RESUMO
Predicting COVID-19 severity is difficult, and the biological pathways involved are not fully understood. To approach this problem, we measured 4,701 circulating human protein abundances in two independent cohorts totaling 986 individuals. We then trained prediction models including protein abundances and clinical risk factors to predict adverse COVID-19 outcomes in 417 subjects and tested these models in a separate cohort of 569 individuals. For severe COVID-19, a baseline model including age and sex provided an area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) of 65% in the test cohort. Selecting 92 proteins from the 4,701 unique protein abundances improved the AUC to 88% in the training cohort, which remained relatively stable in the testing cohort at 86%, suggesting good generalizability. Proteins selected from different adverse COVID-19 outcomes were enriched for cytokine and cytokine receptors, but more than half of the enriched pathways were not immune-related. Taken together, these findings suggest that circulating proteins measured at early stages of disease progression are reasonably accurate predictors of adverse COVID-19 outcomes. Further research is needed to understand how to incorporate protein measurement into clinical care.
RESUMO
Proteins detectable in peripheral blood may influence COVID-19 susceptibility or severity. However, understanding which circulating proteins are etiologically involved is difficult because their levels may be influenced by COVID-19 itself and are also subject to confounding factors. To identify circulating proteins influencing COVID-19 susceptibility and severity we undertook a large-scale two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study, since this study design can rapidly scan hundreds of circulating proteins and reduces bias due to reverse causation and confounding. We identified genetic determinants of 931 circulating proteins in 28,461 SARS-CoV-2 uninfected individuals, retaining only single nucleotide polymorphism near the gene encoding the circulating protein. We found that a standard deviation increase in OAS1 levels was associated with reduced COVID-19 death or ventilation (N = 4,336 cases / 623,902 controls; OR = 0.54, P = 7x10-8), COVID-19 hospitalization (N = 6,406 / 902,088; OR = 0.61, P = 8x10-8) and COVID-19 susceptibility (N = 14,134 / 1,284,876; OR = 0.78, P = 8x10-6). Results were consistent in multiple sensitivity analyses. We then measured OAS1 levels in 504 patients with repeated plasma samples (N=1039) with different COVID-19 outcomes and found that increased OAS1 levels in a non-infectious state were associated with protection against very severe COVID-19, hospitalization and susceptibility. Further analyses suggested that a Neanderthal isoform of OAS1 affords this protection. Thus, evidence from MR and a case-control study supported a protective role for OAS1 in COVID-19 outcomes. Available medicines, such as phosphodiesterase-12 inhibitors, increase OAS1 and could be explored for their effect on COVID-19 susceptibility and severity.
RESUMO
BackgroundIncreased vitamin D levels, as reflected by 25OHD measurements, have been proposed to protect against COVID-19 disease based on in-vitro, observational, and ecological studies. However, vitamin D levels are associated with many confounding variables and thus associations described to date may not be causal. Vitamin D Mendelian randomization (MR) studies have provided results that are concordant with large-scale vitamin D randomized trials. Here, we used two-sample MR to assess evidence supporting a causal effect of circulating 25OHD levels on COVID-19 susceptibility and severity. Methods and findingsGenetic variants strongly associated with 25OHD levels in a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 443,734 participants of European ancestry (including 401,460 from the UK Biobank) were used as instrumental variables. GWASs of COVID-19 susceptibility, hospitalization, and severe disease from the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative were used as outcome GWASs. These included up to 14,134 individuals with COVID-19, and 1,284,876 without COVID-19, from 11 countries. SARS-CoV-2 positivity was determined by laboratory testing or medical chart review. Population controls without COVID-19 were also included in the control groups for all outcomes, including hospitalization and severe disease. Analyses were restricted to individuals of European descent when possible. Using inverse-weighted MR, genetically increased 25OHD levels by one standard deviation on the logarithmic scale had no clear association with COVID-19 susceptibility (OR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95, 1.10; P=0.61), hospitalization (OR = 1.11; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.35; P=0.30), and severe disease (OR = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.17; P=0.53). We used an additional 6 meta-analytic methods, as well as sensitivity analyses after removal of variants at risk of horizontal pleiotropy and obtained similar results. These results may be limited by weak instrument bias in some analyses. Further, our results do not apply to individuals with vitamin D deficiency. ConclusionIn this two-sample MR study, we did not observe evidence to support an association between 25OHD levels and COVID-19 susceptibility, severity, or hospitalization. Hence, vitamin D supplementation as a mean of protecting against worsened COVID-19 outcomes is not supported by genetic evidence. Other therapeutic or preventative avenues should be given higher priority for COVID-19 randomized controlled trials. Author SummaryO_LIWhy was this study done? - Vitamin D levels have been associated with COVID-19 outcomes in multiple observational studies, though confounders are likely to bias these associations. - By using genetic instruments which limit such confounding, Mendelian randomization studies have consistently obtained results concordant with vitamin D supplementation randomized trials. This provides rationale to undertake vitamin D Mendelian randomization studies for COVID-19 outcomes. C_LIO_LIWhat did the researchers do and find? - We used the genetic variants obtained from the largest consortium of COVID-19 cases and controls, and the largest study on genetic determinants of vitamin D levels. We used Mendelian randomization to estimate the effect of increased vitamin D on COVID-19 outcomes, while limiting confounding. - In multiple analyses, our results consistently showed no evidence for an association between genetically predicted vitamin D levels and COVID-19 susceptibility, hospitalization, or severe disease. C_LIO_LIWhat do these findings mean? - Vitamin D is a highly confounded variable, and traditional observational studies are at high risk of biased estimates. - We did not find evidence that vitamin D supplementation would improve COVID-19 outcomes. - Given Mendelian randomizations past track-record of anticipating the results of vitamin D randomized controlled trials, other therapeutic and preventative avenues should be prioritized for COVID-19 trials. C_LI
