Non-generalizability of biomarkers for mortality in SARS-CoV-2: a meta-analyses series

ME Rahman Shuvo, Max Schwiening, Felipe Soares, Oliver Feng, Susana Abreu, Niki Veale, William Thomas, AA Roger Thompson, Richard J Samworth, Nicholas W Morrell, Stefan J Marciniak, Elaine Soon
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.03.22282974

ABSTRACT

Objectives Sophisticated scores have been proposed for prognostication of mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 but perform inconsistently. We conducted these meta-analyses to uncover why and to pragmatically seek a single dependable biomarker for mortality.

Design We searched the PubMed database for the keywords ‘SARS-CoV-2’ with ‘biomarker name’ and ‘mortality’. All studies published from 01st December 2019 to 30th June 2021 were surveyed. To aggregate the data, the meta library in R was used to report overall mean values and 95% confidence intervals. We fitted a random effects model to obtain pooled AUCs and associated 95% confidence intervals for the European/North American, Asian, and overall datasets.

Setting and Participants Data was collected from 131 studies on SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive general hospital adult admissions (n=76,169 patients in total).

Main Outcome Measures We planned a comparison of pooled area under curves (AUCs) from Receiver Operator Characteristic curves plotted for admission D-dimer, CRP, urea, troponin and interleukin-6 levels.

Main Results Biomarker effectiveness varies significantly in different regions of the world. Admission CRP levels are a good prognostic marker for mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 in Asian countries, with a pooled area under curve (AUC) of 0.83 (95% CI 0.80-0.85), but only an average predictor of mortality in Europe/North America, with a pooled AUC of 0.67 (95% CI 0.63-0.71, P<0.0001). We observed the same pattern for D-dimer and IL-6. This variability explains why the proposed prognostic scores did not perform evenly. Notably, urea and troponin had pooled AUCs ≥ 0.78 regardless of location, implying that end-organ damage at presentation is a key prognostic factor. These differences might be due to age, genetic backgrounds, or different modes of death (younger patients in Asia dying of cytokine storm while older patients die of multi-organ failure).

Conclusions Biomarker effectiveness for prognosticating SARS-CoV-2 mortality varies significantly by geographical location. We propose that biomarkers and by extension prognostic scores need to be tailored for specific populations. This also implies that validation of commonly used prognostic scores for other conditions should occur before they are used in different populations.

Section 1: What is already known on this topic Biomarkers such as CRP, D-dimer, and interleukin-6 have been proven to have prognostic value in SARS-CoV-2. However prognostic scores using these as building blocks perform unevenly in different locations.

Section 2: What this study adds Commonly used biomarkers for SARS-CoV-2 have different efficacy in different parts of the world. For example, admission CRP and interleukin-6 levels are good prognostic markers for mortality in Asian countries but only average in Europe and North America. Prognostic markers and scores cannot be ‘transplanted’ from one region to another. This has implications not just for SARS-CoV-2 but also for scores in other conditions.

Introduction

SARS-CoV-2 is a novel beta coronavirus of zoonotic origin that emerged at the end of 2019 in Wuhan, China1. SARS-CoV-2 differs from previous viral threats in showing marked transmissibility during the asymptomatic/very early symptomatic stage2 and person-to-person transmission by both airborne and fomite routes3. At the beginning of the pandemic, there was no previous immunity, no known effective antiviral treatment, and no vaccine, resulting in a global death toll of just over six million (https://covid19.who.int/).

Due to the overwhelming number of cases and the significant morbidity and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2, reliable prognostic scores are critically important to maximize survivorship and optimize the use of limited resources. Sophisticated scoring systems have been proposed but have not performed consistently4-7. For example, El-Solh4 tested 4 prognostic models constructed to predict in-hospital mortality for SARS-CoV-2 patients; proposed by Chen et al8, Shang et al9, Yu et al10, and Wang et al11. All models had been peer reviewed and were based on a cohort size of ≥100. All the models examined had validation area under curves (AUCs) which were significantly worse than the area under curves of their derivation cohorts. For example, the AUC of the validation cohort using the model proposed by Chen et al8 was at best 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.72) compared to the derivation AUC, which was 0.91 (95% CI 0.85-0.97). A similar pattern was noted in the other 3 models.

Gupta5 tested 20 candidate prognostic models using data derived from 411 consecutively admitted adults with a PCR-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in a major London hospital. Five of these models were pre-existing point-based scores not specific for Covid19 (MEWS, REMS, qSOFA, CURB65 and NEWS2) and the remainder of which were a combination of point-based scores and logistic regression models specifically derived from SARS-CoV-2 patients. None of these methods overlapped with those previously tested by El-Solh and 9 of the 15 Covid-specific models had been developed in China. The most discriminating univariable predictor for in-hospital mortality was age (AUC 0.76 [95% CI 0.71-0.81]) and for in-hospital deterioration was oxygen saturation on room air (AUC 0.76 [95% CI 0.71-0.81]). More importantly, none of the models tested performed consistently better than these univariable predictors.

These inconsistencies are an ongoing issue. Bradley7 concluded that the overall prognostic performance of established clinical scores (CURB-65, NEWS2 and qSOFA) was generally poor with reference to SARS-CoV-2 while Fan12 concluded the opposite. To illustrate the AUC for CURB65 prognostic score was 0.85 (Fan12), 0.75 (Bradley7) and 0.698 (Kodama13). This begs the question - why are prognostic scores performing so inconsistently even when tested against cohorts who are similar clinically? We ran these meta-analyses to uncover possible reasons for these inconsistencies. As a secondary goal, we also sought an easily measurable, dependable single-parameter biomarker to predict mortality in swab-positive SARS-CoV-2 patients; especially as there is not always time or resources available to calculate a full prognostic model14.

Methods

We searched the PubMed database for the keywords ‘SARS-CoV-2’ in combination with ‘biomarker name’ and ‘mortality’. The period for the first data tranche was set from the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen on the 01st December 2019 to 30th June 2021. Two independent reviewers analyzed studies for relevance. All papers reporting mortality data for hospitalized patients swab-positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a biomarker level at presentation were examined for a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis and a corresponding Area under Curve (AUC). When studies failed to quote the margin of error for AUCs, corresponding authors were contacted and their AUC data included in pooled AUCs only if confidence intervals or standard deviations were forthcoming. All studies are displayed in summary figures for completeness. Internal ethical approval was obtained from the Integrated Research Application System (reference 281880) for analysis of the Cambridge (UK) data. To ensure biomarkers were applicable to acute adult general admissions, we excluded reports of patients already admitted to intensive care or restricted to specific groups (pregnancy, hemodialysis, or transplant patients). Mortality (30-day and/or in-hospital) was used as the endpoint. The following data was collected from the root studies: a) Area under curve and 95% confidence intervals for the biomarkers examined (admission D-dimer, CRP, IL-6, troponin, urea); b) age of cohort (mean and standard deviation) and number of patients in cohort; c) geographical location of cohort (if a multi-center study, the location of the hospital of the first author was used). Europe/North America and Asia were the sources of most studies and were therefore the focus of subsequent meta-analyses. This process is summarized in a PRISMA flowsheet depicted in Fig.1. A more detailed explanation is available in the online Supplement.

Figure 1:
Figure 1:

PRISMA flow diagram for paper review, selection, and inclusion in these meta-analyses.

Statistical analysis

To aggregate the data on age and biomarkers from individual studies, the meta library in R was used to report overall mean values and 95% confidence intervals and statistical significance of differences between mean values in the joint European and North American cohort and the Asian cohort. This analysis was based on estimates of standard errors for each study, obtained by assuming values for individual subjects were normally distributed in each study with a study-specific mean. In this way, measures of spread (IQR, SD and range) were converted into estimates of within-study standard deviations. Since the estimates of the study-specific means exhibited high levels of heterogeneity within both categories, a random effects model was fitted as opposed to a fixed effects model in the meta-analysis.

Sensitivity analyses

Sensitivity analyses were performed by serially excluding each study to determine the implications of individual studies on the pooled AUC. No individual study had a significant implication for pooled AUCs for either European/North American or the Asian cohorts (Supplementary Tables 1-5). Note that when fitting a random effects meta-analysis model, the individual study means are assumed to be random, and the between-study heterogeneity (tau2) needs to be estimated. For the pooled AUC, we used a single estimate of tau^2 based on the overall dataset (both European/North American and the Asian studies) due to small sample sizes, so removing a study affects this and thereby may shift the confidence intervals very slightly for the other subgroup.

View this table:
Table 1:

Summary of pooled area under curves and mean ages (+/-SD) for the 5 biomarkers investigated.

AUC: area under curve

CI: confidence interval

SD : standard deviation

IL-6: interleukin-6

CRP: C-reactive protein

Patient and public involvement

After discussion with members of the public we decided to display all the root data underpinning the meta-analyses on a publicly-available website (https://covid19.cimr.cam.ac.uk/), with links back to the original studies. Study authors have also volunteered that statistical software is expensive and hence inaccessible. Therefore we have written a programme in R which allows for calculation for the AUC of a biomarker which is free to download from the same website (tested by Mr Zubkov). Our intention is that everyone will be able to view the most effective biomarkers for their locale from the website. The website was tested for accessibility and ease of understanding by Ms Natalie Doughty and Mr Chris Davies.

Results

We examined 1,930 articles that were published from the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in 01st December 2019 to 30th June 2021, and selected 131 papers which met our pre-specified selection criteria. This process is summarized in Fig.1 and all reference papers are listed in the References (Meta-analyses) section.

Our meta-analyses have revealed differences in the effectiveness of biomarkers in different regions of the world. These are summarized in Figure 2. For example, admission CRP levels are a good prognostic marker for mortality in Asian countries, with a pooled AUC (area under curve) of 0.83 (95% CI 0.80-0.85) from 34 studies, but only an average predictor of mortality in Europe and North America, with a pooled AUC of 0.67 (95% CI 0.63-0.71) from 21 studies (P<0.0001, Fig. 3A, Table 1). We see the same pattern for admission D-dimer and IL-6 levels – they are good predictors of mortality in Asian countries (pooled AUCs of 0.78 [95% CI 0.76-0.82]) and 0.86 [95% CI 0.81-0.90] respectively) but not in Europe and North America (pooled AUCs of 0.69 [95% CI 0.66-0.72] and 0.70 [95% CI 0.64-0.75] respectively; P<0.0001 for both compared to Asian counterparts; Fig.3B and Fig.4A). This explains why the prognostic scores that are being proposed for SARS-CoV-2 do not perform evenly in different countries, as the ‘building blocks’ underpinning these prognostic scores have intrinsically different effectiveness in different populations.

Figure 2:
Figure 2:

Summary forest plot demonstrating pooled area under curves for the five biomarkers being meta-analyzed (CRP, D-dimer, troponin, urea, and IL-6). For ease of comparison values for Asian countries are shown in red and values for European/North American countries are shown in blue. There was insufficient data to accurately construct pooled AUCs for other geographical regions.

Figure 3:
Figure 3:
Figure 3:

Forest plot demonstrating all individual studies contributing to the meta-analyses for (A) CRP and (B) D-dimer in Asian and European/North American countries for the first tranche of data (from Jan 2020 – June 2021).

Blue diamond: pooled AUC for European/North American countries

Red diamond: pooled AUC for Asian countries

The size of each square representing an individual study corresponds with the size of the study population:

For the reader’s ease the data sources are arranged alphabetically both within the figure and in the references (meta-analyses) sections.

Figure 4:
Figure 4:
Figure 4:

Forest plot demonstrating all individual studies contributing to the meta-analyses for (A) IL-6, (B) troponin, and (C) urea in Asian and European/North American countries for the first tranche of data (from Jan 2020 – June 2021).

Blue diamond: pooled AUC for European/North American countries

Red diamond: pooled AUC for Asian countries

The size of each square representing an individual study corresponds with the size of the study population:

For the reader’s ease, the data sources are arranged alphabetically both within the figure and in the references (meta-analyses) sections.

There are two biomarkers that performed well in all cohorts regardless of geographical location. Admission troponin levels had a pooled AUC of 0.81 [95% CI 0.77-0.85] in Asian countries and a pooled AUC of 0.79 [95% CI 0.74-0.83] in European and North American countries (Fig.4B). Similarly, urea levels on admission had a pooled AUC of 0.79 [95% CI 0.70-0.85] in Asian countries and a pooled AUC of 0.78 [95% CI 0.74-0.81] in European and North American countries (Fig.4C). This implies that end-organ damage at the time of presentation is a key prognostic indicator of severity for SARS-CoV-2.

Pooling all the results from Asian, European, and North American studies gives a false impression of overall effectiveness for CRP, D-dimer, and IL-6 (Table 1). As an example, the pooled AUC for CRP for the entire dataset is 0.78 (95% CI 0.74-0.81). When separated into the regional blocks as previously described it becomes obvious that the Asian studies are skewing the results and masking the fact that admission levels of CRP, D-dimer and IL-6 are simply not very effective in predicting mortality in European and North American countries.

Discussion

We demonstrate for the first time that biomarker effectiveness for mortality in SARS-CoV-2 varies significantly by geographical location. This important finding has impact for clinicians using biomarkers and/or prognostic scores derived in other regions to assist the process of decision-making (e.g. whether to admit to intensive care) particularly when ‘waves’ of infection risk overwhelming local health resources.

We propose that biomarkers need to be tailored for specific populations in specific locations. Consistent with our findings, Marino et al15 demonstrated that a prognostic score developed in the same country (PREDI-CO, Bartoletti et al16, Italy) had reasonable predictive power (AUC of 0.76, 95% CI 0.58-0.93) while a prognostic score developed in another country (Yan-XGBoost, Yan et al17, China) did not perform satisfactorily (AUC of 0.57, 95% CI 0.37-0.76) when applied to their cohort.

Our observations are likely to apply to other conditions. CURB-65 is well-known and validated as a tool for predicting mortality in community-acquired pneumonia18, developed in the UK, New Zealand and the Netherlands. However it performs less satisfactorily in older populations19. For example, Shirata et al20 demonstrated that CURB-65 had an AUC of 0.672 (95% CI 0.607-0.732) when applied to patients ≥65 years. Since Japan has one of the highest life expectancies in the world it is likely that CURB-65 would not perform as well if applied to a Japanese cohort. Interestingly, CURB-65 also performs relatively poorly when applied to Colombian patients (AUCs of 0.629-0.669 when tested against 3 cohorts)21. Hincapie suggested that this may be due to the factors underpinning a significant difference in community-acquired pneumonia associated mortality (9.5%18 versus 17-32%21).

It is not possible to know from these descriptive meta-analyses why there are these regional differences in biomarker effectiveness. The differences might be due to cohort age, different modes of death, genetic backgrounds, treatment effects, and/or various combinations of the above. The Asian cohorts were universally younger than the European/North American cohorts in all five parameters we investigated (CRP, D-dimer, troponin, urea, and IL-6; Table 1). It is possible that in Asia younger patients were dying from cytokine storm (hence the marked prognostic value of the ‘inflammatory’ markers such as CRP, D-dimer, and IL-6), while in Europe older people were dying from multi-organ failure.

It is also possible that there has been a ‘training effect’, with the West having had prior warning from the Asian experience. The earlier use of specific anti-inflammatory approaches, in particular steroids and tocilizumab, has most probably blunted the effectiveness of markers such as IL-6 and CRP as predictors of death. The use of social contact-limiting measures (‘lockdowns’) has likely changed the composition of people falling ill and hence seeking hospital admission.

This study has a number of limitations. First, a significant number of studies did not quote 95% confidence intervals (14 of 78 for D-dimer, 18 of 75 for CRP, 3 of 35 for troponin, 1 of 16 for urea, 8 of 38 for IL-6) and we were unable to obtain them despite best efforts to communicate with the authors. These studies are included in Figs.3-4 but are not included in calculation of the pooled AUCs. Second, insufficient numbers of studies were located in other continents to perform an adequate meta-analysis. Finally, the majority of studies in the Asian section were from China (so 34 of 47 studies for CRP were on the Chinese population) and so the result may be representative of the Chinese population rather than of Asian populations in general.

We acknowledge that SARS-CoV-2 is a rapidly evolving pathogen and the rise of different strains and advent of mass vaccination programs will likely change biomarker effectiveness. To track these changes, we have mapped the root studies on the following website (https://covid19.cimr.cam.ac.uk/) so that all may see which biomarkers perform well in their locale. We propose a free-to-use software program that the healthcare community can use to check whether their biomarker of choice is effective in their population. We would request that results from this be uploaded so we can periodically update the website. Critically, published information on SARS-CoV-2 lags behind the immediate need for such. We aim to display shared data in real time to inform regional practice and identify trends in biomarker utility following vaccination and viral mutation.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.

Footnotes

  • Disclosures All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest / and declare: no support from any commercial organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

  • Ethics approval Internal ethical approval was obtained from the Integrated Research Application System (reference 281880) for analysis of the Cambridge (UK) data. All the other data has been published and is in the public domain.

  • Transparency E Soon affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported and that no important aspects of the study have been omitted.

  • Funding ES and MS are supported by the UK Medical Research Council (MR/R008051/1); the British Medical Association (the Josephine Lansdell Award); and the Association of Physicians of Great Britain and Ireland (Young Investigator Award to ES); the Wellcome Trust ISSF and the Cambridge BHF Centre of Research Excellence (RE/18/1/34212). MES and WT are full-time NHS physicians who have volunteered their time for this work. FS received in-kind funding by the AWS Diagnostic Development Initiative and Google TPU Research Cloud. NV is supported by a BLF-Papworth Fellowship from the British Lung Foundation and the Victor Dahdaleh Foundation (VPDCF17-18). AART is supported by a British Heart Foundation Intermediate Clinical Fellowship (FS/18/13/33281). OF is funded by the StatScale programme (EP/N031938/1). RJS is supported by Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council grants EP/P031447/1 and EP/N031938/1, as well as ERC Advanced Grant 101019498. SA and SJM are funded by the British Lung Foundation (VPDCF17-18), the Medical Research Council, UK (MR/V028669/1), the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Campus (BRC-1215-20014) and the Royal Papworth NHS Trust. NWM is supported by the British Heart Foundation (SP/12/12/29836), the Cambridge BHF Centre of Research Excellence (RE/18/1/34212), the UK Medical Research Council (MR/K020919/1), the Dinosaur Trust, BHF Programme grants to NWM (RG/13/4/30107), and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.

References (body of manuscript)

  1. 1.↵
    Hu B, Guo H, Zhou P, et al. Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Nat Rev Microbiol 2021;19(3):141–54. doi: 10.1038/s41579-020-00459-7 [published Online First: 2020/10/08]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Yanes-Lane M, Winters N, Fregonese F, et al. Proportion of asymptomatic infection among COVID-19 positive persons and their transmission potential: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2020;15(11):e0241536. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241536 [published Online First: 2020/11/04]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Bak A, Mugglestone MA, Ratnaraja NV, et al. SARS-CoV-2 routes of transmission and recommendations for preventing acquisition: joint British Infection Association (BIA), Healthcare Infection Society (HIS), Infection Prevention Society (IPS) and Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) guidance. J Hosp Infect 2021;114:79–103. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2021.04.027 [published Online First: 2021/05/04]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    El-Solh AA, Lawson Y, Carter M, et al. Comparison of in-hospital mortality risk prediction models from COVID-19. PLoS One 2020;15(12):e0244629. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244629 [published Online First: 2020/12/29]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    Gupta RK, Marks M, Samuels THA, et al. Systematic evaluation and external validation of 22 prognostic models among hospitalised adults with COVID-19: an observational cohort study. Eur Respir J 2020;56(6) doi: 10.1183/13993003.03498-2020 [published Online First: 2020/09/27]
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.
    Knight SR, Ho A, Pius R, et al. Risk stratification of patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol: development and validation of the 4C Mortality Score. Bmj 2020;370:m3339. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3339 [published Online First: 2020/09/11]
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Bradley P, Frost F, Tharmaratnam K, et al. Utility of established prognostic scores in COVID-19 hospital admissions: multicentre prospective evaluation of CURB-65, NEWS2 and qSOFA. BMJ Open Respir Res 2020;7(1) doi: 10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000729
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    Chen R, Liang W, Jiang M, et al. Risk Factors of Fatal Outcome in Hospitalized Subjects With Coronavirus Disease 2019 From a Nationwide Analysis in China. Chest 2020;158(1):97–105. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.010 [published Online First: 2020/04/19]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    Shang Y, Liu T, Wei Y, et al. Scoring systems for predicting mortality for severe patients with COVID-19. EClinicalMedicine 2020;24:100426. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100426 [published Online First: 2020/08/09]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    Yu C, Lei Q, Li W, et al. Clinical Characteristics, Associated Factors, and Predicting COVID-19 Mortality Risk: A Retrospective Study in Wuhan, China. Am J Prev Med 2020;59(2):168–75. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.05.002 [published Online First: 2020/06/23]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Wang K, Zuo P, Liu Y, et al. Clinical and Laboratory Predictors of In-hospital Mortality in Patients With Coronavirus Disease-2019: A Cohort Study in Wuhan, China. Clin Infect Dis 2020;71(16):2079–88. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa538 [published Online First: 2020/05/04]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Fan G, Tu C, Zhou F, et al. Comparison of severity scores for COVID-19 patients with pneumonia: a retrospective study. Eur Respir J 2020;56(3) doi: 10.1183/13993003.02113-2020 [published Online First: 20200910]
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    Kodama T, Obinata H, Mori H, et al. Prediction of an increase in oxygen requirement of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia using three different scoring systems. J Infect Chemother 2021;27(2):336–41. doi: 10.1016/j.jiac.2020.12.009 [published Online First: 2021/01/07]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.↵
    Schultz MJ, Gebremariam TH, Park C, et al. Pragmatic Recommendations for the Use of Diagnostic Testing and Prognostic Models in Hospitalized Patients with Severe COVID-19 in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2021;104(3_Suppl):34–47. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.20-0730 [published Online First: 2021/02/04]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Marino L, Suppa M, Rosa A, et al. Time to hospitalisation, CT pulmonary involvement and in-hospital death in COVID-19 patients in an Emergency Medicine Unit. Int J Clin Pract 2021;75(9):e14426. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.14426 [published Online First: 20210616]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.↵
    Bartoletti M, Giannella M, Scudeller L, et al. Development and validation of a prediction model for severe respiratory failure in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a multicentre cohort study (PREDI-CO study). Clin Microbiol Infect 2020;26(11):1545–53. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.08.003 [published Online First: 20200808]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    Yan L, Zhang H-T, Goncalves J, et al. An interpretable mortality prediction model for COVID-19 patients. Nature Machine Intelligence 2020;2(5):283–88. doi: 10.1038/s42256-020-0180-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    Lim WS, van der Eerden MM, Laing R, et al. Defining community acquired pneumonia severity on presentation to hospital: an international derivation and validation study. Thorax 2003;58(5):377–82. doi: 10.1136/thorax.58.5.377
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    Parsonage M, Nathwani D, Davey P, et al. Evaluation of the performance of CURB-65 with increasing age. Clin Microbiol Infect 2009;15(9):858–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2009.02908.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Shirata M, Ito I, Ishida T, et al. Development and validation of a new scoring system for prognostic prediction of community-acquired pneumonia in older adults. Sci Rep 2021;11(1):23878. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-03440-3 [published Online First: 20211213]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.↵
    Hincapié C, Ascuntar J, León A, et al. Community-acquired pneumonia: comparison of three mortality prediction scores in the emergency department. Colomb Med (Cali) 2021;52(4):e2044287. doi: 10.25100/cm.v52i4.4287 [published Online First: 20211023]
    OpenUrlCrossRef

References (Meta-analyses)

  1. 1.
    Aksel G, Islam MM, Algin A, Eroglu SE, Yasar GB, Ademoglu E, Dölek Ü C. Early predictors of mortality for moderate to severely ill patients with Covid-19. Am J Emerg Med 2021; 45: 290–296.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.
    Aloisio E, Chibireva M, Serafini L, Pasqualetti S, Falvella FS, Dolci A, Panteghini M. A Comprehensive Appraisal of Laboratory Biochemistry Tests as Major Predictors of COVID-19 Severity. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2020; 144: 1457–1464.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.
    Antunez Muiños PJ, López Otero D, Amat-Santos IJ, López País J, Aparisi A, Cacho Antonio CE, Catalá P, González Ferrero T, Cabezón G, Otero García O, Gil JF, Pérez Poza M, Candela J, Rojas G, Jiménez Ramos V, Veras C, San Román JA, González-Juanatey JR. The COVID-19 lab score: an accurate dynamic tool to predict in-hospital outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Sci Rep 2021; 11: 9361.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.
    Asghar MS, Haider Kazmi SJ, Khan NA, Akram M, Hassan M, Rasheed U, Ahmed Khan S. Poor Prognostic Biochemical Markers Predicting Fatalities Caused by COVID-19: A Retrospective Observational Study From a Developing Country. Cureus 2020; 12: e9575.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.
    Bastug A, Bodur H, Erdogan S, Gokcinar D, Kazancioglu S, Kosovali BD, Ozbay BO, Gok G, Turan IO, Yilmaz G, Gonen CC, Yilmaz FM. Clinical and laboratory features of COVID-19: Predictors of severe prognosis. Int Immunopharmacol 2020; 88: 106950.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.
    Bilgir F, Çalik S, Demir I, Bilgir O. Roles of certain biochemical and hematological parameters in predicting mortality and ICU admission in COVID-19 patients. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) 2021; 67Suppl 1: 67–73.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.
    Bintoro SUY, Dwijayanti NMI, Pramudya D, Amrita PN, Romadhon PZ, Asmarawati TP, Bachtiar A, Hadi U. Hematologic and coagulopathy parameter as a survival predictor among moderate to severe COVID-19 patients in non-ICU ward: a single-center study at the main referral hospital in Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia. F1000Res 2021; 10: 791.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.
    Cao J, Zheng Y, Luo Z, Mei Z, Yao Y, Liu Z, Liang C, Yang H, Song Y, Yu K, Gao Y, Zhu C, Huang Z, Qian J, Ge J. Myocardial injury and COVID-19: Serum hs-cTnI level in risk stratification and the prediction of 30-day fatality in COVID-19 patients with no prior cardiovascular disease. Theranostics 2020; 10: 9663–9673.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.
    Carlino MV, Valenti N, Cesaro F, Costanzo A, Cristiano G, Guarino M, Sforza A. Predictors of Intensive Care Unit admission in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Monaldi Arch Chest Dis 2020; 90.
  10. 10.
    Chen FF, Zhong M, Liu Y, Zhang Y, Zhang K, Su DZ, Meng X, Zhang Y. The characteristics and outcomes of 681 severe cases with COVID-19 in China. J Crit Care 2020; 60: 32–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.
    Chen H, Li X, Marmar T, Xu Q, Tu J, Li T, Han J, Xu D, Shen T. Cardiac Troponin I association with critical illness and death risk in 726 seriously ill COVID-19 patients: A retrospective cohort study. Int J Med Sci 2021; 18: 1474–1483.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.
    Chen L, Hu W, Guo X, Zhao P, Tang J, Gu Y, Huang N, Wang C, Cui A, Zhang D, Hu L, Feng Y, Hu S, Chen M, Duru F, Xiong C. Association of coagulation dysfunction with cardiac injury among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Sci Rep 2021; 11: 4432.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.
    Chen X, Wang Q, Xu M, Li C. A Retrospective Analysis of the Coagulation Dysfunction in COVID-19 Patients. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 2020; 26: 1076029620964868.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.
    Cheng A, Hu L, Wang Y, Huang L, Zhao L, Zhang C, Liu X, Xu R, Liu F, Li J, Ye D, Wang T, Lv Y, Liu Q. Diagnostic performance of initial blood urea nitrogen combined with D-dimer levels for predicting in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2020; 56: 106110.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.
    Cheng B, Hu J, Zuo X, Chen J, Li X, Chen Y, Yang G, Shi X, Deng A. Predictors of progression from moderate to severe coronavirus disease 2019: a retrospective cohort. Clin Microbiol Infect 2020; 26: 1400–1405.
    OpenUrl
  16. Cheng S, Wu D, Li J, Zou Y, Wan Y, Shen L, Zhu L, Shi M, Hou L, Xu T, Jiao N, Li Y, Huang Y, Tang Z, Xu M, Jiang S, Li M, Yan G, Lan P, Zhu R. Risk factors for the critical illness in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Respir Res 2020; 21: 277.
    OpenUrl
  17. 16.
    Chocron R, Duceau B, Gendron N, Ezzouhairi N, Khider L, Trimaille A, Goudot G, Weizman O, Alsac JM, Pommier T, Bory O, Cellier J, Philippe A, Geneste L, Ben Abdallah I, Panagides V, El Batti S, Marsou W, Juvin P, Deney A, Messas E, Attou S, Planquette B, Mika D, Gaussem P, Fauvel C, Diehl JL, Pezel T, Mirault T, Sutter W, Sanchez O, Bonnet G, Cohen A, Smadja DM. D-dimer at hospital admission for COVID-19 are associated with in-hospital mortality, independent of venous thromboembolism: Insights from a French multicenter cohort study. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 2021.
  18. 17.
    Cipriani A, Capone F, Donato F, Molinari L, Ceccato D, Saller A, Previato L, Pesavento R, Sarais C, Fioretto P, Iliceto S, Gregori D, Avogaro A, Vettor R. Cardiac injury and mortality in patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): insights from a mediation analysis. Intern Emerg Med 2021; 16: 419–427.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 18.
    Creel-Bulos C, Liu M, Auld SC, Gaddh M, Kempton CL, Sharifpour M, Sniecinski RM, Maier CL, Nahab FB, Rangaraju S. Trends and diagnostic value of D-dimer levels in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020; 99: e23186.
    OpenUrl
  20. 19.
    De Michieli L, Babuin L, Vigolo S, Berti De Marinis G, Lunardon A, Favretto F, Lobo R, Sandoval Y, Bryant SC, Donato D, Plebani M, Vettor R, Iliceto S, Cianci V, Jaffe AS. Using high sensitivity cardiac troponin values in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19): The Padova experience. Clin Biochem 2021; 90: 8–14.
    OpenUrl
  21. 20.
    Deng P, Ke Z, Ying B, Qiao B, Yuan L. The diagnostic and prognostic role of myocardial injury biomarkers in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Clin Chim Acta 2020; 510: 186–190.
    OpenUrl
  22. 21.
    Dolci A, Robbiano C, Aloisio E, Chibireva M, Serafini L, Falvella FS, Pasqualetti S, Panteghini M. Searching for a role of procalcitonin determination in COVID-19: a study on a selected cohort of hospitalized patients. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020; 59: 433–440.
    OpenUrl
  23. 22.
    Donoso-Navarro E, Arribas Gómez I, Bernabeu-Andreu FA. IL-6 and Other Biomarkers associated with Poor Prognosis in a Cohort of Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 in Madrid. Biomark Insights 2021; 16: 11772719211013363.
    OpenUrl
  24. 23.
    Duan J, Wang X, Chi J, Chen H, Bai L, Hu Q, Han X, Hu W, Zhu L, Wang X, Li Y, Zhou C, Mou H, Yan X, Guo S. Correlation between the variables collected at admission and progression to severe cases during hospitalization among patients with COVID-19 in Chongqing. J Med Virol 2020; 92: 2616–2622.
    OpenUrl
  25. 24.
    Fu J, Kong J, Wang W, Wu M, Yao L, Wang Z, Jin J, Wu D, Yu X. The clinical implication of dynamic neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and D-dimer in COVID-19: A retrospective study in Suzhou China. Thromb Res 2020; 192: 3–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 25.
    Gao Y, Li T, Han M, Li X, Wu D, Xu Y, Zhu Y, Liu Y, Wang X, Wang L. Diagnostic utility of clinical laboratory data determinations for patients with the severe COVID-19. J Med Virol 2020; 92: 791–796.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. 26.
    Gatti M, Calandri M, Biondo A, Geninatti C, Piatti C, Ruggirello I, Santonocito A, Varello S, Bergamasco L, Bironzo P, Boccuzzi A, Brazzi L, Caironi P, Cardinale L, Cavallo R, Riccardini F, Limerutti G, Veltri A, Fonio P, Faletti R. Emergency room comprehensive assessment of demographic, radiological, laboratory and clinical data of patients with COVID-19: determination of its prognostic value for in-hospital mortality. Intern Emerg Med 2022; 17: 205–214.
    OpenUrl
  28. 27.
    Gavin W, Campbell E, Zaidi SA, Gavin N, Dbeibo L, Beeler C, Kuebler K, Abdel-Rahman A, Luetkemeyer M, Kara A. Clinical characteristics, outcomes and prognosticators in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Am J Infect Control 2021; 49: 158–165.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. 28.
    Genç AB, Yaylaci S, Dheir H, Genç AC, Issever K, Çekiç D, Kocayigit H, Çokluk E, Karacan A, Sekeroglu MR, Toptan Çakar H, Güçlü E. The predictive and diagnostic accuracy of long pentraxin-3 in COVID-19 pneumonia. Turk J Med Sci 2021; 51: 448–453.
    OpenUrl
  30. 29.
    Goudot G, Chocron R, Augy JL, Gendron N, Khider L, Debuc B, Aissaoui N, Peron N, Hauw-Berlemont C, Vedie B, Cheng C, Mohamedi N, Krzisch D, Philippe A, Puscas T, Hermann B, Brichet J, Juvin P, Planquette B, Messas E, Pere H, Veyer D, Gaussem P, Sanchez O, Diehl JL, Mirault T, Smadja DM. Predictive Factor for COVID-19 Worsening: Insights for High-Sensitivity Troponin and D-Dimer and Correlation With Right Ventricular Afterload. Front Med (Lausanne) 2020; 7: 586307.
    OpenUrl
  31. 30.
    Gu Y, Wang D, Chen C, Lu W, Liu H, Lv T, Song Y, Zhang F. PaO(2)/FiO(2) and IL-6 are risk factors of mortality for intensive care COVID-19 patients. Sci Rep 2021; 11: 7334.
    OpenUrl
  32. 31.
    Guirao JJ, Cabrera CM, Jiménez N, Rincón L, Urra JM. High serum IL-6 values increase the risk of mortality and the severity of pneumonia in patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Mol Immunol 2020; 128: 64–68.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. 32.
    Güneysu F, Guner NG, Erdem AF, Durmus E, Durgun Y, Yurumez Y. Can COVID-19 Mortality be Predicted in the Emergency Room? J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2020; 30: 928–932.
    OpenUrl
  34. 33.
    Han H, Ma Q, Li C, Liu R, Zhao L, Wang W, Zhang P, Liu X, Gao G, Liu F, Jiang Y, Cheng X, Zhu C, Xia Y. Profiling serum cytokines in COVID-19 patients reveals IL-6 and IL-10 are disease severity predictors. Emerg Microbes Infect 2020; 9: 1123–1130.
    OpenUrl
  35. 34.
    Harmouch F, Shah K, Hippen JT, Kumar A, Goel H. Is it all in the heart? Myocardial injury as major predictor of mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. J Med Virol 2021; 93: 973–982.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. 35.
    He X, Yao F, Chen J, Wang Y, Fang X, Lin X, Long H, Wang Q, Wu Q. The poor prognosis and influencing factors of high D-dimer levels for COVID-19 patients. Sci Rep 2021; 11: 1830.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 36.
    Herold T, Jurinovic V, Arnreich C, Lipworth BJ, Hellmuth JC, von Bergwelt-Baildon M, Klein M, Weinberger T. Elevated levels of IL-6 and CRP predict the need for mechanical ventilation in COVID-19. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2020; 146: 128-136.e124.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 37.
    Huang Y, Lyu X, Li D, Wang L, Wang Y, Zou W, Wei Y, Wu X. A cohort study of 676 patients indicates D-dimer is a critical risk factor for the mortality of COVID-19. PLoS One 2020; 15: e0242045.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. 38.
    Infante M, Buoso A, Pieri M, Lupisella S, Nuccetelli M, Bernardini S, Fabbri A, Iannetta M, Andreoni M, Colizzi V, Morello M. Low Vitamin D Status at Admission as a Risk Factor for Poor Survival in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: An Italian Retrospective Study. J Am Coll Nutr 2021: 1–16.
  40. 39.
    Jin X, Duan Y, Bao T, Gu J, Chen Y, Li Y, Mao S, Chen Y, Xie W. The values of coagulation function in COVID-19 patients. PLoS One 2020; 15: e0241329.
    OpenUrl
  41. 40.
    Jøntvedt Jørgensen M, Holter JC, Christensen EE, Schjalm C, Tonby K, Pischke SE, Jenum S, Skeie LG, Nur S, Lind A, Opsand H, Enersen TB, Grøndahl R, Hermann A, Dudman S, Muller F, Ueland T, Mollnes TE, Aukrust P, Heggelund L, Holten AR, Dyrhol-Riise AM. Increased interleukin-6 and macrophage chemoattractant protein-1 are associated with respiratory failure in COVID-19. Sci Rep 2020; 10: 21697.
    OpenUrl
  42. 41.
    Kaufmann CC, Ahmed A, Kassem M, Freynhofer MK, Jäger B, Aicher G, Equiluz-Bruck S, Spiel AO, Funk GC, Gschwantler M, Fasching P, Wojta J, Huber K. Mid-regional pro-atrial natriuretic peptide independently predicts short-term mortality in COVID-19. Eur J Clin Invest 2021; 51: e13531.
    OpenUrl
  43. 42.
    Ke C, Yu C, Yue D, Zeng X, Hu Z, Yang C. Clinical characteristics of confirmed and clinically diagnosed patients with 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia: a single-center, retrospective, case-control study. Med Clin (Engl Ed) 2020; 155: 327–334.
    OpenUrl
  44. 43.
    Keski H. Hematological and Inflammatory Parameters to Predict the Prognosis in COVID-19. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus 2021: 1–9.
  45. 44.
    Korkusuz R, Karandere F, Senoglu S, Kocoglu H, Yasar KK. The prognostic role of D-dimer in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Bratisl Lek Listy 2021; 122: 811–815.
    OpenUrl
  46. 45.
    Küçükceran K, Ayranci MK, Girisgin AS, Koçak S. Predictive value of D-dimer/albumin ratio and fibrinogen/albumin ratio for in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19. Int J Clin Pract 2021: e14263.
  47. 46.
    Laguna-Goya R, Utrero-Rico A, Talayero P, Lasa-Lazaro M, Ramirez-Fernandez A, Naranjo L, Segura-Tudela A, Cabrera-Marante O, Rodriguez de Frias E, Garcia-Garcia R, Fernández-Ruiz M, Aguado JM, Martinez-Lopez J, Lopez EA, Catalan M, Serrano A, Paz-Artal E. IL-6-based mortality risk model for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2020; 146: 799-807.e799.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 47.
    Li J, Wang L, Liu C, Wang Z, Lin Y, Dong X, Fan R. Exploration of prognostic factors for critical COVID-19 patients using a nomogram model. Sci Rep 2021; 11: 8192.
    OpenUrl
  49. 48.
    Li Y, Li H, Song C, Lu R, Zhao Y, Lin F, Han D, Chen L, Pan P, Dai M. Early Prediction of Disease Progression in Patients with Severe COVID-19 Using C-Reactive Protein to Albumin Ratio. Dis Markers 2021; 2021: 6304189.
    OpenUrl
  50. 49.
    Liang M, He M, Tang J, He X, Liu Z, Feng S, Chen P, Li H, Xue Y, Bai T, Ma Y, Zhang J. Novel risk scoring system for predicting acute respiratory distress syndrome among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in Wuhan, China. BMC Infect Dis 2020; 20: 960.
    OpenUrl
  51. 50.
    Liu F, Li L, Xu M, Wu J, Luo D, Zhu Y, Li B, Song X, Zhou X. Prognostic value of interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin in patients with COVID-19. J Clin Virol 2020; 127: 104370.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 51.
    Liu Q, Song NC, Zheng ZK, Li JS, Li SK. Laboratory findings and a combined multifactorial approach to predict death in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a retrospective study. Epidemiol Infect 2020; 148: e129.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 52.
    Liu SL, Wang SY, Sun YF, Jia QY, Yang CL, Cai PJ, Li JY, Wang L, Chen Y. Expressions of SAA, CRP, and FERR in different severities of COVID-19. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2020; 24: 11386–11394.
    OpenUrl
  54. 53.
    Long H, Nie L, Xiang X, Li H, Zhang X, Fu X, Ren H, Liu W, Wang Q, Wu Q. D-Dimer and Prothrombin Time Are the Significant Indicators of Severe COVID-19 and Poor Prognosis. Biomed Res Int 2020; 2020: 6159720.
    OpenUrl
  55. 54.
    Luo HC, You CY, Lu SW, Fu YQ. Characteristics of coagulation alteration in patients with COVID-19. Ann Hematol 2021; 100: 45–52.
    OpenUrl
  56. 55.
    Luo X, Zhou W, Yan X, Guo T, Wang B, Xia H, Ye L, Xiong J, Jiang Z, Liu Y, Zhang B, Yang W. Prognostic Value of C-Reactive Protein in Patients With Coronavirus 2019. Clin Infect Dis 2020; 71: 2174–2179.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  57. 56.
    Luo Y, Xue Y, Mao L, Yuan X, Lin Q, Tang G, Song H, Wang F, Sun Z. Prealbumin as a Predictor of Prognosis in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019. Front Med (Lausanne) 2020; 7: 374.
    OpenUrl
  58. 57.
    Macias-Muñoz L, Wijngaard R, González-de la Presa B, Bedini JL, Morales-Ruiz M, Jiménez W. Value of clinical laboratory test for early prediction of mortality in patients with COVID-19: the BGM score. J Circ Biomark 2021; 10: 1–8.
    OpenUrl
  59. 58.
    Maeda T, Obata R, Rizk DD, Kuno T. The association of interleukin-6 value, interleukin inhibitors, and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 in New York City. J Med Virol 2021; 93: 463–471.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  60. 59.
    Manocha KK, Kirzner J, Ying X, Yeo I, Peltzer B, Ang B, Li HA, Lerman BB, Safford MM, Goyal P, Cheung JW. Troponin and Other Biomarker Levels and Outcomes Among Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: Derivation and Validation of the HA(2)T(2) COVID-19 Mortality Risk Score. J Am Heart Assoc 2021; 10: e018477.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. 60.
    Miki S, Sasaki H, Horiuchi H, Miyata N, Yoshimura Y, Miyazaki K, Matsumura T, Takahashi Y, Suzuki T, Matano T, Kawana-Tachikawa A, Tachikawa N. On-admission SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia as a single potent predictive marker of critical condition development and mortality in COVID-19. PLoS One 2021; 16: e0254640.
    OpenUrl
  62. 61.
    Montrucchio G, Sales G, Rumbolo F, Palmesino F, Fanelli V, Urbino R, et al. Effectiveness of mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) as prognostic marker in COVID-19 critically ill patients: An observational prospective study. PLoS One. 2021;16(2):e0246771.
    OpenUrl
  63. 62.
    Mueller AA, Tamura T, Crowley CP, DeGrado JR, Haider H, Jezmir JL, et al. Inflammatory Biomarker Trends Predict Respiratory Decline in COVID-19 Patients. Cell Rep Med. 2020;1(8):100144.
    OpenUrl
  64. 63.
    Muhammad R, Ogunti R, Ahmed B, Munawar M, Donaldson S, Sumon M, et al. Clinical Characteristics and Predictors of Mortality in Minority Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 Infection. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2021:1–11.
  65. 64.
    Myhre PL, Prebensen C, Strand H, Røysland R, Jonassen CM, Rangberg A, et al. Growth Differentiation Factor 15 Provides Prognostic Information Superior to Established Cardiovascular and Inflammatory Biomarkers in Unselected Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19. Circulation. 2020;142(22):2128–37.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  66. 65.
    Nagant C, Ponthieux F, Smet J, Dauby N, Doyen V, Besse-Hammer T, et al. A score combining early detection of cytokines accurately predicts COVID-19 severity and intensive care unit transfer. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;101:342–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 66.
    Naymagon L, Zubizarreta N, Feld J, van Gerwen M, Alsen M, Thibaud S, et al. Admission D-dimer levels, D-dimer trends, and outcomes in COVID-19. Thromb Res. 2020;196:99–105.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 67.
    Okuyan HM, Dogan S, Bal T, Çabalak M. Beclin-1, an autophagy-related protein, is associated with the disease severity of COVID-19. Life Sci. 2021;278:119596.
    OpenUrl
  69. 68.
    Oliva A, Borrazzo C, Mascellino MT, Curtolo A, Al Ismail D, Cancelli F, et al. CURB-65 plus hypoalbuminemia: a new score system for prediction of the in-hospital mortality risk in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Infez Med. 2021;29(3):408–15.
    OpenUrl
  70. 69.
    Omland T, Prebensen C, Røysland R, Søvik S, Sørensen V, Røsjø H, et al. Established Cardiovascular Biomarkers Provide Limited Prognostic Information in Unselected Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19. Circulation. 2020;142(19):1878–80.
    OpenUrl
  71. 70.
    Otoshi R, Hagiwara E, Kitayama T, Yamaya T, Higa K, Murohashi K, et al. Clinical characteristics of Japanese patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. J Infect Chemother. 2021;27(6):895–901.
    OpenUrl
  72. 71.
    Ozdin M, Yazar H, Yaylaci S, Koroglu M, Genc AC, Kocayigit I, et al. Evaluation of cardiac parameters between survivors and nonsurvivors of COVID-19 patients. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2021;67Suppl 1(Suppl 1):80-5.
    OpenUrl
  73. 72.
    Özyilmaz S, Ergün Alis E, Ermis E, Allahverdiyev S, Uçar H. Assessment of the Relationship between Mortality and Troponin I Levels in Hospitalized Patients with the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19). Medicina (Kaunas). 2020;56(12).
  74. 73.
    Pan M, Wang RR, Chen X, Han J, Li Q, Miao M, et al. Laboratory predictors of severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 and lung function in followed-up. Clin Respir J. 2021.
  75. 74.
    Pascual Gómez NF, Monge Lobo I, Granero Cremades I, Figuerola Tejerina A, Ramasco Rueda F, von Wernitz Teleki A, et al. [Potential biomarkers predictors of mortality in COVID-19 patients in the Emergency Department]. Rev Esp Quimioter. 2020;33(4):267–73.
    OpenUrl
  76. 75.
    Peiró Ó M, Carrasquer A, Sánchez-Gimenez R, Lal-Trehan N, Del-Moral-Ronda V, Bonet G, et al. Biomarkers and short-term prognosis in COVID-19. Biomarkers. 2021;26(2):119–26.
    OpenUrl
  77. 76.
    Petersen-Uribe A, Avdiu A, Martus P, Witzel K, Jaeger P, Zdanyte M, et al. Impaired Myocardial Function Is Prognostic for Severe Respiratory Failure in the Course of COVID-19 Infection. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:584108.
    OpenUrl
  78. 77.
    Pieri M, Ciotti M, Nuccetelli M, Perrone MA, Caliò MT, Lia MS, et al. Serum Amyloid A Protein as a useful biomarker to predict COVID-19 patients severity and prognosis. Int Immunopharmacol. 2021;95:107512.
    OpenUrl
  79. 78.
    Poudel A, Poudel Y, Adhikari A, Aryal BB, Dangol D, Bajracharya T, et al. D-dimer as a biomarker for assessment of COVID-19 prognosis: D-dimer levels on admission and its role in predicting disease outcome in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. PLoS One. 2021;16(8):e0256744.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  80. 79.
    Pouw N, van de Maat J, Veerman K, Ten Oever J, Janssen N, Abbink E, et al. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of 952 hospitalized COVID-19 patients in The Netherlands: A retrospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2021;16(3):e0248713.
    OpenUrl
  81. 80.
    Qeadan F, Tingey B, Gu LY, Packard AH, Erdei E, Saeed AI. Prognostic Values of Serum Ferritin and D-Dimer Trajectory in Patients with COVID-19. Viruses. 2021;13(3).
  82. 81.
    Qin JJ, Cheng X, Zhou F, Lei F, Akolkar G, Cai J, et al. Redefining Cardiac Biomarkers in Predicting Mortality of Inpatients With COVID-19. Hypertension. 2020;76(4):1104–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. 82.
    Qin ZJ, Liu L, Sun Q, Li X, Luo JF, Liu JS, et al. Impaired immune and coagulation systems may be early risk factors for COVID-19 patients: A retrospective study of 118 inpatients from Wuhan, China. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99(35):e21700.
    OpenUrl
  84. 83.
    Quartuccio L, Fabris M, Sonaglia A, Peghin M, Domenis R, Cifù A, et al. Interleukin 6, soluble interleukin 2 receptor alpha (CD25), monocyte colony-stimulating factor, and hepatocyte growth factor linked with systemic hyperinflammation, innate immunity hyperactivation, and organ damage in COVID-19 pneumonia. Cytokine. 2021;140:155438.
    OpenUrl
  85. 84.
    Ramesh J, Reddy SLS, Rajesh M, Varghese J. Evaluation of simple and cost-effective immuno-haematological markers to predict outcome in hospitalized severe COVID-19 patients, with a focus on diabetes mellitus -A retrospective study in Andhra Pradesh, India. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2021;15(3):739–45.
    OpenUrl
  86. 85.
    Rubio-Rivas M, Corbella X, Formiga F, Menéndez Fernández E, Martín Escalante MD, Baños Fernández I, et al. Risk Categories in COVID-19 Based on Degrees of Inflammation: Data on More Than 17,000 Patients from the Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. J Clin Med. 2021;10(10).
  87. 86.
    Ruscica M, Macchi C, Iodice S, Tersalvi G, Rota I, Ghidini S, et al. Prognostic parameters of in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients-An Italian experience. Eur J Clin Invest. 2021;51(9):e13629.
    OpenUrl
  88. 87.
    Saji R, Nishii M, Sakai K, Miyakawa K, Yamaoka Y, Ban T, et al. Combining IL-6 and SARS-CoV-2 RNAaemia-based risk stratification for fatal outcomes of COVID-19. PLoS One. 2021;16(8):e0256022.
    OpenUrl
  89. 88.
    Salinas M, Blasco Á, Santo-Quiles A, Lopez-Garrigos M, Flores E, Leiva-Salinas C. Laboratory parameters in patients with COVID-19 on first emergency admission is different in non-survivors: albumin and lactate dehydrogenase as risk factors. J Clin Pathol. 2020.
  90. 89.
    Salvatici M, Barbieri B, Cioffi SMG, Morenghi E, Leone FP, Maura F, et al. Association between cardiac troponin I and mortality in patients with COVID-19. Biomarkers. 2020;25(8):634–40.
    OpenUrl
  91. 90.
    Santa Cruz A, Mendes-Frias A, Oliveira AI, Dias L, Matos AR, Carvalho A, et al. Interleukin-6 Is a Biomarker for the Development of Fatal Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Pneumonia. Front Immunol. 2021;12:613422.
    OpenUrl
  92. 91.
    Satis H, Özger HS, Aysert Yildiz P, Hizel K, Gulbahar Ö, Erbas G, et al. Prognostic value of interleukin-18 and its association with other inflammatory markers and disease severity in COVID-19. Cytokine. 2021;137:155302.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. 92.
    Selcuk M, Cinar T, Gunay N, Keskin M, Cicek V, Kilic S, et al. Comparison of D-dimer Level Measured on the Third Day of Hospitalization with Admission D-dimer Level in Predicting In-hospital Mortality in COVID-19 Patients. Medeni Med J. 2021;36(1):1–6.
    OpenUrl
  94. 93.
    Shang M, Wei J, Zou HD, Zhou QS, Zhang YT, Wang CY. Early Warning Factors of Death in COVID-19 Patients. Curr Med Sci. 2021;41(1):69–76.
    OpenUrl
  95. 94.
    Shang W, Dong J, Ren Y, Tian M, Li W, Hu J, et al. The value of clinical parameters in predicting the severity of COVID-19. J Med Virol. 2020;92(10):2188–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  96. 95.
    Sharif F, Khan S, Junaid A, Jahangir S, Saeed M, Ijaz M, et al. Early hematological indicators of severe COVID-19 disease in hospitalized patients: Data from a South Asian population. Int J Lab Hematol. 2021.
  97. 96.
    Shi S, Nie B, Chen X, Cai Q, Lin C, Zhao G, et al. Clinical and laboratory characteristics of severe and non-severe patients with COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study in China. J Clin Lab Anal. 2021;35(1):e23692.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  98. 97.
    Shi S, Qin M, Cai Y, Liu T, Shen B, Yang F, et al. Characteristics and clinical significance of myocardial injury in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(22):2070–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  99. 98.
    Shi X, Qin L, Yang L, Bai W, Jing L, Mei K. [Value of interleukin-6 and CD4(+) T-lymphocytopenia in assessing the severity and prognosis of coronavirus disease 2019]. Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2020;32(10):1165–70.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  100. 99.
    Smilowitz NR, Kunichoff D, Garshick M, Shah B, Pillinger M, Hochman JS, et al. C-reactive protein and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(23):2270–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  101. 100.
    Soni M, Gopalakrishnan R, Vaishya R, Prabu P. D-dimer level is a useful predictor for mortality in patients with COVID-19: Analysis of 483 cases. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020;14(6):2245–9.
    OpenUrl
  102. 101.
    Shuvo ME, Schwiening M, Soares F, Thompson R, Feng O, Samworth RJ, Morrell NW, Marciniak SJ, Thomas W, Soon E. Effectiveness of different parameters at admission as prognostic markers for mortality due to SARS-CoV-2: a 2-centre experience in UK and Spain. Thorax 2021; 76 (Suppl 2): Axxvii.
  103. 102.
    Sun W, Zhang Y, Wu C, Xie Y, Peng L, Nie X, et al. Incremental prognostic value of biventricular longitudinal strain and high-sensitivity troponin I in COVID-19 patients. Echocardiography. 2021;38(8):1272–81.
    OpenUrl
  104. 103.
    Tahtasakal CA, Oncul A, Sevgi DY, Celik E, Ocal M, Turkkan HM, et al. Could we predict the prognosis of the COVID-19 disease? J Med Virol. 2021;93(4):2420–30.
    OpenUrl
  105. 104.
    Tang G, Huang M, Luo Y, Liu W, Lin Q, Mao L, et al. The Dynamic Immunological Parameter Landscape in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients With Different Outcomes. Front Immunol. 2021;12:697622.
    OpenUrl
  106. 105.
    Turrini M, Gardellini A, Beretta L, Buzzi L, Ferrario S, Vasile S, et al. Clinical Course and Risk Factors for In-Hospital Mortality of 205 Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia in Como, Lombardy Region, Italy. Vaccines (Basel). 2021;9(6).
  107. 106.
    van Dam P, Zelis N, van Kuijk SMJ, Linkens A, Brüggemann RAG, Spaetgens B, et al. Performance of prediction models for short-term outcome in COVID-19 patients in the emergency department: a retrospective study. Ann Med. 2021;53(1):402–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  108. 107.
    Villa E, Critelli R, Lasagni S, Melegari A, Curatolo A, Celsa C, et al. Dynamic angiopoietin-2 assessment predicts survival and chronic course in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Blood Adv. 2021;5(3):662–73.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  109. 108.
    Vultaggio A, Vivarelli E, Virgili G, Lucenteforte E, Bartoloni A, Nozzoli C, et al. Prompt Predicting of Early Clinical Deterioration of Moderate-to-Severe COVID-19 Patients: Usefulness of a Combined Score Using IL-6 in a Preliminary Study. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020;8(8):2575-81.e2.
    OpenUrl
  110. 109.
    Wang D, Li R, Wang J, Jiang Q, Gao C, Yang 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.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  111. 110.
    Wang F, Hou H, Wang T, Luo Y, Tang G, Wu S, et al. Establishing a model for predicting the outcome of COVID-19 based on combination of laboratory tests. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020;36:101782.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  112. 111.
    Wang M, Zhu Q, Fu J, Liu L, Xiao M, Du Y. Differences of inflammatory and non-inflammatory indicators in Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) with different severity. Infect Genet Evol. 2020;85:104511.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  113. 112.
    Wang P, Sha J, Meng M, Wang C, Yao Q, Zhang Z, et al. Risk factors for severe COVID-19 in middle-aged patients without comorbidities: a multicentre retrospective study. J Transl Med. 2020;18(1):461.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  114. 113.
    Wang Y, Shu H, Liu H, Li X, Zhou X, Zou X, et al. The peak levels of highly sensitive troponin I predicts in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients with cardiac injury: a retrospective study. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2021;10(1):6–15.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  115. 114.
    Wang Y, Zheng Y, Tong Q, Wang L, Lv G, Xi Z, et al. Cardiac Injury and Clinical Course of Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2020;7:147.
    OpenUrl
  116. 115.
    Wang Z, Wang Z. Identification of risk factors for in-hospital death of COVID - 19 pneumonia -- lessions from the early outbreak. BMC Infect Dis. 2021;21(1):113.
    OpenUrl
  117. 116.
    Wu W, Zhang X, Chen Y, Wang B, Wu J, Xiong Y, et al. Risk Factors of Fatal Outcome of Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19. Discov Med. 2021;31(164):121–7.
    OpenUrl
  118. 117.
    Xu F, Chen X, Yin X, Qiu Q, Xiao J, Qiao L, et al. Prediction of Disease Progression of COVID-19 Based upon Machine Learning. Int J Gen Med. 2021;14:1589–98.
    OpenUrl
  119. 118.
    Xu JB, Xu C, Zhang RB, Wu M, Pan CK, Li XJ, 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):15058.
    OpenUrl
  120. 119.
    Yang AP, Li HM, Tao WQ, Yang XJ, Wang M, Yang WJ, et al. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 causes abnormal laboratory results of multiple organs in patients. Aging (Albany NY). 2020;12(11):10059–69.
    OpenUrl
  121. 120.
    Yao Y, Cao J, Wang Q, Shi Q, Liu K, Luo Z, et al. D-dimer as a biomarker for disease severity and mortality in COVID-19 patients: a case control study. J Intensive Care. 2020;8:49.
    OpenUrl
  122. 121.
    Ye W, Chen G, Li X, Lan X, Ji C, Hou M, et al. Dynamic changes of D-dimer and neutrophil-lymphocyte count ratio as prognostic biomarkers in COVID-19. Respir Res. 2020;21(1):169.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  123. 122.
    Ye Y, Wu X, Li X, Xu C, Wang Q, Yuan W, et al. Prediction and follow-up of risk factors for severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and application of CT visual scoring. Technol Health Care. 2021;29(S1):153–64.
    OpenUrl
  124. 123.
    Yu J, Nie L, Wu D, Chen J, Yang Z, Zhang L, et al. Prognostic Value of a Clinical Biochemistry-Based Nomogram for Coronavirus Disease 2019. Front Med (Lausanne). 2020;7:597791.
    OpenUrl
  125. 124.
    Yue T, Zhou W, He J, Wang H, Liu Y, Wang B, et al. Combined clinical and imaging features better predict the critical outcomes of patients with SARS-COV-2. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021;100(12):e25083.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  126. 125.
    Zeng HL, Lu QB, Yang Q, Wang X, Yue DY, Zhang LK, et al. Longitudinal Profile of Laboratory Parameters and Their Application in the Prediction for Fatal Outcome Among Patients Infected With SARS-CoV-2: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;72(4):626–33.
    OpenUrl
  127. 126.
    Zhang J, Hao Y, Ou W, Ming F, Liang G, Qian Y, et al. Serum interleukin-6 is an indicator for severity in 901 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a cohort study. J Transl Med. 2020;18(1):406.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  128. 127.
    Zhang L, Yan X, Fan Q, Liu H, Liu X, Liu Z, et al. D-dimer levels on admission to predict in-hospital mortality in patients with Covid-19. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18(6):1324–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  129. 128.
    Zhao Y, Nie HX, Hu K, Wu XJ, Zhang YT, Wang MM, et al. Abnormal immunity of non-survivors with COVID-19: predictors for mortality. Infect Dis Poverty. 2020;9(1):108.
    OpenUrl
  130. 129.
    Zhao Y, Yu C, Ni W, Shen H, Qiu M, Zhao Y. Peripheral blood inflammatory markers in predicting prognosis in patients with COVID-19. Some differences with influenza A. J Clin Lab Anal. 2021;35(1):e23657.
    OpenUrl
  131. 130.
    Zhu F, Li W, Lin Q, Xu M, Du J, Li H. Myoglobin and troponin as prognostic factors in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Med Clin (Barc). 2021;157(4):164–71.
    OpenUrl
  132. 131.
    Zhu Y, Du Z, Zhu Y, Li W, Miao H, Li Z. Evaluation of organ function in patients with severe COVID-19 infections. Med Clin (Engl Ed). 2020;155(5):191–6.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted December 07, 2022.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Non-generalizability of biomarkers for mortality in SARS-CoV-2: a meta-analyses series
ME Rahman Shuvo, Max Schwiening, Felipe Soares, Oliver Feng, Susana Abreu, Niki Veale, William Thomas, AA Roger Thompson, Richard J Samworth, Nicholas W Morrell, Stefan J Marciniak, Elaine Soon
medRxiv 2022.12.03.22282974; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.03.22282974
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area