Reduction of lymphocyte count at early stage elevates severity and death risk of COVID-19 patients: a hospital-based case-cohort study

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Abstract

Several reports have noted that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) induced lymphopenia in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, the clinical significance of lymphopenia remains unclear. The objective of this study was to analyze the association between lymphopenia at an early stage and the prognosis of COVID-19 patients.

Material and methods

All 192 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were enrolled. Demographic data and clinical characteristics were collected and patient’s prognosis was followed up.

Results

On admission, 84 (43.8%) patients suffered from lymphopenia among COVID-19 patients. The count and percentage of lymphocytes on admission were lower among patients over 70 years old than those of younger patients. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that older age was a risk factor of lymphopenia. Of interest, chest CT score, a key marker of lung injury, was increased among COVID-19 patients with lymphopenia. By contrast, PaCO2, SpO2 and oxygenation index, several respiratory function markers, were decreased in COVID-19 patients with lymphopenia. Moreover, total bilirubin (TBIL) and direct bilirubin (DBIL), two markers of hepatic injury, creatinine and urea nitrogen, two indices of renal function, and creatine kinase, AST and LDH, three myocardial enzymes, were elevated in COVID-19 patients with lymphopenia. Among 84 COVID-19 patients with lymphopenia, 32.1% died. The fatality rate was obviously higher in COVID-19 patients with lymphopenia.

Conclusions

Older COVID-19 patients are more susceptible to lymphopenia. Multiple organ injuries were more serious in COVID-19 patients with lymphopenia. Lymphopenia at an early stage aggravates the severity and elevates the death risk of COVID-19 patients.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.02.20050955: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: This study was approved by the institutional ethics board of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University and Union Hospital of Huazhong University of Science and Technology.
    Consent: All participants or guardians gave written informed consent.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variableChildren and pregnant women were also excluded from this research.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Statistical analysis: All data were statistically analyzed with SPSS 21.0 software.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.