Premium
Interest of the cellular population data analysis as an aid in the early diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection
Author(s) -
Vasse Marc,
Ballester MarieChristine,
Ayaka Degnile,
Sukhachev Dmitry,
Delcominette Frédérique,
Habarou Florence,
Jolly Emilie,
Sukhacheva Elena,
Pascreau Tiffany,
Farfour Éric
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
international journal of laboratory hematology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.705
H-Index - 55
eISSN - 1751-553X
pISSN - 1751-5521
DOI - 10.1111/ijlh.13312
Subject(s) - covid-19 , population , medicine , virology , intensive care medicine , pathology , environmental health , infectious disease (medical specialty) , outbreak , disease
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is characterized by a high contagiousness requiring isolation measures. At this time, diagnosis is based on the positivity of specific RT‐PCR and/or chest computed tomography scan, which are time‐consuming and may delay diagnosis. Complete blood count (CBC) can potentially contribute to the diagnosis of COVID‐19. We studied whether the analysis of cellular population data (CPD), provided as part of CBC‐Diff analysis by the DxH 800 analyzers (Beckman Coulter), can help to identify SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Methods Cellular population data of the different leukocyte subpopulations were analyzed in 137 controls, 322 patients with proven COVID‐19 (COVID+), and 285 patients for whom investigations were negative for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection (COVID−). When CPD of COVID+ were different from controls and COVID− patients, we used receiver operating characteristic analysis to test the discriminating capacity of the individual parameters. Using a random forest classifier, we developed the algorithm based on the combination of 4 monocyte CPD to discriminate COVID+ from COVID− patients. This algorithm was tested prospectively in a series of 222 patients referred to the emergency unit. Results Among the 222 patients, 86 were diagnosed as COVID‐19 and 60.5% were correctly identified using the discriminating protocol. Among the 136 COVID− patients, 10.3% were misclassified (specificity 89.7%, sensitivity 60.5%). False negatives were observed mainly in patients with a low inflammatory state whereas false positives were mainly seen in patients with sepsis. Conclusion Consideration of CPD could constitute a first step and potentially aid in the early diagnosis of COVID‐19.