RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Serological markers and Post COVID-19 Condition (PCC) – A rapid review of the evidence
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.10.30.23297455
DO 10.1101/2023.10.30.23297455
A1 Collins, Erin
A1 Philippe, Elizabeth
A1 Gravel, Chris
A1 Hawken, Steven
A1 Langlois, Marc-André
A1 Little, Julian
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/10/30/2023.10.30.23297455.abstract
AB Background Post COVID-19 Condition (PCC) is highly heterogeneous, often debilitating, and may last for years after infection. The etiology of PCC remains uncertain. Examination of potential serological markers of PCC, accounting for clinical covariates, may yield emergent pathophysiological insights.Methods In adherence to PRISMA guidelines, we carried out a rapid review of the literature. We searched Medline and Embase for primary observational studies that compared IgG response in individuals who experienced COVID-19 symptoms persisting ≥12 weeks post-infection with those who did not. We examined relationships between serological markers and PCC status and investigated sources of inter-study variability, such as severity of acute illness, PCC symptoms assessed, and target antigen(s).Results Of 8,018 unique records, we identified 29 as being eligible for inclusion in synthesis. Definitions of PCC varied. In studies that reported anti-nucleocapsid (N) IgG (n=10 studies; n=989 participants in aggregate), full or partial anti-Spike IgG (i.e., the whole trimer, S1 or S2 subgroups, or receptor binding domain, n=19 studies; n=2606 participants), or neutralizing response (n=7 studies; n=1123 participants), we did not find strong evidence to support any difference in serological markers between groups with and without persisting symptoms. However, most studies did not account for severity or level of care required during acute illness, and other potential confounders.Conclusions Pooling of studies would enable more robust exploration of clinical and serological predictors among diverse populations. However, substantial inter-study variations hamper comparability. Standardized reporting practices would improve the quality, consistency, and comprehension of study findings.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementEC is supported by the AI4PH Scholarship Program, funded by CIHR (Canadian Institutes of Health Research).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll relevant data are within the manuscript. No additional source data are required.