ArticleScientific reports2024
Immunologic mediators profile in COVID-19 convalescence.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
SARS-CoV-2 caused the pandemic situation experienced since the beginning of 2020, and many countries faced the rapid spread and severe form of the disease. Mechanisms of interaction between the virus and the host were observed during acute phase, but few data are available when related to immunity dynamics in convalescents. We conducted a longitudinal study, with 51 healthy donors and 62 COVID-19 convalescent patients, which these had a 2-month follow-up after symptoms recovery. Venous blood sample was obtained from all participants to measure blood count, subpopulations of monocytes, lymphocytes, natural killer cells and dendritic cells. Serum was used to measure cytokines, chemokines, growth factors, anti-N IgG and anti-S IgG/IgM antibodies. Statistic was performed by Kruskal-Wallis test, and linear regression with days post symptoms and antibody titers. All analysis had confidence interval of 95%. Less than 35% of convalescents were anti-S IgM+, while more than 80% were IgG+ in D30. Anti-N IgG decreased along time, with loss of seroreactivity of 13%. Eosinophil count played a distinct role on both antibodies during all study, and the convalescence was orchestrated by higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and IL-15, but initial stages were marked by increase in myeloid DCs, B1 lymphocytes, inflammatory and patrolling monocytes, G-CSF and IL-2. Later convalescence seemed to change to cytotoxicity mediated by T lymphocytes, plasmacytoid DCs, VEGF, IL-9 and CXCL10. Anti-S IgG antibodies showed the longest perseverance and may be a better option for diagnosis. The inflammatory pattern is yet present on initial stage of convalescence, but quickly shifts to a reparative dynamic. Meanwhile eosinophils seem to play a role on anti-N levels in convalescence, although may not be the major causative agent. We must highlight the importance of immunological markers on acute clinical outcomes, but their comprehension to potentialize adaptive system must be explored to improve immunizations and further preventive policies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.