4.7 Article

C-reactive protein: A promising biomarker for poor prognosis in COVID-19 infection

Journal

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
Volume 509, Issue -, Pages 91-94

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.06.013

Keywords

CRP; Meta-analysis; COVID-19; Biomarkers; Survivors; Non-survivors

Funding

  1. DST-INSPIRE Faculty Grant from the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, New Delhi [IFA12/LSBM-46]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) first broke out in Wuhan, China, spread over 227 countries and caused approximately 0.3 million death worldwide. Several biomolecules have been explored for possible biomarkers for prognosis outcome. Although increased C reactive protein (CRP) is associated with death due to COVID-19 infections, results from different populations remain inconsistent. For a conclusive result, the present meta-analysis was performed. Methods: We conducted a literature search in PubMed and Scopus database for the association of CRP concentration with COVID-19 disease outcomes. A total of 16 eligible studies were enrolled in the present analysis comprising of 1896 survivors and 849 non-survivors cases. Concentrations of CRP were compared and analyzed by a meta-analysis. Results: Egger's regression analysis (intercept = 0.04, P = 0.98, 95%CI = - 5.48 to 5.58) and funnel plot revealed an absence of publication bias in the included studies. Due to the presence of significant heterogeneity across the studies (Q = 252.03, P-heterogeneity = 0.000, I-2 = 93.65) random model was used for the analysis of the present study. The results of the meta-analysis demonstrated a significant role of CRP in COVID-19 infection outcome (Standard difference in means = 1.371, P = 0.000). Conclusions: Concentrations of CRP remained high in patients who died of COVID-19 infection and could be a promising biomarker for assessing disease lethality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available