Display options
Share it on

Int J Gen Med. 2021 Sep 01;14:5111-5117. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S326666. eCollection 2021.

Validation of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Cut-off Value Associated with High In-Hospital Mortality in COVID-19 Patients.

International journal of general medicine

Halil Yildiz, Diego Castanares-Zapatero, Guillaume Pierman, Lucie Pothen, Julien De Greef, Frank Aboubakar Nana, Hector Rodriguez-Villalobos, Leila Belkhir, Jean Cyr Yombi

Affiliations

  1. Department of Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Brussels, Belgium.
  2. Department of Intensive Care Unit, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium.
  3. Department of Pneumology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium.
  4. Department of Microbiology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium.

PMID: 34511993 PMCID: PMC8420786 DOI: 10.2147/IJGM.S326666

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) could be a predictive factor of severe COVID-19. However, most relevant studies are retrospective, and the optimal NLR cut-off point has not been determined. The objective of our research was identification and validation of the best NLR cut-off value on admission that could predict high in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS: Medical files of all patients admitted for COVID-19 pneumonia in our dedicated COVID-units between March and April 2020 (derivation cohort) and between October and December 2020 (validation cohort) were reviewed.

RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-nine patients were included in the study (198 in the derivation and 101 in the validation cohort, respectively). Youden's J statistic in the derivation cohort determined the optimal cut-off value for the performance of NLR at admission to predict mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The NLR cut-off value of 5.94 had a sensitivity of 62% and specificity of 64%. In ROC curve analysis, the AUC was 0.665 [95% CI 0.530-0.801, p= 0.025]. In the validation cohort, the best predictive cut-off value of NLR was 6.4, which corresponded to a sensitivity of 63% and a specificity of 64% with AUC 0.766 [95% CI 0.651-0.881, p <0.001]. When the NLR cut-off value of 5.94 was applied in the validation cohort, there was no significant difference in death and survival in comparison with the derivation NLR cut-off. Net reclassification improvement (NRI) analysis showed no significant classification change in outcome between both NLR cut-off values (NRI:0.012, p=0.31).

CONCLUSION: In prospective analysis, an NLR value of 5.94 predicted high in-hospital mortality upon admission in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia.

© 2021 Yildiz et al.

Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2 infection; coronavirus disease; laboratory markers; neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; risk factors

Conflict of interest statement

Halil Yildiz and Diego Castanares-Zapatero are co-first authors for this study. The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

  1. Am J Cardiol. 2010 Aug 15;106(4):470-6 - PubMed
  2. Science. 2020 Oct 23;370(6515): - PubMed
  3. PeerJ. 2020 Nov 6;8:e10337 - PubMed
  4. Int J Lab Hematol. 2021 Jan 27;: - PubMed
  5. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2013 Oct;88(1):218-30 - PubMed
  6. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jul 1;180(7):934-943 - PubMed
  7. BMJ. 2020 Sep 9;370:m3339 - PubMed
  8. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2021 Mar 27;:1-8 - PubMed
  9. Aging (Albany NY). 2020 Jul 30;12(14):13849-13859 - PubMed
  10. Int J Lab Hematol. 2021 Apr;43(2):329-335 - PubMed
  11. Infect Dis (Lond). 2021 Jan;53(1):78-80 - PubMed
  12. J Infect. 2020 Jul;81(1):e6-e12 - PubMed
  13. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2020 Jun;66(6):746-751 - PubMed
  14. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2021 Sep;9(9):586-594 - PubMed
  15. Endocr Metab Immune Disord Drug Targets. 2021 Jul 09;: - PubMed
  16. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Aug 1;180(8):1081-1089 - PubMed
  17. PeerJ. 2021 Apr 19;9:e11205 - PubMed
  18. Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1054-1062 - PubMed
  19. Int J Clin Pract. 2021 Mar;75(3):e13725 - PubMed
  20. Lancet Haematol. 2020 Sep;7(9):e671-e678 - PubMed
  21. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2020 Jul 16;: - PubMed
  22. Obes Med. 2020 Sep;19:100290 - PubMed
  23. Kidney Int. 2020 May;97(5):829-838 - PubMed
  24. Nature. 2020 Nov;587(7835):610-612 - PubMed
  25. J Transl Med. 2020 May 20;18(1):206 - PubMed
  26. Bratisl Lek Listy. 2001;102(1):5-14 - PubMed
  27. Am J Emerg Med. 2021 Mar;41:110-119 - PubMed
  28. Thromb Res. 2020 Aug;192:3-8 - PubMed
  29. BMC Anesthesiol. 2018 Dec 3;18(1):183 - PubMed
  30. BMJ. 2020 Apr 7;369:m1328 - PubMed
  31. Crit Care. 2012 Jan 20;16(1):R12 - PubMed
  32. Int J Med Sci. 2021 Feb 18;18(8):1739-1745 - PubMed
  33. Crit Care. 2020 Jun 5;24(1):288 - PubMed
  34. Infect Dis (Lond). 2020 Oct;52(10):698-704 - PubMed
  35. Crit Care. 2020 Nov 16;24(1):647 - PubMed
  36. Infect Dis (Lond). 2021 Aug;53(8):640-642 - PubMed
  37. Ecancermedicalscience. 2016 Dec 12;10:702 - PubMed
  38. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Jul;8(7):659-661 - PubMed
  39. Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1033-1034 - PubMed
  40. Allergy. 2021 Feb;76(2):533-550 - PubMed

Publication Types