COVID-19 spans a wide clinical spectrum from asymptomatic to severe pneumonia with multiple organ failure (Guan et al., 2020), majorly threatening global health, including that of Europe (Sun et al., 2020a). Early identification of critical patients may reduce mortality by timely interventions (Sun et al., 2020a). Many studies have explored the diagnostic or prognostic value of various factors including age, sex, CT scan, biochemical, and haematological parameters (Galloway et al., 2020; Ji et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2020; Shi et al., 2020a; Shi et al., 2020b; Sun et al., 2020b; Wang et al., 2020a; Yan et al., 2020; Caramelo et al., 2020; Yuan et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020). Most studies were however geographically limited, had high risk for bias, and had no validation cohort (Wynants et al., 2020). C-reactive protein, ferritin, D-dimer, albumin, urea nitrogen, bilirubin, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels are cited as indirect indicators of the presence and severity of COVID-19 (Henry et al., 2020; Ji et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020a; Luo et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2020b; Wu et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2020a; Zhou et al., 2020), as are complete blood count (CBC) and differential count (DIFF) changes, specifically lymphopenia, neutrophilia, high neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and thrombocytopenia (Henry et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2020; Kermali et al., 2020; Khartabil et al., 2020; Lippi et al., 2020a; Lippi and Plebani, 2020b). All aforementioned parameters are widely available, but their value is constrained by significant inter-patient variability and limited specificity.

Newer haematology analysers are capable of functional characterisation of blood cells (Hoffmann, 2014; Buttarello, 2016; Chabot-Richards and George, 2015), including measurement of immune cell activation (Kono et al., 2018; Linssen et al., 2007), which has shown promise in screening for infectious diseases (Prodjosoewojo et al., 2019). The aim of this study is to develop and validate a prognostic score using only haemocytometric data for COVID-19 patients presenting at hospitals, to predict within three days of hospital admission, who will deteriorate and require intensive care unit (ICU) transfer within 14 days of admission. Importantly, our intended purpose of this score is to assist with objective risk stratification to support patient management decision making early on, and thus facilitate timely interventions, such as need for ICU or not, before symptoms of severe illness become clinically overt, with the intention to improve patient outcomes, and not to predict mortality. A secondary aim of this study is to document trends of haematology parameters over time, specifically for the newer parameters, as most of the published data in COVID-19 patients focussed on traditional parameters such as lymphocyte counts, platelet counts, and NLR.

We showed that SARS-CoV-2 infection is accompanied by haemocytometric changes over time and that distinct haemocytometric parameters, combined in a COVID-19 prognostic score, can be used early on to identify those patients likely to deteriorate thereafter and thus may benefit from ICU admission. Moreover, our data suggest that parameters reflecting the activation or functional status of blood cells are better disease severity indicators than traditional parameters, such as lymphocyte or platelet counts.

In COVID-19, lymphopenia has been assigned a key role based on a higher incidence and greater suppression observed in ICU patients (Terpos et al., 2020). Our data indicate that lymphocyte count had no significant prognostic value (AUC 0.550; 95% CI 0.523-0.576), although relative presence of lymphocytes did, hence the incorporation of NLR, IGLR, and AS-LYMPH%/L (reflecting lymphoplasmacytoid lymphocytes [Linssen et al., 2007]) in the prognostic score. Increased lymphocyte activation has been documented in COVID-19 (Fan et al., 2020; Chong et al., 2020). Our findings concur with a previous study (Yip et al., 2020) that reported AS-LYMPH as a strong predictor of clinical severity in COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, a specific “hourglass” appearance on the WBC scattergram on Sysmex analysers, representative of lymphoplasmacytoid lymphocytes, was reported to have a high positive predictive value to detect COVID-19 (Osman et al., 2020).

In contrast to lymphocytes, neutrophils, including precursors, have a tendency to increase in COVID-19 (Mitra et al., 2020). IGs, representing metamyelocytes, myelocytes,, and promyelocytes (Briggs et al., 2011), were commonly present in our patient population, especially in those more severely ill. The importance of IGs in management of sepsis has been reported (Ayres et al., 2019; Nierhaus et al., 2013). Of note, increases in neutrophil counts and neutrophil activity (NEUT-RI) were dissimilar, unlike observations in bacterial infections (Park et al., 2015). RE-MONO%/M is abnormal in critical illness cases only, in line with a previous report attributing a key role for monocytes and macrophages in severe COVID-19 (Merad and Martin, 2020).

Erythropoietic changes have been reported, mostly showing low HGB levels (Fan et al., 2020; Lippi and Plebani, 2020b; Sun et al., 2020c). We found that whilst HGB levels decrease in COVID-19 patients, the erythropoietic response to anaemia, indicated by RET and reticulocyte production index (data not shown), were mostly normal. Haemoglobinisation of reticulocytes, as indicated by negative DELTA-He levels, is however significantly compromised, specifically in more severe cases, possibly due to ongoing inflammation (Weimann et al., 2016). NRBCs are absent in peripheral blood of healthy adults. Their presence, without reticulocytosis, in severe COVID-19 cases indicates haematopoietic stress, probably due to prolonged hypoxia or inflammation (Danise et al., 2011). Furthermore, NRBCs, were reported as a marker of disease severity in ARDS patients, indicating a higher risk of death (Menk et al., 2018).

Contrary to other studies (Henry et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020b; Yang et al., 2020b), PLT at presentation were similar between CI and NC cases, mostly within normal limits with no sign of increased platelet consumption as IPF also remained normal. PLT, and IPF#, tended to increase with disease severity. Higher PLT have been previously reported in severe COVID-19 (Qu et al., 2020). So thrombocytosis, more than thrombocytopenia may be linked to severe COVID-19 which is in contrast to guidelines to identify severe pneumonia (Metlay et al., 2019).

A recent meta-analysis (Zeng et al., 2020) concluded that severe COVID-19 patients had higher neutrophil counts and NLR, and lower lymphocyte counts than those with non-severe COVID-19, and that these basic parameters might help clinicians to predict the severity and prognosis of COVID-19. Although our findings concur with their observed clinical severity-based WBC differences, the discriminating power, early on during hospitalisation and thus value to determine prognosis, was insufficient. A previous report about the prognostic value of NLR (Liu et al., 2020b) is also not supported by our data. Altogether, our findings indicate that new parameters, reflecting functional status of blood cells, are more frequently outside reference ranges in COVID-19 than classical parameters such as lymphocytes, neutrophils or platelets. However, none of the measured parameters, traditional or novel, alone could discriminate patients based on disease severity. The prognostic score we developed used multiple parameters, representing the three haemopoietic cell lines, with the aim to distinguish CI from NC COVID-19 patients. Different cell lines may not all be equally affected by COVID-19 at the same time. Thus, it is not unexpected that multiple parameters together are better at predicting disease severity, as duration of symptoms at presentation differs widely in individual patients.

The patient group is inherently heterogeneous as health-seeking behaviour may vary widely between patients: some patients may present early whilst others present late at health facilities. Furthermore, recall when symptoms started may be unclear at time of presentation to the hospital. Therefore, a patient on day 3 of hospitalisation could be in an earlier phase of infection than a patient on day 0. In this regard, as the intended use of the prognostic score was to identify at an early stage (once medical care had been sought) who is likely to deteriorate, to keep it as simple and practical as possible, we analysed the data from day 0–3 as a collective dataset for the purpose of identifying which parameters, and at what cut-off values, should be incorporated in the score. Likewise, we did not compare score values from the early phase of hospitalisation (days 0–3) with the later phase (days 4–13) in keeping with the intention to predict outcome early on before signs of critical illness may become clinically overt. We did however plot the data over time to document the patterns as this may be useful in the future to assess response to specific COVID-19 therapies.

The prognostic score correctly identified 70.5% of these patients during first 3 days after hospital admission, with similar performance confirmed in the validation cohort (72.0%). Prognostic score trends over 14 days confirmed a stable clinical course in NC patients and disease progression in CI patients, peaking on day 6 (sensitivity 93%). In the development cohort there was a distinct progressive upward trend of prognostic score values from day 0, peaking on day 6 in the CI group. In the validation cohort, the score also peaked on day 6, but the day 0 score value started relatively high, dropping on day 1, giving the appearance of convergence with the NC group on day 1. The validation cohort was comprised of patients from only two hospitals. Study enrolment at these two hospitals took place at different times of the pandemic, during which time ICU capacity was ramped up significantly. In this regard we speculate that ICU access differed at the two hospitals, hence patients with a similar degree of disease severity may have been admitted to ICU at one hospital and remained on the general ward at the other. Furthermore, all day 0 patients in the CI group were from a single hospital, and numbers were small relative to the development cohort. Our ethics approval did not permit us to review the individual patient clinical records of six patients in the CI group that already had very high (10–16 points) prognostic score values on day 0, four of whom also had no further follow-up samples which would have brought the score value averages on the days following admission, upwards. Any such inter-hospital variability would have been masked in the development cohort, because of the much larger sample size and representation from nine hospitals, compared to the validation cohort where such differences may have been more readily exposed. We therefore speculate that the high average day 0 score value patients in the validation cohort are outliers, and that the day 1 data is more representative of the expected prognostic score values in the validation cohort data set.

As has been widely reported in the literature, our data too shows that males were predominantly affected, and that disease severity was associated with increasing age and presence of comorbidities in general (Table 1, Figure 2). However, not all young patients had a mild course, and not all old patients with comorbidities were critical. Systemic inflammation is an important factor driving disease severity. Our prognostic score, incorporating the activation status of immune cells, may therefore have additional value, especially on an individual patient level, over classical risk factors such as age, gender and comorbidities in discriminating between NC and CI patients, (Table 6, Figure 9). As such, our prognostic score may assist in identifying any patients at risk for severe disease progression, being young or old, male or female, with or without comorbidity and by doing so, support individualised treatment decisions with objective data.

Notably, the mortality rate was relatively high in patients on the general ward, comparable to that of patients admitted to ICU, possibly due to ICU bed shortages or unfamiliarity with COVID-19 at that time. Whatever reason, we assumed that the need for more intensive treatment should have been considered for all patients that died in the general ward. Once a patient is overtly critically ill, clinical judgement will suffice to prioritise intensive care for such a patient. Importantly, our score strives to identify the deranged immune response as a harbinger of criticality (organ failure) before such organ failure is clinically evident. Our data (Figure 8B) shows that prognostic score values of patients with a critical clinical course (CI group) were indistinguishable based on outcome, namely whether they recovered or died, confirming that the clinical applicability of our score is to predict on an individual patient level who is likely to have a critical clinical course, but not to predict mortality.

In our study, the prognostic score was calculated retrospectively using the haemocytometric data from each individual sample measurement exported into Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp., USA). For future clinical practice, we envisage that the prognostic score will be automatically calculated by the laboratory information system and that the result is given on request, together with complete blood count analysis. Besides serving as a risk stratification tool for clinical decision making early on, we postulate that the prognostic score, which provides a snapshot in time of the phase of an individual’s immune response, may be promising as an aid to patient selection for future clinical trials exploring therapeutic options for COVID-19.

Most previous risk score development studies were limited by small sample size, single centre, univariate analysis, and lack of a validation cohort. In contrast, the 4C mortality score, developed and validated by the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC), incorporating patient demographic information (age, sex, comorbidities), clinical observations (respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, level of consciousness) and blood parameters (C-reactive protein (CRP), urea level), incorporated more than 35,000 and 22,000 patients into the development and validation cohorts respectively, and showed better performance at predicting mortality in COVID-19 patients than all previously published scores (Knight et al., 2020). The ISARIC investigators conclude that their score is easy to use as commonly available at hospital admission. Our score has several advantages: firstly, only objective measurements of a haematology analyser are used whilst the ISARIC 4C mortality score uses clinical observation parameters which may be subject to interpretation; secondly, our score is aimed to be automatically generated whilst 4C mortality score needs to be calculated; thirdly, different laboratory measurements (oxygen saturation, CRP, urea) are required to calculate the 4C mortality score, whilst our score uses the globally most commonly requested laboratory examination for patients attending health facilities; fourthly, haematology analysers are widely available globally more so than CRP measurements; and fifthly, the 4C mortality score is aimed at patients admitted to the hospital, whilst our score was developed for patients presenting at the hospital (of whom some were never admitted).

The strength of our study is the inclusion of a relatively large group of confirmed COVID-19 cases from multiple centres and countries, including a validation cohort, Furthermore, we believe that an advantage of our prognostic score is that all input data required to calculate the score value are generated from a single haematology profile test, which is the most common routinely requested baseline blood test in all patients globally.

A limitation of our study is its retrospective nature, as data retrieved from hospital records were sometimes incomplete. Our study was performed at a time that COVID-19 was a new disease entity that constrained the health care in many of the participating centres which may have affected management decisions and therefore study outcome parameters. Data from out-patient settings including more mild cases, and from nursing homes that usually accommodate high risk patients, are needed. Furthermore, clinical data collection was limited, including comorbidity affecting COVID-19 susceptibility and ICU admission decisions, notably as the demand for ICU beds was greater than the availability at the time of our study. Importantly, the conditions of our fast-tracked ethics clearance to facilitate rapid study initiation did not permit data collection about bacterial superinfections and medication (antibiotics, corticosteroids), whilst these factors may affect outcome and haemocytometric parameters.

Finally, our prognostic score includes Sysmex unique parameters. This is a limitation as the score is not universally applicable to all haematology analysers, although the concept is transferable (see Supplementary file 2 for parameters available on other manufacturer haematology platforms). However, it is the very ability to quantify blood cell activation, a reflection of the general immune response status of an individual, that has rendered our prognostic score (which incorporates cell activation parameters such as reactive monocytes and antibody-synthesising lymphocytes amongst others) better than using only standard parameters, such as neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, which are universally available on all systems, at least in our patient dataset.

All data analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11, and tables 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6.

1. 1. Ayres LS
   2. Sgnaolin V
   3. Munhoz TP

   (2019) Immature granulocytes index as early marker of Sepsis

   International Journal of Laboratory Hematology 41:392–396.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/ijlh.12990

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Briggs CJ
   2. Linssen J
   3. Longair I
   4. Machin SJ

   (2011) Improved flagging rates on the sysmex XE-5000 compared with the XE-2100 reduce the number of manual film reviews and increase laboratory productivity

   American Journal of Clinical Pathology 136:309–316.

   https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPDLR4KGKAFW4W

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Buttarello M

   (2016) Laboratory diagnosis of Anemia: are the old and new red cell parameters useful in classification and treatment, how?

   International Journal of Laboratory Hematology 38:123–132.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/ijlh.12500

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. Preprint

   1. Caramelo F
   2. Ferreira N
   3. Oliveiros B

   (2020) Estimation of risk factors for COVID-19 mortality - preliminary results

   medRxiv.

   https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.24.20027268

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Chabot-Richards DS
   2. George TI

   (2015) White blood cell counts: reference methodology

   Clinics in Laboratory Medicine 35:11–24.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cll.2014.10.007

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Chen R
   2. Liang W
   3. Jiang M
   4. Guan W
   5. Zhan C
   6. Wang T
   7. Tang C
   8. Sang L
   9. Liu J
   10. Ni Z
   11. Hu Y
   12. Liu L
   13. Shan H
   14. Lei C
   15. Peng Y
   16. Wei L
   17. Liu Y
   18. Hu Y
   19. Peng P
   20. Wang J
   21. Liu J
   22. Chen Z
   23. Li G
   24. Zheng Z
   25. Qiu S
   26. Luo J
   27. Ye C
   28. Zhu S
   29. Liu X
   30. Cheng L
   31. Ye F
   32. Zheng J
   33. Zhang N
   34. Li Y
   35. He J
   36. Li S
   37. Zhong N
   38. Medical Treatment Expert Group for COVID-19

   (2020) Risk factors of fatal outcome in hospitalized subjects with coronavirus disease 2019 From a Nationwide Analysis in China

   Chest 158:97–105.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.010

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Chong VCL
   2. Lim KGE
   3. Fan BE
   4. Chan SSW
   5. Ong KH
   6. Kuperan P

   (2020) Reactive lymphocytes in patients with COVID-19

   British Journal of Haematology 189:844.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.16690

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Danise P
   2. Maconi M
   3. Barrella F
   4. Di Palma A
   5. Avino D
   6. Rovetti A
   7. Gioia M
   8. Amendola G

   (2011) Evaluation of nucleated red blood cells in the peripheral blood of hematological diseases

   Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 50:357–360.

   https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2011.766

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Fan BE
   2. Chong VCL
   3. Chan SSW
   4. Lim GH
   5. Lim KGE
   6. Tan GB
   7. Mucheli SS
   8. Kuperan P
   9. Ong KH

   (2020) Hematologic parameters in patients with COVID-19 infection

   American Journal of Hematology 95:E131.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.25774

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Galloway JB
    2. Norton S
    3. Barker RD
    4. Brookes A
    5. Carey I
    6. Clarke BD
    7. Jina R
    8. Reid C
    9. Russell MD
    10. Sneep R
    11. Sugarman L
    12. Williams S
    13. Yates M
    14. Teo J
    15. Shah AM
    16. Cantle F

    (2020) A clinical risk score to identify patients with COVID-19 at high risk of critical care admission or death: an observational cohort study

    Journal of Infection 81:282–288.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2020.05.064

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Guan WJ
    2. Ni ZY
    3. Hu Y
    4. Liang WH
    5. Ou CQ
    6. He JX
    7. Liu L
    8. Shan H
    9. Lei CL
    10. Hui DSC
    11. Du B
    12. Li LJ
    13. Zeng G
    14. Yuen KY
    15. Chen RC
    16. Tang CL
    17. Wang T
    18. Chen PY
    19. Xiang J
    20. Li SY
    21. Wang JL
    22. Liang ZJ
    23. Peng YX
    24. Wei L
    25. Liu Y
    26. Hu YH
    27. Peng P
    28. Wang JM
    29. Liu JY
    30. Chen Z
    31. Li G
    32. Zheng ZJ
    33. Qiu SQ
    34. Luo J
    35. Ye CJ
    36. Zhu SY
    37. Zhong NS
    38. China Medical Treatment Expert Group for Covid-19

    (2020) Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China

    New England Journal of Medicine 382:1708–1720.

    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2002032

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Henry BM
    2. de Oliveira MHS
    3. Benoit S
    4. Plebani M
    5. Lippi G

    (2020) Hematologic, biochemical and immune biomarker abnormalities associated with severe illness and mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a meta-analysis

    Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 58:1021–1028.

    https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-0369

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Hoffmann JJ

    (2014) Reticulated platelets: analytical aspects and clinical utility

    Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 52:1107–1117.

    https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2014-0165

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Ji D
    2. Zhang D
    3. Xu J
    4. Chen Z
    5. Yang T
    6. Zhao P
    7. Chen G
    8. Cheng G
    9. Wang Y
    10. Bi J
    11. Tan L
    12. Lau G
    13. Qin E

    (2020) Prediction for progression risk in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: the CALL score

    Clinical Infectious Diseases 71:1393–1399.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa414

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Jiang SQ
    2. Huang QF
    3. Xie WM
    4. Lv C
    5. Quan XQ

    (2020) The association between severe COVID-19 and low platelet count: evidence from 31 observational studies involving 7613 participants

    British Journal of Haematology 190:e29–e33.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.16817

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Kermali M
    2. Khalsa RK
    3. Pillai K
    4. Ismail Z
    5. Harky A

    (2020) The role of biomarkers in diagnosis of COVID-19 - A systematic review

    Life Sciences 254:117788.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lfs.2020.117788

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Khartabil TA
    2. Russcher H
    3. van der Ven A
    4. de Rijke YB

    (2020) A summary of the diagnostic and prognostic value of hemocytometry markers in COVID-19 patients

    Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences 57:415–431.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/10408363.2020.1774736

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Knight SR
    2. Ho A
    3. Pius R
    4. Buchan I
    5. Carson G
    6. Drake TM
    7. Dunning J
    8. Fairfield CJ
    9. Gamble C
    10. Green CA
    11. Gupta R
    12. Halpin S
    13. Hardwick HE
    14. Holden KA
    15. Horby PW
    16. Jackson C
    17. Mclean KA
    18. Merson L
    19. Nguyen-Van-Tam JS
    20. Norman L
    21. Noursadeghi M
    22. Olliaro PL
    23. Pritchard MG
    24. Russell CD
    25. Shaw CA
    26. Sheikh A
    27. Solomon T
    28. Sudlow C
    29. Swann OV
    30. Turtle LC
    31. Openshaw PJ
    32. Baillie JK
    33. Semple MG
    34. Docherty AB
    35. Harrison EM
    36. ISARIC4C investigators

    (2020) Risk stratification of patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 using the ISARIC WHO clinical characterisation protocol: development and validation of the 4C mortality score

    BMJ 370:m3339.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3339

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Kono M
    2. Saigo K
    3. Matsuhiroya S
    4. Takahashi T
    5. Hashimoto M
    6. Obuchi A
    7. Imoto S
    8. Nishiyama T
    9. Kawano S

    (2018) Detection of activated neutrophils by reactive oxygen species production using a hematology analyzer

    Journal of Immunological Methods 463:122–126.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jim.2018.10.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Linssen J
    2. Jennissen V
    3. Hildmann J
    4. Reisinger E
    5. Schindler J
    6. Malchau G
    7. Nierhaus A
    8. Wielckens K

    (2007) Identification and quantification of high fluorescence-stained lymphocytes as antibody synthesizing/secreting cells using the automated routine hematology analyzer XE-2100

    Cytometry Part B: Clinical Cytometry 72B:157–166.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.b.20150

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Lippi G
    2. Plebani M
    3. Henry BM

    (2020a) Thrombocytopenia is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections: a meta-analysis

    Clinica Chimica Acta 506:145–148.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.022

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Lippi G
    2. Plebani M

    (2020b) Laboratory abnormalities in patients with COVID-2019 infection

    Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 58:1131–1134.

    https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-0198

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Liu F
    2. Li L
    3. Xu M
    4. Wu J
    5. Luo D
    6. Zhu Y
    7. Li B
    8. Song X
    9. Zhou X

    (2020a) Prognostic value of interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin in patients with COVID-19

    Journal of Clinical Virology 127:104370.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104370

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Liu J
    2. Li S
    3. Liu J
    4. Liang B
    5. Wang X
    6. Wang H
    7. Li W
    8. Tong Q
    9. Yi J
    10. Zhao L
    11. Xiong L
    12. Guo C
    13. Tian J
    14. Luo J
    15. Yao J
    16. Pang R
    17. Shen H
    18. Peng C
    19. Liu T
    20. Zhang Q
    21. Wu J
    22. Xu L
    23. Lu S
    24. Wang B
    25. Weng Z
    26. Han C
    27. Zhu H
    28. Zhou R
    29. Zhou H
    30. Chen X
    31. Ye P
    32. Zhu B
    33. Wang L
    34. Zhou W
    35. He S
    36. He Y
    37. Jie S
    38. Wei P
    39. Zhang J
    40. Lu Y
    41. Wang W
    42. Zhang L
    43. Li L
    44. Zhou F
    45. Wang J
    46. Dittmer U
    47. Lu M
    48. Hu Y
    49. Yang D
    50. Zheng X

    (2020b) Longitudinal characteristics of lymphocyte responses and cytokine profiles in the peripheral blood of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients

    EBioMedicine 55:102763.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102763

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. Preprint

    1. Lu J
    2. Hu S
    3. Fan R
    4. Liu Z
    5. Yin X
    6. Wang Q

    (2020) ACP risk grade: a simple mortality index for patients with confirmed or suspected severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 disease (COVID-19) during the early stage of outbreak in Wuhan, China

    medRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.20025510

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Luo X
    2. Zhou W
    3. Yan X
    4. Guo T
    5. Wang B
    6. Xia H
    7. Ye L
    8. Xiong J
    9. Jiang Z
    10. Liu Y
    11. Zhang B
    12. Yang W

    (2020) Prognostic value of C-reactive protein in patients with COVID-19

    Clinical Infectious Diseases : An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 71:2174–2179.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa641

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Menk M
    2. Giebelhäuser L
    3. Vorderwülbecke G
    4. Gassner M
    5. Graw JA
    6. Weiss B
    7. Zimmermann M
    8. Wernecke KD
    9. Weber-Carstens S

    (2018) Nucleated red blood cells as predictors of mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS): an observational study

    Annals of Intensive Care 8:42.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-018-0387-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Merad M
    2. Martin JC

    (2020) Pathological inflammation in patients with COVID-19: a key role for monocytes and macrophages

    Nature Reviews Immunology 20:355–362.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-020-0331-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Metlay JP
    2. Waterer GW
    3. Long AC
    4. Anzueto A
    5. Brozek J
    6. Crothers K
    7. Cooley LA
    8. Dean NC
    9. Fine MJ
    10. Flanders SA
    11. Griffin MR
    12. Metersky ML
    13. Musher DM
    14. Restrepo MI
    15. Whitney CG

    (2019) Diagnosis and treatment of adults with Community-acquired pneumonia an official clinical practice guideline of the american thoracic society and infectious diseases society of america

    American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 200:e45–e67.

    https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201908-1581ST

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Mitra A
    2. Dwyre DM
    3. Schivo M
    4. Thompson GR
    5. Cohen SH
    6. Ku N
    7. Graff JP

    (2020) Leukoerythroblastic reaction in a patient with COVID-19 infection

    American Journal of Hematology 95:999–1000.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.25793

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Nierhaus A
    2. Klatte S
    3. Linssen J
    4. Eismann NM
    5. Wichmann D
    6. Hedke J
    7. Braune SA
    8. Kluge S

    (2013) Revisiting the white blood cell count: immature granulocytes count as a diagnostic marker to discriminate between SIRS and Sepsis--a prospective, observational study

    BMC Immunology 14:8.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2172-14-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Osman J
    2. Lambert J
    3. Templé M
    4. Devaux F
    5. Favre R
    6. Flaujac C
    7. Bridoux D
    8. Marque-Juillet S
    9. Bruneel F
    10. Mignon F
    11. Diaz-Flores E
    12. Hentgen V
    13. Greder-Belan A
    14. Azarian R
    15. Koukabi M
    16. Rousselot P
    17. Raggueneau V
    18. Manéglier B

    (2020) Rapid screening of COVID-19 patients using white blood cell scattergrams, a study on 381 patients

    British Journal of Haematology 190:718–722.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.16943

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Park SH
    2. Park CJ
    3. Lee BR
    4. Nam KS
    5. Kim MJ
    6. Han MY
    7. Kim YJ
    8. Cho YU
    9. Jang S

    (2015) Sepsis affects most routine and cell population data (CPD) obtained using the sysmex XN-2000 blood cell analyzer: neutrophil-related CPD NE-SFL and NE-WY provide useful information for detecting Sepsis

    International Journal of Laboratory Hematology 37:190–198.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/ijlh.12261

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Prodjosoewojo S
    2. Riswari SF
    3. Djauhari H
    4. Kosasih H
    5. van Pelt LJ
    6. Alisjahbana B
    7. van der Ven AJ
    8. de Mast Q

    (2019) A novel diagnostic algorithm equipped on an automated hematology analyzer to differentiate between common causes of febrile illness in southeast asia

    PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 13:e0007183.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007183

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Qu R
    2. Ling Y
    3. Zhang YH
    4. Wei LY
    5. Chen X
    6. Li XM
    7. Liu XY
    8. Liu HM
    9. Guo Z
    10. Ren H
    11. Wang Q

    (2020) Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio is associated with prognosis in patients with coronavirus disease-19

    Journal of Medical Virology 92:1533–1541.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25767

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Shi Y
    2. Yu X
    3. Zhao H
    4. Wang H
    5. Zhao R
    6. Sheng J

    (2020a) Host susceptibility to severe COVID-19 and establishment of a host risk score: findings of 487 cases outside Wuhan

    Critical Care 24:108.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-2833-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Shi H
    2. Han X
    3. Jiang N
    4. Cao Y
    5. Alwalid O
    6. Gu J
    7. Fan Y
    8. Zheng C

    (2020b) Radiological findings from 81 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study

    The Lancet Infectious Diseases 20:425–434.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30086-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Sun Q
    2. Qiu H
    3. Huang M
    4. Yang Y

    (2020a) Lower mortality of COVID-19 by early recognition and intervention: experience from jiangsu province

    Annals of Intensive Care 10:33.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-020-00650-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Sun Y
    2. Dong Y
    3. Wang L
    4. Xie H
    5. Li B
    6. Chang C
    7. Wang FS

    (2020b) Characteristics and prognostic factors of disease severity in patients with COVID-19: the Beijing experience

    Journal of Autoimmunity 112:102473.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaut.2020.102473

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Sun S
    2. Cai X
    3. Wang H
    4. He G
    5. Lin Y
    6. Lu B
    7. Chen C
    8. Pan Y
    9. Hu X

    (2020c) Abnormalities of peripheral blood system in patients with COVID-19 in Wenzhou, China

    Clinica Chimica Acta 507:174–180.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2020.04.024

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Terpos E
    2. Ntanasis-Stathopoulos I
    3. Elalamy I
    4. Kastritis E
    5. Sergentanis TN
    6. Politou M
    7. Psaltopoulou T
    8. Gerotziafas G
    9. Dimopoulos MA

    (2020) Hematological findings and complications of COVID-19

    American Journal of Hematology 95:834–847.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.25829

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Wang L
    2. He W
    3. Yu X
    4. Hu D
    5. Bao M
    6. Liu H
    7. Zhou J
    8. Jiang H

    (2020a) Coronavirus disease 2019 in elderly patients: characteristics and prognostic factors based on 4-week follow-up

    Journal of Infection 80:639–645.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2020.03.019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Wang D
    2. Yin Y
    3. Hu C
    4. Liu X
    5. Zhang X
    6. Zhou S
    7. Jian M
    8. Xu H
    9. Prowle J
    10. Hu B
    11. Li Y
    12. Peng Z

    (2020b) Clinical course and outcome of 107 patients infected with the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, discharged from two hospitals in Wuhan, China

    Critical Care 24:188.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-02895-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Weimann A
    2. Cremer M
    3. Hernáiz-Driever P
    4. Zimmermann M

    (2016) Delta-He, Ret-He and a new diagnostic plot for differential diagnosis and therapy monitoring of patients suffering from various Disease-Specific types of Anemia

    Clinical Laboratory 62:667–677.

    https://doi.org/10.7754/Clin.Lab.2015.150830

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Wu C
    2. Chen X
    3. Cai Y
    4. Xia J
    5. Zhou X
    6. Xu S
    7. Huang H
    8. Zhang L
    9. Zhou X
    10. Du C
    11. Zhang Y
    12. Song J
    13. Wang S
    14. Chao Y
    15. Yang Z
    16. Xu J
    17. Zhou X
    18. Chen D
    19. Xiong W
    20. Xu L
    21. Zhou F
    22. Jiang J
    23. Bai C
    24. Zheng J
    25. Song Y

    (2020) Risk factors associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome and death in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia in Wuhan, China

    JAMA Internal Medicine 180:934.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0994

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Wynants L
    2. Van Calster B
    3. Collins GS
    4. Riley RD
    5. Heinze G
    6. Schuit E
    7. Bonten MMJ
    8. Damen JAA
    9. Debray TPA
    10. De Vos M
    11. Dhiman P
    12. Haller MC
    13. Harhay MO
    14. Henckaerts L
    15. Kreuzberger N
    16. Lohman A
    17. Luijken K
    18. Ma J
    19. Andaur CL
    20. Reitsma JB
    21. Sergeant JC
    22. Shi C
    23. Skoetz N
    24. Smits LJM
    25. Snell KIE
    26. Sperrin M
    27. Spijker R
    28. Steyerberg EW
    29. Takada T
    30. van Kuijk SMJ
    31. van Royen FS
    32. Wallisch C
    33. Hooft L
    34. Moons KGM
    35. van Smeden M

    (2020) Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19 infection: systematic review and critical appraisal

    BMJ 369:m1328.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1328

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. Preprint

    1. Yan L
    2. Zhang H-T
    3. Xiao Y
    4. Wang M
    5. Sun C
    6. Liang J

    (2020) Prediction of criticality in patients with severe Covid-19 infection using three clinical features: a machine learning-based prognostic model with clinical data in Wuhan

    medRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.27.20028027

    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Yang AP
    2. Liu JP
    3. Tao WQ
    4. Li HM

    (2020a) The diagnostic and predictive role of NLR, d-NLR and PLR in COVID-19 patients

    International Immunopharmacology 84:106504.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2020.106504

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Yang X
    2. Yang Q
    3. Wang Y
    4. Wu Y
    5. Xu J
    6. Yu Y
    7. Shang Y

    (2020b) Thrombocytopenia and its association with mortality in patients with COVID-19

    Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis 18:1469–1472.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.14848

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Yip CYC
    2. Yap ES
    3. De Mel S
    4. Teo WZY
    5. Lee CT
    6. Kan S
    7. Lee MCC
    8. Loh WNH
    9. Lim EL
    10. Lee SY

    (2020) Temporal changes in immune blood cell parameters in COVID-19 infection and recovery from severe infection

    British Journal of Haematology 190:33–36.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.16847

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Yuan M
    2. Yin W
    3. Tao Z
    4. Tan W
    5. Hu Y

    (2020) Association of radiologic findings with mortality of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China

    PLOS ONE 15:e0230548.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230548

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Zeng F
    2. Li L
    3. Zeng J
    4. Deng Y
    5. Huang H
    6. Chen B
    7. Deng G

    (2020) Can we predict the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 with a routine blood test?

    Polish Archives of Internal Medicine 130:400–406.

    https://doi.org/10.20452/pamw.15331

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Zhou F
    2. Yu T
    3. Du R
    4. Fan G
    5. Liu Y
    6. Liu Z
    7. Xiang J
    8. Wang Y
    9. Song B
    10. Gu X
    11. Guan L
    12. Wei Y
    13. Li H
    14. Wu X
    15. Xu J
    16. Tu S
    17. Zhang Y
    18. Chen H
    19. Cao B

    (2020) Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study

    The Lancet 395:1054–1062.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30566-3

    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Joachim Linssen

   Sysmex Europe GmbH, Hamburg, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Validation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   is a permanent employee of Sysmex Europe GMBH who provided free of charge study reagents to the study centres.

2. Anthony Ermens

   Amphia Hospital, Breda, Netherlands

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Marvin Berrevoets

   Elisabeth-Tweesteden Hospital, Tilburg, Netherlands

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Michela Seghezzi

   Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Giulia Previtali

   Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Simone van der Sar-van der Brugge

   Amphia Hospital, Breda, Netherlands

   Contribution

   Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6462-075X

7. Henk Russcher

   Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Annelies Verbon

   Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. Judith Gillis

   Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

10. Jürgen Riedl

    Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, Netherlands

    Contribution

    Investigation, Writing - review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

11. Eva de Jongh

    Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, Netherlands

    Contribution

    Investigation, Writing - review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

12. Jarob Saker

    Sysmex Europe GmbH, Hamburg, Germany

    Contribution

    Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

    Competing interests

    is a permanent employee of Sysmex Europe GMBH who provided free of charge study reagents to the study centres.

13. Marion Münster

    Sysmex Europe GmbH, Hamburg, Germany

    Contribution

    Formal analysis, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

    Competing interests

    is a permanent employee of Sysmex Europe GMBH who provided free of charge study reagents to the study centres.

14. Imke CA Munnix

    Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, Netherlands

    Contribution

    Investigation, Writing - review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

15. Anthonius Dofferhof

    Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, Netherlands

    Contribution

    Investigation, Writing - review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

16. Volkher Scharnhorst

    Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, Netherlands

    Contribution

    Investigation, Writing - review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

17. Heidi Ammerlaan

    Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, Netherlands

    Contribution

    Investigation, Writing - review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

18. Kathleen Deiteren

    University Hospital Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    Contribution

    Investigation, Writing - review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

19. Stephan JL Bakker

    University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands

    Contribution

    Investigation, Writing - review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

20. Lucas Joost Van Pelt

    University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands

    Contribution

    Investigation, Writing - review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5538-1806

21. Yvette Kluiters-de Hingh

    Elisabeth-Tweesteden Hospital, Tilburg, Netherlands

    Contribution

    Investigation, Writing - review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

22. Mathie PG Leers

    Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, Netherlands

    Contribution

    Investigation, Writing - review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

23. Andre J van der Ven

    Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Validation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

    For correspondence

    andre.vanderven@radboudumc.nl

    Competing interests

    has an ad hoc consultancy agreement with Sysmex Europe GMBH who provided free of charge study reagents to the study centres.

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1833-3391

• 34,856

  views

• 1,905

  downloads

• 42

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.