Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2021 Feb;54(1):61-68.
doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2020.12.005. Epub 2021 Jan 8.

Eosinopenia <100/μL as a marker of active COVID-19: An observational prospective study

Affiliations
Observational Study

Eosinopenia <100/μL as a marker of active COVID-19: An observational prospective study

Roderau Outh et al. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2021 Feb.

Abstract

Objectives: To analyse the diagnostic performance of eosinopenia, alone or combined with polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMN) and/or lymphocytes, as a marker of active COVID-19 in patients hospitalized for suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Methods: A prospective observational study including patients hospitalized for suspicion of COVID-19 in a COVID unit was performed from 20th March to 5th April 2020, in Perpignan, France. Patients for which there was a doubt upon diagnosis, who were recently under oral corticosteroids, had myeloid malignancy or human immunodeficient virus infection were excluded. SARS-CoV-2 detection was performed using an RT-PCR assay, from nasopharyngeal swab specimens. Complete blood count were performed for all patients.

Results: One-hundred and twenty-one patient were included: 57 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19, 64 patients were not. Eosinophil count was lower in the COVID-19 group (median: 0/μL versus 70/μL, p < 0.0001). To diagnose COVID-19, eosinopenia had a sensitivity of 89.5% and a specificity of 78.1% while lymphopenia's were 73.7% and 62.5% respectively. Using area under curve (AUC) of receiving operating characteristics (ROC) curves, eosinophil's optimal cut-off level was 10/μL, sensitivity and specificity were 86%, and 79.7% respectively. Regarding the eosinophil/PMN ratio, the optimal cut-off level was 3.344, sensitivity and specificity were 87.7% and 73.4% respectively. The AUC of lymphocyte/PMN ratio was significantly lower than eosinophil/PMN ratio's (0.621 versus 0.846, p = 0.0003).

Conclusion: Eosinopenia - <10/μL - and eosinophil/PMN ratio are useful, low-cost, reproducible tools to help diagnose COVID-19, during an epidemic period, in a population of hospitalized patients admitted for suspicion of COVID-19.

Keywords: COVID-19; Eosinopenia; Marker; SARS-CoV-2.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of competing interest None of the authors mentioned above received any financial support or other benefits from commercial sources for the work reported on in the manuscript, or any other financial interests which could create a potential conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest with regard to the work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of the study population at admission
Figure 2
Figure 2
Receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curves in the total cohort for various biomarker cutoff levels. Areas under the ROC curves: CRP, 0.759 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.671–0.846); Eo, 0.852 (95% CI, 0.784–0.920); Ly (95% CI, 0.667–0.842); Eo/PMN ratio × 1000, 0.846 (95% CI, 0.778–0.914); Ly/PMN ratio × 1000, 0.621 (95% CI, 0.521–0.721). Statistical difference between areas under the ROC curves of Eo and Ly counts using Delong's method: p-value=0.0845. Statistical difference between areas under the ROC curves of Eo/PMN ratio × 1000 and Ly/PMN ratio × 1000 using Delong's method: p-value=0.0003. CRP: C-reactive protein; Eo: eosinophil; Ly: lymphocyte; PMN: polymorphonuclear neutrophil.

References

    1. Zhu N., Zhang D., Wang W., Li X., Yang B., Song J. A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:727–733. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bernard Stoecklin S., Rolland P., Silue Y., Mailles A., Campese C., Simondon A. First cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in France: surveillance, investigations and control measures, January 2020. Euro Surveill Bull Eur Sur Mal Transm Eur Commun Dis Bull. 2020:25. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ai T., Yang Z., Hou H., Zhan C., Chen C., Lv W. Correlation of chest CT and RT-PCR testing in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China: a report of 1014 cases. Radiology. 2020:200642. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wang W., Xu Y., Gao R., Lu R., Han K., Wu G. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in different types of clinical specimens. J Am Med Assoc. 2020 May 12;323(18):1843–1844. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kim H., Hong H., Yoon S.H. Diagnostic performance of CT and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction for coronavirus disease 2019: a meta-analysis. Radiology. 2020:201343. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types