Accuracy of routine laboratory tests to predict mortality and deterioration to severe or critical COVID-19 in people with SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Identifying patients with COVID-19 disease who will deteriorate can be useful to assess whether they should receive intensive care, or whether they can be treated in a less intensive way or through outpatient care. In clinical care, routine laboratory markers, such as C-reactive protein, are used to assess a person's health status. OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of routine blood-based laboratory tests to predict mortality and deterioration to severe or critical (from mild or moderate) COVID-19 in people with SARS-CoV-2. SEARCH METHODS: On 25 August 2022, we searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, encompassing searches of various databases such as MEDLINE via PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, medRxiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of all designs that produced estimates of prognostic accuracy in participants who presented to outpatient services, or were admitted to general hospital wards with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and studies that were based on serum banks of samples from people. All routine blood-based laboratory tests performed during the first encounter were included. We included any reference standard used to define deterioration to severe or critical disease that was provided by the authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from each included study, and independently assessed the methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Prognostic Accuracy Studies tool. As studies reported different thresholds for the same test, we used the Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operator Curve model for meta-analyses to estimate summary curves in SAS 9.4. We estimated the sensitivity at points on the SROC curves that corresponded to the median and interquartile range boundaries of specificities in the included studies. Direct and indirect comparisons were exclusively conducted for biomarkers with an estimated sensitivity and 95% CI of ≥ 50% at a specificity of ≥ 50%. The relative diagnostic odds ratio was calculated as a summary of the relative accuracy of these biomarkers. MAIN RESULTS: We identified a total of 64 studies, including 71,170 participants, of which 8169 participants died, and 4031 participants deteriorated to severe/critical condition. The studies assessed 53 different laboratory tests. For some tests, both increases and decreases relative to the normal range were included. There was important heterogeneity between tests and their cut-off values. None of the included studies had a low risk of bias or low concern for applicability for all domains. None of the tests included in this review demonstrated high sensitivity or specificity, or both. The five tests with summary sensitivity and specificity above 50% were: C-reactive protein increase, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio increase, lymphocyte count decrease, d-dimer increase, and lactate dehydrogenase increase. Inflammation For mortality, summary sensitivity of a C-reactive protein increase was 76% (95% CI 73% to 79%) at median specificity, 59% (low-certainty evidence). For deterioration, summary sensitivity was 78% (95% CI 67% to 86%) at median specificity, 72% (very low-certainty evidence). For the combined outcome of mortality or deterioration, or both, summary sensitivity was 70% (95% CI 49% to 85%) at median specificity, 60% (very low-certainty evidence). For mortality, summary sensitivity of an increase in neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio was 69% (95% CI 66% to 72%) at median specificity, 63% (very low-certainty evidence). For deterioration, summary sensitivity was 75% (95% CI 59% to 87%) at median specificity, 71% (very low-certainty evidence). For mortality, summary sensitivity of a decrease in lymphocyte count was 67% (95% CI 56% to 77%) at median specificity, 61% (very low-certainty evidence). For deterioration, summary sensitivity of a decrease in lymphocyte count was 69% (95% CI 60% to 76%) at median specificity, 67% (very low-certainty evidence). For the combined outcome, summary sensitivity was 83% (95% CI 67% to 92%) at median specificity, 29% (very low-certainty evidence). For mortality, summary sensitivity of a lactate dehydrogenase increase was 82% (95% CI 66% to 91%) at median specificity, 60% (very low-certainty evidence). For deterioration, summary sensitivity of a lactate dehydrogenase increase was 79% (95% CI 76% to 82%) at median specificity, 66% (low-certainty evidence). For the combined outcome, summary sensitivity was 69% (95% CI 51% to 82%) at median specificity, 62% (very low-certainty evidence). Hypercoagulability For mortality, summary sensitivity of a d-dimer increase was 70% (95% CI 64% to 76%) at median specificity of 56% (very low-certainty evidence). For deterioration, summary sensitivity was 65% (95% CI 56% to 74%) at median specificity of 63% (very low-certainty evidence). For the combined outcome, summary sensitivity was 65% (95% CI 52% to 76%) at median specificity of 54% (very low-certainty evidence). To predict mortality, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio increase had higher accuracy compared to d-dimer increase (RDOR (diagnostic Odds Ratio) 2.05, 95% CI 1.30 to 3.24), C-reactive protein increase (RDOR 2.64, 95% CI 2.09 to 3.33), and lymphocyte count decrease (RDOR 2.63, 95% CI 1.55 to 4.46). D-dimer increase had higher accuracy compared to lymphocyte count decrease (RDOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.80), C-reactive protein increase (RDOR 1.31, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.65), and lactate dehydrogenase increase (RDOR 1.42, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.90). Additionally, lactate dehydrogenase increase had higher accuracy compared to lymphocyte count decrease (RDOR 1.30, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.49). To predict deterioration to severe disease, C-reactive protein increase had higher accuracy compared to d-dimer increase (RDOR 1.76, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.50). The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio increase had higher accuracy compared to d-dimer increase (RDOR 2.77, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.84). Lastly, lymphocyte count decrease had higher accuracy compared to d-dimer increase (RDOR 2.10, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.07) and lactate dehydrogenase increase (RDOR 2.22, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.26). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory tests, associated with hypercoagulability and hyperinflammatory response, were better at predicting severe disease and mortality in patients with SARS-CoV-2 compared to other laboratory tests. However, to safely rule out severe disease, tests should have high sensitivity (> 90%), and none of the identified laboratory tests met this criterion. In clinical practice, a more comprehensive assessment of a patient's health status is usually required by, for example, incorporating these laboratory tests into clinical prediction rules together with clinical symptoms, radiological findings, and patient's characteristics.

Point-of-care C-reactive protein test results in acute infections in children in primary care: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Acute infections are a common reason for children to consult primary care. Serious infections are rare but differentiating them from self-limiting illnesses remains challenging. This can lead to inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Point-of-care C-reactive protein testing is used to guide antibiotic prescribing in adults. However, in children its use remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to assess point-of-care CRP test levels with respect to patients' characteristics, care setting, preliminary diagnosis, and management. METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed in children with an acute infection presenting to ambulatory care in Belgium. RESULTS: In this study 8280 cases were analysed, of which 6552 had a point-of-care CRP value available. A total of 276 physicians participated. The median patient age was 1.98 years (IQR 0.97 to 4.17), 37% of children presented to a general practitioner, 33% to a paediatric out-patient clinic, and 30% to the emergency department. A total of 131 different preliminary diagnoses were found, with acute upper airway infection as the most frequent. In 6% (n = 513) patients were diagnosed with a serious infection. The most common serious infection was pneumonia. Antibiotics were prescribed in 28% (n = 2030) of all episodes. The median CRP over all infectious episodes was 10 mg/L (IQR < 5-29). Children below 5 years of age and those presenting to a paediatrician had a higher median CRP. Median CRP in patients with serious infections was 21 mg/L (IQR 6 to 63.5). Pneumonia had a median CRP of 48 mg/L (IQR 13-113). In the episodes with antibiotics prescription, median CRP level was 29 mg/L (IQR 10-58) compared to 7 mg/L (IQR < 5-19) when they were not prescribed. CONCLUSION: A low POC CRP as a standalone tool did not seem to be sufficient to rule out serious infections, but its potential in assessing serious infections could increase when integrated in a clinical decision rule. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02024282 (registered on 31/12/2013).

Follow-Up of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Levels in Belgian Nursing Home Residents and Staff Two, Four and Six Months after Primary Course BNT162b2 Vaccination.

When COVID-19 vaccines were implemented, nursing home residents (NHRs) and staff (NHS) in Belgium were prioritized for vaccination. To characterize the vaccine response over time in this population and to identify poorly responding groups, we assessed antibody concentrations two (T1), four (T2) and six months (T3) after primary course BNT162b2 vaccination in six groups of infection-naive/infection-primed NHRs/NHS, with/without comorbidity (NHRs only). Participant groups (N = 125 per group) were defined within a national serosurveillance study in nursing homes, based on questionnaire data. Dried blood spots were analyzed using ELISA for the quantification of SARS-CoV-2 S1RBD IgG antibodies. Among all groups, antibody concentrations significantly decreased between T1 and T2/T3, all with a ≥70% decrease at T3, except for infection-primed staff (-32%). Antibody concentrations among infection-naive NHRs were 11.96 times lower than those among infection-primed NHR, while the latter were comparable (x1.05) to infection-primed NHS. The largest proportion [13% (95% CI: 11-24%)] of vaccine non-responders was observed in the group of infection-naive NHRs with comorbidities. A longer interval between infection and vaccination (≥3 months) elicited higher antibody responses. Our data retrospectively show the necessity of timely COVID-19 booster vaccination. Infection-naive NHRs require special attention regarding immune monitoring in future epidemics or pandemics.

Vaccine hesitancy for the COVID-19 vaccine booster dose among nursing home staff fully vaccinated with the primary vaccination course in Belgium.

In Belgium, nursing home (NH) staff (NHS) and residents were prioritised for the initial COVID-19 vaccination and successive booster doses. The vaccination campaign for the first booster started in September 2021 in Belgian NH. Our first study about vaccine hesitancy towards the COVID-19 vaccine in Belgian NHS already showed a degree of fear for the primary vaccination course (T1). This new study aims to evaluate vaccine hesitancy to get the first booster (T2) in a population of fully vaccinated (with two doses) NHS. A random stratified sample of NHS who received the primary vaccination course (N = 954) completed an online questionnaire on COVID-19 booster hesitancy (between 25/11/2021 and 22/01/2022). NHS who hesitated or refused the booster were asked for the main reason for their hesitation/refusal. Overall, 21.0 % of our population hesitated before, were still hesitating or refused the booster, NHS that were not hesitant at T1 being 5.7 times less likely to hesitate to get the first booster dose (Adjusted OR 0.179, 95 % CI: 0.120, 0.267). Although there was a slight reduction (23.5 % to 20.1 %) in the proportion of NHS who hesitated/refused vaccination at T1 compared to T2 (p = 0.034), the fear of unknown effects was the principal reason for hesitation/refusal, already mentioned in our first study. NHS were not reassured concerning their initial fears. Given the likelihood that booster vaccinations will be necessary over the coming years, a communication strategy specific to NHS should be implemented.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among Belgian nursing home residents and staff during the primary COVID-19 vaccination campaign.

BACKGROUND: Nursing home residents (NHR) and staff have been disproportionally affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and were therefore prioritised in the COVID-19 vaccination strategy. However, frail older adults, like NHR, are known to have decreased antibody responses upon vaccination targeting other viral antigens. OBJECTIVES: As real-world data on vaccine responsiveness, we assessed the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among Belgian NHR and staff during the primary COVID-19 vaccination campaign. METHODS: In total, we tested 1629 NHR and 1356 staff across 69 Belgian NHs for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG antibodies using rapid tests. We collected socio-demographic and COVID-19-related medical data through questionnaires. Sampling occurred between 1 February and 24 March 2021, in a randomly sampled population that received none, one or two BNT162b2 vaccine doses. RESULTS: We found that during the primary vaccination campaign with 59% of the study population fully vaccinated, 74% had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Among fully vaccinated individuals only, fewer residents tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (77%) than staff (98%), suggesting an impaired vaccine-induced antibody response in the elderly, with lowest seroprevalences observed among infection naïve residents. COVID-19 vaccination status and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were predictors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. Alternatively, age ≥ 80 years old, the presence of comorbidities and high care dependency predicted SARS-CoV-2 seronegativity in NHR. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the need for further monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 immunity upon vaccination in the elderly population, as their impaired humoral responses could imply insufficient protection against COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was retrospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04738695).

Declining Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies among Vaccinated Nursing Home Residents and Staff Six Months after the Primary BNT162b2 Vaccination Campaign in Belgium: A Prospective Cohort Study.

In the SCOPE study, we monitored SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a national sample of residents and staff from Belgian nursing homes. Here, we report the seroprevalence among infected and infection-naive residents and staff after the primary COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Among 1554 vaccinated nursing home residents and 1082 vaccinated staff from 69 nursing homes in Belgium, we assessed the proportion having SARS-CoV-2 antibodies approximately two (April 2021), four (June 2021), and six months (August 2021) after a two-dose regimen of the BNT162b2 vaccine. We measured the seroprevalence using SARS-CoV-2 antibody rapid tests and collected socio-demographic and COVID-19 medical data using an online questionnaire. Two months after vaccination (baseline), we found a seroprevalence of 91% (95% CI: 89-93) among vaccinated residents and 99% (95% CI: 98-99) among vaccinated staff. Six months after vaccination, the seroprevalence significantly decreased to 68% (95% CI: 64-72) among residents and to 89% (95% CI; 86-91) among staff (p < 0.001). The seroprevalence was more likely to decrease among infection-naive residents, older residents, or residents with a high care dependency level. These findings emphasize the need for close monitoring of nursing home residents, as a substantial part of this population fails to mount a persistent antibody response after BNT162b2 vaccination.

Vaccine Hesitancy towards the COVID-19 Vaccine in a Random National Sample of Belgian Nursing Home Staff Members.

In Belgium, nursing home staff (NHS) and residents were prioritised for COVID-19 vaccination. However, vaccine hesitancy may have impacted vaccination rates. In this study, a random stratified sample of NHS (N = 1142), vaccinated and unvaccinated, completed an online questionnaire on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (between 31 July and 15 November 2021). NHS who hesitated or refused the vaccine were asked for the main reason for their hesitation/refusal. Those who hesitated, but eventually accepted vaccination, were asked why they changed their minds. Overall, 29.5% of all respondents hesitated before accepting vaccination, were still hesitating, or refused vaccination. Principal reasons were fear of unknown future effects (55.1% of vaccinated participants that hesitated and 19.5% who refused), fear of side-effects (12.7% of vaccinated participants that hesitated and 12.2% who refused), and mistrust in vaccination (10.5% of vaccinated participants that hesitated and 12.2% who refused). For vaccinated participants who hesitated initially, protecting the vulnerable was the main reason they changed their minds. Given this degree of fear and proposals to mandate vaccination among healthcare workers, communicating with NHS on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine should be prioritised.