Systematic review investigates prevalence and function of anti-interferon auto-antibodies in infections, highlighting significant implications.
Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence and function of anti-interferon auto-antibodies in acute infectious diseases. Methods We performed a search on the following electronic bibliographic databases: Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane. Eligible studies generated a systematic review and random effects model meta-analysis of pooled seroprevalence and neutralisation status of anti-interferon auto-antibodies in acute infectious diseases. Results Thirty-seven studies including 12,629 individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection were analysed. There are insufficient data for meta-analyses of auto-antibodies in non-SARS-CoV-2 infectious diseases, with crude seroprevalence of auto-antibodies varying widely (0.0–77.0%). The pooled seroprevalence of anti-IFNɑ and/or anti-IFN⍵ auto-antibodies in individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection was 14% (95%CI 9–18%, I 2 = 92%, \:τ\: 2 = 0.0151, p < 0.01). Pooled prevalence of neutralising auto-antibodies were slightly lower (12%; 95%CI 8–17%, I 2 = 77%, \:τ\: 2 = 0.0027, p < 0.01). The high heterogeneity may reflect divergent SARS-CoV-2 disease severity across studies, and methodological diversity for measurement and definition of auto-antibody binding and neutralisation. Pooled seroprevalence for anti-IFNɑ auto-antibodies in uninfected healthy controls were < 1% (95%CI 0–1%, I 2 = 90%, \:τ\: 2 = 0.0028, p < 0.01). Conclusion Anti-interferon auto-antibodies may impair immune responses to diverse infections leading to life-threatening disease. These auto-antibodies have not been studied at all in most infectious diseases, most notably for bacterial infection. This study illustrates the urgent need to standardise methodology and reporting of auto-antibodies in the setting of infectious diseases so that the immunopathology and translational impact of these novel biomarkers can be realised.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hill et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: