Introduction
Although COVID-19 is transmitted via respiratory droplets, there are multiple gastrointestinal and hepatic manifestations of the disease, including abnormal liver-associated enzymes. However, there are not many published articles on the pathological findings in the liver of COVID-19 patients.
Methods
We collected the clinical data from 17 autopsy cases of COVID-19 patients including age, sex, BMI, liver function test (ALT, AST, ALP, direct bilirubin and total bilirubin), D-dimer and anticoagulation treatment. We examined histopathologic findings in postmortem hepatic tissue, immunohistochemical (IHC) staining with antibody against COVID spike protein, CD68 and CD61, and electron microscopy. We counted the number of megakaryocytes in liver sections from these COVID-19 positive cases.
Results
Abnormal liver-associated enzymes were observed in 12/17 cases of COVID-19 infection. With the exception of three cases that had not been tested for D-dimer, all 14 patients’ D-dimer levels were increased, including the cases that received varied doses of anticoagulation treatment. Microscopically, the major findings were widespread platelet-fibrin microthrombi, steatosis, histiocytic hyperplasia in the portal tract, mild lobular inflammation, ischemic-type hepatic necrosis and zone 3 hemorrhage. Rare megakaryocytes were found in sinusoids. COVID IHC demonstrates positive staining of the histiocytes in the portal tract. Under electron microscopy, histiocyte proliferation is present in the portal tract containing lipid droplets, lysosomes, dilated ribosomal endoplasmic reticulum (RER), micro-vesicular bodies and coronavirus.
Conclusions
The characteristic findings in COVID-19 patients’ liver include numerous amounts of platelet-fibrin microthrombi as well as various degrees of steatosis and histiocytic hyperplasia in the portal tract. Possible mechanisms are also discussed.
Background
There is an urgent need to better understand the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), for that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to cause considerable morbidity and mortality worldwide. This paper was to differentiate COVID-19 from other respiratory infectious diseases such as avian-origin influenza A (H7N9) and influenza A (H1N1) virus infections.
Methods
We included patients who had been hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed infection by SARS-CoV-2 (n = 83), H7N9 (n = 36), H1N1 (n = 44) viruses. Clinical presentation, chest CT features, and progression of patients were compared. We used the Logistic regression model to explore the possible risk factors.
Results
Both COVID-19 and H7N9 patients had a longer duration of hospitalization than H1N1 patients (P < 0.01), a higher complication rate, and more severe cases than H1N1 patients. H7N9 patients had higher hospitalization-fatality ratio than COVID-19 patients (P = 0.01). H7N9 patients had similar patterns of lymphopenia, neutrophilia, elevated alanine aminotransferase, C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, and those seen in H1N1 patients, which were all significantly different from patients with COVID-19 (P < 0.01). Either H7N9 or H1N1 patients had more obvious symptoms, like fever, fatigue, yellow sputum, and myalgia than COVID-19 patients (P < 0.01). The mean duration of viral shedding was 9.5 days for SARS-CoV-2 vs 9.9 days for H7N9 (P = 0.78). For severe cases, the meantime from illness onset to severity was 8.0 days for COVID-19 vs 5.2 days for H7N9 (P < 0.01), the comorbidity of chronic heart disease was more common in the COVID-19 patients than H7N9 (P = 0.02). Multivariate analysis showed that chronic heart disease was a possible risk factor (OR > 1) for COVID-19, compared with H1N1 and H7N9.
Conclusions
The proportion of severe cases were higher for H7N9 and SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with H1N1. The meantime from illness onset to severity was shorter for H7N9. Chronic heart disease was a possible risk factor for COVID-19.The comparison may provide the rationale for strategies of isolation and treatment of infected patients in the future.
BackgroundThe G protein-coupled bile acid receptor (TGR5) is a cell surface receptor which induces the production of intracellular cAMP and promotes epithelial-mesenchymal transition in gastric cancer cell lines. TGR5 is found in a wide variety of tissues including the kidney. However, the patterns of TGR5 expression have not been well characterized in physiologic kidney or renal neoplasms. We explore the expression of TGR5 in benign renal tissue and renal neoplasms and assess its utility as a diagnostic marker.MethodsSixty-one renal cortical neoplasms from 2000 to 2014 were retrieved. TGR5 protein expression was examined by immunohistochemistry. TGR5 mRNA was also measured by real-time PCR.ResultsIn normal renal tissue, TGR5 was strongly positive in collecting ducts, distal convoluted tubules and thin loop of Henle. Proximal convoluted tubules showed absent or focal weak staining. In clear cell renal cell carcinomas (RCCs), 25 of 27 cases (92%) were negative for TGR5 (p < 0.001). TGR5 mRNA was also significantly decreased in clear cell RCCs, suggesting that decreased TGR5 protein expression may be attributable to the downregulation of TGR5 mRNA in these tumors. All 11 papillary RCCs expressed TGR5 with 45% (5/11) exhibiting moderate to strong staining. All chromophobe RCCs and oncocytomas were positive for TGR5 with weak to moderate staining. TGR5 mRNA expression in these tumors was similar to normal kidney. All urothelial carcinomas of the renal pelvis strongly expressed TGR5 including a poorly differentiated urothelial carcinoma with sarcomatoid features.ConclusionTGR5 is strongly expressed in collecting ducts, distal convoluted tubules and thin loop of Henle. TGR5 protein and mRNA expression were notably decreased in clear cell RCCs and may be helpful in differentiating these tumors from other RCCs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.