ABSTRACT
Background: Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is a pro-inflammatory cytokine that is produced at varying levels in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is one of the new inflammatory markers of COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate the differences in IL-6 level and the NLR in mild and severe COVID-19 and assess their correlation with COVID-19 severity and the correlation of IL-6 and NLR in COVID-19. Methods: A total of 91 patients with COVID-19 were divided into mild (n = 57) and severe (n = 34) COVID-19 groups. IL-6 levels were measured using the electrochemiluminescence immunoassay method on Roche Cobas e411. The NLR was the ratio of the total neutrophil and lymphocyte counts from complete haematology on the Sysmex XS-800i. Data were analysed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Mann-Whitney, receiver operating characteristic curve, chi-square and Spearman correlation tests. The statistical test was significant at p <0.05. Results: Serum IL-6 levels and NLR significantly differed in mild and severe COVID-19. The median (min-max) IL-6 levels for mild and severe COVID-19 were 3.59 (1.50-638.30) pg/mL and 28.82 (5.52-926.30) pg/mL, respectively (p <0.001). The median (min-max) NLR in mild and moderate COVID-19 was 2.18 (0.69-15.58) and 8.13 (2.24-30.90), respectively (p <0.001). The obtained cut-off values for IL-6 and NLR were >6.99 pg/mL and >4.18, with odds ratios of 29.29 and 26.19, respectively. A positive correlation was found between IL-6 and NLR and COVID-19 severity (r = 0.612; p <0.001). Conclusions: The results indicated that serum IL-6 levels and NLR are higher in severe COVID-19 than in mild COVID-19. Patients with IL-6 levels >6.99 pg/mL and NLR >4.18 are 29 and 26 times more likely to suffer from severe COVID-19, respectively. Serum IL-6 levels and NLR are strongly correlated with COVID-19 severity. Serum IL-6 levels correlate with NLR in COVID-19.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Interleukin-6 , Neutrophils , Lymphocytes , CytokinesABSTRACT
Microscopic examination is the backbone of malaria diagnosis and treatment evaluation in Indonesia. This test has limited ability to detect malaria at low parasite density. Inversely, nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) can detect parasites at a density below the microscopic examination's detection limit. The objective of this study is to compare microscopic and PCR results when being used to identify malaria in suspected patients and patients who underwent dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHP) therapy in the last 3-8 weeks with or without symptoms in Sumba Barat Daya, Nusa Tenggara Timur, Indonesia. Recruitment was conducted between April 2019 and February 2020. Blood samples were then taken for microscopic and PCR examinations. Participants (n = 409) were divided into three groups: suspected malaria (42.5%), post-DHP therapy with fever (4.9%), and post-DHP therapy without fever (52.6%). Microscopic examination found five cases of P. falciparum + P. vivax infection, while PCR found 346 cases. All microscopic examinations turned negative in the post-DHP-therapy group. Conversely, PCR result from the same group yielded 29 negative results. Overall, our study showed that microscopic examination and PCR generated different results in detecting Plasmodium species, especially in patients with mixed infection and in patients who recently underwent DHP therapy.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) accounts for a large burden of illness in Indonesia. However, epidemiology of SARI in tertiary hospitals in Indonesia is unknown. This study sought to assess the burden, clinical characteristics, and etiologies of SARI and concordance of clinical diagnosis with confirmed etiology. METHODS: Data and samples were collected from subjects presenting with SARI as part of the acute febrile Illness requiring hospitalization study (AFIRE). In tertiary hospitals, clinical diagnosis was ascertained from chart review. Samples were analyzed to determine the "true" etiology of SARI at hospitals and Indonesia Research Partnership on Infectious Diseases (INA-RESPOND) laboratory. Distribution and characteristics of SARI by true etiology and accuracy of clinical diagnosis were assessed. RESULTS: Four hundred and twenty of 1464 AFIRE subjects presented with SARI; etiology was identified in 242 (57.6%), including 121 (28.8%) viruses and bacteria associated with systemic infections, 70 (16.7%) respiratory bacteria and viruses other than influenza virus, and 51 (12.1%) influenza virus cases. None of these influenza patients were accurately diagnosed as having influenza during hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Influenza was misdiagnosed among all patients presenting with SARI to Indonesian tertiary hospitals in the AFIRE study. Diagnostic approaches and empiric management should be guided by known epidemiology. Public health strategies to address the high burden of influenza should include broad implementation of SARI screening, vaccination programs, clinician education and awareness campaigns, improved diagnostic capacity, and support for effective point-of-care tests.
