News, Analysis, Trends, Management Innovations for
Clinical Laboratories and Pathology Groups

Hosted by Robert Michel

News, Analysis, Trends, Management Innovations for
Clinical Laboratories and Pathology Groups

Hosted by Robert Michel
Sign In

Study is another example of how important clinical laboratory testing is when government officials attack a new public health issue

Long COVID—aka SARS-CoV-2 infection’s post-acute sequelae (PASC)—continues to confound researchers seeking one or more clinical laboratory biomarkers for diagnosing the condition. A new study led by the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) RECOVER Initiative and supported by NYU Langone Health recently revealed that “routine clinical laboratory tests were unable to provide a reliable biomarker of … long COVID,” Inside Precision Medicine reported.

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.

Leora Horwitz, MD, director of the Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science and co-principal investigator for the RECOVER CSC (Clinical Science Core) at NYU Langone; Andrea S. Foulkes, ScD, director of biostatistics at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; and Grace A. McComsey, MD, VP of research and associate chief scientific officer at University Hospitals Health System, and professor of pediatrics and medicine at Case Western Reserve University, led the study.

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.

“Although potential models of pathogenesis have been postulated, including immune dysregulation, viral persistence, organ injury, endothelial dysfunction, and gut dysbiosis, there are currently no validated clinical biomarkers of PASC,” the study authors wrote in their study, “Differentiation of Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Postacute Sequelae by Standard Clinical Laboratory Measurements in the RECOVER Cohort,” published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

“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.

—Kristin Althea O’Connor

Related Information:

“Long COVID” Evades Common SARS-CoV-2 Clinical Lab Tests

Differentiation of Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Postacute Sequelae by Standard Clinical Laboratory Measurements in the RECOVER Cohort

Long COVID Diagnostics: An Unconquered Challenge

RECOVER Study Offers Expanded Working Definition of Long COVID

Routine Lab Tests Are Not a Reliable Way to Diagnose Long COVID

;