ArticleFrontiers in immunology2026
Avidity of autoantibodies against type I interferons as a factor associated with neurological complications in severe COVID-19.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Autoantibodies against type I interferons (IFNs), particularly IFN-α2 and IFN-ω, are a recognized risk factor for severe COVID-19. Their functional characterization has largely focused on their neutralizing capacity. However, antibody binding avidity represents a distinct biophysical parameter that may be physiopathologically relevant. Whether avidity contributes to clinical outcomes in patient cohorts has not been evaluated. Methods: We characterized the avidity of IgG autoantibodies against IFN-α2 and IFN-ω by urea-dissociation ELISA in 95 patients with severe COVID-19 and confirmed anti-type I IFN autoantibodies. Avidity was classified as high (avidity index > 0.6) or low (avidity index ≤ 0.6). Clinical outcomes were compared between avidity groups, and patients were additionally stratified by combined avidity and neutralization profiles. Concordance between antibody subtypes was assessed by Cohen's kappa. Results: Among 95 patients, 75 were positive for anti-IFN-α2 autoantibodies (51 high, 24 low avidity) and 49 for anti-IFN-ω autoantibodies (31 high, 18 low avidity). Low anti-IFN-α2 avidity was significantly associated with neurological complications (6/24 [25%] vs. 3/51 [6%]; OR 0.21 [0.05-0.84]; p = 0.026). For anti-IFN-ω, a non-significant trend in the same direction was observed (3/18 [17%] vs. 2/31 [6%]; p = 0.342). Avidity and neutralizing capacity were related but not interchangeable, with a low positive predictive value of avidity for neutralization (47% for anti-IFN-α2, 16% for anti-IFN-ω). Stratification by the combined avidity/neutralization phenotype identified the low-avidity + non-neutralizing combination of anti-IFN-α2 autoantibodies as the subgroup with the highest neurological complication rate (6/18 [33%]). Concordance between anti-IFN-α2 and anti-IFN-ω avidity was modest (Cohen's κ = 0.24; 62% concordant). Conclusion: Antibody avidity is a functional characteristic of anti-type I IFN autoantibodies associated with neurological complications in severe COVID-19. In our cohort, avidity and neutralizing capacity are related but not equivalent, as a substantial proportion of high-avidity antibodies lack neutralizing activity, and the modest concordance between subtypes further suggests that these two autoantibody responses are partially independent. The combined assessment of avidity and neutralization identifies patients at higher neurological risk than either parameter alone, supporting avidity as an additional informative parameter in the functional characterization of anti-type I IFN autoantibodies.
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.