Clinical and immunoserological status 12 weeks after infection with COVID-19: prospective observational study

  1. Lucía Valiente-De Santis
  2. Inés Pérez-Camacho
  3. Beatriz Sobrino
  4. Gracia Eugenia González
  5. Juan Diego Ruíz-Mesa
  6. Antonio Plata
  7. Ignacio Márquez-Gómez
  8. Marcial Delgado-Fernández
  9. Manuel Castaño
  10. Francisco Oñate
  11. Francisco Orihuela
  12. Begoña Palop
  13. José María Reguera

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objectives

to undertake a multidisciplinary follow-up at 12 weeks after an acute episode of COVID-19 to assess the functional status, persistence of symptoms and immunoserological situation.

Methods

this prospective, observational, single-centre study included outpatients reviewed 12 weeks after an acute infection with SARS-CoV-2. The clinical evaluation included data about the acute episode and epidemiological and clinical variables. The patients were classified as symptomatic or asymptomatic depending on the persistence or otherwise of symptoms. All the patients underwent a full blood test and serology for SARS-CoV-2, as well as imaging tests and spirometry if needed.

Results

The mean age of the 108 patients was 55.5 (SD: 15.4) years and 27.8% were health-care workers; 75.9% presented some type of symptoms, with dyspnoea being the most common. A D-dimer >500 ng/mL was detected in 32 (31.4%) patients. All the patients had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Being a health-care worker was associated with symptom persistence, with age ≥65 years being a protective factor.

Conclusions

The persistence of symptoms in patents with COVID is usual 12 weeks after the acute episode, especially in patients <65 years and health-care workers. All our patients had developed antibodies by 12 weeks.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.06.20206060: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Serological study: The patients also underwent blood tests for IgG and IgM + IgA antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 with the kits COVID-19 VIRCLIA® IgG MONOTEST (Vircell) and COVID-19 VIRCLIA® IgM+IgA MONOTEST (Vircell) based on chemiluminescence (CLIA, ChemiLuminescent ImmunoAssay).
    IgM + IgA
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The statistical analysis was done with SPSS 22.0.0.0.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.10.06.20206060v1 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.23880/eij-16000167