ABSTRACT
Objectives Sophisticated scores have been proposed for prognostication of mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 but perform inconsistently. We conducted these meta-analyses to uncover why and to pragmatically seek a single dependable biomarker for mortality.
Design We searched the PubMed database for the keywords ‘SARS-CoV-2’ with ‘biomarker name’ and ‘mortality’. All studies published from 01st December 2019 to 30th June 2021 were surveyed. To aggregate the data, the meta library in R was used to report overall mean values and 95% confidence intervals. We fitted a random effects model to obtain pooled AUCs and associated 95% confidence intervals for the European/North American, Asian, and overall datasets.
Setting and Participants Data was collected from 131 studies on SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive general hospital adult admissions (n=76,169 patients in total).
Main Outcome Measures We planned a comparison of pooled area under curves (AUCs) from Receiver Operator Characteristic curves plotted for admission D-dimer, CRP, urea, troponin and interleukin-6 levels.
Main Results Biomarker effectiveness varies significantly in different regions of the world. Admission CRP levels are a good prognostic marker for mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 in Asian countries, with a pooled area under curve (AUC) of 0.83 (95% CI 0.80-0.85), but only an average predictor of mortality in Europe/North America, with a pooled AUC of 0.67 (95% CI 0.63-0.71, P<0.0001). We observed the same pattern for D-dimer and IL-6. This variability explains why the proposed prognostic scores did not perform evenly. Notably, urea and troponin had pooled AUCs ≥ 0.78 regardless of location, implying that end-organ damage at presentation is a key prognostic factor. These differences might be due to age, genetic backgrounds, or different modes of death (younger patients in Asia dying of cytokine storm while older patients die of multi-organ failure).
Conclusions Biomarker effectiveness for prognosticating SARS-CoV-2 mortality varies significantly by geographical location. We propose that biomarkers and by extension prognostic scores need to be tailored for specific populations. This also implies that validation of commonly used prognostic scores for other conditions should occur before they are used in different populations.
Section 1: What is already known on this topic Biomarkers such as CRP, D-dimer, and interleukin-6 have been proven to have prognostic value in SARS-CoV-2. However prognostic scores using these as building blocks perform unevenly in different locations.
Section 2: What this study adds Commonly used biomarkers for SARS-CoV-2 have different efficacy in different parts of the world. For example, admission CRP and interleukin-6 levels are good prognostic markers for mortality in Asian countries but only average in Europe and North America. Prognostic markers and scores cannot be ‘transplanted’ from one region to another. This has implications not just for SARS-CoV-2 but also for scores in other conditions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
ES and MS are supported by the UK Medical Research Council (MR/R008051/1); the British Medical Association (the Josephine Lansdell Award); and the Association of Physicians of Great Britain and Ireland (Young Investigator Award to ES); the Wellcome Trust ISSF and the Cambridge BHF Centre of Research Excellence (RE/18/1/34212). MES and WT are full-time NHS physicians who have volunteered their time for this work. FS received in-kind funding by the AWS Diagnostic Development Initiative and Google TPU Research Cloud. NV is supported by a BLF-Papworth Fellowship from the British Lung Foundation and the Victor Dahdaleh Foundation (VPDCF17-18). AART is supported by a British Heart Foundation Intermediate Clinical Fellowship (FS/18/13/33281). OF is funded by the StatScale programme (EP/N031938/1). RJS is supported by Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council grants EP/P031447/1 and EP/N031938/1, as well as ERC Advanced Grant 101019498. SA and SJM are funded by the British Lung Foundation (VPDCF17-18), the Medical Research Council, UK (MR/V028669/1), the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Campus (BRC-1215-20014) and the Royal Papworth NHS Trust. NWM is supported by the British Heart Foundation (SP/12/12/29836), the Cambridge BHF Centre of Research Excellence (RE/18/1/34212), the UK Medical Research Council (MR/K020919/1), the Dinosaur Trust, BHF Programme grants to NWM (RG/13/4/30107), and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.
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:
Ethical approval was applied for and approved by the National Health Service (UK) Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales through the Integrated Research Application System (reference 281880) for analysis of the Cambridge (UK) data. The other data have been published and are in the public domain.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
Disclosures All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest / and declare: no support from any commercial organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Ethics approval Internal ethical approval was obtained from the Integrated Research Application System (reference 281880) for analysis of the Cambridge (UK) data. All the other data has been published and is in the public domain.
Transparency E Soon affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported and that no important aspects of the study have been omitted.
Funding ES and MS are supported by the UK Medical Research Council (MR/R008051/1); the British Medical Association (the Josephine Lansdell Award); and the Association of Physicians of Great Britain and Ireland (Young Investigator Award to ES); the Wellcome Trust ISSF and the Cambridge BHF Centre of Research Excellence (RE/18/1/34212). MES and WT are full-time NHS physicians who have volunteered their time for this work. FS received in-kind funding by the AWS Diagnostic Development Initiative and Google TPU Research Cloud. NV is supported by a BLF-Papworth Fellowship from the British Lung Foundation and the Victor Dahdaleh Foundation (VPDCF17-18). AART is supported by a British Heart Foundation Intermediate Clinical Fellowship (FS/18/13/33281). OF is funded by the StatScale programme (EP/N031938/1). RJS is supported by Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council grants EP/P031447/1 and EP/N031938/1, as well as ERC Advanced Grant 101019498. SA and SJM are funded by the British Lung Foundation (VPDCF17-18), the Medical Research Council, UK (MR/V028669/1), the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Campus (BRC-1215-20014) and the Royal Papworth NHS Trust. NWM is supported by the British Heart Foundation (SP/12/12/29836), the Cambridge BHF Centre of Research Excellence (RE/18/1/34212), the UK Medical Research Council (MR/K020919/1), the Dinosaur Trust, BHF Programme grants to NWM (RG/13/4/30107), and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
