Introduction
As reported in bacterial sepsis [1], the early phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection seems to be accompanied by eosinopenia [2–4]. Conversely, our team noticed that several of our critically ill COVID-19 patients developed unexpected and unexplained eosinophilia during their ICU stay. Indeed, as white blood cells count is performed almost daily, monitoring and studying eosinophil course is simple in the ICU setting. To our knowledge, no study has focused on eosinophilia in COVID-19 although eosinophil recovery seven days after initial eosinopenia seems to be associated with a better outcome [3].
We aimed to assess the incidence and to describe eosinophilia in critically ill COVID-19 patients, as well as to compare the outcome between patients developing or not eosinophilia during their ICU stay.
Methods
We retrospectively reviewed all daily white blood cells counts performed in adult COVID-19 patients (RT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2) admitted to our 40-bed COVID-19 ICU between March 6 and July 30, 2020. Eosinophilia was defined by an eosinophil count higher than 500/mm3 and was considered as severe when exceeding 1500/mm3. Eosinopenia was defined by an eosinophil count lower than 40/mm3.
Results
During the study period, 99 patients were admitted for acute respiratory failure related to SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. After excluding 21 patients transferred to another ICU, 78 patients remained in the analysis. Among them, 69 (88%) had eosinopenia at ICU admission and 26 (33%, 95% confidence interval 23–45%) developed eosinophilia during ICU stay.
Among the 26 patients who developed eosinophilia (Table 1), 22 (85%) had eosinopenia at ICU admission. Eosinophilia occurred 19 [13–28] days after ICU admission and lasted 5 [3–12] days. Median eosinophil count was 900 [678–1350]/mm3. Six patients (23%) developed severe eosinophilia. Seven patients (29%) had a biphasic eosinophilia. Ten (38%) patients were treated with a β-lactam antibiotic when eosinophilia occurred. Eleven (42%) patients had at least once a temperature > 38.3 °C and 2 (8%) had an erythematous skin rash during the eosinophilia period, respectively.
Table 1.
Description of eosinophilia (> 500/mm3) in 26 critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia
| Patients with eosinophilia during ICU stay N = 26 | |
|---|---|
| Eosinophil count at ICU admission | |
| Median eosinophils count (cell/mm3) | 5 [0–20] |
| Eosinophilia (> 500/mm3) | 1 (4) |
| Eosinopenia (< 40/mm3) | 22 (85) |
| No eosinophil | 13 (50) |
| Normal eosinophil count | 3 (11) |
| Eosinophilia during ICU stay | |
| Days between ICU admission and eosinophilia | 19 [13–28] |
| Days between disease onset and eosinophilia | 30 [23–38] |
| Days between disease onset and pic of eosinophilia | 31 [25–42] |
| Median eosinophil count (cells/mm3) | 900 [678–1350] |
| Severe eosinophilia (> 1500/mm3) | 6 (23) |
| Total duration of eosinophilia (days) | 5 [3–12] |
| Biphasic eosinophilia | 7 (27) |
| Administration of β-lactam antibiotics during eosinophilia period | 10 (38) |
| Temperature > 38.3 °C at least once during eosinophilia period | 11 (42) |
| Erythematous skin rash during the eosinophilia period | 2 (8) |
| Treatment with ivermectin for eosinophilia | 3 (12) |
Continuous variables are reported as median [Interquartile range] and categorical variables are reported as numbers (percentage)
Comparison between patients with and without eosinophilia during ICU stay is detailed in Table 2.
Table 2.
Comparison between 78 critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia developing (n = 26) or not (n = 52) eosinophilia (eosinophils count > 500mm3) during ICU stay
| All patients N = 78 | Patients with eosinophilia N = 26 | Patients without eosinophilia N = 52 | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients characteristics and ICU scores | ||||
| Male sex | 62 (79) | 22 (85) | 40 (77) | 0.62 |
| Age, years | 62 [54–70] | 62 [55–70] | 62 [54–70] | 0.84 |
| SOFA | 4 [3–7] | 4 [3–7] | 4 [3–8] | 0.44 |
| SAPS II | 33 [22–44] | 34 [28–38] | 31 [19–44] | 0.72 |
| Days between disease onset and ICU admission | 8 [7–12] | 10 [7–13] | 8 [7–12] | 0.28 |
| Main comorbidities, n (%) | ||||
| Obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) | 36 (46) | 9 (36) | 27 (53) | 0.25 |
| Arterial hypertension | 51 (65) | 13 (50) | 38 (73) | 0.08 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 33 (42) | 12 (46) | 21 (40) | 0.81 |
| Ischemic cardiopathy | 8 (10) | 3 (12) | 5 (10) | 1.00 |
| Cerebro-vascular diseases | 7 (9) | 4 (15) | 3 (6) | 0.21 |
| Venous thrombo-embolism | 5 (6) | 2 (8) | 3 (6) | 1.00 |
| Chronic respiratory diseases | 18 (23) | 6 (24) | 12 (24) | 1.00 |
| Chronic renal failure | 7 (9) | 2 (8) | 5 (10) | 1.00 |
| Recent cancer or hemopathy | 3 (4) | 1 (4) | 2 (4) | 1.00 |
| ACE or ARB | 35 (45) | 11 (42) | 24 (47) | 0.88 |
| Biological data at ICU admission | ||||
| Median eosinophils count (cell/mm3) | 0 [0–10] | 5 [0–20] | 0 [0–10] | 0.43 |
| Eosinophilia (> 500/mm3) | 1 (1) | 1 (4) | 0 (0) | 0.33 |
| Eosinopenia (< 40/mm3) | 69 (88) | 22 (85) | 47 (90) | 0.47 |
| No eosinophils | 47 (60) | 13 (50) | 34 (65) | 0.29 |
| Fibrinogen (g/L) | 8 [6–9] | 7 [6–8] | 8 [7–9] | 0.37 |
| D-dimers (µg/mL) | 2440 [1570–9915] | 2415 [1968–13670] | 2720 [1400–7250] | 0.36 |
| Prothrombin time (%) | 85 [75–96] | 87 [80–96] | 85 [70–96] | 0.59 |
| Platelets count (G/L) | 225 [164–291] | 209 [190–327] | 226 [161–272] | 0.34 |
| Treatment for SARSCoV-2 pneumonia | ||||
| Glucocorticoidsa | 12 (15) | 4 (15) | 8 (15) | 1.00 |
| Hydroxychloroquineb | 2 (3) | 1 (4) | 1 (2) | 1.00 |
| Azithromycin | 0 | – | – | – |
| Remdesivir | 0 | – | – | – |
| Lopinavir–ritonavir | 0 | – | – | – |
| Tocilizumab | 0 | – | – | – |
| Outcomes in the ICU | ||||
| Invasive mechanical ventilation | 68 (87) | 25 (96) | 43 (83) | 0.15 |
| Prone positioning | 48 (62) | 18 (69) | 30 (58) | 0.46 |
| Vasopressor support | 49 (63) | 19 (73) | 30 (58) | 0.28 |
| Acute kidney failure | 55 (71) | 19 (79) | 36 (69) | 0.53 |
| Renal replacement therapy | 24 (31) | 12 (46) | 12 (23) | 0.07 |
| Ventilator-associated pneumonia | 45 (58) | 19 (73) | 26 (50) | 0.09 |
| Thrombotic event during ICU stay | 33 (42) | 12 (48) | 21 (40) | 0.70 |
| Length of ICU stay, days | 16 [8–30] | 31 [23–52] | 12 [6–21] | < 0.001 |
| ICU mortality | 38 (49) | 9 (35) | 29 (56) | 0.13 |
| Days between ICU admission and death | 13 (8–21) | 23 (18–47) | 12 (8–16) | < 0.001 |
Continuous variables are reported as median [Interquartile range] and compared between groups using the Student t test. Categorical variables are reported as numbers and percentages and compared using χ2 test. A p value < 0.05 was considered significant
ACE/ARB angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, ICU intensive care unit, SAPS2 simplified acute physiology score, SOFA sepsis-related organ failure assessment
aIn a context of randomized clinical trial (n = 10) or as a salvage therapy (n = 2)
bIn a context of randomized clinical trial
By using a Cox model with time-varying covariate and after adjustment for SAPSII, age and administration of glucocorticoids, eosinophilia was associated with a decreased ICU mortality (HR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.23–0.85, p = 0.014).
Discussion
Despite an 88% rate of eosinopenia at ICU admission, we report that one-third of our critically ill COVID-19 patients developed an unexpected late-onset and prolonged ICU-acquired eosinophilia which was severe in almost one quarter of them. Such a high rate of eosinophilia is uncommon in non-COVID-19 critically ill patients and has never been documented in other viral infection such as influenza. A clear explanation for eosinophilia was not retrieved in our patients even if a drug-induced eosinophilia could not be formally ruled out. Some patients with severe eosinophilia were even empirically treated with ivermectin for a hypothetic helminthiasis-related eosinophilia. Given that eosinophilia was a late-onset event in the course of ICU stay, its positive impact on survival is difficult to interpret, patients developing eosinophilia being exposed to a survival bias.
Considering the absence of a clear explanation for the high rate of eosinophilia observed in our patients, we can legitimately hypothesize that SARS-CoV-2 was directly or indirectly responsible for eosinophilia, as a consequence of infection or recovery. The late occurrence of eosinophilia is consistent with the prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNAaemia reported in critically ill patients [5]. Whether eosinophilia is a marker of an excessive immune recovery or a dysregulated immune response during the cytokine storm [6] induced by the infection is unknown.
Even if our study suffers from several limitations, our findings emphasize the underestimated and understudied role of eosinophils in COVID-19. Further, larger studies are needed to overcome these limitations.
Acknowledgements
We warmly acknowledge Dr Marie Dubert for statistical analysis and Dr Olivier Pajot for careful data interpretation.
Authors' contributions
MF and DC are responsible for the conception and design. All the authors were responsible for the data acquisition, analysis and interpretation. DC takes responsibility for the paper as a whole. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
No funding.
Availability of data and materials
The dataset used and analyzed for the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was conducted in accordance with the amended Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board (CE 2020-67) of the French Intensive Care Society.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Abidi K, Khoudri I, Belayachi J, Madani N, Zekraoui A, Zeggwagh AA, et al. Eosinopenia is a reliable marker of sepsis on admission to medical intensive care units. Crit Care. 2008;12:R59. doi: 10.1186/cc6883. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Li Q, Ding X, Xia G, Chen H-G, Chen F, Geng Z, et al. Eosinopenia and elevated C-reactive protein facilitate triage of COVID-19 patients in fever clinic: a retrospective case-control study. EClinicalMedicine. 2020;23:100375. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Mateos Gonzalez M, Sierra Gonzalo E, Casado Lopez I, Arnalich Fernandez F, Beato Perez JL, Monge Monge D, et al. The prognostic value of eosinophil recovery in COVID-19: a multicentre, retrospective cohort study on patients hospitalised in Spanish hospitals. medRxiv. 2020;2020.08.18.20172874. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 4.Du Y, Tu L, Zhu P, Mu M, Wang R, Yang P, et al. Clinical features of 85 fatal cases of COVID-19 from Wuhan. A retrospective observational study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201:1372–1379. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202003-0543OC. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Buetti N, Wicky PH, Le Hingrat Q, Ruckly S, Mazzuchelli T, Loiodice A, et al. SARS-CoV-2 detection in the lower respiratory tract of invasively ventilated ARDS patients. Crit Care. 2020;24:1–6. doi: 10.1186/s13054-019-2683-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Mehta P, McAuley DF, Brown M, Sanchez E, Tattersall RS, Manson JJ, et al. COVID-19: consider cytokine storm syndromes and immunosuppression. Lancet. 2020;395:1033–1034. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30628-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The dataset used and analyzed for the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.