Predicting outcomes of COVID-19 from admission biomarkers: a prospective UK cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has an unpredictable clinical course, so prognostic biomarkers would be invaluable when triaging patients on admission to hospital. Many biomarkers have been suggested using large observational datasets but sample timing is crucial to ensure prognostic relevance. The DISCOVER study prospectively recruited patients with COVID-19 admitted to a UK hospital and analysed a panel of putative prognostic biomarkers on the admission blood sample to identify markers of poor outcome. METHODS: Consecutive patients admitted to hospital with proven or clinicoradiological suspected COVID-19 were consented. Admission bloods were extracted from the clinical laboratory. A panel of biomarkers (interleukin-6 (IL-6), soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR), Krebs von den Lungen 6, troponin, ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase, B-type natriuretic peptide, procalcitonin) were performed in addition to routinely performed markers (C reactive protein (CRP), neutrophils, lymphocytes, neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio). Age, National Early Warning Score (NEWS2), CURB-65 and radiographic severity score on initial chest radiograph were included as comparators. All biomarkers were tested in logistic regression against a composite outcome of non-invasive ventilation, intensive care admission or death, with area under the curve (AUC) (figures calculated). RESULTS: 187 patients had 28-day outcomes at the time of analysis. CRP (AUC: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.78), lymphocyte count (AUC: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.72) and other routine markers did not predict the primary outcome. IL-6 (AUC: 0.77, 0.65 to 0.88) and suPAR (AUC: 0.81, 0.72 to 0.88) showed some promise, but simple clinical features alone such as NEWS2 score (AUC: 0.70, 0.60 to 0.79) or age (AUC: 0.70, 0.62 to 0.77) performed nearly as well. DISCUSSION: Admission blood biomarkers have only moderate predictive value for predicting COVID-19 outcomes, while simple clinical features such as age and NEWS2 score outperform many biomarkers. IL-6 and suPAR had the best performance, and further studies should focus on the additive value of these biomarkers to routine care.

Krebs von den Lungen 6 (KL-6) as a marker for disease severity and persistent radiological abnormalities following COVID-19 infection at 12 weeks.

INTRODUCTION: Acute presentations of COVID-19 infection vary, ranging from asymptomatic carriage through to severe clinical manifestations including acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Longer term sequelae of COVID-19 infection includes lung fibrosis in a proportion of patients. Krebs von den Lungen 6 (KL-6) is a mucin like glycoprotein that has been proposed as a marker of pulmonary epithelial cell injury. We sought to determine whether KL-6 was a marker of 1) the severity of acute COVID-19 infection, or 2) the persistence of symptoms/radiological abnormalities at medium term follow up. METHODS: Prospective single centre observational study. RESULTS: Convalescent KL-6 levels were available for 93 patients (male 63%, mean age 55.8 years) who attended an 12-week follow up appointment after being admitted to hospital with COVID-19. For 67 patients a baseline KL-6 result was available for comparison. There was no significant correlations between baseline KL-6 and the admission CXR severity score or clinical severity NEWS score. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the baseline KL-6 level and an initial requirement for oxygen on admission or the severity of acute infection as measured at 28 days. There was no significant difference in the 12-week KL-6 level and the presence or absence of subjective breathlessness but patients with abnormal CT scans at 12 weeks had significantly higher convalescent KL-6 levels compared to the remainder of the cohort (median 1101 IU/ml vs 409 IU/ml). CONCLUSIONS: The association between high KL-6 levels at 12 weeks and persisting CT abnormalities (GGO/fibrosis), is a finding that requires further exploration. Whether KL-6 may help differentiate those patients with persisting dyspnoea due to complications rather than deconditioning or dysfunctional breathing alone, is an important future research question.