Exposing and Overcoming Limitations of Clinical Laboratory Tests in COVID-19 by Adding Immunological Parameters; A Retrospective Cohort Analysis and Pilot Study

BackgroundTwo years since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic no predictive algorithm has been generally adopted for clinical management and in most algorithms the contribution of laboratory variables is limited. ObjectivesTo measure the predictive performance of currently used clinical laboratory tests alone or combined with clinical variables and explore the predictive power of immunological tests adequate for clinical laboratories. Methods: Data from 2,600 COVID-19 patients of the first wave of the pandemic in the Barcelona area (exploratory cohort of 1,579, validation cohorts of 598 and 423 patients) including clinical parameters and laboratory tests were retrospectively collected. 28-day survival and maximal severity were the main outcomes considered in the multiparametric classical and machine learning statistical analysis. A pilot study was conducted in two subgroups (n=74 and n=41) measuring 17 cytokines and 27 lymphocyte phenotypes respectively. Findings1) Despite a strong association of clinical and laboratory variables with the outcomes in classical pairwise analysis, the contribution of laboratory tests to the combined prediction power was limited by redundancy. Laboratory variables reflected only two types of processes: inflammation and organ damage but none reflected the immune response, one major determinant of prognosis. 2) Eight of the thirty variables: age, comorbidity index, oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, C-reactive protein, aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase ratio, fibrinogen, and glomerular filtration rate captured most of the combined statistical predictive power. 3) The interpretation of clinical and laboratory variables was moderately improved by grouping them in two categories i.e., inflammation related biomarkers and organ damage related biomarkers; Age and organ damage-related biomarker tests were the best predictors of survival, and inflammatory-related ones were the best predictors of severity. 4) The pilot study identified immunological tests (CXCL10, IL-6, IL-1RA and CCL2), that performed better than most currently used laboratory tests. ConclusionsLaboratory tests for clinical management of COVID 19 patients are valuable but limited predictors due to redundancy; this limitation could be overcome by adding immunological tests with independent predictive power. Understanding the limitations of tests in use would improve their interpretation and simplify clinical management but a systematic search for better immunological biomarkers is urgent and feasible

Clinical characteristics and outcome of Spanish patients with ANCA-associated vasculitides Impact of the vasculitis type, ANCA specificity, and treatment on mortality and morbidity

The aim of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics of ANCA-associated vasculitides (AAV) at presentation, in a wide cohort of Spanish patients, and to analyze the impact of the vasculitis type, ANCA specificity, prognostic factors, and treatments administered at diagnosis, in the outcome. A total of 450 patients diagnosed between January 1990 and January 2014 in 20 Hospitals from Spain were included. Altogether, 40.9% had granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), 37.1% microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), and 22% eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA). The mean age at diagnosis was 55.6±17.3 years, patients with MPA being significantly older (P<0.001). Fever, arthralgia, weight loss, respiratory, and ear-nose-throat (ENT) symptoms, were the most common at disease onset. ANCAs tested positive in 86.4% of cases: 36.2% C-ANCA-PR3 and 50.2% P-ANCA-MPO. P-ANCA-MPO was significantly associated with an increased risk for renal disease (OR 2.6, P<0.001) and alveolar hemorrhage (OR 2, P=0.010), while C-ANCA-PR3 was significantly associated with an increased risk for ENT (OR 3.4, P<0.001) and ocular involvement (OR 2.3, P=0.002). All patients received corticosteroids (CS) and 74.9% cyclophosphamide (CYC). The median follow-up was 82 months (IQR 100.4). Over this period 39.9% of patients suffered bacterial infections and 14.6% opportunistic infections, both being most prevalent in patients with highcumulated doses of CYC and CS (P<0.001). Relapses were recorded in 36.4% of cases with a mean rate of 2.5±2.3, and were more frequent in patients with C-ANCA-PR3 (P=0.012). The initial disease severity was significantly associated with mortality but not with the occurrence of relapses. One hundred twenty-nine (28.7%) patients (74 MPA, 41 GPA, 14 EGPA) died. The mean survival was 58 months (IQR 105) and was significantly lower for patients with MPA (P<0.001). Factors independently related to death were renal involvement (P=0.010), cardiac failure (P=0.029) and age over 65 years old (P<0.001) at disease onset, and bacterial infections (P<0.001). An improved outcome with significant decrease in mortality and treatment-related morbidity was observed in patients diagnosed after 2000, and was related to the implementation of less toxic regimens adapted to the disease activity and stage, and a drastic reduction in the cumulated CYC and CS dose

Exposing and Overcoming Limitations of clinical laboratory tests in COVID-19 by adding immunological parameters; A Retrospective cohort analysis and pilot study

Background: Two years since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic no predictive algorithm has been generally adopted for clinical management and in most algorithms the contribution of laboratory variables is limited. Objectives: To measure the predictive performance of currently used clinical laboratory tests alone or combined with clinical variables and explore the predictive power of immunological tests adequate for clinical laboratories. Methods: Data from 2,600 COVID-19 patients of the first wave of the pandemic in the Barcelona area (exploratory cohort of 1,579, validation cohorts of 598 and 423 patients) including clinical parameters and laboratory tests were retrospectively collected. 28-day survival and maximal severity were the main outcomes considered in the multiparametric classical and machine learning statistical analysis. A pilot study was conducted in two subgroups (n=74 and n=41) measuring 17 cytokines and 27 lymphocyte phenotypes respectively. Findings: 1) Despite a strong association of clinical and laboratory variables with the outcomes in classical pairwise analysis, the contribution of laboratory tests to the combined prediction power was limited by redundancy. Laboratory variables reflected only two types of processes: inflammation and organ damage but none reflected the immune response, one major determinant of prognosis. 2) Eight of the thirty variables: age, comorbidity index, oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, C-reactive protein, aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase ratio, fibrinogen, and glomerular filtration rate captured most of the combined statistical predictive power. 3) The interpretation of clinical and laboratory variables was moderately improved by grouping them in two categories i.e., inflammation related biomarkers and organ damage related biomarkers; Age and organ damage-related biomarker tests were the best predictors of survival, and inflammatory-related ones were the best predictors of severity. 4) The pilot study identified immunological tests (CXCL10, IL-6, IL-1RA and CCL2), that performed better than most currently used laboratory tests. Conclusions: Laboratory tests for clinical management of COVID 19 patients are valuable but limited predictors due to redundancy; this limitation could be overcome by adding immunological tests with independent predictive power. Understanding the limitations of tests in use would improve their interpretation and simplify clinical management but a systematic search for better immunological biomarkers is urgent and feasible

Small Towns, una realidad urbana en la Hispania romana (II)

Congreso Internacional MARQ Museo Arqueológico de Alicante: 26-28 de Octubre de 2021.Las ciudades pequeñas/Small Towns de la Península Ibérica son la abrumadora mayoría de las aproximadamente 400 ciudades que en época romana existieron en Hispania, es decir casi una quinta parte de las aprox. 2000 ciudades del Imperio Romano entero. De ahí que resulta de interés como punto de partida y base de estudio para la investigación, a pesar de las dificultades de definición. Mientras que los intentos anteriores buscaban utilizar el término en su calidad de clasificador para poder elaborar una jerarquía de asentamientos, y así asignar a cada uno de ellos su lugar en la clasificación y de esa manera describir sus propiedades correspondientes, aqui se propone la utilización del término Small Towns solo en su calidad de aspecto diferenciador con vistas a las capitales de provincia y de conventus, manteniendo toda su imprecisión para asentamientos con o sin trama urbana extendida, en un sentido amplio y genérico sin condicionantes ni jurídicos ni políticos. Las Small Towns suelen y pueden tener, con alguna variedad, características urbanas como edificios sacros y públicos, una muralla defensiva y casas urbanas. Sin embargo, suele observarse una desproporción entre la edificación pública y sacra por un lado y la privada por el otro en el sentido, de que la primera tenga una clara predominancia sobre la segunda tanto en calidad como en cantidad. Por otro lado les suelen faltar a las Small Towns otros criterios importantes habituales de los centros mayores como son la alta densidad de población, altos estándares de calidad, un cierto grado de diversificación económica, un plan urbanístico de circulación. Esas características ausentes son compensadas, por el otro lado, con un elemento del que se nutre a través de la carga generada por la (excesiva) edificación sacra y pública, y que le proporciona aquel atributo, que resume en sí la esencia de los centros mayores, que es la más típica y la que más los destaca: un exceso de significado.Esta publicación ha sido posible gracias a la financiación de la subvención global de la Junta de Extremadura, a través de la Consejería de Ciencia, Economía y Agenda Digital al Instituto de Arqueología de Mérida (Referencia 20164499).Peer reviewe