ABSTRACT
Background COVID-19 has overloaded national health services worldwide. Thus, early identification of patients at risk of poor outcomes is critical. Our objective was to analyse SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in serum as a severity biomarker in COVID-19.
Methods and Findings Retrospective observational study including 193 patients admitted for COVID-19. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in serum (CoVemia) was performed with samples collected at 48-72 hours of admission by two techniques from Roche and Thermo Fischer Scientific (TFS). Main outcome variables were mortality and need for ICU admission during hospitalization for COVID-19.
CoVemia was detected in 50-60% of patients depending on technique. The correlation of Ct in serum between both techniques was good (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.612; p < 0.001). Patients with CoVemia were older (p = 0.006), had poorer baseline oxygenation (PaO2/FiO2; p < 0.001), more severe lymphopenia (p < 0.001) and higher LDH (p < 0.001), IL-6 (p = 0.021), C-reactive protein (CRP; p = 0.022) and procalcitonin (p = 0.002) serum levels.
We defined “relevant CoVemia” when detection Ct was < 34 with Roche and < 31 for TFS. These thresholds had 95% sensitivity and 35 % specificity. Relevant CoVemia predicted death during hospitalization (OR 9.2 [3.8 − 22.6] for Roche, OR 10.3 [3.6 − 29.3] for TFS; p < 0.001). Cox regression models, adjusted by age, sex and Charlson index, identified increased LDH serum levels and relevant CoVemia (HR = 9.87 [4.13-23.57] for TFS viremia and HR = 7.09 [3.3-14.82] for Roche viremia) as the best markers to predict mortality.
Conclusions CoVemia assessment at admission is the most useful biomarker for predicting mortality in COVID-19 patients. CoVemia is highly reproducible with two different techniques (TFS and Roche), has a good consistency with other severity biomarkers for COVID-19 and better predictive accuracy.
AUTHOR SUMMARY COVID-19 shows a very heterogeneous clinical picture. In addition, it has overloaded national health services worldwide. Therefore, early identification of patients with poor prognosis is critical to improve the use of limited health resources. In this work, we evaluated whether baseline SARS-CoV2 RNA detection in blood (CoVemia) is associated with worse outcomes. We studied almost 200 patients admitted to our hospital and about 50-60% of them showed positive CoVemia. Patients with positive CoVemia were older and had more severe disease; CoVemia was also more frequent in patients requiring admission to the ICU. Moreover, we defined “relevant CoVemia”, as the amount of viral load that better predicted mortality obtaining 95% sensitivity and 35% specificity. In addition, relevant CoVemia was a better predictor than other biomarkers such as LDH, lymphocyte count, interleukin-6, and indexes used in ICU such as qSOFA and CURB65.
In summary, detection of CoVemia is the best biomarker to predict death in COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, it is easy to be implemented and is reproducible with two techniques (Roche and Thermo Fisher Scientific) that are currently used for diagnosis in nasopharyngeal swabs samples.
Competing Interest Statement
SCR-G reports grants from Spanish Rheumatology Foundation, during the conduct of the study; nonfinancial support from Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, and Abbvie; personal fees and nonfinancial support from Novartis, Sanofi, and MSD and from UCB-Pharma, outside the submitted work. JA reports grants and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline and Boehringer Ingelheim; grants from Linde Healthcare; and grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Roche and from Chiesi, outside the submitted work. DAR-S reports personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work. RdC reports personal fees from MSD, ASTELLAS, Clinigen, Janssen, Roche, and IQONE Health Care outside the submitted work. RG-V reports grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, Sandoz, and MSD; personal fees from Biogen and Celltrion and from Mylan, outside the submitted work; personal fees and nonfinancial support from Pfizer; grants from Roche; and grants and personal fees from Janssen. CSF reports personal fees from Bayer, BMS, Daichi Sankyo, MSD, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. CM-C reports competitive grants from ISCIII during the conduct of the study. IG-A reports grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III, during the course of the study; personal fees from Lilly and Sanofi; personal fees and nonfinancial support from BMS and Abbvie; research support, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Roche Laboratories; and nonfinancial support from MSD, Pfizer, and Novartis, not related to the submitted work. The rest of the authors declare that they have no relevant conflicts of interests.
Funding Statement
This study was funded with grants: Fondos Supera COVID19 by Banco Santander and CRUE to CS, RG-V, CM and JA; RD16/0011/0012 and PI18/0371 to IGA, from Spanish MINECO and Instituto de Salud Carlos III and co-funded by The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) A way to make Europe; and co-financed by the Community of Madrid through the Covid 2019 Aid. The work of ER-V has been funded by a Rio-Hortega grant CM19/00149 from the Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (Instituto de Salud Carlos III) and co-funded by The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) A way to make Europe. The work of SCR-G has been funded by Fundacion Espanola de Reumatologia. None of these sponsors have had any role in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid (register number 4070). All included patients (or their representatives) were informed about the study and gave an oral informed consent as proposed by AEMPS due to COVID-19 emergency.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵^ Membership of REINMUN-COVID Group is provided in the Acknowledgments.
Data Availability
All data will be fully available after acceptance.
ABBREVIATIONS
- CI
- Confident interval
- COPD
- Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
- CoVemia
- SARS-CoV-2 RNA in serum
- COVID-19
- Coronavirus disease-2019
- CRP
- C-reactive protein
- Ct
- Cycle threshold
- FiO2
- Fraction of inspired oxygen
- HR
- Hazard ratio
- ICU
- Intensive Care Unit
- IL
- Interleukin
- IMV
- Invasive mechanical ventilation
- IQR
- Interquartile range
- IRR
- Incidence risk ratio
- LDH
- Lactate dehydrogenase
- NK
- Natural killer
- NPTS
- Nasopharyngeal and throat swab
- OR
- Odds ratio
- PaO2
- Arterial oxygen tension
- PCR
- Polymerase chain reaction
- qSOFA
- Quick SOFA
- RNA
- Ribonucleic acid
- ROC
- Receiver operating characteristic
- rRT-PCR
- Real-time Reverse-Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction
- SARS-CoV-2
- Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2
- SD
- Standard deviation
- SOFA
- Sepsis related Organ Failure Assessment
- TFS
- Thermo Fisher Scientific
