Dataset Information

Laboratory indicators in COVID-19 and other pneumonias: Analysis for differential diagnosis and comparison of dynamic changes during 400-day follow-up.

ABSTRACT:

Background

COVID-19 is spreading rapidly all over the world, the patients' symptoms can be easily confused with other pneumonia types. Therefore, it is valuable to seek a laboratory differential diagnostic protocol of COVID-19 and other pneumonia types on admission, and to compare the dynamic changes in laboratory indicators during follow-up.

Methods

A total of 143 COVID-19, 143 bacterial pneumonia and 145 conventional viral pneumonia patients were included. The model group consisted of 140 COVID-19, 80 bacterial pneumonia and 60 conventional viral pneumonia patients, who were age and sex matched. We established a differential diagnostic model based on the laboratory results of the model group on admission via a nomogram, which was validated in an external validation group. We also compared the 400-day dynamic changes of the laboratory indicators among groups.

Results

LASSO regression and multivariate logistic regression showed that eosinophils (Eos), total protein (TP), prealbumin (PA), potassium (K), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) could differentiate COVID-19 from other pneumonia types. The C-index of the nomogram model was 0.922. Applying the nomogram to the external validation group showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.902. The 400-day change trends of the laboratory indexes varied among subgroups divided by sex, age, oxygenation index (OI), and pathogen.

Conclusion

The laboratory model was highly accurate at providing a new method to identify COVID-19 in pneumonia patients. The 400-day dynamic changes in laboratory indicators revealed that the recovery time of COVID-19 patients was not longer than that of other pneumonia types.

SUBMITTER: Wang J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8076761 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStrongyloidiasis is frequently under diagnosed since many infections remain asymptomatic and conventional diagnostic tests based on parasitological examination are not sufficiently sensitive. Serology is useful but is still only available in reference laboratories. The need for improved diagnostic tests in terms of sensitivity and specificity is clear, particularly in immunocompromised patients or candidates to immunosuppressive treatments. This review aims to evaluate both conventional and novel techniques for the diagnosis of strongyloidiasis as well as available cure markers for this parasitic infection.Methodology/principal findingsThe search strategy was based on the data-base sources MEDLINE, Cochrane Library Register for systematic review, EmBase, Global Health and LILACS and was limited in the search string to articles published from 1960 to August 2012 and to English, Spanish, French, Portuguese and German languages. Case reports, case series and animal studies were excluded. 2003 potentially relevant citations were selected for retrieval, of which 1649 were selected for review of the abstract. 143 were eligible for final inclusion.ConclusionsSensitivity of microscopic-based techniques is not good enough, particularly in chronic infections. Furthermore, techniques such as Baermann or agar plate culture are cumbersome and time-consuming and several specimens should be collected on different days to improve the detection rate. Serology is a useful tool but it might overestimate the prevalence of disease due to cross-reactivity with other nematode infections and its difficulty distinguishing recent from past (and cured) infections. To evaluate treatment efficacy is still a major concern because direct parasitological methods might overestimate it and the serology has not yet been well evaluated; even if there is a decline in antibody titres after treatment, it is slow and it needs to be done at 6 to 12 months after treatment which can cause a substantial loss to follow-up in a clinical trial.

Project description:ObjectiveCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently the most serious infectious disease in the world. An accurate diagnosis of this disease in the clinic is very important. This study aims to improve the differential ability of computed tomography (CT) to diagnose COVID-19 and other community-acquired pneumonias (CAPs) and evaluate the short-term prognosis of these patients.MethodsThe clinical and imaging data of 165 COVID-19 and 118 CAP patients diagnosed in seven hospitals in Anhui Province, China from January 21 to February 28, 2020 were retrospectively analysed. The CT manifestations of the two groups were recorded and compared. A correlation analysis was used to examine the relationship between COVID-19 and age, size of lung lesions, number of involved lobes, and CT findings of patients. The factors that were helpful in diagnosing the two groups of patients were identified based on specificity and sensitivity.ResultsThe typical CT findings of COVID-19 are simple ground-glass opacities (GGO), GGO with consolidation or grid-like changes. The sensitivity and specificity of the combination of age, white blood cell count, and ground-glass opacity in the diagnosis of COVID-19 were 92.7 and 66.1%, respectively. Pulmonary consolidation, fibrous cords, and bronchial wall thickening were used as indicators to exclude COVID-19. The sensitivity and specificity of the combination of these findings were 78.0 and 63.6%, respectively. The follow-up results showed that 67.8% (112/165) of COVID-19 patients had abnormal changes in their lung parameters, and the severity of the pulmonary sequelae of patients over 60 years of age worsened with age.ConclusionsAge, white blood cell count and ground-glass opacity have high accuracy in the early diagnosis of COVID-19 and the differential diagnosis from CAP. Patients aged over 60 years with COVID-19 have a poor prognosis. This result provides certain significant guidance for the diagnosis and treatment of new coronavirus pneumonia.