Next Article in Journal
Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Lower Respiratory Tract Infection Determinants in Thai Hospitalized Children: National Data Analysis 2015–2020
Previous Article in Journal
A PCR-RFLP Technique to Assess the Geographic Origin of Plasmodium falciparum Strains in Central America
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
TropicalMed
Volume 7
Issue 8
10.3390/tropicalmed7080150
tropicalmed-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Fibrinogen-to-Albumin Ratio and Blood Urea Nitrogen-to-Albumin Ratio in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Juan R. Ulloque-Badaracco
1,2,
Esteban A. Alarcon-Braga
1,2,
Enrique A. Hernandez-Bustamante
3,4,
Ali Al-kassab-Córdova
1,
Melany D. Mosquera-Rojas
1,2,
Ricardo R. Ulloque-Badaracco
5,
Miguel A. Huayta-Cortez
1,
Sherelym H. Maita-Arauco
1,
Percy Herrera-Añazco
6,7 and
Vicente A. Benites-Zapata
8,*
1
Escuela de Medicina, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, Lima 15023, Peru
2
Sociedad Científica de Estudiantes de Medicina de la Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, Lima 15023, Peru
3
Sociedad Científica de Estudiantes de Medicina de la Universidad Nacional de Trujillo, Trujillo 13011, Peru
4
Grupo Peruano de Investigación Epidemiológica, Unidad Para la Generación y Síntesis de Evidencias en Salud, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Lima 15012, Peru
5
Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Científica del Sur, Lima 15067, Peru
6
Escuela de Enfermería, Universidad Privada San Juan Bautista, Lima 15067, Peru
7
Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación—IETSI, EsSalud, Lima 14072, Peru
8
Unidad de Investigación Para la Generación y Síntesis de Evidencias en Salud, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Lima 15012, Peru
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 2022, 7(8), 150; https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed7080150
Submission received: 11 June 2022 / Revised: 13 July 2022 / Accepted: 15 July 2022 / Published: 27 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Infectious Diseases)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Fibrinogen-to-albumin ratio (FAR) and blood urea nitrogen-to-albumin ratio (BAR) are inflammatory biomarkers that have been associated with clinical outcomes of multiple diseases. The objective of this study is to evaluate the association of these biomarkers with the severity and mortality of COVID-19 patients. A systematic search was performed in five databases. Observational studies that reported the association between FAR and BAR values with the severity and mortality of COVID-19 patients were included. Random-effects models were used for meta-analyses, and effects were expressed as Odds Ratio (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Publication bias was assessed using the Begg test, while the quality assessment was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. A total of 21 studies (n = 7949) were included. High FAR values were associated with a higher risk of severity (OR: 2.41; 95% CI 1.41–4.12; p < 0.001) and mortality (OR: 2.05; 95% CI 1.66–2.54; p < 0.001). High BAR values were associated with higher risk of mortality (OR: 4.63; 95% CI 2.11–10.15; p < 0.001). However, no statistically significant association was found between BAR values and the risk of severity (OR: 1.16; 95% CI 0.83–1.63; p = 0.38). High FAR and BAR values were associated with poor clinical outcomes.

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has put health systems in check so that to date there are more than 500 million confirmed cases and 6 million deaths [1]. The high demand for specialized health care services together with the low supply of these, especially in low- and middle-income countries, has worsened the global panorama [2]. The consequences of the pandemic are not limited to the health sector but have also severely affected economies, education, and other fields [3,4]. In this sense, it is important to have tools, such as biomarkers, which allow the medical task force to quickly predict severity among critically ill patients.
Several biomarkers have been proven to predict severity and mortality among COVID-19 patients. For instance, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, procalcitonin, D-dimer, interleukin-6, ferritin, and apolipoproteins, among others [5,6,7,8,9,10]. Nevertheless, some of these might be imprecise, expensive, and limited in certain developing countries [11]. Both fibrinogen-to-albumin ratio (FAR) and blood urea nitrogen-to-albumin ratio (BAR) are potential alternatives to predict severity in COVID-19 patients. They are widely accessible, simple, and economical.
FAR is a quotient extensively used to predict disease progression. Fibrinogen is a positive acute-phase reactant involved in coagulation and thrombosis and has been associated with excessive inflammation in COVID-19 patients [12]. Meanwhile, albumin is a negative acute-phase reactant [13]. The elevation of the fibrinogen along with the decrease of albumin is common in inflammatory diseases. It has been demonstrated to be effective in predicting severity and mortality in certain medical conditions such as cancer, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disorders, among others [14,15,16,17].
BAR is a predictive marker employed in several medical conditions such as pneumonia, cardiovascular and gastrointestinal diseases [18,19,20,21]. The kidney involvement, which led to elevated blood urea nitrogen levels, is highly prevalent among COVID-19 patients due to an uncontrolled systemic immune response [22]. As previously mentioned, the elevation of blood urea nitrogen along with the decrease of albumin is a laboratory condition produced by high inflammatory states such as COVID-19.
Although vaccines have been shown to significantly reduce the mortality of patients with COVID-19 [23], the growing threat of new genomic variants of concern demands prognostic tools for those patients susceptible to complications [24]. Recently, several articles have been published which assess the prognostic role of the above-described biomarkers on the outcome of COVID-19 patients. We, therefore, aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies addressing the prognostic value of FAR and BAR among patients with COVID-19.

2. Methods

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement [25] for drafting this systematic review (See PRISMA checklist in Supplementary Table S1) and submitted a summarized version of the protocol to the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review (PROSPERO) [CRD42022326416].

2.1. Search Strategy and Databases

We follow the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) Guidelines [26] for building the search strategy, which is attached as supplemental material (see Search Strategy in Supplementary Table S2). On 7 June 2022 we run the systematic search in five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid Medline, Embase, and Scopus) with no language restriction. A manual search was also carried out on preprint platforms (MedRxiv, Research Square and BioRxiv).

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

We searched for studies assessing the association between FAR or BAR, and the severity or mortality of COVID-19. Inclusion criteria were (a) studies with case-control or cohort designs that (b) enrolled adult patients (≥18 years) and (c) who had been diagnosed to have COVID-19. Our primary outcomes were severity and mortality.

2.3. Study Selection Process and Data Extraction

We exported all retrieved references from databases to Rayyan QCRI (Rayyan Systems Inc. ©, Cambridge, MA, USA) [27]. After removing duplicates, four authors (J.R.U.-B., E.A.A.-B., E.A.H.-B. and R.R.U.-B.) performed independently the screening by title and abstracts. Likewise, these authors independently reviewed the remaining references in full-text. References meeting all eligibility criteria at full-text screening were finally included. We resolved any conflict on decisions at any stage of the study selection process by consensus. Afterwards, two authors (S.H.M.-A. and M.A.H.-C.) independently extracted the information required for data synthesis from the included studies in a Microsoft Excel © template. Any conflict regarding the extracted information was resolved through consensus. We extracted the following data: first author, publication date, study title, study design, study location, number of participants, age, sex, BAR, FAR, outcomes (mortality or severity) and association measures (crude or adjusted with their 95% confidence intervals).

2.4. Quality Assessment

Two authors (A.A.-k.-C. and M.D.M.-R.) independently assessed the risk of bias of all included studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) [28]. The risk of bias was categorized as low (≥6 stars) and high (≤5 stars).

2.5. Assessment of Publication Bias

We evaluated publication bias with Begg test [29]. No publication bias was considered if the p-value was greater than 0.1.

2.6. Statistical Analyses

We transformed continuous data presented as medians and their respective interquartile ranges (IQR) into means and standard deviations (SD), respectively, according to Hozo method [30]. The only measure of association used was the Odds Ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence intervals (CI). In this sense, the standardized mean differences were transformed into ln [OR] using the Chinn method [31], and the Hazard Ratio (HR) was also converted into OR [32]. Review Manager 5.4 was used to perform a random-effects model meta-analysis. This model was selected because we anticipated heterogeneity between studies. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics and the Cochran Q test. We categorized the I2 test as severe (≥60%) and non-severe (<60%). We performed a subgroup analysis by country. In addition, a sensitivity analysis using only studies with a low risk of bias was performed.

3. Results

3.1. Search Results

Databases search found 687 studies; from those, 457 were eliminated because of duplication. In the screening according to titles and abstracts of the remaining 230 articles, 200 studies were excluded. Then, a total of 30 studies were eligible for full-text screening where 9 articles were excluded. In the end, 21 studies were included for the systemic review and metanalyses [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53]. The flowchart of the selection process is shown in Figure 1.

3.2. Study Characteristics

A total of 21 cohort studies were included, thirteen of which were from Turkey, four in China, one from Nigeria, one from India, one from Iran and one from Croatia. Of those, eight studies only evaluated severity, nine studies only evaluated mortality and four studies evaluated both outcomes.
Of the 7949 patients included in the study, 3822 (48.08%) were male, whose ages ranged from 22 to 88 years. The quality assessment showed that ten articles had a low risk of bias while the other eleven articles had a high risk of bias (Table S3). The characteristics of each study are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2.

3.3. Association between FAR Values and Severity of COVID-19 Patients

This association was assessed in eight studies with a total of 2897 patients. The cut-off ranged from 0.088 to 0.15, while the area under the curve (AUC) ranged between 0.629 to 0.838. In the meta-analysis we found that COVID-19 patients with high FAR values had a higher risk of severe disease (OR: 2.41; 95% CI 1.41–4.12; p < 0.001) (Figure 2). Given the high heterogeneity of the studies (I2 = 87%), we performed a subgroup analysis by country (Figure S1), where the association remained in the Turkish studies (OR: 2.22; 95% CI 1.11–4.45; p < 0.001; I2 = 87%) and in the Chinese studies (OR: 4.47; 95% CI 3.2–6.25; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%). In sensitivity analysis, in which we just included studies with a low risk of bias (Figure S2), less heterogeneity and an increase in the magnitude of the association was found (OR: 4.12; 95% CI 3.03–5.59; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%).

3.4. Association between FAR Values and Mortality of COVID-19 Patients

This association was assessed in nine studies with a total of 3693 patients. The cut-off ranged from 0.111 to 0.15, while the AUC ranged from 0.654 to 0.989. In the meta-analysis we found that COVID-19 patients with high FAR values had a higher risk of mortality (OR: 2.05; 95% CI 1.66–2.54; p < 0.001) (Figure 3). Given the high heterogeneity (I2 = 96%), we performed a subgroup analysis by country (Figure S3), and no decrease in heterogeneity in the Turkish subgroup was found (OR: 2.03; 95% CI 1.62–2.54; p < 0.001; I2 = 97%). In sensitivity analysis, in which we just included studies with a low risk of bias (Figure S4), less heterogeneity was found and the association remained (OR: 1.99; 95% CI 1.33–2.98; p < 0.001; I2 = 41%).

3.5. Association between BAR Values and Severity of COVID-19 Patients

This association was assessed in four studies with a total of 2201 patients. The cut-off ranged from 3.788 to 4.78, while the AUC ranged from 0.475 to 0.821. In the meta-analysis, no statistically significant association was found between BAR values and the risk of severe disease (OR: 1.16; 95% CI 0.83–1.63; p = 0.38) (Figure 4).

3.6. Association between BAR Values and Mortality of COVID-19 Patients

This association was assessed in 1756 patients in five studies. The cut-off ranged from 3.4 to 6.23, while the AUC ranged from 0.695 to 0.823. In the meta-analysis, we found that COVID-19 patients with high FAR values were associated with a higher risk of mortality (OR: 4.63; 95% CI 2.11–10.15; p < 0.001) (Figure 5).

3.7. Publication Bias

In the Begg test, no publication bias was found between the association of FAR with severity (p = 0.7105) and mortality (p = 0.1753). Likewise, there was not publication bias between BAR and mortality (p = 1.5376).

4. Discussion

The main results of our study show that high FAR values were associated with a higher risk of disease severity and mortality, and that high BAR values were associated with a higher risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19.
Both FAR and BAR are indirect markers of inflammation that are good predictors in patients with conditions where inflammation is an important factor. In patients with coronary disease, Çetin et al. showed the predictive value of FAR on the development of major cardiovascular events in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome [14]. Liu et al. found that FAR was a good predictor of long-term outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease [15]. In cancer patients, FAR was also shown to be a good predictor of all-cause mortality [54]. Additionally, FAR is a predictor of diabetic kidney disease with better performance than fibrinogen and albumin alone [55]. It also reflects the activity of ANCA-associated vasculitis [56], or the acute-phase response after total knee arthroplasty [57]. Similarly, BAR was shown to be a predictor of long-term mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction in the intensive care unit [58], as well as hospital mortality in older adults [59] or patients with acute pulmonary thromboembolism [60].
Concerning infectious diseases, both biomarkers have also been shown to have predictive properties. BAR independently predicts 30-day mortality and severity in patients with Escherichia coli bacteremia [61]. In the same way, FAR was shown to be a predictor of events in patients with pneumonia. Indeed, a systematic review showed that BAR is a prognostic factor for various types of pneumonia [18] and another study showed that FAR predicts severity among patients with community-acquired pneumonia [62]. In this sense, our results reaffirm the prognostic value of these biomarkers in patients with lung infections (in this case due to COVID-19), where inflammation plays a role as a marker of severity and poor prognosis [63]. Certainly, among patients with severe COVID-19, elevated values of procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, D-dimer, and lactic dehydrogenase have been found [64]. Likewise, in these patients, there was a marked decrease in the values of lymphocytes, monocytes, eosinophils and platelets [64,65,66,67]. Other novel biomarkers of inflammation constructed with the values of these elements have also been shown to be equally useful, such as the albumin to globulin ratio, C-reactive protein/albumin ratio, lymphocyte/monocyte ratio, among others [68,69,70].
BAR and FAR are constructed based on values of fibrinogen, albumin and urea, which are altered in patients with COVID-19. Fibrinogen is one of the acute phase proteins that is synthesized by the liver in response to stimulation by IL-1 and IL-6. Fibrinogen participates in the formation of fibrin as the last step in the coagulation process, and is used as one of the scoring parameters in the diagnosis of disseminated intravascular coagulation [71,72]. Several studies indicated that the level of fibrinogen and its degradation products is not only higher in patients with COVID-19 compared to healthy patients, but also higher in critically ill patients compared to mild or moderate patients [12,73,74,75]. In the case of albumin, it is more susceptible to non-enzymatic glycation reactions and regulates the expression of ACE2, which is the target receptor of COVID-19 [70]. Hypoalbuminemia has been linked to COVID-19 and appears to predict outcomes regardless of age and morbidity [76]. A systematic review found that serum albumin concentration was significantly lower in patients with severe disease and was significantly associated with disease severity and adverse outcomes in these patients [77].
It was noteworthy that high values of BAR were not associated with the severity of the disease. However, this is likely due to the conditions under which urea was tested. A high BAR value may be associated with a high urea value, which may be a consequence of acute kidney injury, a frequent complication in patients with COVID-19 [78]. In patients with acute kidney injury, it is possible to find fluid overload from the initial stages [79], which means that in severe cases that do not respond to fluid restriction and the use of diuretics, renal replacement therapy is indicated [80,81]. For this reason, the association between high urea values and higher mortality in patients with acute kidney injury [82,83] could explain our findings. However, the presence of high BAR values in patients without the severe disease can be explained by the units of measurement used or the dilution of urea values caused by fluid overload, similarly to what happens with the serum creatinine [84,85]. Consequently, it is necessary to point out the importance of considering the level of water overload for a correct estimation of BAR values [86].
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the association of these biomarkers in COVID-19 patients. Besides, NOS was employed to assess the risk of bias among the included articles and sensibility analysis was performed considering the bias of the studies, which gives robustness to our results. Even though infections have decreased in many countries [1], the emergence of new variants [87] and new waves of infections in Asian countries [88], suggest that the world’s health systems will continue treating COVID-19 patients in their hospitals. Therefore, our findings let us suggest potential biomarkers of low cost that will allow health personnel to prioritize or individualize management strategies in patients with COVID-19.
Although the usefulness of various markers [5,89], including composite biomarkers [10,63,64,65], in the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 has been evaluated, their applicability in clinical practice remains conceptual due to flaws in the design of their studies. Most studies are retrospective with different cut-off points, measurement time points, chosen endpoints, and although many studies adjusted their analysis for various factors, unmeasured confounders cannot be excluded, limiting the utility of a biomarker in predicting the prognosis of these patients [90]. Regarding meta-analyses, the retrospective design and the heterogeneity between the studies limit the strength of this type of study, and the sensitivity analysis often alters the results obtained in a first evaluation [90]. Consequently, we cannot state that these biomarkers are better than others available to assess the prognosis of these patients [68,69,70], which merits further studies on this topic.

Limitations

Our study has several limitations. First, high statistical heterogeneity was found due to clinical and methodological differences between studies. However, the heterogeneity decreased when sensitivity analysis was performed. Second, most of the studies were carried out in Turkey, which means that the results could probably not be applied to all countries. Thus, it would be beneficial to analyze the prognostic value of these biomarkers in more countries. Finally, due to the lack of information in the studies, it was not possible to reach a consensus to determine an optimal cut-off point of FAR and BAR for the risk of severity or mortality because the oscillation of values was highly variable. Hence, it would be important to address it in future studies in various populations with different sociodemographic characteristics and lifestyles.

5. Conclusions

COVID-19 patients with high FAR and BAR values were at high risk of mortality. However, only high FAR values were associated with a higher risk of severe disease. Further primary studies are needed to define the optimal cut-off point for these markers and reach a consensus on their prognostic value.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/tropicalmed7080150/s1, Table S1: PRISMA Checklist; Table S2: Search Strategy; Table S3: Newcastle—Ottawa Quality assessment scale for included studies; Figure S1: Subgroup analysis according to countries of the association between FAR and severity of COVID-19 patients; Figure S2: Sensitivity analysis of the association between FAR and severity of COVID-19 patients; Figure S3: Subgroup analysis according to countries of the association between FAR and mortality of COVID-19 patients; Figure S4: Sensitivity analysis of the association between FAR and mortality of COVID-19 patients

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.R.U.-B., E.A.A.-B., E.A.H.-B., R.R.U.-B., P.H.-A. and V.A.B.-Z.; Data curation, A.A.-k.-C., M.A.H.-C., M.D.M.-R. and S.H.M.-A.; Formal analysis, J.R.U.-B., E.A.A.-B. and V.A.B.-Z.; Methodology, J.R.U.-B., E.A.A.-B., E.A.H.-B. and V.A.B.-Z.; Writing—original draft, R.R.U.-B., A.A.-k.-C., M.A.H.-C., M.D.M.-R., P.H.-A., M.A.H.-C., S.H.M.-A. and V.A.B.-Z.; Writing—review & editing, J.R.U.-B., E.A.A.-B., E.A.H.-B., R.R.U.-B., P.H.-A. and V.A.B.-Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable as our systematic review and meta-analysis did not use original patient data.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard with Vaccination Data. Available online: https://covid19.who.int/ (accessed on 18 May 2022).
  2. Wang, H.; Paulson, K.R.; Pease, S.A.; Watson, S.; Comfort, H.; Zheng, P.; Aravkin, A.Y.; Bisignano, C.; Barber, R.M.; Alam, T.; et al. Estimating excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic analysis of COVID-19-related mortality, 2020–2021. Lancet 2022, 399, 1513–1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kolahchi, Z.; De Domenico, M.; Uddin, L.Q.; Cauda, V.; Grossmann, I.; Lacasa, L.; Grancini, G.; Mahmoudi, M.; Rezaei, N. COVID-19 and Its Global Economic Impact. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2021, 1318, 825–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Abumalloh, R.A.; Asadi, S.; Nilashi, M.; Minaei-Bidgoli, B.; Nayer, F.K.; Samad, S.; Mohd, S.; Ibrahim, O. The impact of coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) on education: The role of virtual and remote laboratories in education. Technol. Soc. 2021, 67, 101728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Malik, P.; Patel, U.; Mehta, D.; Patel, N.; Kelkar, R.; Akrmah, M.; Gabrilove, J.L.; Sacks, H. Biomarkers and outcomes of COVID-19 hospitalisations: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Evid.-Based Med. 2021, 26, 107–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Ulloque-Badaracco, J.R.; Salas-Tello, W.I.; Al-kassab-Córdova, A.; Alarcón-Braga, E.A.; Benites-Zapata, V.A.; Maguiña, J.L.; Hernandez, A.V. Prognostic value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2021, 75, e14596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Coomes, E.A.; Haghbayan, H. Interleukin-6 in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev. Med. Virol. 2020, 30, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Heidari-Beni, F.; Vahedian-Azimi, A.; Shojaei, S.; Rahimi-Bashar, F.; Shahriary, A.; Johnston, T.P.; Sahebkar, A. The Level of Procalcitonin in Severe COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2021, 1321, 277–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cheng, L.; Li, H.; Li, L.; Liu, C.; Yan, S.; Chen, H.; Li, Y. Ferritin in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 2020, 34, e23618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ulloque-Badaracco, J.R.; Hernandez-Bustamante, E.A.; Herrera-Añazco, P.; Benites-Zapata, V.A. Prognostic value of apolipoproteins in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Travel Med. Infect. Dis. 2021, 44, 102200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mayeux, R. Biomarkers: Potential Uses and Limitations. NeuroRx 2004, 1, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sui, J.; Noubouossie, D.F.; Gandotra, S.; Cao, L. Elevated Plasma Fibrinogen Is Associated with Excessive Inflammation and Disease Severity in COVID-19 Patients. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2021, 11, 712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Turcato, G.; Zaboli, A.; Kostic, I.; Melchioretto, B.; Ciccariello, L.; Zaccaria, E.; Olivato, A.; Maccagnani, A.; Pfeifer, N.; Bonora, A. Severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection and albumin levels recorded at the first emergency department evaluation: A multicentre retrospective observational study. Emerg. Med. J. 2022, 39, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Çetin, M.; Erdoğan, T.; Kırış, T.; Özer, S.; Yılmaz, A.S.; Durak, H.; Aykan, A.; Şatıroğlu, Ö. Predictive value of fibrinogen-to-albumin ratio in acute coronary syndrome. Herz 2020, 45, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Liu, G.; Fan, C.-M.; Guo, H.; Fan, W.-N.; Li, M.-L.; Cui, G.-X. Fibrinogen-to-albumin ratio predicts long-term outcomes for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: A prospective observational cohort study. Exp. Ther. Med. 2021, 21, 465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ying, H.-Q.; Chen, W.; Xiong, C.-F.; Wang, Y.; Li, X.-J.; Cheng, X.-X. Quantification of fibrinogen-to-pre-albumin ratio provides an integrating parameter for differential diagnosis and risk stratification of early-stage colorectal cancer. Cancer Cell Int. 2022, 22, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Çiçekli, E.; Sayan, S.; Kotan, D. Availability of Fibrinogen/Albumin ratio in MS attack. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 2022, 60, 103674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Milas, G.P.; Issaris, V.; Papavasileiou, V. Blood urea nitrogen to albumin ratio as a predictive factor for pneumonia: A meta-analysis. Respir. Med. Res. 2022, 81, 100886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Zhao, D.; Chen, S.; Liu, Y.; Xu, Z.; Shen, H.; Zhang, S.; Li, Y.; Zhang, H.; Zou, C.; Ma, X. Blood Urea Nitrogen-to-Albumin Ratio in Predicting Long-Term Mortality in Patients Following Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: An Analysis of the MIMIC-III Database. Front. Surg. 2022, 9, 801708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Lin, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Xiao, L.; Qi, C.; Chen, Q.; Li, Y. Blood urea nitrogen to serum albumin ratio as a new prognostic indicator in critical patients with chronic heart failure. ESC Heart Fail. 2022, 9, 1360–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bae, S.J.; Kim, K.; Yun, S.J.; Lee, S.H. Predictive performance of blood urea nitrogen to serum albumin ratio in elderly patients with gastrointestinal bleeding. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2021, 41, 152–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Werion, A.; Belkhir, L.; Perrot, M.; Schmit, G.; Aydin, S.; Chen, Z.; Penaloza, A.; De Greef, J.; Yildiz, H.; Pothen, L.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 causes a specific dysfunction of the kidney proximal tubule. Kidney Int. 2020, 98, 1296–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Harder, T.; Koch, J.; Vygen-Bonnet, S.; Külper-Schiek, W.; Pilic, A.; Reda, S.; Scholz, S.; Wichmann, O. Efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection: Interim results of a living systematic review, 1 January to 14 May 2021. Eurosurveillance 2021, 26, 2100563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Gómez, C.E.; Perdiguero, B.; Esteban, M. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants and Impact in Global Vaccination Programs against SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. Vaccines 2021, 9, 243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.A.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009, 339, b2700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. McGowan, J.; Sampson, M.; Salzwedel, D.M.; Cogo, E.; Foerster, V.; Lefebvre, C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2016, 75, 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Ouzzani, M.; Hammady, H.; Fedorowicz, Z.; Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2016, 5, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Wells, G.A.; Shea, B.; O’Connell, D.; Peterson, J.; Welch, V.; Losos, M.; Tugwell, P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses. Available online: https://www.ohri.ca//programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.Asp (accessed on 7 July 2022).
  29. Begg, C.B.; Mazumdar, M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994, 50, 1088–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hozo, S.P.; Djulbegovic, B.; Hozo, I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2005, 5, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Chinn, S. A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 2000, 19, 3127–3131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Shor, E.; Roelfs, D.; Vang, Z.M. The “Hispanic mortality paradox” revisited: Meta-analysis and meta-regression of life-course differentials in Latin American and Caribbean immigrants’ mortality. Soc. Sci. Med. 2017, 186, 20–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Gemcioglu, E.; Davutoglu, M.; Catalbas, R.; Karabuga, B.; Kaptan, E.; Aypak, A.; Kalem, A.K.; Özdemir, M.; Yeşilova, N.Y.; Kalkan, E.A.; et al. Predictive values of biochemical markers as early indicators for severe COVID-19 cases in admission. Future Virol. 2021, 16, 353–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kuluöztürk, M.; Deveci, F.; Turgut, T.; Öner, Ö. The Glasgow Prognostic Score and fibrinogen to albumin ratio as prognostic factors in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Expert Rev. Respir. Med. 2021, 15, 1061–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Afşin, A.; Tibilli, H.; Hoşoğlu, Y.; Asoğlu, R.; Süsenbük, A.; Markirt, S.; Tuna, V.D. Fibrinogen-to-albumin ratio predicts mortality in COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Adv. Respir. Med. 2021, 89, 557–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Bi, X.; Su, Z.; Yan, H.; Du, J.; Wang, J.; Chen, L.; Peng, M.; Chen, S.; Shen, B.; Li, J. Prediction of severe illness due to COVID-19 based on an analysis of initial Fibrinogen to Albumin Ratio and Platelet count. Platelets 2020, 31, 674–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Atlas, A.; Altay, N.; Karahan, M.A.; Pehlivan, V.F.; Pehlivan, B.; Duran, E.; Erol, M.K. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte and fibrinogen-to-albumin ratios may be indicators of worse outcomes in ICU patients with COVID-19. J. Surg. Med. 2021, 5, 623–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Küçükceran, K.; Ayranci, M.K.; Girişgin, A.S.; Koçak, S. Predictive value of D-dimer/albumin ratio and fibrinogen/albumin ratio for in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2021, 75, e14263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Torun, A.; Çakirca, T.D.; Çakirca, G.; Portakal, R.D. The value of C-reactive protein/albumin, fibrinogen/albumin, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratios in predicting the severity of COVID-19. Rev. Assoc. Médica Bras. 2021, 67, 431–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Çekiç, D.; Emir Arman, M.; Cihad Genç, A.; İşsever, K.; Yıldırım, İ.; Bilal Genç, A.; Dheir, H.; Yaylacı, S. Predictive role of FAR ratio in COVID-19 patients. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2021, 75, e14931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yang, R.; Gui, X.; Ke, H.; Gao, S.; Luo, M.; Xiong, Y. The indicative role of markers for liver injury on the severity and prognosis of coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2021, 33, e176–e182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Acehan, S.; Gülen, M.; Işıkber, C.; Kaya, A.; Unlu, N.; İnce, Ç.; Toptaş Fırat, B.; Köksaldı Şahin, G.; Erdem Sümbül, H.; Satar, S. C-reactive protein to albumin ratio is associated with increased risk of mortality in COVID-19 pneumonia patients. Cukurova Med. J. 2021, 46, 1449–1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mihic, D.; Maricic, L.; Loinjak, D. Prognostic significance inflammatory scoring systems in critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection. Med. Jadertina 2022, 52, 5–12. [Google Scholar]
  44. Huang, D.; Yang, H.; Yu, H.; Wang, T.; Chen, Z.; Liang, Z.; Yao, R. Blood Urea Nitrogen to Serum Albumin Ratio (BAR) Predicts Critical Illness in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Int. J. Gen. Med. 2021, 14, 4711–4721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Nie, S.; Zhao, X.; Zhao, K.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, Z. Metabolic disturbances and inflammatory dysfunction predict severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A retrospective study. MedRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Küçükceran, K.; Ayrancı, M.K.; Girişgin, A.S.; Koçak, S.; Dündar, Z.D. The role of the BUN/albumin ratio in predicting mortality in COVID-19 patients in the emergency department. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2021, 48, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Ata, F.; As, A.K.; Engin, M.; Kat, N.K.; Ata, Y.; Turk, T. Can blood urea Nitrogen-to-Albumin ratio predict mortality in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia hospitalized in the intensive care unit? Rev. Assoc. Médica Bras. 2021, 67, 1421–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Singh, S.; Singh, K. Blood Urea Nitrogen/Albumin Ratio and Mortality Risk in Patients with COVID-19. Indian J. Crit. Care Med. 2022, 26, 626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Alirezaei, T.; Hooshmand, S.; Irilouzadian, R.; Hajimoradi, B.; Montazeri, S.; Shayegh, A. The role of blood urea nitrogen to serum albumin ratio in the prediction of severity and 30-day mortality in patients with COVID-19. Health Sci. Rep. 2022, 5, e606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lawson, S.; Amadi, C. Potentials of Varied Inflammatory Indices in the Prediction of COVID-19 Severity among Nigerians. Adv. Biochem. 2022, 10, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Çelik, Ç.O.; Çiftci, O.; Özer, N.; Müderrsioğlu, İ.H. Comparison of Inflammation-Based Parameters and MELD-XI Score with 4C Mortality Score in Predicting in-Hospital Mortality in COVID-19. Cukurova Med. J. 2022, 47, 629–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yazıcı, M.M.; Altuntaş, G.; Aygün, A.; Nalbant, E. The Value of the C-Reactive Protein/Albumin and Fibrinogen/Albumin Ratios in Predicting Disease Severity and Mortality in Elderly COVID-19 Patients. Med. Sci. Discov. 2022, 9, 362–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Caliskan, Z.; Bozdag, E.; Sonmez, S.; Dagistanli, S.; Bulut, N.; Dincer, Y. Assessment of 7 Inflammatory Indexes as an Early Predictor of COVID-19 Severity. Cerrahpasa Med. J. 2022, XX, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wen, Y.; Yang, J.; Han, X. Fibrinogen-to-Albumin Ratio is Associated with All-Cause Mortality in Cancer Patients. Int. J. Gen. Med. 2021, 14, 4867–4875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Wang, K.; Xu, W.; Zha, B.; Shi, J.; Wu, G.; Ding, H. Fibrinogen to Albumin Ratio as an Independent Risk Factor for Type 2 Diabetic Kidney Disease. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes. Targets Ther. 2021, 14, 4557–4567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Lee, L.E.; Pyo, J.Y.; Ahn, S.S.; Song, J.J.; Park, Y.B.; Lee, S.W. Fibrinogen to albumin ratio reflects the activity of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 2021, 35, e23731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Amaro, E.; Moore-Lotridge, S.N.; Wessinger, B.; Benvenuti, M.A.; An, T.J.; Oelsner, W.K.; Polkowski, G.G.; Schoenecker, J.G. Albumin and the fibrinogen-to-albumin ratio: Biomarkers for the acute phase response following total knee arthroplasty. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0247070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhao, D.; Liu, Y.; Chen, S.; Xu, Z.; Yang, X.; Shen, H.; Zhang, S.; Li, Y.; Zhang, H.; Zou, C.; et al. Predictive Value of Blood Urea Nitrogen to Albumin Ratio in Long-Term Mortality in Intensive Care Unit Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis. Int. J. Gen. Med. 2022, 15, 2247–2259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Dundar, Z.D.; Kucukceran, K.; Ayranci, M.K. Blood urea nitrogen to albumin ratio is a predictor of in-hospital mortality in older emergency department patients. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2021, 46, 349–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Fang, J.; Xu, B. Blood Urea Nitrogen to Serum Albumin Ratio Independently Predicts Mortality in Critically Ill Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism. Clin. Appl. Thromb./Hemost. 2021, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zou, X.L.; Feng, D.Y.; Wu, W.B.; Yang, H.L.; Zhang, T.T. Blood urea nitrogen to serum albumin ratio independently predicts 30-day mortality and severity in patients with Escherichia coli bacteraemia. Med. Clin. 2021, 157, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Luo, B.; Sun, M.; Huo, X.; Wang, Y. Two new inflammatory markers related to the CURB-65 score for disease severity in patients with community-acquired pneumonia: The hypersensitive C-reactive protein to albumin ratio and fibrinogen to albumin ratio. Open Life Sci. 2021, 16, 84–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Choudhary, S.; Sharma, K.; Silakari, O. The interplay between inflammatory pathways and COVID-19: A critical review on pathogenesis and therapeutic options. Microb. Pathog. 2021, 150, 104673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Alzaid, F.; Julla, J.; Diedisheim, M.; Potier, C.; Potier, L.; Velho, G.; Gaborit, B.; Manivet, P.; Germain, S.; Vidal-Trecan, T.; et al. Monocytopenia, Monocyte Morphological Anomalies and Hyperinflammation Characterise Severe COVID-19 in Type 2 Diabetes. EMBO Mol. Med. 2020, 12, e13038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zaid, Y.; Puhm, F.; Allaeys, I.; Naya, A.; Oudghiri, M.; Khalki, L.; Limami, Y.; Zaid, N.; Sadki, K.; ben El Haj, R.; et al. Platelets Can Associate with SARS-Cov-2 RNA and Are Hyperactivated in COVID-19. Circ. Res. 2020, 127, 1404–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tan, L.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, D.; Ding, J.; Huang, Q.; Tang, Y.Q.; Wang, Q.; Miao, H. Lymphopenia Predicts Disease Severity of COVID-19: A Descriptive and Predictive Study. Signal Transduct. Target Ther. 2020, 5, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bomhof, G.; Mutsaers, P.G.N.J.; Leebeek, F.W.G.; te Boekhorst, P.A.W.; Hofland, J.; Croles, F.N.; Jansen, A.J.G. COVID-19-Associated Immune Thrombocytopenia. Br. J. Haematol. 2020, 190, e61–e64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lucijanić, M.; Stojić, J.; Atić, A.; Čikara, T.; Osmani, B.; Barišić-Jaman, M.; Andrilović, A.; Bistrović, P.; Zrilić Vrkljan, A.; Lagančić, M.; et al. Clinical and prognostic significance of C-reactive protein to albumin ratio in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. 2022, 134, 377–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Koval, D.; Pertseva, T.; Konopkina, L.; Bielosludtseva, K.; Krykhtina, M. Lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) as a predictor of COVID-19 pneumonia progression. Eur. Respir. J. 2021, 58, PA651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ulloque-Badaracco, J.R.; Mosquera-Rojas, M.D.; Hernandez-Bustamante, E.A.; Alarcón-Braga, E.A.; Herrera-Añazco, P.; Benites-Zapata, V.A. Prognostic value of albumin-to-globulin ratio in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hayıroğlu, M.İ.; Çınar, T.; Tekkeşin, A.İ. Fibrinogen and D-dimer variances and anticoagulation recommendations in COVID-19: Current literature review. Rev. Assoc. Médica Bras. 2020, 66, 842–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Levi, M.; Toh, C.H.; Thachil, J.; Watson, H.G. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of disseminated intravascular coagulation. Br. J. Haematol. 2009, 145, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Han, H.; Yang, L.; Liu, R.; Liu, F.; Wu, K.-L.; Li, J.; Liu, X.-H.; Zhu, C.-L. Prominent changes in blood coagulation of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2020, 58, 1116–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Di Micco, P.; Russo, V.; Carannante, N.; Imparato, M.; Cardillo, G.; Lodigiani, C. Prognostic Value of Fibrinogen among COVID-19 Patients Admitted to an Emergency Department: An Italian Cohort Study. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 4134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Long, W.; Yang, J.; Li, Z.; Li, J.; Chen, S.; Chen, D.; Wang, S.; Li, Q.; Hu, D.; Huang, J.; et al. Abnormal Fibrinogen Level as a Prognostic Indicator in Coronavirus Disease Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Front. Med. 2021, 8, 892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Rabbani, G.; Ahn, S.N. Review: Roles of human serum albumin in prediction, diagnoses and treatment of COVID-19. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 193, 948–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Paliogiannis, P.; Mangoni, A.A.; Cangemi, M.; Fois, A.G.; Carru, C.; Zinellu, A. Serum albumin concentrations are associated with disease severity and outcomes in coronavirus 19 disease (COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Exp. Med. 2021, 21, 343–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Raina, R.; Mahajan, Z.A.; Vasistha, P.; Chakraborty, R.; Mukunda, K.; Tibrewal, A.; Neyra, J.A. Incidence and Outcomes of Acute Kidney Injury in COVID-19: A Systematic Review. Blood Purif. 2022, 51, 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Prowle, J.R.; Echeverri, J.E.; Ligabo, E.V.; Ronco, C.; Bellomo, R. Fluid balance and acute kidney injury. Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 2010, 6, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ronco, C.; Reis, T.; Husain-Syed, F. Management of acute kidney injury in patients with COVID-19. Lancet Respir. Med. 2020, 8, 738–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Abdallah, E.; Helal, B.A.; Asad, R.; Hemida, M.; Nawar, E.; Kamal, M.; Reda, M.; Baharia, A.; Galal, A.; Hassan, A.; et al. Incidence and outcomes of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Saudi J. Kidney Dis. Transplant. 2021, 32, 84–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Van Der Slikke, E.C.; Star, B.S.; De Jager, V.D.; Leferink, M.B.M.; Klein, L.M.; Quinten, V.M.; Olgers, T.J.; Ter Maaten, J.C.; Bouma, H.R. A high urea-to-creatinine ratio predicts long-term mortality independent of acute kidney injury among patients hospitalized with an infection. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 15649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Khatua, C.R.; Sahu, S.K.; Meher, D.; Nath, G.; Mohapatra, A.; Thakur, B.; Singh, S.P. Admission Serum Urea is a Better Predictor of Mortality than Creatinine in Patients with Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure and Acute Kidney Injury. J. Clin. Exp. Hepatol. 2021, 11, 565–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Herrera-Añazco, P.; Taype-Rondan, A.; Pacheco-Mendoza, J.; Miranda, J.J. Factors associated with mortality in a population with acute kidney injury undergoing hemodialysis in Peru. J. Bras. Nefrol. 2017, 39, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Macedo, E.; Bouchard, J.; Soroko, S.H.; Chertow, G.M.; Himmelfarb, J.; Ikizker, T.A.; Paganini, E.P.; Mehta, R.L. Fluid accumulation, recognition and staging of acute kidney injury in critically-ill patients. Crit. Care 2010, 14, R82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Besen, B.A.M.P. Fluid and electrolyte overload in critically ill patients: An overview. World J. Crit. Care Med. 2015, 4, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Kumar, S.; Thambiraja, T.S.; Karuppanan, K.; Subramaniam, G. Omicron and Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2: A comparative computational study of spike protein. J. Med. Virol. 2022, 94, 1641–1649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Zhang, X.; Song, Y.; Tang, S.; Xue, H.; Chen, W.; Qin, L.; Jia, S.; Shen, Y.; Zhao, S.; Zhu, H.; et al. Models to assess imported cases on the rebound of COVID-19 and design a long-term border control strategy in Heilongjiang Province, China. Math. Biosci. Eng. 2022, 19, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Smilowitz, N.R.; Nguy, V.; Aphinyanaphongs, Y.; Newman, J.D.; Xia, Y.; Reynolds, H.R.; Hochman, J.S.; Fishman, G.I.; Berger, J.S. Multiple Biomarker Approach to Risk Stratification in COVID-19. Circulation 2021, 143, 1338–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Bivona, G.; Agnello, L.; Ciaccio, M. Biomarkers for Prognosis and Treatment Response in COVID-19 Patients. Ann. Lab. Med. 2021, 41, 540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tropicalmed 07 00150 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA Flow Diagram.
Figure 1. PRISMA Flow Diagram.
Tropicalmed 07 00150 g001
Tropicalmed 07 00150 g002 550
Figure 2. Association between FAR and severity of COVID-19 patients [33,34,36,39,40,41,50,52].
Figure 2. Association between FAR and severity of COVID-19 patients [33,34,36,39,40,41,50,52].
Tropicalmed 07 00150 g002
Tropicalmed 07 00150 g003 550
Figure 3. Association between FAR and mortality of COVID-19 patients [34,35,37,38,40,41,42,43,52].
Figure 3. Association between FAR and mortality of COVID-19 patients [34,35,37,38,40,41,42,43,52].
Tropicalmed 07 00150 g003
Tropicalmed 07 00150 g004 550
Figure 4. Association between BAR and severity of COVID-19 patients [33,44,45,49].
Figure 4. Association between BAR and severity of COVID-19 patients [33,44,45,49].
Tropicalmed 07 00150 g004
Tropicalmed 07 00150 g005 550
Figure 5. Association between BAR and mortality of COVID-19 patients [46,47,48,49,51].
Figure 5. Association between BAR and mortality of COVID-19 patients [46,47,48,49,51].
Tropicalmed 07 00150 g005
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies that evaluated severity.
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies that evaluated severity.
AuthorYearCountryParticipants
(Male)		Median/Mean Age (IQR/SD)Marker Analyzed Marker Mean (SD) in Severe PatientsMarker Mean (SD) in
Non-Severe Patients		Odds Ratio [95% CI]Cut-OffArea under the CurveSensivity (%)Specificity (%)
Gemcioglu et al.2021Turkey301 (161)49 (26.5)FARNRNR1 [0.53–1.88]0.1020.76665.31%77.91%
BARNRNR2.18 [1.15–4.15]4.780.79563.37%84.89%
Kuluöztürk et al.2021Turkey400 (235)55.51 (18.88)FARNRNR2.76 [1.31–5.79]0.1440.65472%53%
Bi et al.2020China113 (64)46 (37–55)FARNRNR5.81 [1.28–26.34]0.0880.73NRNR
Torun et al.2021Turkey188 (95)62.3 (12.7)FAR0.14 (0.17)0.12 (0.18)1.18 [0.70–1.99]0.1130.73769.6%65.8%
Yang et al.2021China495 (235)55 (40–67)FAR0.134 (0.04)0.104 (0.034)4.41 [3.13–6.22]0.120.83880.8%64%
Lawson et al.2022Nigeria600 (374)42.2 (6.71)FARNRNR1.19 [0.73–1.94]NRNRNRNR
Huang et al.2021China1370 (328)55 (40–66)BARNRNR1.32 [1.18–1.47]3.7880.82168%78.6%
Nie et al.2020China97 (34)39 (30–60)BAR1 (0.44)1.02 (0.22)0.79 [0.49–1.28]NRNRNRNR
Alirezaei et al.2022Iran433 (263)60.38 (18.26)BAR4.15 (2.81)4.32 (2.74)0.90 [0.59–1.36]3.9540.47547.5%40.6%
Yazıcı et al.2022Turkey252 (107)77 (70–83)FAR0.185 (0.04)0.131 (0.04)9.43 [4.83–18.43]0.150.78984.2%69.6%
Çalışkan et al.2022Turkey548 (286)64 (21)FAR13.65 (7.88)11.7 (4.39)1.95 [1.34–2.86]0.1470.62983.23%45.31%
NR: Not reported; 95% CI: 95% Confidence interval; IQR: Interquartile range; SD: Standard deviation.
Table
Table 2. Characteristics of the included studies that evaluated the mortality.
Table 2. Characteristics of the included studies that evaluated the mortality.
AuthorYearCountryParticipants
(Male)		Median/Mean Age (IQR/SD)Marker AnalyzedMarker Mean (SD) in
Non-Survivors		Marker Mean (SD) in SurvivorsOdds Ratio [95% CI]Cut-OffArea under the CurveSensivity (%)Specificity (%)
Kuluöztürk et al.2021Turkey400 (235)55.51 (18.88)FARNRNR3.06 [1.33–7.07]0.1440.65472%53%
Afşin et al.2021Turkey386 (209)71.28 (12.9)FARNRNR1 [1–1.01]NRNRNRNR
Atlas et al.2021Turkey102 (74)69.1 (14.3)FAR0.202 (0.037)0.13 (0.014)50.79 [18.77–137.44]0.150.989NRNR
Küçükceran et al. [38]2021Turkey717 (371)64 (50–74)FARNRNR4.44 [2.91–6.76]0.11230.70371.4%64%
Küçükceran et al. [46] 2021Turkey602 (312)63 (49–73)BARNRNR10.45 [5.56–19.63]3.90.80987.5%59.9%
Çekiç et al.2021Turkey590 (358)65.63 (14.9)FAR0.14 (0.17)0.12 (0.18)1.63 [1.20–2.22]0.130.80874.9%74.6%
Yang et al.2021China495 (235)55 (40–67)FARNRNR3.29 [1.55–7.01] 0.120.83880.8%64%
Acehan et al.2021Turkey613 (358)59.04 (19.5)FARNRNR1.01 [0.96–1.06]0.1110.66862.3%57.5%
Ata et al.2021Turkey358 (148)66 (50.5–77)BARNRNR2.69 [2.02–3.59]3.40.82374.5%75.6%
Singh et al.2022India131 (98)54 (14)BARNRNR3.75 [1.66–8.47]6.230.69579%54%
Mihić et al.2022Croatia138 (NR)68 (38–88)FARNRNR1.30 [0.61–2.76]NRNRNRNR
Alirezaei et al.2022Iran433 (263)60.38 (18.26)BAR9.27 (7.03)3.8 (2.07)11.31 [7.46–17.14] 4.9440.75875.8%70.8%
Yazıcı et al.2022Turkey252 (107)77 (70–83)FAR0.173 (0.05)0.128 (0.03)6.69 [3.96–11.31]0.1440.73175%69%
Olgun et al.2022Turkey117 (74)62.65 (15.89)BAR12.76 (35.45)4.76 (35.59)1.49 [0.58–3.82]NRNRNRNR
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ulloque-Badaracco, J.R.; Alarcon-Braga, E.A.; Hernandez-Bustamante, E.A.; Al-kassab-Córdova, A.; Mosquera-Rojas, M.D.; Ulloque-Badaracco, R.R.; Huayta-Cortez, M.A.; Maita-Arauco, S.H.; Herrera-Añazco, P.; Benites-Zapata, V.A. Fibrinogen-to-Albumin Ratio and Blood Urea Nitrogen-to-Albumin Ratio in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 2022, 7, 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed7080150

AMA Style

Ulloque-Badaracco JR, Alarcon-Braga EA, Hernandez-Bustamante EA, Al-kassab-Córdova A, Mosquera-Rojas MD, Ulloque-Badaracco RR, Huayta-Cortez MA, Maita-Arauco SH, Herrera-Añazco P, Benites-Zapata VA. Fibrinogen-to-Albumin Ratio and Blood Urea Nitrogen-to-Albumin Ratio in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease. 2022; 7(8):150. https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed7080150

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ulloque-Badaracco, Juan R., Esteban A. Alarcon-Braga, Enrique A. Hernandez-Bustamante, Ali Al-kassab-Córdova, Melany D. Mosquera-Rojas, Ricardo R. Ulloque-Badaracco, Miguel A. Huayta-Cortez, Sherelym H. Maita-Arauco, Percy Herrera-Añazco, and Vicente A. Benites-Zapata. 2022. "Fibrinogen-to-Albumin Ratio and Blood Urea Nitrogen-to-Albumin Ratio in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease 7, no. 8: 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed7080150

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop