RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Mapping of biomarker efficacy in SARS-CoV-2: tracking the impact of viral mutations and vaccinations
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.12.03.22282974
DO 10.1101/2022.12.03.22282974
A1 Shuvo, ME Rahman
A1 Schwiening, Max
A1 Avramidis, Nikos
A1 Soares, Felipe
A1 Feng, Oliver
A1 Abreu, Susana
A1 Veale, Niki
A1 Gao, Q
A1 Thomas, William
A1 Thompson, AA Roger
A1 Samworth, Richard J
A1 Morrell, Nicholas W
A1 Baillie, Kenneth
A1 Marciniak, Stefan J
A1 Soon, Elaine
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/04/2022.12.03.22282974.abstract
AB Rationale: Sophisticated prognostic scores have been proposed for SARS-CoV-2 but do not always perform consistently. We conducted these meta-analyses to uncover why and to investigate the impact of vaccination and variants.Methods: We searched the PubMed database for the keywords “SARS-CoV-2” with “biomarker” and “mortality” for the baseline tranche (01/12/2020-30/06/2021) and either “SARS-CoV-2” or “Covid19” with “biomarker” and either “vaccination” or “variant” from 01/12/2020 to 31/10/2023. To aggregate the data, the meta library in R was used, and a random effects model fitted to obtain pooled AUCs and 95% confidence intervals for the European/North American, Asian, and overall datasets.Results: Biomarker effectiveness varies significantly in different continents. Admission CRP levels were a good prognostic marker for mortality due to wild-type virus in Asian countries, with a pooled area under curve (AUC) of 0.83 (95%CI 0.80-0.85), but only an average predictor of mortality in Europe/North America, with a pooled AUC of 0.67 (95%CI 0.63-0.71, P<0.0001). We observed the same pattern for D-dimer and IL-6. This variability explains why the proposed prognostic scores did not perform evenly. Notably, urea and troponin had pooled AUCs ≥0.78 regardless of location, implying that end-organ damage at presentation is a key prognostic factor. The inflammatory biomarkers (CRP, D-dimer and IL-6) have generally declined in effectiveness in the vaccinated and variant cohorts. We note a significant lag from the pandemic advent to data availability and this has no doubt impacted on patient care.Conclusions: Biomarker efficacies vary considerably by region. It is imperative that the infrastructure for collecting clinical data should be put in place ahead of a future pandemic.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementES and MS are supported by the UK Medical Research Council (MR/R008051/1); the British Medical Association (the Josephine Lansdell Award); and the Association of Physicians of Great Britain and Ireland (Young Investigator Award to ES); the Wellcome Trust ISSF and the Cambridge BHF Centre of Research Excellence (RE/18/1/34212). MES and WT are full-time NHS physicians who have volunteered their time for this work. FS received in-kind funding by the AWS Diagnostic Development Initiative and Google TPU Research Cloud. NV is supported by a BLF-Papworth Fellowship from the British Lung Foundation and the Victor Dahdaleh Foundation (VPDCF17-18). AART is supported by a British Heart Foundation Intermediate Clinical Fellowship (FS/18/13/33281). OF is funded by the StatScale programme (EP/N031938/1). RJS is supported by Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council grants EP/P031447/1 and EP/N031938/1, as well as ERC Advanced Grant 101019498. SA and SJM are funded by the British Lung Foundation (VPDCF17-18), the Medical Research Council, UK (MR/V028669/1), the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Campus (BRC-1215-20014) and the Royal Papworth NHS Trust. NWM is supported by the British Heart Foundation (SP/12/12/29836), the Cambridge BHF Centre of Research Excellence (RE/18/1/34212), the UK Medical Research Council (MR/K020919/1), the Dinosaur Trust, BHF Programme grants to NWM (RG/13/4/30107), and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval was applied for and approved by the National Health Service (UK) Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales through the Integrated Research Application System (reference 281880) for analysis of the Cambridge (UK) data. The other data have been published and are in the public domain.I 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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.