Abstract
Background The role of specific blood tests to predict poor prognosis in patients admitted with infection from SARS-CoV2 virus remains uncertain. During the first wave of the global pandemic, an extended laboratory testing panel was integrated into the local pathway to guide triage and healthcare resource utilisation for emergency admissions. We conducted a retrospective service evaluation to determine the utility of extended tests (D-dimer, ferritin, high-sensitivity troponin I, lactate dehydrogenase, procalcitonin) compared to the core panel (full blood count, urea & electrolytes, liver function tests, C-reactive protein).
Methods Clinical outcomes for adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted between 17th March to 30st June 2020 were extracted, alongside costs estimates for individual tests. Prognostic performance was assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis with 28-day mortality used as the primary endpoint, and a composite of 28-day intensive care escalation or mortality for secondary analysis.
Results From 13,500 emergency attendances we identified 391 unique adults admitted with COVID-19. Of these, 113 died (29%) and 151 (39%) reached the composite endpoint. “Core” test variables adjusted for age, gender and index of deprivation had a prognostic AUC of 0.79 (95% Confidence Interval, CI: 0.67 to 0.91) for mortality and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.56 to 0.84) for the composite endpoint. Addition of “extended” test components did not improve upon this.
Conclusion Our findings suggest use of the extended laboratory testing panel to risk stratify community-acquired COVID-19-positive patients on admission adds limited prognostic value. We suggest laboratory requesting should be targeted to patients with specific clinical indications.
Competing Interest Statement
SJ has participated in advisory boards, trials, projects, and has been a speaker CSL Behring, Takeda, Thermofisher, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, Biotest, Binding Site, BPL, Octapharma, Sanofi, LFB, Pharming, Biocryst, Zarodex, Weatherden and UCB Pharma.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) via the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium (UK-CIC). MJP was funded by the Welsh Clinical Academic Training (WCAT) programme, is a participant in the NIH Graduate Partnership Program and is the recipient of a Career Development Award from the Association of Clinical Pathologists. RJB was supported by a School of Medicine PhD Studentship (to R.J.B.). IH was supported by Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellow. M.E. was supported by the Welsh European Funding Office,s Accelerate programme. J.U. was supported by MRC-NIHR Clinical Academic Research Partnership (grant number MR/T023791/1). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This project was reviewed and deemed service evaluation by the institution's review board. As such, in line with the UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research, ethical approval was not required for this study. The primary dataset was extracted as part of a service evaluation and fully anonymised dataset created by a member of the Health Board NHS IT team. Prior to anonymisation, the postcode was used to extract the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (WIMD) for each patient, as obtained from https://wimd.gov.wales/.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Orcid identifiers added and funding statement updated
Data Availability
Requests for data sharing will be reviewed by a clinical and information regulatory governance panel and considered on an individual basis.
