RESUMEN
Clinical knowledge about SARS-CoV-2 infection mechanisms and COVID-19 pathophysiology have enormously increased during the pandemic. Nevertheless, because of the great heterogeneity of disease manifestations, a precise patient stratification at admission is still difficult, thus rendering a rational allocation of limited medical resources as well as a tailored therapeutic approach challenging. To date, many hematologic biomarkers have been validated to support the early triage of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients and to monitor their disease progression. Among them, some indices have proven to be not only predictive parameters, but also direct or indirect pharmacological targets, thus allowing for a more tailored approach to single-patient symptoms, especially in those with severe progressive disease. While many blood test-derived parameters quickly entered routine clinical practice, other circulating biomarkers have been proposed by several researchers who have investigated their reliability in specific patient cohorts. Despite their usefulness in specific contexts as well as their potential interest as therapeutic targets, such experimental markers have not been implemented in routine clinical practice, mainly due to their higher costs and low availability in general hospital settings. This narrative review will present an overview of the most commonly adopted biomarkers in clinical practice and of the most promising ones emerging from specific population studies. Considering that each of the validated markers reflects a specific aspect of COVID-19 evolution, embedding new highly informative markers into routine clinical testing could help not only in early patient stratification, but also in guiding a timely and tailored method of therapeutic intervention.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Biomarcadores , HospitalizaciónRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral RNA (vRNA) is detected in the bloodstream of some patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but it is not clear whether this RNAemia reflects viremia (ie, virus particles) and how it relates to host immune responses and outcomes. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2 vRNA was quantified in plasma samples from observational cohorts of 51 COVID-19 patients including 9 outpatients, 19 hospitalized (non-intensive care unit [ICU]), and 23 ICU patients. vRNA levels were compared with cross-sectional indices of COVID-19 severity and prospective clinical outcomes. We used multiple imaging methods to visualize virions in plasma. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 vRNA was detected in plasma of 100%, 52.6%, and 11.1% of ICU, non-ICU, and outpatients, respectively. Virions were detected in plasma pellets using electron tomography and immunostaining. Plasma vRNA levels were significantly higher in ICUâ >â non-ICUâ >â outpatients (Pâ <â .0001); for inpatients, plasma vRNA levels were strongly associated with higher World Health Organization (WHO) score at admission (Pâ =â .01), maximum WHO score (Pâ =â .002), and discharge disposition (Pâ =â .004). A plasma vRNA level >6000 copies/mL was strongly associated with mortality (hazard ratio, 10.7). Levels of vRNA were significantly associated with several inflammatory biomarkers (Pâ <â .01) but not with plasma neutralizing antibody titers (Pâ =â .8). CONCLUSIONS: Visualization of virus particles in plasma indicates that SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia is due, at least in part, to viremia. The levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia correlate strongly with disease severity, patient outcome, and specific inflammatory biomarkers but not with neutralizing antibody titers.