4.5 Article

CRP Monitoring in Early Hospitalization: Implications for Predicting Outcomes in Patients with COVID-19

期刊

PATHOGENS
卷 12, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pathogens12111315

关键词

C-reactive protein; COVID-19 hyperinflammatory syndromes; COVID-19 risk factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels are associated with poorer outcomes in COVID-19. The relationship between CRP, sex, BMI, age, and COVID-19 outcomes is unclear. In this study, the maximum CRP value over the first five hospitalization days predicted hospitalization outcome better than CRP level at admission. CRP levels did not mediate the relationship between sex, age, or BMI and clinical outcomes.
Elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels have been associated with poorer COVID-19 outcomes. While baseline CRP levels are higher in women, obese individuals, and older adults, the relationship between CRP, sex, body mass index (BMI), age, and COVID-19 outcomes remains unknown. To investigate, we performed a retrospective analysis on 824 adult patients with COVID-19 admitted during the first pandemic wave, of whom 183 (22.2%) died. The maximum CRP value over the first five hospitalization days better predicted hospitalization outcome than the CRP level at admission, as a maximum CRP > 10 mg/dL independently quadrupled the risk of death (p < 0.001). Males (p < 0.001) and patients with a higher BMI (p = 0.001) had higher maximum CRP values, yet CRP levels did not impact their hospitalization outcome. While CRP levels did not statistically mediate any relation between sex, age, or BMI with clinical outcomes, age impacted the association between BMI and the risk of death. For patients 60 or over, a BMI < 25 kg/m(2) increased the risk of death (p = 0.017), whereas the reverse was true for patients <60 (p = 0.030). Further impact of age on the association between BMI, CRP, and the risk of death could not be assessed due to a lack of statistical power but should be further investigated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据