The NIH’s Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative used a cohort study of more than 10,000 individuals with and without previous COVID-19 diagnoses and compared samples using 25 common laboratory tests in hopes a useful biomarker could be identified. They were unsuccessful.
Long COVID—or PASC—is an umbrella term for those with persistent post-COVID infection symptoms that negatively impact quality of life. Though it affects millions worldwide and has been called a major public health burden, the NIH/Langone study scientists noted one glaring problem: PASC is defined differently in the major tests they studied. This makes consistent diagnoses difficult.
The study brought to light possible roadblocks that prevented biomarker identification.
“This study is an important step toward defining long COVID beyond any one individual symptom,” said study author Leora Horwitz, MD (above), director of the Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science and co-principal investigator for the RECOVER CSC at NYU Langone, in a Langone Health news release. “This definition—which may evolve over time—will serve as a critical foundation for scientific discovery and treatment design.” In the future, clinical laboratories may be tasked with finding combinations of routine and reference tests that, together, enable a more precise and earlier diagnosis of long COVID. (Photo copyright: Yale School of Medicine.)
NIH/Langone Study Details
“The study … examined 25 routinely used and standardized laboratory tests chosen based on availability across institutions, prior literature, and clinical experience. These tests were conducted prospectively in laboratories that are certified by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA). The samples were collected from 10,094 RECOVER-Adult participants, representing a diverse cohort from all over the US,” Inside Precision Medicine reported.
However, the scientists found no clinical laboratory “value” among the 25 tests examined that “reliably indicate previous infection, PASC, or the particular cluster type of PASC,” Inside Precision Medicine noted, adding that “Although some minor differences in the results of specific laboratory tests attempted to differentiate between individuals with and without a history of infection, these findings were generally clinically meaningless.”
“In a cohort study of more than 10,000 participants with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, we found no evidence that any of 25 routine clinical laboratory values provide a reliable biomarker of prior infection, PASC, or the specific type of PASC cluster. … 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,” the study authors wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.
In addition to a vague definition of PASC, the NIH/Langone researchers noted a few other potential problems identifying a biomarker from the research.
“Use of only selected biomarkers, choice of comparison groups, if any (people who have recovered from PASC or healthy control participants); duration of symptoms; types of symptoms or phenotypes; and patient population features, such as sex, age, race, vaccination status, comorbidities, and severity of initial infection,” could be a cause for ambiguous results, the scientists wrote.
Future Research
“Understanding the basic biological underpinnings of persistent symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection will likely require a rigorous focus on investigations beyond routine clinical laboratory studies (for example, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics) to identify novel biomarkers,” the study authors wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Our challenge is to discover biomarkers that can help us quickly and accurately diagnose long COVID to ensure people struggling with this disease receive the most appropriate care as soon as possible,” said David Goff, MD, PhD, director of the division of cardiovascular sciences at the NIH’s National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, in an NHLBI news release. “Long COVID symptoms can prevent someone from returning to work or school, and may even make everyday tasks a burden, so the ability for rapid diagnosis is key.”
“Approximately one in 20 US adults reported persisting symptoms after COVID-19 in June 2024, with 1.4% reporting significant limitations,” the NIH/Langone scientists wrote in their published study.
Astute clinical laboratory scientists will recognize this as possible future diagnostic testing. There is no shortage of need.
Though not biomarkers per se, these scores for certain genetic traits may someday be used by clinical laboratories to identify individuals’ risk for specific diseases
Can polygenic risk scores (a number that denotes a person’s genetic predisposition for certain traits) do a better job at predicting the likelihood of developing specific diseases, perhaps even before the onset of symptoms? Researchers at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard (Broad Institute) believe so, and their study could have implications for clinical laboratories nationwide.
In cooperation with medical centers across the US, the scientists “optimized 10 polygenic scores for use in clinical research as part of a study on how to implement genetic risk prediction for patients,” according to a Broad Institute news release.
The research team “selected, optimized, and validated the tests for 10 common diseases [selected from a total of 23 conditions], including heart disease, breast cancer, and type 2 diabetes. They also calibrated the tests for use in people with non-European ancestries,” the news release notes.
As these markers for genetic risk become better understood they may work their way into clinical practice. This could mean clinical laboratories will have a role in sequencing patients’ DNA to provide physicians with information about the probability of a patient’s elevated genetic risk for certain conditions.
However, the effectiveness of polygenic risk scores has faced challenges among diverse populations, according to the news release, which also noted a need to appropriately guide clinicians in use of the scores.
“With this work, we’ve taken the first steps toward showing the potential strength and power of these scores across a diverse population,” said Niall Lennon, PhD (above), Chief Scientific Officer of Broad Clinical Labs. “We hope in the future this kind of information can be used in preventive medicine to help people take actions that lower their risk of disease.” Clinical laboratories may eventually be tasked with performing DNA sequencing to determine potential genetic risk for certain diseases. (Photo copyright: Broad Institute.)
Polygenic Scores Need to Reflect Diversity
“There have been a lot of ongoing conversations and debates about polygenic risk scores and their utility and applicability in the clinical setting,” said Niall Lennon, PhD, Chair and Chief Scientific Officer of Broad Clinical Labs and first author of the study, in the news release. However, he added, “It was important that we weren’t giving people results that they couldn’t do anything about.”
In the paper, Lennon and colleagues explained polygenic risk scores “aggregate the effects of many genetic risk variants” to identify a person’s genetic predisposition for a certain disease or phenotype.
“But their development and application to clinical care, particularly among ancestrally diverse individuals, present substantial challenges,” they noted. “Clinical use of polygenic risk scores may ultimately prevent disease or enable its detection at earlier, more treatable stages.”
The scientists set a research goal to “optimize polygenic risk scores for a diversity of people.”
While performing the polygenic risk score testing on participants, Broad Clinical Labs focused on 10 conditions—including cardiometabolic diseases and cancer—selected by the research team based on “polygenic risk score performance, medical actionability, and clinical utility,” the Nature Medicine paper explained.
For each condition, the researchers:
Identified “exact spots in the genome that they would analyze to calculate the risk score.”
Used information from the NIH’s All of Us Research Program to “create a model to calibrate a person’s polygenic risk score according to that individual’s genetic ancestry.”
The All of Us program, which aims to collect health information from one million US residents, has three times more people of non-European ancestry than other data sources developing genetic risk scores, HealthDay News reported.
20% of Study Participants Showed High Risk for Disease
To complete their studies, Broad Institute researchers processed a diverse group of eMERGE participants to determine their clinical polygenic risk scores for each of the 10 diseases between July 2022 and August 2023.
Listed below are all conditions studied, as well as the number of participants involved in each study and the number of people with scores indicating high risk of the disease, according to their published paper:
Over 500 people (about 20%) of the 2,500 participants, had high risk for at least one of the 10 targeted diseases, the study found.
Participants in the study self-reported their race/ancestry as follows, according to the paper:
White: 32.8%
Black: 32.8%
Hispanic: 25.4%
Asian: 5%
American Indian: 1.5%
Middle Eastern: 0.9%
No selection: 0.8%
“We can’t fix all biases in the risk scores, but we can make sure that if a person is in a high-risk group for a disease, they’ll get identified as high risk regardless of what their genetic ancestry is,” Lennon said.
Further Studies, Scoring Implications
With 10 tests in hand, Broad Clinical Labs plans to calculate risk scores for all 25,000 people in the eMERGE network. The researchers also aim to conduct follow-up studies to discover what role polygenic risk scores may play in patients’ overall healthcare.
“Ultimately, the network wants to know what it means for a person to receive information that says they’re at high risk for one of these diseases,” Lennon said.
The researchers’ findings about disease risk are likely also relevant to healthcare systems, which want care teams to make earlier, pre-symptomatic diagnosis to keep patients healthy.
Clinical laboratory leaders may want to follow Broad Clinical Labs’ studies as they perform the 10 genetic tests and capture information about what participants may be willing to do—based on risk scores—to lower their risk for deadly diseases.
Scientists suspect that the plastics can be linked to a host of medical conditions, but clear evidence is elusive without appropriate biomarkers for clinical laboratory testing
Recent research indicates that microplastics and nanoplastics (MNPs) are accumulating in human organs at an increasing rate. The health impact is not entirely clear, but the research suggests that clinical laboratories could someday find themselves testing for levels of MNPs in patients.
In one study, scientists at the University of New Mexico and Oklahoma State University analyzed autopsy samples of liver, kidney, and frontal cortex brain tissue collected in 2016 and 2024. “Brains exhibited higher concentrations of MNPs than liver or kidney samples,” they wrote. However, “all organs exhibited significant increases from 2016 to 2024.”
“The concentrations we saw in the brain tissue of normal individuals, who had an average age of around 45 or 50 years old, were 4,800 micrograms per gram, or 0.5% by weight,” lead author Matthew Campen, PhD, Regents’ Professor, Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of New Mexico, and Director of the New Mexico Center for Metals in Biology and Medicine (CMBM), told CNN. “Compared to autopsy brain samples from 2016, that’s about 50% higher.”
Researchers have not yet uncovered clear evidence of specific health risks, but “what scientists worry about is several trends in disease prevalence that have been unexplained—Alzheimer’s disease and dementia, colorectal cancer in people under 50, inflammatory bowel disease, and global reductions in sperm count,” Campen told Everyday Health.
In another recent study, a different team of researchers at the University of New Mexico found high levels of microplastics in human and canine testicular tissue.
“At the beginning, I doubted whether microplastics could penetrate the reproductive system,” said lead author Xiaozhong Yu, MD, PhD, Professor, University of New Mexico College of Nursing in a university news story. “When I first received the results for dogs I was surprised. I was even more surprised when I received the results for humans.”
“The rate of increase in microplastics in the environment is exponential and we have every reason to believe that the concentrations in our bodies will continue to increase in the coming years and decades,” Matthew Campen, PhD (above), of the University of New Mexico told Everyday Health. As studies continue to produce evidence that nanoplastics affect human health, testing companies may develop biomarkers for clinical laboratory tests that measure the amount of microplastics in different organ locations. (Photo copyright: University of New Mexico.)
Landrigan told CNN that most people are exposed to MNPs through their diet, “but inhalation is also an important route.”
However, he added, “it’s important not to scare the hell out of people, because the science in this space is still evolving, and nobody in the year 2024 is going to live without plastic.”
CNN noted that experts consider nanoplastics to be the biggest concern [as opposed to microplastics] because they can infiltrate human cells.
“Somehow these nanoplastics hijack their way through the body and get to the brain, crossing the blood-brain barrier,” Campen told CNN. “Plastics love fats, or lipids, so one theory is that plastics are hijacking their way with the fats we eat which are then delivered to the organs that really like lipids—the brain is top among those.”
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that microplastics typically measure less than 5mm, whereas nanoplastics are less than a micron (micrometer). However, the agency notes that “there are currently no standard definitions for the size of microplastics or nanoplastics.”
What Are the Health Risks?
Scientists suspect that MNPs could be associated with cancer, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and infertility, The Washington Post reported, but that they “still don’t have a clear sense of what these materials are doing to the human body.”
“In a 2021 study, researchers in Switzerland identified more than 10,000 chemicals used in the manufacture of plastic—of which over 2,400 were potentially ‘of concern’ for human health,” The Post noted.
“To be able to say we have a health impact, we need to have a direct correlation between a product and a health outcome,” Phoebe Stapleton, PhD, Associate Professor at the Rutgers University Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy (EMSOP), told The Post. “It’s very narrow, that straight line. And there’s so many different health outcomes there could be, and we’re finding these particles in so many different tissues.”
One study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) suggested that MNPs in arteries could be risk factors for heart attacks or strokes. But even here, the authors wrote, “direct evidence that this risk extends to humans is lacking.”
Yu suspects that MNPs could be a factor in a global decline in sperm count, along with other environmental contaminants such as heavy metals and pesticides. His study found that polyethylene was the most prevalent plastic in dogs, followed by polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Higher levels of PVC correlated with lower sperm count, but there was no correlation with polyethylene.
“PVC can release a lot of chemicals that interfere with spermatogenesis, and it contains chemicals that cause endocrine disruption,” he said in the UNM news story.
Clinical laboratory managers should recognize that interest in identifying micro- and nanoplastics in every organ of the human body will increase. At some point, physicians may want labs to test their patients for microplastic levels in certain organ sites. This will likely be when enough published studies show a correlation between high levels of microplastics in certain locations of the body and specific disease states.
Study of the 50 Omicron variants could lead to new approaches to clinical laboratory testing and medical treatments for long COVID
Patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 can usually expect the COVID-19 illness to subside within a couple of weeks. However, one Dutch patient remained infected with the coronavirus for 612 days and fought more than 50 mutations (aka, variants) before dying late last year of complications due to pre-existing conditions. This extreme case has given doctors, virologists, microbiologists, and clinical laboratories new insights into how the SARS-CoV-2 virus mutates and may lead to new treatments for long COVID.
The medication the patient was taking for his pre-existing conditions may have contributed to his body being unable to produce antibodies in response to three shots of the Moderna mRNA COVID vaccine he received.
Magda Vergouwe, MD, PhD candidate at the Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine (CEMM), Amsterdam UMC, who lead a study into the patient, theorized that some of the medications the patient was on for his pre-existing conditions could have destroyed healthy cells alongside the abnormal cancer-causing B cells the drugs were meant to target.
“This case underscores the risk of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infections in immunocompromised individuals,” the researchers said prior to presenting their report about the case at a meeting of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in Barcelona, Spain, Time reported. “We emphasize the importance of continuing genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 evolution in immunocompromised individuals with persistent infections.”
“Chronic infections and viral evolution [are] commonly described in [the] literature, and there are other cases of immunocompromised patients who have had [COVID] infections for hundreds of days,” Magda Vergouwe, MD, PhD candidate (above), Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine at Amsterdam UMC, told Scientific American. “But this is unique due to the extreme length of the infection … and with the virus staying in his body for so long, it was possible for mutations to just develop and develop and develop.” Microbiologists, virologists, and clinical laboratories involved in testing patients with long COVID may want to follow this story. (Photo copyright: LinkedIn.)
Risks to Immunocompromised Patients
Pre-existing conditions increase the risk factor for COVID-19 infections. A 2021 study published in the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (JABFM) titled, “Prevalence of Pre-existing Conditions among Community Health Center Patients with COVID-19,” found that about 61% of that study’s test group had a pre-existing condition prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
When the Dutch man was admitted to Amsterdam UMC with common and serious COVID-19 symptoms, such as shortness of breath, a cough, and low blood oxygen levels, he was prescribed sotrovimab (a monoclonal antibody) along with other COVID treatments.
About a month after being admitted his COVID-19 symptoms decreased, so he was first discharged to a rehab facility and then finally to his home. However, he continued to test positive for the coronavirus and developed other infections that may have been complicated by the persistent case of COVID-19.
The Amsterdam UMC doctors emphasized that the man ultimately succumbed to his pre-existing conditions and not necessarily COVID-19.
“It’s important to note that in the end he did not die from his COVID-19,” Vergouwe told Scientific American. “But he did keep it with him for a very long period of time until then, and this is why we made sure to sample [the virus in his body] as much as we could.”
One in Five Adults Develop Long COVID
Long COVID does not necessarily indicate an active infection. However, in as many as one in five US adults COVID symptoms persist after the acute phase of the infection is over, according to a study published recently in JAMA Network Open titled, “Epidemiologic Features of Recovery from SARS-CoV-2 Infection.”
“In this cohort study, more than one in five adults did not recover within three months of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recovery within three months was less likely in women and those with pre-existing cardiovascular disease and more likely in those with COVID-19 vaccination or infection during the Omicron variant wave,” the JAMA authors wrote.
The origins of long COVID are not entirely clear, but according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) it can develop when a patient is unable to sufficiently rest while battling off the initial virus. According to Vergouwe, the SARS-CoV-2 genome will always grow quicker when found in a patient with a compromised immune system.
Unique COVID-19 Mutations
More than 50 new mutations of the original Omicron variant were identified in the Dutch patient. According to Vergouwe, “while that number can sound shocking, mutations to the SARS-CoV-2 genome are expected to evolve more quickly in those who are immunocompromised (the average mutation rate of the virus is estimated to be two mutations per person per month),” Scientific American reported. “What does make these mutations unusual, she noted, is how their features differed vastly from mutations observed in other people with COVID. [Vergouwe] hypothesizes that the exceptional length of the individual’s infection, and his pre-existing conditions, allowed the virus to evolve extensively and uniquely.”
COVID-19 appears to be here to stay, and most clinical laboratory managers and pathologists understand why. As physicians continue to learn about the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, this is another example of how the knowledge about SARS-CoV-2 is growing as different individuals are infected with different variants of the virus.
Study results from Switzerland come as clinical laboratory scientists seek new ways to tackle the problem of antimicrobial resistance in hospitals
Microbiologists and clinical laboratory scientists engaged in the fight against antibiotic-resistant (aka, antimicrobial resistant) bacteria will be interested in a recent study conducted at the University of Basel and University Hospital Basel in Switzerland. The epidemiologists involved in the study discovered that some of these so-called “superbugs” can remain in the body for as long as nine years continuing to infect the host and others.
The researchers wanted to see how two species of drug-resistant bacteria—K. pneumoniae and E. coli—changed over time in the body, according to a press release from the university. They analyzed samples of the bacteria collected from patients who were admitted to the hospital over a 10-year period, focusing on older individuals with pre-existing conditions. They found that K. pneumoniae persisted for up to 4.5 years (1,704 days) and E. coli persisted for up to nine years (3,376 days).
“These patients not only repeatedly become ill themselves, but they also act as a source of infection for other people—a reservoir for these pathogens,” said Lisandra Aguilar-Bultet, PhD, the study’s lead author, in the press release.
“This is crucial information for choosing a treatment,” explained Sarah Tschudin Sutter, MD, Head of the Division of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, and of the Division of Hospital Epidemiology, who specializes in hospital-acquired infections and drug-resistant pathogens. Sutter led the Basel University study.
“The issue is that when patients have infections with these drug-resistant bacteria, they can still carry that organism in or on their bodies even after treatment,” said epidemiologist Maroya Spalding Walters, MD (above), who leads the Antimicrobial Resistance Team in the Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “They don’t show any signs or symptoms of illness, but they can get infections again, and they can also transmit the bacteria to other people.” Clinical laboratories working with microbiologists on antibiotic resistance will want to follow the research conducted into these deadly pathogens. (Photo copyright: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)
COVID-19 Pandemic Increased Antibiotic Resistance
The Basel researchers looked at 76 K. pneumoniae isolates recovered from 19 patients and 284 E. coli isolates taken from 61 patients, all between 2008 and 2018. The study was limited to patients in which the bacterial strains were detected from at least two consecutive screenings on admission to the hospital.
“DNA analysis indicates that the bacteria initially adapt quite quickly to the conditions in the colonized parts of the body, but undergo few genetic changes thereafter,” the Basel University press release states.
The researchers also discovered that some of the samples, including those from different species, had identical mechanisms of drug resistance, suggesting that the bacteria transmitted mobile genetic elements such as plasmids to each other.
One limitation of the study, the authors acknowledged, was that they could not assess the patients’ exposure to antibiotics.
Meanwhile, recent data from the World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic might have exacerbated the challenges of antibiotic resistance. Even though COVID-19 is a viral infection, WHO scientists found that high percentages of patients hospitalized with the disease between 2020 and 2023 received antibiotics.
“While only 8% of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 had bacterial co-infections requiring antibiotics, three out of four or some 75% of patients have been treated with antibiotics ‘just in case’ they help,” the WHO stated in a press release.
WHO uses an antibiotic categorization system known as AWaRe (Access, Watch, Reserve) to classify antibiotics based on risk of resistance. The most frequently prescribed antibiotics were in the “Watch” group, indicating that they are “more prone to be a target of antibiotic resistance and thus prioritized as targets of stewardship programs and monitoring.”
“When a patient requires antibiotics, the benefits often outweigh the risks associated with side effects or antibiotic resistance,” said Silvia Bertagnolio, MD, Unit Head in the Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) Division at the WHO in the press release. “However, when they are unnecessary, they offer no benefit while posing risks, and their use contributes to the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance.”
Citing research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), NPR reported that in the US, hospital-acquired antibiotic-resistant infections increased 32% during the pandemic compared with data from just before the outbreak.
“While that number has dropped, it still hasn’t returned to pre-pandemic levels,” NPR noted.
The UPenn researchers have already developed an antimicrobial treatment derived from guava plants that has proved effective in mice, Vox reported. They’ve also trained an AI model to scan the proteomes of extinct organisms.
“The AI identified peptides from the woolly mammoth and the ancient sea cow, among other ancient animals, as promising candidates,” Vox noted. These, too, showed antimicrobial properties in tests on mice.
These findings can be used by clinical laboratories and microbiologists in their work with hospital infection control teams to better identify patients with antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria who, after discharge, may show up at the hospital months or years later.
