No abstract

The COVID-19 pandemia due to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, in its first 4 months since its outbreak, has to date reached more than 200 countries worldwide with more than 2 million confirmed cases (probably a much higher number of infected), and almost 200,000 deaths. Amplification of viral RNA by (real time) reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) is the current gold standard test for confirmation of infection, although it presents known shortcomings: long turnaround times (3-4 hours to generate results), potential shortage of reagents, false-negative rates as large as 15-20%, the need for certified laboratories, expensive equipment and trained personnel. Thus there is a need for alternative, faster, less expensive and more accessible tests. We developed two machine learning classification models using hematochemical values from routine blood exams (namely: white blood cells counts, and the platelets, CRP, AST, ALT, GGT, ALP, LDH plasma levels) drawn from 279 patients who, after being admitted to the San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy) emergencyroom with COVID-19 symptoms, were screened with the rRT-PCR test performed on respiratory tract specimens. Of these patients, 177 resulted positive, whereas 102 received a negative response. We have developed two machine learning models, to discriminate between patients who are either positive or negative to the SARS-CoV-2: their accuracy ranges between 82% and 86%, and sensitivity between 92% e 95%, so comparably well with respect to the gold standard. We also developed an interpretable Decision Tree model as a simple decision aid for clinician interpreting blood tests (even off-line) for COVID-19 suspect cases. This study demonstrated the feasibility and clinical soundness of using blood tests analysis and machine learning as an alternative to rRT-PCR for identifying COVID-19 positive patients. This is especially useful in those countries, like developing ones, suffering from shortages of rRT-PCR reagents and specialized laboratories. We made available a Web-based tool for clinical reference and evaluation (This tool is available at https://covid19-blood-ml.herokuapp.com/).

AbstractObjectivesThe outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to date, the epidemic has gradually spread to 209 countries worldwide with more than 1.5 million infected people and 100,000 deaths. Amplification of viral RNA by rRT-PCR serves as the gold standard for confirmation of infection, yet it needs a long turnaround time (3–4 h to generate results) and shows false-negative rates as large as 15%–20%. In addition, the need of certified laboratories, expensive equipment and trained personnel led many countries to limit the rRT-PCR tests only to individuals with pronounced respiratory syndrome symptoms. Thus, there is a need for alternative, less expensive and more accessible tests.MethodsWe analyzed the plasma levels of white blood cells (WBCs), platelets, C-reactive protein (CRP), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), γ-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT), alkaline phosphatase and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) of 207 patients who, after being admitted to the emergency room of the San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy) with COVID-19 symptoms, were rRT-PCR tested. Of them, 105 tested positive, whereas 102 tested negative.ResultsStatistically significant differences were observed for WBC, CRP, AST, ALT and LDH. Empirical thresholds for AST and LDH allowed the identification of 70% of either COVID-19-positive or -negative patients on the basis of routine blood test results.ConclusionsCombining appropriate cutoffs for certain hematological parameters could help in identifying false-positive/negative rRT-PCR tests. Blood test analysis might be used as an alternative to rRT-PCR for identifying COVID-19-positive patients in those countries which suffer from a large shortage of rRT-PCR reagents and/or specialized laboratory.

Background Circulating androgens could have a relevant pathobiological role in clinical outcomes in men with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection (COVID‐19). Objectives We aimed to assess: (a) circulating sex steroids levels in a cohort of 286 symptomatic men with laboratory‐confirmed COVID‐19 at hospital admission compared to a cohort of 281 healthy men; and (b) the association between serum testosterone levels (tT), COVID‐19, and clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods Demographic, clinical, and hormonal values were collected for all patients. Hypogonadism was defined as tT ≤9.2 nmol/l. The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was used to score health‐significant comorbidities. Severe clinical outcomes were defined as patients either transferred to intensive care unit (ICU) or death. Descriptive statistics and multivariable linear and logistic regression models tested the association between clinical and laboratory variables and tT levels. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models tested the association between tT and severe clinical outcomes. Results Overall, a significantly lower levels of LH and tT were found in patients with COVID‐19 compared to healthy controls (all p < 0.0001); conversely, healthy controls depicted lower values of circulating E 2 ( p < 0.001). Testosterone levels suggestive for hypogonadism were observed in 257 (89.8%) patients at hospital admission. In as many as 243 (85%) cases, hypogonadism was secondary. SARS‐CoV‐2 infection status was independently associated with lower tT levels ( p < 0.0001) and greater risk of hypogonadism ( p < 0.0001), after accounting for age, BMI, CCI, and IL‐6 values. Lower tT levels were associated with higher risk of ICU admission and death outcomes (all p ≤ 0.05), after accounting for clinical and laboratory parameters. Conclusions We unveil an independent association between SARS‐CoV‐2 infection status and secondary hypogonadism already at hospital admission, with lower testosterone levels predicting the most severe clinical outcomes.

ObjectivesThe rRT-PCR test, the current gold standard for the detection of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), presents with known shortcomings, such as long turnaround time, potential shortage of reagents, false-negative rates around 15–20%, and expensive equipment. The hematochemical values of routine blood exams could represent a faster and less expensive alternative.MethodsThree different training data set of hematochemical values from 1,624 patients (52% COVID-19 positive), admitted at San Raphael Hospital (OSR) from February to May 2020, were used for developing machine learning (ML) models: the complete OSR dataset (72 features: complete blood count (CBC), biochemical, coagulation, hemogasanalysis and CO-Oxymetry values, age, sex and specific symptoms at triage) and two sub-datasets (COVID-specific and CBC dataset, 32 and 21 features respectively). 58 cases (50% COVID-19 positive) from another hospital, and 54 negative patients collected in 2018 at OSR, were used for internal-external and external validation.ResultsWe developed five ML models: for the complete OSR dataset, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the algorithms ranged from 0.83 to 0.90; for the COVID-specific dataset from 0.83 to 0.87; and for the CBC dataset from 0.74 to 0.86. The validations also achieved good results: respectively, AUC from 0.75 to 0.78; and specificity from 0.92 to 0.96.ConclusionsML can be applied to blood tests as both an adjunct and alternative method to rRT-PCR for the fast and cost-effective identification of COVID-19-positive patients. This is especially useful in developing countries, or in countries facing an increase in contagions.