METHODOLOGY: In a PubMed systematic search, 929 citations were found. After screening and eligibility, 22 studies were included. This study obtained age, gender, geographic regions, diagnostic methods, data collection methods, and bias risk. The case fatality rate (CFR) and NiV infection risk variables were evaluated by meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Southeast Asia, especially Bangladesh and Malaysia, had the most NiV cases. The major diagnostic method was blood and cerebrospinal fluid IgM and IgG antibody tests, and males predominated. Proxy respondents and matched controls were utilized for risk factor analyses when patients could not answer. The pooled CFR for NiV encephalitis was 61.0%, indicating severity. Risk factors included pigs, nighttime bats near homes, tree climbing, and male gender.
CONCLUSION: Southeast Asian public health is plagued by NiV encephalitis. The high CFR calls for better diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. NiV's multiple risk factors must be understood for targeted therapy. Future research should fill knowledge gaps and improve NiV infection prevention.
OBJECTIVE: To update the 2023 research index for adults with LC using additional participant data from the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER-Adult) study and an expanded symptom list based on input from patient communities.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective, observational cohort study including adults 18 years or older with or without known prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who were enrolled at 83 sites in the US and Puerto Rico. Included participants had at least 1 study visit taking place 4.5 months after first SARS-CoV-2 infection or later, and not within 30 days of a reinfection. The study visits took place between October 2021 and March 2024.
EXPOSURE: SARS-CoV-2 infection.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Presence of LC and participant-reported symptoms.
RESULTS: A total of 13 647 participants (11 743 with known SARS-CoV-2 infection and 1904 without known prior SARS-CoV-2 infection; median age, 45 years [IQR, 34-69 years]; and 73% were female) were included. Using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator analysis regression approach from the 2023 model, symptoms contributing to the updated 2024 index included postexertional malaise, fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, palpitations, change in smell or taste, thirst, chronic cough, chest pain, shortness of breath, and sleep apnea. For the 2024 LC research index, the optimal threshold to identify participants with highly symptomatic LC was a score of 11 or greater. The 2024 index classified 20% of participants with known prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and 4% of those without known prior SARS-CoV-2 infection as having likely LC (vs 21% and 5%, respectively, using the 2023 index) and 39% of participants with known prior SARS-CoV-2 infection as having possible LC, which is a new category for the 2024 model. Cluster analysis identified 5 LC subtypes that tracked quality-of-life measures.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The 2024 LC research index for adults builds on the 2023 index with additional data and symptoms to help researchers classify symptomatic LC and its symptom subtypes. Continued future refinement of the index will be needed as the understanding of LC evolves.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate clinical laboratory markers of SARS-CoV-2 and PASC.
DESIGN: Propensity score-weighted linear regression models were fitted to evaluate differences in mean laboratory measures by prior infection and PASC index (≥12 vs. 0). (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05172024).
SETTING: 83 enrolling sites.
PARTICIPANTS: RECOVER-Adult cohort participants with or without SARS-CoV-2 infection with a study visit and laboratory measures 6 months after the index date (or at enrollment if >6 months after the index date). Participants were excluded if the 6-month visit occurred within 30 days of reinfection.
MEASUREMENTS: Participants completed questionnaires and standard clinical laboratory tests.
RESULTS: Among 10 094 participants, 8746 had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, 1348 were uninfected, 1880 had a PASC index of 12 or higher, and 3351 had a PASC index of zero. After propensity score adjustment, participants with prior infection had a lower mean platelet count (265.9 × 109 cells/L [95% CI, 264.5 to 267.4 × 109 cells/L]) than participants without known prior infection (275.2 × 109 cells/L [CI, 268.5 to 282.0 × 109 cells/L]), as well as higher mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level (5.58% [CI, 5.56% to 5.60%] vs. 5.46% [CI, 5.40% to 5.51%]) and urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (81.9 mg/g [CI, 67.5 to 96.2 mg/g] vs. 43.0 mg/g [CI, 25.4 to 60.6 mg/g]), although differences were of modest clinical significance. The difference in HbA1c levels was attenuated after participants with preexisting diabetes were excluded. Among participants with prior infection, no meaningful differences in mean laboratory values were found between those with a PASC index of 12 or higher and those with a PASC index of zero.
LIMITATION: Whether differences in laboratory markers represent consequences of or risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection could not be determined.
CONCLUSION: Overall, no evidence was found that any of the 25 routine clinical laboratory values assessed in this study could serve as a clinically useful biomarker of PASC.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.