-April 2020. Dan Med J 2020;67(6):A05200313. PMID: 32448405.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  57. 57.
    Javanian M, Bayani M, Shokri M, et al. Clinical and laboratory findings from patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in Babol North of Iran: a retrospective cohort study. Rom J Intern Med 2020;58(3):161–167. doi: 10.2478/rjim-2020-0013.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  58. 58.
    Jiang H, Guo W, Shi Z, et al. Clinical imaging characteristics of inpatients with coronavirus disease-2019 in Heilongjiang Province, China: a retrospective study. Aging (Albany NY) 2020;12(14):13860–13868. doi: 10.18632/aging.103633
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  59. 59.
    Khalil K, Agbontaen K, McNally D, et al. Clinical characteristics and 28-day mortality of medical patients admitted with COVID-19 to a central London teaching hospital. J Infect 2020;81(3):e85–e89. doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2020.06.027
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. 60.
    Khamis F, Al-Zakwani I, Al Naamani H, et al. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of the first 63 adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19: an experience from Oman. J Infect Public Health 2020;13(7):906–913. doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2020.06.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.
    Lee JY, Kim HA, Huh K, Hyun M, Rhee JY, Jang S, Kim JY, Peck KR, Chang HH. Risk factors for mortality and respiratory support in elderly patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Korea. J Korean Med Sci 2020;35(23):e223. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e223.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.
    Lee JY, Hong SW, Hyun M, Park JS, Lee JH, Suh YS, Kim DH, Han SW, Cho CH, Kim HA. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in Daegu, South Korea. Int J Infectious Disease 2020;98:462–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.07.017
    OpenUrl
  63. 63.
    Lendorf ME, Boisen MK, Kristensen PL, et al. Characteristics and early outcomes of patients hospitalised for COVID-19 in North Zealand, Denmark. Dan Med J 2020;67(9):A06200428. PMID: 32800073.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  64. 64.
    Li H, Xiang X, Ren H, et al. Serum Amyloid A is a biomarker of severe Coronavirus Disease and poor prognosis. J Infect 2020;80(6):646–655. doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2020.03.035
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.
    Li K, Wu J, Wu F, et al. The Clinical and Chest CT Features Associated with Severe and Critical COVID-19 Pneumonia. Invest Radiol 2020;55(6):327–331. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000672
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. 66.
    Li T, Lu L, Zhang W, et al. Clinical characteristics of 312 hospitalized older patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2020;91:104185. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2020.104185
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  67. 67.
    Li X, Liu Y, Li J, et al. Immune characteristics distinguish patients with severe disease associated with SARS-CoV-2. Immunol Res 2020;68(6):398–404. doi:10.1007/s12026-020-09156-2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  68. 68.
    Liu J, Zhang S, Wu Z, et al. Clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a large cohort study. Ann Intensive Care 2020;10(1):1–21. doi:10.1186/S13613-020-00706-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.
    Liu S, Luo H, Wang Y, et al. Clinical characteristics and risk factors of patients with severe COVID-19 in Jiangsu province, China: A retrospective multicentre cohort study. BMC Infect Dis 2020;20(1):584. doi:10.1186/s12879-020-05314-x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  70. 70.
    Lv Z, Cheng S, Le J, et al. Clinical characteristics and co-infections of 354 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Microbes Infect 2020;22(4-5):195–199. doi:10.1016/j.micinf.2020.05.007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  71. 71.
    Mao L, Jin H, Wang M, et al. Neurologic Manifestations of Hospitalized Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Wuhan, China. JAMA Neurol 2020;77(6):683–690. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.1127
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.
    Ortiz-Brizuela E, Villanueva-Reza M, González-Lara MF, et al. Clinical and epidemiological characteristics of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in a tertiary care center in Mexico City: a prospective cohort study. Rev Invest Clin 2020;72(3):165–177. doi:10.24875/RIC.20000211
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.
    Qian GQ, Yang NB, Ding F, et al. Epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of 91 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Zhejiang, China: A retrospective, multi-centre case series. QJM 2020;113(7):474–481. doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcaa089
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.
    Romero-Sánchez CM, Díaz-Maroto I, Fernández-Díaz E, et al. Neurologic manifestations in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: The ALBACOVID registry. Neurology 2020;95(8):e1060–e1070. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000009937
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    Satış H, Özger HS, Aysert Yıldız P, et al. Prognostic value of interleukin-18 and its association with other inflammatory markers and disease severity in COVID-19. Cytokine 2021;137:155302. doi:10.1016/j.cyto.2020.155302
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. 76.
    Shahriarirad R, Shahriarirad R, Khodamoradi Z, et al. Epidemiological and clinical features of 2019 novel coronavirus diseases (COVID-19) in the South of Iran. BMC Infect Dis 2020;2(1):427. doi:10.1186/s12879-020-05128-x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  77. 77.
    Shang W, Dong J, Ren Y, et al. The value of clinical parameters in predicting the severity of COVID-19. J Med Virol 2020;92(10):2188–2192. doi:10.1002/jmv.26031
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. 78.↵
    Sun D, Li X, Guo D, et al. CT Quantitative Analysis and Its Relationship with Clinical Features for Assessing the Severity of Patients with COVID-19. Korean J Radiol 2020;21(7):859–868. doi:10.3348/kjr.2020.0293
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  79. 79.
    Sun S, Cai X, Wang H, et al. Abnormalities of peripheral blood system in patients with COVID-19 in Wenzhou, China. Clin Chim Acta 2020;507:174–180. doi:10.1016/j.cca.2020.04.024
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  80. 80.
    Sun Y, Dong Y, Wang L, et al. Characteristics and prognostic factors of disease severity in patients with COVID-19: The Beijing experience. J Autoimmun 2020;112:102473. doi:10.1016/j.jaut.2020.102473
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. 81.
    Taghiloo S, Aliyali M, Abedi S, et al. Apoptosis and immunophenotyping of peripheral blood lymphocytes in Iranian COVID-19 patients: Clinical and laboratory characteristics. J Med Virol 2021;93(3):1589–1598. doi:10.1002/jmv.26505
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  82. 82.
    Tao Z, Xu J, Chen W, et al. Anemia is associated with severe illness in COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study. J Med Virol 2021;93(3):1478–1488. doi:10.1002/jmv.26444
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  83. 83.
    Uchida Y, Uemura H, Yamaba S, et al. Significance of liver dysfunction associated with decreased hepatic CT attenuation values in Japanese patients with severe COVID-19. J Gastroenterol 2020;55(11):1098–1106. doi:10.1007/s00535-020-01717-4
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  84. 84.
    Vena A, Giacobbe DR, Di Biagio A, et al. Clinical characteristics, management and in-hospital mortality of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in Genoa, Italy. Clin Microbiol Infect 2020;26(11):1537–1544. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2020.07.049
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  85. 85.
    Wang C, Deng R, Gou L, et al. Preliminary study to identify severe from moderate cases of COVID-19 using combined hematology parameters. Ann Transl Med 2020;8(9):593–593. doi:10.21037/atm-20-3391
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. 86.
    Wang D, Li R, Wang J, et al. Correlation analysis between disease severity and clinical and biochemical characteristics of 143 cases of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: A descriptive study. BMC Infect Dis 2020;20(1):519. doi:10.1186/s12879-020-05242-w
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  87. 87.
    Wang D, Hu B, Hu C, et al. Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients with 2019 Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA 2020;323(11):1061–1069. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.1585
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. 88.↵
    Wang F, Hou H, Luo Y, et al. The laboratory tests and host immunity of COVID-19 patients with different severity of illness. JCI Insight 2020;5(10). doi:10.1172/JCI.INSIGHT.137799
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  89. 89.
    Wang R, Pan M, Zhang X, et al. Epidemiological and clinical features of 125 Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 in Fuyang, Anhui, China. Int J Infect Dis 2020;95:421–428. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.03.070
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  90. 90.
    Wang R, He M, Yin W, et al. The Prognostic Nutritional Index is associated with mortality of COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. J Clin Lab Anal 2020;34(10):e23566. doi:10.1002/jcla.23566
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  91. 91.↵
    Wu J, Li W, Shi X, et al. Early antiviral treatment contributes to alleviate the severity and improve the prognosis of patients with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). J Intern Med 2020;288(1):128–138. doi:10.1111/joim.13063
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  92. 92.
    Yan X, Han X, Peng D, et al. Clinical Characteristics and Prognosis of 218 Patients With COVID-19: A Retrospective Study Based on Clinical Classification. Front Med 2020;7:485. doi:10.3389/fmed.2020.00485
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  93. 93.
    Yang L, Liu J, Zhang R, et al. Epidemiological and clinical features of 200 hospitalized patients with corona virus disease 2019 outside Wuhan, China: A descriptive study. J Clin Virol 2020;129:104475. doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104475
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  94. 94.↵
    Yang M, Chen X, Xu Y. A retrospective study of the C-Reactive protein to lymphocyte ratio and disease severity in 108 patients with early COVID-19 Pneumonia from January to March 2020 in Wuhan, China. Med Sci Monit 2020;26:e926393–1. doi:10.12659/MSM.926393
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  95. 95.
    Yao Q, Wang P, Wang X, et al. A retrospective study of risk factors for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections in hospitalized adult patients. Polish Arch Intern Med 2020;130(5):390–399. doi:10.20452/pamw.15312
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  96. 96.↵
    Ye W, Chen G, Li X, et al. Dynamic changes of D-dimer and neutrophil-lymphocyte count ratio as prognostic biomarkers in COVID-19. Respir Res 2020;21(1):169. doi:10.1186/s12931-020-01428-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  97. 97.
    Yu C, Lei Q, Li W, Wang X, Li W, Liu W. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 1663 hospitalized patients infected with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a single-center experience. J Infect Public Health 2020;13(9):1202–1209. doi:10.1016/j.jiph.2020.07.002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  98. 98.
    Zerah L, Baudouin É, Pépin M, et al. Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of 821 Older Patients With SARS-Cov-2 Infection Admitted to Acute Care Geriatric Wards. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2021;76(3):e4–e12. doi:10.1093/gerona/glaa210
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  99. 99.
    Zhang C, Qin L, Li K, et al. A Novel Scoring System for Prediction of Disease Severity in COVID-19. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2020;10:318. doi:10.3389/fcimb.2020.00318
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. 100.
    Zhang JJ, Dong X, Cao YY, Yuan YD, Yang YB, Yan YQ, Akdis CA, Gao YD. Clinical characteristics of 140 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan, China. Allergy Eur J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;75(7):1730–1741. doi:10.1111/all.14238
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. 101.
    Zhang JJ, Cao YY, Tan G, Dong X, Wang BC, Lin J, Yan YQ, Liu GH, Akdis M, Akdis CA, Gao TD. Clinical, radiological, and laboratory characteristics and risk factors for severity and mortality of 289 hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Allergy Eur J Allergy Clin Immunol 2021;76(2):533–550. doi:10.1111/all.14496
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  102. 102.
    Zhao Z, Chen A, Hou W, et al. Prediction model and risk scores of ICU admission and mortality in COVID-19. Adrish M, ed. PLoS One 2020;15(7):e0236618. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0236618
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  103. 103.
    Zheng F, Tang W, Li H, Huang YX, Xie YL, Zhou ZG. Clinical characteristics of 161 cases of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Changsha. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2020;24(6):3404–3410. doi:10.26355/eurrev_202003_20711
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. 104.↵
    Zheng Y, Xu H, Yang M, et al. Epidemiological characteristics and clinical features of 32 critical and 67 noncritical cases of COVID-19 in Chengdu. J Clin Virol 2020;127:104366. doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104366
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  105. 105.↵
    Clinical care of severe acute respiratory infections – Tool kit. Accessed April 25, 2021. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/clinical-care-of-severe-acute-respiratory-infections-tool-kit
  106. 106.↵
    Li L, Huang T, Wang Y, et al. COVID-19 patients’ clinical characteristics, discharge rate, and fatality rate of meta-analysis. J Med Virol 2020;92(6):577–583. doi:10.1002/jmv.25757
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. 107.↵
    Chen N, Zhou M, Dong X, et al. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study. Lancet 2020;395(10223):507–513. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30211-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  108. 108.↵
    Peiris JSM, Chu CM, Cheng VCC, et al. Clinical progression and viral load in a community outbreak of coronavirus-associated SARS pneumonia: A prospective study. Lancet. 2003;361(9371):1767–1772. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13412-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  109. 109.↵
    Younas M, Psomas C, Reynes J, Corbeau P. Immune activation in the course of HIV-1 infection: Causes, phenotypes and persistence under therapy. Wiley Online Libr 2015;17(2):89–105. doi:10.1111/hiv.12310
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  110. 110.↵
    McGonagle D, Sharif K, O’Regan A, Bridgewood C. The Role of Cytokines including Interleukin-6 in COVID-19 induced Pneumonia and Macrophage Activation Syndrome-Like Disease. Autoimmun Rev. 2020;19(6). doi:10.1016/j.autrev.2020.102537
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  111. 111.↵
    Liu J, Zhang S, Wu Z, et al. Clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a large cohort study. Ann Intensive Care 2020;10(1):99. doi:10.1186/s13613-020-00706-3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  112. 112.↵
    Liu J, Li S, Liu J, et al. Longitudinal characteristics of lymphocyte responses and cytokine profiles in the peripheral blood of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. EBioMedicine. 2020;55:102763. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102763.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  113. 113.↵
    Wu C, Chen X, Cai Y, et al. Risk Factors Associated With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Death in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA Intern Med 2020;180(7):934–943. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0994
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  114. 114.↵
    Lu H, Ai J, Shen Y, et al. Title: A descriptive study of the impact of diseases control and prevention on the epidemics 1 dynamics and clinical features of SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in Shanghai, lessons learned for 2 metropolis epidemics prevention. medrxiv.org. 2020. doi:10.1101/2020.02.19.20025031
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  115. 115.↵
    Tai W, He L, Zhang X, Pu J, Voronin D, Jiang S, Zhou Y, Du L. Characterization of the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of 2019 novel coronavirus: implication for development of RBD protein as a viral attachment inhibitor. Cell Mol Immunol 2020;17:613–620. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41423-020-0400-4
    OpenUrlPubMed
  116. 116.↵
    Li S, Tang Z, Li Z, Liu X. Searching therapeutic strategy of new coronavirus pneumonia from angiotensin-converting enzyme 2: the target of COVID-19 and SARS-CoV. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2020;39(6):1021–1026. doi:10.1007/s10096-020-03883-y
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  117. 117.↵
    Papageorgiou N, Sohrabi C, Prieto Merino D, et al. High sensitivity troponin and COVID-19 outcomes. Acta Cardiol 2021. doi:10.1080/00015385.2021.1887586
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  118. 118.↵
    Paliogiannis P, Zinellu A. Bilirubin levels in patients with mild and severe Covid-19: A pooled analysis. Liver Int 2020;40(7):1787–1788. doi:10.1111/liv.14477
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  119. 119.↵
    Hui DSC, Chan MCH, Wu AK, Ng PC. Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS): Epidemiology and clinical features. Postgrad Med J 2004;80(945):373–381. doi:10.1136/pgmj.2004.020263
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  120. 120.↵
    García LF. Immune Response, Inflammation, and the Clinical Spectrum of COVID-19. Front Immunol 2020;11:1441. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2020.01441
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  121. 121.↵
    Bourgonje AR, Abdulle AE, Timens W, et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE), SARS-CoV-2 and the pathophysiology of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). J Pathol 2020;251(3):228–248. doi:10.1002/path.5471
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  122. 122.↵
    Goh KJ, Choong MC, Cheong EH, et al. Rapid Progression to Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Review of Current Understanding of Critical Illness from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Ann Acad Med Singap 2020;49(3):108–118. PMID: 32200400.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  123. 123.↵
    Zhou F, Gao X, Li M, Zhang Y. Shelter Hospital: Glimmers of Hope in Treating Coronavirus 2019. Disaster Med Public Health Prep 2020;14(5):e3–e4. doi:10.1017/dmp.2020.105
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  124. 124.↵
    Chen Z, He S, Li F, Yin J, Chen X. Mobile field hospitals, an effective way of dealing with COVID-19 in China: sharing our experience. Biosci Trends 2020;14(3):212–214. doi:10.5582/bst.2020.01110
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Posted August 04, 2021.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Lymphocyte count is a universal predictor to the health status and outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-regression analysis
Kuan-Lang Lai, Fu-Chang Hu, Fang-Yu Wen, Ju-Ju Chen
medRxiv 2021.08.02.21261505; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.02.21261505
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area