Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2021 Feb 19;15(2):e0009128. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009128

Effects of steroid therapy in patients with severe fever with Thrombocytopenia syndrome: A multicenter clinical cohort study

Sook In Jung 1,#, Ye Eun Kim 2,#, Na Ra Yun 3, Choon-Mee Kim 4, Dong-Min Kim 3,*, Mi Ah Han 4, Uh Jin Kim 1, Seong Eun Kim 1, Jieun Kim 5, Seong Yeol Ryu 6, Hyun ah Kim 6, Jian Hur 7, Young Keun Kim 8, Hye Won Jeong 9, Jung Yeon Heo 10, Dong Sik Jung 11, Hyungdon Lee 12, Kyungmin Huh 13, Yee Gyung Kwak 14, Sujin Lee 15, Seungjin Lim 15, Sun Hee Lee 16, Sun Hee Park 17, Joon-Sup Yeom 18, Shin-Woo Kim 19, In-Gyu Bae 20, Juhyung Lee 21, Eu Suk Kim 22, Jun-Won Seo 3
Editor: Anita K McElroy23
PMCID: PMC7928499  PMID: 33606699

Abstract

Background

Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) is an acute, febrile, and potentially fatal tick-borne disease caused by the SFTS Phlebovirus. Here, we evaluated the effects of steroid therapy in Korean patients with SFTS.

Methods

A retrospective study was performed in a multicenter SFTS clinical cohort from 13 Korean university hospitals between 2013 and 2017. We performed survival analysis using propensity score matching of 142 patients with SFTS diagnosed by genetic or antibody tests.

Results

Overall fatality rate was 23.2%, with 39.7% among 58 patients who underwent steroid therapy. Complications were observed in 37/58 (63.8%) and 25/83 (30.1%) patients in the steroid and non-steroid groups, respectively (P < .001). Survival analysis after propensity score matching showed a significant difference in mean 30-day survival time between the non-steroid and steroid groups in patients with a mild condition [Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score <14; 29.2 (95% CI 27.70–30.73] vs. 24.9 (95% CI 21.21–28.53], P = .022]. Survival times for the early steroid (≤5 days from the start of therapy after symptom onset), late steroid (>5 days), and non-steroid groups, were 18.4, 22.4, and 27.3 days, respectively (P = .005).

Conclusions

After steroid therapy, an increase in complications was observed among patients with SFTS. Steroid therapy should be used with caution, considering the possible negative effects of steroid therapy within 5 days of symptom onset or in patients with mild disease (APACHE II score <14).

Author summary

Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) is an acute, febrile, and potentially fatal tick-borne disease caused by the SFTS Phlebovirus. Here, we evaluated the effects of steroid therapy in Korean patients with SFTS. We performed survival analysis using propensity score matching of 142 patients with SFTS diagnosed by genetic or antibody tests. In patients with SFTS, steroid therapy should be used with caution, considering the possible negative effects of steroid therapy within 5 days of symptom onset or in patients with mild disease (APACHE II score <14).

Introduction

Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) is an acute febrile disease caused by an SFTS virus (SFTSV) belonging to the Phlebovirus genus [1,2]. The infection occurs when a tick infected with SFTSV bites a person. Haemaphysalis longicornis, Amblyomma testudinarium, and Ixodes nipponensis are the vectors mediating this disease [3,4].

SFTS was first identified in China in 2011 [5], and new patients have been registered annually in Korea since the confirmation of the first Korean patient in 2013 [6]. Since then, in Japan and Taiwan, SFTSV-infected patients or ruminants and ticks have been identified [7,8]. The 2011 and 2012 mortality rates for patients with SFTS in China were 6% (n = 123 deaths among 2,017 confirmed patients), whereas those in Korea and Japan exceeded 30% [9,10].

Due to the lack of therapeutic agents, there is no standardized treatment for SFTS, and current treatment is based on symptomatic therapy. Short-term glucocorticoid therapy could be helpful in the treatment of encephalopathy in early-stage SFTS infection [11]. However, such beneficial treatment effects have only been reported in case studies or studies including a small number of patients.

Few studies have assessed the clinical characteristics of patients with SFTS or analyzed the clinical characteristics related to the risk to death [12]. In addition, no systematic analyses have investigated the effects of steroid therapy in patients with SFTS. This study evaluated the effects of steroid therapy by analyzing the epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of patients with SFTS in Korea and the therapeutic effects of steroid therapy using propensity score matching.

Methods

Ethics statement

Research was approved by the Ethics in Human Research Committee of Chosun University Hospital (IRB No. 2017-10-012) as the central coordinating center, and written informed consent was provided by all participants in the study.

Study setting and participants

A multicenter SFTS clinical cohort study was established to identify the treatment status and analyze the effects of treatment in patients with SFTS at specific institutions. Retrospective studies were undertaken to analyze the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with SFTS in 13 university hospitals in Korea after reviewing medical records. After receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board of each participating institution, patients with a confirmed diagnosis of SFTS were selected for data collection at each participating institution. The inclusion criteria were that 1) patients who admitted to hospitals from 2013 to 2017, and 2) those who confirmed SFTS by molecular or serology test for SFTSV.

A diagnosis of SFTS was made by the Korean Center for Disease Control (KCDC) [13], Korea Institute of Health and Environment, or Chosun University Hospital. Diagnosis was made on the basis of results from conventional, nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or real-time (RT)-PCR to detect viral RNA in the blood of patients with SFTS. In some cases, diagnosis was made via immunofluorescence assays for the SFTSV and confirmed if there was more than four-fold increase in SFTS IgM or IgG antibodies [14,15].

To exclude the effects of other diseases, all patients with co-infection for any other pathogen besides SFTSV were excluded. Epidemiologic data, clinical features, laboratory results, and treatment outcomes of patients with SFTS were collected after reviewing medical records and previously completed epidemiological forms.

Statistical analysis

Results of categorical variables were expressed as frequencies and percentages, while those of continuous variables were presented as medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs). Analyses were performed using the Mann–Whitney U-test to compare continuous variables between the fatal and non-fatal patient groups and between the steroid and non-steroid therapy groups. For categorical variables, analyses were performed using Chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests.

For comparative analysis of treatment outcomes, clinical laboratory results pre-steroid therapy and 48 hours post-steroid therapy were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. To identify 30-day mortality risk factors (from admission) in patients with SFTS, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regressions were conducted. The effects of various therapies on 30-day mortality risk in patients with SFTS were identified using a Cox regression model constructed by adjusting for two covariates; initial Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score [16], which represented disease severity, and hospitalization within 7 days of symptom onset, which may have affected the application of treatment.

To identify the effects of steroid therapy on 30-day survival time, a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was conducted in the steroid and non-steroid groups after propensity score matching. Patients with severe SFTS were more likely to have received steroid therapy; therefore, owing to the high probability of selection bias, corrections were made by propensity score matching using the nearest method without caliper. For the generation of propensity score-matched cohorts, confounding factors were identified using logistic regression for both groups and 1:1 matching was performed by the propensity score calculated using a logistic regression model to match variables in both groups. The final matching variables included age, sex, underlying comorbidities, initial APACHE II score, initial respiration rate, initial altered mental state, and initial intensive care unit (ICU) admission. All calculated P values were two-sided, and 95% confidence intervals were considered. Statistical analyses were performed using the Windows IBM SPSS software (version 24, IBM corp., NY, USA) and R software (version 3.6.1).

Results

Epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of patients with SFTS

A total of 142 patients had a confirmed diagnosis of SFTS between 2013 and 2017 by PCR test, and 12 of them were also diagnosed via more than 4 fold IgG antibody increase using IFA. No patient had a confirmed co-infection such as scrub typhus, leptospirosis, and hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome by PCR tests. Each year, 3–75 patients were infected with SFTS, and the case fatality rate was 16.7%–66.7% (Fig 1). Of the 142 patients, 33 died (case fatality rate, 23.2%). The male-to-female ratios in the fatal and non-fatal groups were 45.5:54.5 and 52.3:47.7, respectively; however, this was not a statistically significant difference (P = .554) (Table 1).

Fig 1. Number of patients enrolled in multicenter cohorts with confirmed severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) and mortality between 2013 and 2017.

Fig 1

Table 1. General and Clinical Characteristics of Patients with SFTS in the Non-Fatal and Fatal Groups (2013–2017).

Non-Fatal Fatala Total
Characteristics n = 109 n = 33 N = 142 P Valueb
Age, years (median, IQR) 67.0 (59.0–73.0) 75.0 (67.5–81.5) 68.5 (61.0–75.3) < .001
Sex, Male 57 (52.3) 15 (45.5) 72 (50.7) .554
Comorbidity, total 64 (58.7) 24 (72.7) 88 (62.0) .146
Initial clinical manifestationc
    Fever 97 (89.0) 24 (77.4) 121 (86.4) .033
    Chills 70 (64.2) 11 (35.5) 81 (57.9) .005
    Myalgia 53 (48.6) 7 (22.6) 60 (42.9) .008
    Cough 10 (9.2) 4 (12.9) 14 (10.0) .492
    Nausea 31 (28.4) 7 (22.6) 38 (27.1) .814
    Vomiting 18 (16.5) 7 (22.6) 25 (17.9) .416
    Diarrhea 31 (28.4) 11 (35.5) 42 (30.0) .366
    Altered mental state 18 (16.5) 11 (35.5) 29 (20.7) .028
    Glasgow Coma Scale (median, IQR) 15.0 (14.0–15.0) 15.0 (11.0–15.0) 15.0 (14.0–15.0) .203
Vital sign at first clinic visit
    Body temperature (°C) (median, IQR) 38.2 (37.1–38.6) 38.0 (37.1–38.7) 38.0 (37.1–38.6) .842
    Respiration rate (/min) (median, IQR) 20.0 (20.0–20.0) 20.0 (20.0–22.0) 20.0 (20.0–20.0) .013
Symptom onset to admission (median days, IQR) 5.0 (3.0–7.0) 4.0 (3.0–6.0) 5.0 (3.0–7.0) .254
Initial APACHE II score (median, IQR) 10.0 (8.0–14.0) 16.0 (11.0–20.0) 11.0 (9.0–16.0) < .001
Prior antibiotic treatment 39 (36.8) 16 (48.5) 55 (39.6) .230
CRRT/hemodialysis 5 (4.6) 11 (33.3) 16 (11.3) < .001
ICU admission during hospitalization 34 (31.5) 28 (84.8) 62 (44.0) < .001
Steroids treatment 35 (32.1) 23 (69.7) 58 (40.8) < .001
    Days from admission to first treatment (median, IQR) 2.0 (1.0–4.0) 2.0 (1.0–3.0) 2.0 (1.0–3.3) .089
        Total days of steroids administration (median, IQR) 5.0 (3.0–9.0) 4.0 (2.0–6.0) 4.5 (3.0–7.5) .077
    Steroid dose (median, IQR) d
        Dexamethasone (mg/day) 15.0 (10.0–16.0) 15.0 (10.0–20.0) 15.0 (10.0–18.0) .658
    Prednisolone (mg/day) 20.0 (10.0-N/A) 10.0 N/A 15.0 (10.0–20.0) .500
    Methylprednisolone (mg/day) 125.0 (57.5–1000.0) 62.5 (50.0–125.0) 68.8 (56.3–417.5) .252
    Hydrocortisone (mg/day) 200.0 (100.0-N/A) 200.0 (200.0–300.0) 200.0 (200.0–300.0) .183
Complications, totale 32 (29.6) 30 (90.9) 62 (44.0) < .001
    Meningoencephalitis 6 (5.6) 3 (9.1) 9 (6.4) .437
    Mechanical ventilation 12 (11.1) 21 (63.6) 33 (23.4) < .001
    Arrhythmia 1 (0.9) 7 (21.2) 8 (5.7) < .001
    Pneumonia 6 (5.6) 5 (15.2) 11 (7.8) .129
    Seizure 3 (2.8) 1 (3.0) 4 (2.8) 1.000
    Rhabdomyolysis 2 (1.9) 1 (3.0) 3 (2.1) .554
    MOD 0 (0.0) 1 (3.0) 1 (0.7) N/A
    Septic shock/sepsis 2 (1.9) 9 (27.3) 11 (7.8) < .001
    Acute kidney injury 6 (5.6) 6 (18.2) 12 (8.5) .034
    GI bleeding 2 (1.9) 2 (6.1) 4 (2.8) .233
    DIC 0 (0.0) 4 (12.1) 4 (2.8) N/A
    Othersf 7 (6.5) 6 (18.2) 13 (9.2) .078

Data are presented as no. (%) unless otherwise indicated. Additional information of general and clinical characteristics of patients with SFTS are provided in the S1 Table.

Abbreviations: APACHE, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation; CRRT, continuous renal replacement therapy; DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation; GI, gastrointestinal; ICU, intensive care unit; IQR, interquartile range; MOD, multiple organ dysfunction; N/A, not available.

a A total of 29 patients died within 30 days from admission, while 1 patient died after 30 days. Three patients in the fatal group had missing data on 30-day survival time as they died outside of the hospital.

b Analysis using Chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, or Mann-Whitney U test.

c Missing data: n = 2.

d A total of 23 patients in non-fatal group and 10 patients in fatal group received dexamethasone, 3 in non-fatal and 1 in fatal groups received prednisolone, 9 in non-fatal and 7 in fatal groups received methylprednisolone, and 3 in non-fatal and 7 in fatal groups received hydrocortisone. Of 58 patients who received steroids therapy, five patients received two types of steroid therapy such as dexamethasone plus hydrocortisone or methylprednisolone and methylprednisolone plus prednisolone or hydrocortisone. The dosages and types of steroids prescribed for each patients were different depends on hospitals because there were no guidelines of using steroids in patients with SFTS.

e Missing data: n = 1.

f Other complications included acute cerebral infarction, acute respiratory distress syndrome, aspiration pneumonia, azotemia, infectious mononucleosis, interstitial pulmonary fibrosis, intracranial hemorrhage, lymphadenitis, metabolic encephalopathy, multiple organ failure, pulmonary hemorrhage, respiratory failure, and toxic hepatitis.

The median age of the 142 patients was 68.5 years. A statistically significant difference in median age was observed between the non-fatal and fatal groups (67 vs. 75 years, P < .001). Of the 142 patients, 88 (62.0%) had confirmed comorbidities, including 64 (58.7%) and 24 (72.7%) patients in the non-fatal and fatal groups, respectively. Data on complications were examined in 141 of 142 patients. Of the 62 patients who experienced complications, ventilator use was the most commonly observed (n = 33, 23.4%), followed by acute kidney injury (n = 12, 8.5%), pneumonia (n = 11, 7.8%), and septic shock/sepsis (n = 11, 7.8%). Another observed complication was disseminated intravascular coagulation (n = 4, 2.8%) (Table 1).

Among the 142 patients, the initial major symptoms of 140 patients were as follows: fever (n = 121, 86.4%), chills (n = 81, 57.9%), myalgia (n = 60, 42.9%), diarrhea (n = 42, 30%), and nausea (n = 38, 27.1%). There were significant differences in the prevalence of fever (P = 0.033), chills (P = 0.005), myalgia (P = 0.008), and altered mental state (P = 0.028) between the non-fatal and fatal groups (Table 1).

Of the 142 patients, 58 were administered steroid therapy, of which 23 (39.7%) patients died. Most patients who underwent steroid therapy were administered 5–30 mg of dexamethasone (33/58 patients) intravenously or 40–1,000 mg of methylprednisolone (16/58 patients). The median total steroid administration period was 4.5 days (IQR 3–7.5 days).

Steroid group of patients with SFTS

There was no statistical difference in age or sex between the steroid and non-steroid groups (P = .144, P = .889, Table 2). At the time of hospital admission, the median APACHE II score (IQR) differed significantly between the steroid group, 13.0 (9.0–17.0), and the non-steroid group, 10.0 (8.5–14.0), (P = .042). The ICU admission rate was statistically higher in the steroid group (67.2%, 39 patients) than in the non-steroid group (27.7%, 23 patients) (P < .001). In combined treatment, the use of ribavirin, plasmapheresis, and IVIG accounted for 34.5% (n = 20), 25.9% (n = 15), and 43.1% (n = 25) of patients, respectively, in the steroid group, which was statistically higher than those in the non-steroid group (P < .001, P = .014, and P = .032, respectively) (Table 2).

Table 2. General, Clinical Characteristics, and Laboratory Results of Patients with SFTS in the Steroid and Non-Steroid Groups (2013–2017).

Non-Steroid Steroid Total
Characteristics n = 84 n = 58 N = 142 P Valuea
Age, years (median, IQR) 67 (61.0–73.8) 71.5 (62.5–77.0) 68.5 (61.0–75.3) .144
Sex, Male 43 (51.2) 29 (50.0) 72 (50.7) .889
Comorbidity, totalb 50 (59.5) 38 (65.5) 88 (62.0) .470
Vital sign at first clinic visit
    Body temperature (°C) (median, IQR) 37.9 (37.1–38.5) 38.2 (37.2–38.8) 38.0 (37.1–38.6) .184
    SBP (mmHg) (median, IQR) 116.0 (107.3–130.0) 110.0 (100.0–125.3) 111.5 (100.0–128.3) .033
    DBP (mmHg) (median, IQR) 70.0 (60.0–77.8) 65.0 (60.0–77.3) 70.0 (60.0–77.3) .224
    Heart rate (/min) (median, IQR) 79.0 (69.0–90.0) 84.0 (74.3–92.3) 80.5 (70.0–90.0) .100
    Respiration rate (/min) (median, IQR) 20.0 (18.0–20.0) 20.0 (20.0–22.0) 20.0 (20.0–22.0) .028
Symptom onset to admission
(median days, IQR)
5.0 (3.0–6.0) 5.0 (3.0–5.3) 5.0 (3.0–7.0) .908
Initial APACHE II score (median, IQR) 10.0 (8.5–14.0) 13.0 (9.0–17.0) 11 (9.0–16.0) .042
Initial clinical manifestationc
    Fever 76 (91.6) 45 (78.9) 121 (86.4) .018
    Chills 54 (65.1) 27 (47.4) 81 (57.9) .033
    Myalgia 42 (50.6) 18 (31.6) 60 (42.9) .038
    Gastrointestinald 55 (66.3) 39 (68.4) 94 (67.1) .709
    Central nervous systeme 40 (48.2) 29 (50.9) 69 (49.3) .887
    Glasgow Coma Scale (median, IQR) 15 (15–15) 15 (13–15) 15 (15–15) .008
Initial laboratory findings
    Leukopenia (<4,000/mm3) 76 (90.5) 50 (86.2) 126 (88.7) .429
    Neutropenia (ANC <1,500/mm3) 52 (68.4) 39 (67.2) 91 (67.9) .885
    Lymphopenia (ALC <1500/mm3) 74 (96.1) 57 (98.3) 131 (97.0) .634
    Thrombocytopenia, mild (<150 × 103/mm3) 81 (96.4) 55 (94.8) 136 (95.8) .688
    Anemia (<11 g/dL) 7 (8.3) 4 (6.9) 11 (7.7) 1.000
    Hypoalbuminemia (<3.5 g/dL) 28 (38.4) 27 (48.2) 55 (42.6) .262
    Elevated ALP (>120 IU/L) 18 (29.0) 16 (31.4) 34 (30.1) .787
    Elevated AST (>40 IU/L) 69 (84.1) 46 (80.7) 115 (82.7) .597
    Elevated AST, high (>200 IU/L) 29 (35.4) 22 (38.6) 51 (36.7) .697
    Elevated ALT, (>40 IU/L) 49 (59.8) 36 (63.2) 85 (61.2) .686
    Elevated ALT, high (>200 IU/L) 11 (13.4) 6 (10.5) 17 (12.2) .609
    PT prolongation (INR >1.3) 3 (4.2) 4 (8.2) 7 (5.8) .442
    aPTT prolongation (>40 s) 46 (64.8) 29 (59.2) 75 (62.5) .533
    Elevated CK (>300 IU/L) 41 (66.1) 31 (81.6) 72 (72.0) .095
    Elevated LDH (>300 IU/L) 47 (82.5) 36 (90.0) 83 (85.6) .298
    Elevated CRP (>3 mg/dL) 9 (11.8) 3 (5.9) 12 (9.4) .359
Prior antibiotic treatment 28 (34.6) 27 (46.6) 55 (39.6) .154
CRRT/hemodialysis 5 (6.0) 11 (19.0) 16 (11.3) .016
ICU admission during hospitalization 23 (27.7) 39 (67.2) 62 (44.0) < .001
Combined treatment
    Ribavirin 14 (16.7) 20 (34.5) 34 (23.9) .014
    Plasmapheresis 10 (11.9) 15 (25.9) 25 (17.6) .032
    IVIG 4 (4.8) 25 (43.1) 29 (20.4) < .001
Steroid dose (median, IQR) f
    Dexamethasone (mg/day) N/A 15.0 (10.0–18.0) 15.0 (10.0–18.0) N/A
    Prednisolone (mg/day) N/A 15.0 (10.0–20.0) 15.0 (10.0–20.0) N/A
    Methylprednisolone (mg/day) N/A 68.8 (56.3–417.5) 68.8 (56.3–417.5) N/A
    Hydrocortisone (mg/day) N/A 200.0 (200.0–300.0) 200.0 (200.0–300.0) N/A
Fatality 10 (11.9) 23 (39.7) 33 (23.2) < .001

Data are presented as no. (%) unless otherwise indicated.

Abbreviations: ALC, absolute lymphocyte count; ALP, alkaline phosphatase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; ANC, absolute neutrophil count; APACHE, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation; aPTT, activated partial thromboplastin time; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; CK, creatinine kinase; CRP, C-reactive protein; CRRT, continuous renal replacement therapy; DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; G-I, gastro-intestinal; HLH, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis; ICU, intensive care unit; INR, international normalized ratio; IQR, interquartile range; IVIG, intravenous immunoglobulin; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; MOD, multiple organ dysfunction; N/A, not available; PT, prothrombin time; SBP, systemic blood pressure.

a Analysis using Chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test or Mann-Whitney U test.

b More details of the information are presented in S2 Table.

c Missing data = 2 (non-steroid, n = 1; steroid, n = 1).

d Gastrointestinal symptoms included anorexia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and abdominal tenderness. More details of the information are presented in S2 Table.

e Central nervous system symptoms included headache, dizziness, neck stiffness, and altered mentation. More details of the information are presented in S2 Table.

f A total of 33 patients received dexamethasone, 4 received prednisolone, 16 received methylprednisolone, and 10 received hydrocortisone. Five patients received two types of steroid therapy such as dexamethasone plus hydrocortisone or methylprednisolone and methylprednisolone plus prednisolone or hydrocortisone.

Among 58 patients who received steroid therapy, comparisons of laboratory test results and clinical characteristics before and after treatment for 41 patients (surviving patients, n = 27 [65.9%]; fatal patients, n = 14 [34.1%]) who underwent laboratory testing both pre- and post-steroid treatment are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Comparison of Clinical and Laboratory Parameters in Patients with SFTS Within 48 Hours Before and After Steroid Treatment.

Within 48 h before treatment Within 48 h after treatment (n = 41)
Variables n Median (IQR) n Median (IQR) P Valuea
GCS score 39 14.0 (11.0–15.0) 39 12.0 (8.0–15.0) .002
BT (°C) 30 38.3 (37.6–38.7) 39 37.0 (36.4–37.7) < .001
WBC (/μL) 40 1700.0 (1140.0–2837.5) 41 3200.0 (2500.0–5150.0) < .001
Neutrophil (%) 40 59.9 (47.1–69.7) 38 59.6 (43.5–69.3) .934
    ANC 40 1047.9 (615.1–1574.7) 38 2010.3 (1110.9–3236.1) < .001
Lymphocyte (%) 40 27.3 (17.5–35.4) 38 28.3 (17.0–37.8) .695
    ALC 40 409.1 (291.7–826.2) 38 794.8 (520.2–1467.2) .003
Hgb (g/dL) 40 12.7 (11.9–14.5) 41 12.0 (10.2–13.3) < .001
Hct (%) 40 36.5 (34.3–40.4) 41 34.4 (30.2–38.2) < .001
Platelet (10^3/μL) 40 51.5 (32.3–61.8) 41 60.0 (38.0–83.5) .033
Protein (g/dL) 34 5.5 (4.8–6.1) 32 5.4 (4.6–6.1) .553
Albumin (g/dL) 36 3.0 (2.6–3.4) 34 2.7 (2.4–2.9) .005
T-bilirubin (mg/dL) 38 0.4 (0.3–0.6) 36 0.6 (0.4–0.9) .013
ALP (IU/L) 37 85.0 (57.0–163.5) 35 101.0 (57.0–160.0) .464
r-GTP (U/L) 20 60.5 (23.8–139.8) 18 142.0 (74.3–295.5) .209
AST (U/L) 39 304.0 (173.0–487.0) 40 416.0 (212.5–860.5) .024
ALT (U/L) 39 99.0 (57.0–135.0) 40 129.0 (72.3–229.3) .026
BUN (mg/dL) 39 16.1 (11.7–24.1) 39 22.8 (14.3–29.9) .021
Serum Cr (mg/dL) 38 0.8 (0.7–1.2) 38 0.9 (0.7–1.4) .483
Amylase 21 136.0 (86.0–211.5) 7 231.0 (184.0–351.0) .345
CK (IU/L) 26 2134.0 (934.3–2574.3) 24 1470.5 (866.3–2870.8) .407
CK-MB (IU/L) 16 5.2 (3.1–28.7) 10 16.1 (5.8–24.3) .500
LDH (IU/L) 28 1100.5 (823.0–2520.8) 34 2024.0 (1125.8–3695.0) .014
CRP (mg/dL) 32 0.5 (0.1–1.2) 20 0.5 (0.0–1.7) .727
Ferritin (ng/mL) 11 3399.4 (3180.4–16500.0) 11 7325.5 (2802.3–9504.0) .593
Serum Na (mEq/L) 39 138.0 (136.0–140.0) 35 139.0 (135.0–140.0) .027
Serum K (mEq/L) 39 3.9 (3.6–4.2) 35 4.1 (3.6–4.5) .224
INR 28 1.1 (1.0–1.2) 29 1.0 (1.0–1.1) .217
aPTT (s) 28 52.3 (44.2–70.9) 28 44.6 (34.5–64.9) .958
Fibrinogen (mg/dL) 12 220.4 (169.8–248.2) 15 174.7 (142.2–204.0) .063

Abbreviations: ALC, absolute lymphocyte count; ALP, alkaline phosphatase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; ANC, absolute neutrophil count; aPTT, activated partial thromboplastin time; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; BT, body temperature; CK, creatinine kinase; CK-MB, creatine kinase-myocardial band; Cr, creatinine; CRP, c-reactive protein; GCS, Glasgow Coma Scale; Hct, hematocrit; Hgb, hemoglobin; INR, international normalized ratio; K, potassium; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; Na, sodium; r-GTP, gamma-glutamic transpeptidase; WBC, white blood cell.

a Analysis using Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

White blood cell count within 48 hours post-steroid treatment increased to 3,200/μL from 1,700/μL before treatment (P < .001). Platelet count also increased to 60.0 × 103/mm3 compared to a pre-treatment value of 51.5 × 103/mm3 (P = .033). Aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels increased to 416/129 U/L post-treatment from 304/99 U/L pre-treatment (P = .024/P = .026), and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) levels increased to 22.8 mg/dL post-treatment from 16.1 mg/dL pre-treatment (P = .021). Body temperature (P < .001), albumin (P = .005), hemoglobin (P < .001), and hematocrit (P < .001) levels were significantly lower post-treatment compared to pre-treatment values (Table 3).

Risk factors associated with 30-day mortality in patients with SFTS

The results of univariate analysis indicated that age, arrhythmia, septic shock/sepsis, initial APACHE II score, ICU admission, initial altered mental state, mechanical ventilator use, and CRRT/hemodialysis treatment affected 30-day mortality rates. In the multivariate analysis, age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04–1.17), arrhythmia (aHR 4.61, 95% CI 1.42–14.94), septic shock/sepsis (aHR 4.52, 95% CI 1.33–15.38), initial APACHE II score (aHR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01–1.15), ICU admission (aHR 41.90, 95% CI 4.51–389.16), mechanical ventilator use (aHR 2.87, 95% CI 1.01–8.13), and CRRT/hemodialysis treatment (aHR 4.34, 95% CI 1.36–13.89) were statistically significant (Table 4).

Table 4. Risk Factors Associated with 30-day Mortality in Patients with SFTS.

Univariate Model Multivariate Modela
Variable HR (95% CI) P Value aHR (95% CI) P Value
Age 1.08 (1.03–1.12) .001 1.10 (1.04–1.17) .001
Arrhythmia 6.23 (2.53–15.38) < .001 4.61 (1.42–14.94) .011
Septic shock/Sepsis 5.32 (2.36–11.99) < .001 4.52 (1.33–15.38) .016
Initial APACHE II score 1.10 (1.06–1.14) < .001 1.08 (1.01–1.15) .033
ICU admission 13.27 (4.02–43.80) < .001 41.90 (4.51–389.16) .001
Initial altered mentation 2.62 (1.21–5.64) .014 -
Initial PT prolongation (INR >1.3) 2.95 (0.88–9.90) .080 -
Mechanical ventilator 8.21 (3.83–17.61) < .001 2.87 (1.01–8.13) .047
CRRT/Hemodialysis 5.74 (2.72–12.11) < .001 4.34 (1.36–13.89) .013

Abbreviations: APACHE, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation; aHR, adjusted hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; CRRT, continuous renal replacement therapy; DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation; HR, hazard ratio; ICU, intensive care unit; INR, international normalized ratio; PT, prothrombin time.

a The variables included in the multivariate model were age, arrhythmia, septic shock/sepsis, initial APACHE II score, ICU admission, Initial altered mentation, initial PT prolongation, mechanical ventilator and CRRT/hemodialysis.

A Cox proportional multivariable regression analysis was conducted to examine the effects of various therapies on 30-day mortality in patients with SFTS. Among therapies such as prior antibiotic treatment, ribavirin, steroid therapy, IVIG, and plasmapheresis, the use of steroid therapy was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (aHR 3.45, 95% CI 1.31–9.11, P = .012) (Table 5).

Table 5. Treatment Effects on 30-day Mortality in Patients with SFTS.

Variables Univariate Analysis Multivariate Analysisa
HR (95% CI) P Value aHR (95% CI) P Value
Prior antibiotic treatment 1.55 (0.76–3.16) .234 -
Ribavirin 1.61 (0.75–3.45) .217 -
Steroids 4.57 (1.96–10.66) < .001 3.45 (1.31–9.11) .012
IVIG 1.61 (0.74–3.51) .235 -
Plasmapheresis 2.19 (1.03–4.68) .043 -

Abbreviations: aHR, adjusted hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; IVIG, intravenous immunoglobulin

a The variables included in the multivariate model were prior antibiotic treatment, ribavirin, steroids, IVIG, plasmapheresis, and adjusted variables such as age, sex, initial APACHE II score, and symptom onset to admission within 7 days.

Survival time estimation based on steroid use before and after propensity score matching

Patient clinical characteristics before and after cohort matching are shown in Table 6. Comparisons of survival according to the use of steroid therapy revealed a significant difference in mean survival time between the steroid and non-steroid groups (20.8 vs. 27.5 days, P < .001, log-rank test) before matching. After matching, the difference in mean survival times between the steroid and non-steroid groups remained significant (21.3 vs. 27.3 days, P = .002, log-rank test) (Fig 2A). Comparison of 30-day mortality between the steroid and non-steroid groups in 135 of 142 patients with a confirmed survival time showed a significant difference in survival rates between steroid and non-steroid groups (60.3% [35/58] vs. 90.9% [70/77], P < .001, chi-squared test) before propensity score matching. After propensity score matching, the difference remained significant, with a higher survival rate of 90.4% (47/52) in the non-steroid group compared to 62.5% (35/56) in the steroid group (P = .001, Table 6).

Table 6. Characteristics of the SFTS Cohort Before and After Propensity Score Matching.

Unmatched Matched
Variables Non-Steroid Steroid P Valuea Non-Steroid Steroid P Valuea
(n = 84) (n = 58) (n = 56) (n = 56)
Ageb (median, IQR) 67.0 (61.0–73.8) 71.5 (62.5–77.0) .144 69.0 (65.0–77.0) 72.5 (63.0–77.0) .775
Female, sexb 41 (48.8) 29 (50.0) .889 28 (50.0) 29 (51.8) .850
Underlying comorbiditiesb 50 (59.5) 38 (65.5) .470 37 (66.1) 37 (66.1) 1.000
Initial respiration rateb,c (median, IQR) 20.0 (18.0–20.0) 20.0 (20.0–22.0) .028 20.0 (20.0–20.0) 20.0 (20.0–22.0) .254
Initial APACHE II scoreb,c (median, IQR) 10.0 (8.5–14.0) 13.0 (9.0–17.0) .042 11.0 (9.3–15.0) 13.0 (9.0–17.0) .186
Initial ICU admissionb,c 11 (13.4) 14 (24.1) .103 11 (19.6) 14 (25.0) .496
Initial altered mentationb,c 15 (19.2) 14 (25.0) .424 12 (21.4) 14 (25.0) .654
Survival 70 (90.9) 35 (60.3) < .001 47 (90.4) 35 (62.5) < .001

Data are presented as no. (%) unless otherwise indicated.

Abbreviations: APACHE, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation; ICU, intensive care unit; IQR, interquartile range.

a Analysis using Chi-square test or Mann-Whitney U test.

b Matching variables.

c ‘Initial ICU admission’ means an intensive care unit admission at the beginning of hospitalization. ‘Initial altered mentation’ means altered mentation between onset and admission. Missing data for variables such as initial APACHE II score (n = unmatched non-steroid group 15, unmatched steroid group 1), initial ICU admission (unmatched non-steroid 2), initial altered mentation (unmatched non-steroid group 6, unmatched steroid group 2), initial GCS score (unmatched non-steroid group 12, unmatched steroid group 6, matched non-steroid group 4, matched steroid group 4), and complications (unmatched non-steroid group 1).

Fig 2. Survival analysis according to the timing of steroid therapy in patients with severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS).

Fig 2

(A) Kaplan–Meier analysis of 30-day survival after admission between patients with severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) with and without steroid therapy before and after propensity score matchinga. (B) Kaplan–Meier analysis of 30-day survival after admission among patients with severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) with early, late, and non-steroid treatment, before propensity score matching. (C) Kaplan–Meier analysis of 30-day survival after admission among patients with severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) with early, late, and non-steroid treatment, after propensity score matching. a. There were 7 missing patients in the unmatched dataset and 4 in the matched dataset due to missing data on 30-day survival time.

In the analysis prior to propensity score matching, the early steroid group, which was administered steroids within 5 days of symptom onset, had a 30-day survival time of 18.42 days, which was shorter than that of the late steroid group, which was administered steroid therapy after 5 days of symptom onset, although this difference was not statistically significant (P = .477). Differences in survival time between the non-steroid and the early and late steroid groups were statistically significant (P < .001 and P = .001, respectively) (Fig 2B). Analysis between the non-steroid, early, and late steroid groups after matching showed significant differences in survival times between the non-steroid and early steroid groups (P = .002), with survival times of 18.4, 22.4, and 27.3 days for early, late, and non-steroid groups, respectively (P = .005) (Fig 2C).

In the analysis prior to matching, in patients with severe disease (an initial APACHE II score ≥14), the 30-day survival time did not differ significantly at 17.5 and 21.4 days for the steroid and non-steroid groups, respectively (P = .307) (Fig 3A). After matching, there was also no statistically significant difference between the groups (17.5 vs. 22.7 days, P = .184) (Fig 3B). However, a significant difference in mortality following steroid administration was observed for patients with APACHE II scores <14. Prior to matching, the 30-day survival time was significantly lower in the steroid group than in the non-steroid group (24.3 [20.55–27.98] vs. 29.4 [95% CI 28.19–30.58] days, P = .003) (Fig 3A). After matching, the difference in survival time was statistically significant (24.9 [21.21–28.53] vs. 29.2 [27.70–30.73] days, P = .022) in patients with mild-to-moderate disease (APACHE II scores <14) (Fig 3B).

Fig 3. Survival analysis according to Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores among patients with severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS).

Fig 3

(A) Kaplan–Meier 30-day survival analysis after admission of patients with severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) with and without steroid therapy according to SFTS severity before propensity score matchinga. (B) Kaplan–Meier 30-day survival analysis of patients with severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) with and without steroid therapy according to SFTS severity after propensity score matchingb. a. Twenty-two patients had missing data on the initial APACHE II score or 30-day survival time. b. Four patients had missing data on 30-day survival time.

Complications in patients with SFTS Using steroid therapy

After propensity score matching, the difference in the incidence of complications between the steroid and non-steroid groups was statistically significant (P < .001), with 62.5% (35/56) and 28.6% (16/56) of patients experiencing complications in the steroid group and non-steroid groups, respectively (Table 7). More patients required mechanical ventilation in the steroid group (33.9%, 19/56) than in the non-steroid group (12.5%, P = .007), and the incidence of pneumonia was higher in the former than in the latter (14.3% vs. 1.8%, P = .032).

Table 7. Comparison of Complication Frequencies Between the Steroid and Non-Steroid Groups in Patients with SFTS after Propensity Score Matching.

Non-Steroid (n = 56) Steroid (n = 56)
Variables n(%) n(%) P Valuea
Complication, total 16 (28.6) 35 (62.5) < .001
    Meningoencephalitis 0 (0.0) 5 (8.9) N/A
    Mechanical ventilation 7 (12.5) 19 (33.9) .007
    Arrhythmia 1 (1.8) 6 (10.7) .113
    Pneumonia 1 (1.8) 8 (14.3) .032
    Seizure 0 (0.0) 2 (3.6) .495
    Rhabdomyolysis 2 (3.6) 0 (0.0) N/A
    MOD 0 (0.0) 1 (1.8) N/A
    Septic shock or sepsis 4 (7.1) 7 (12.5) .341
    Acute kidney injury 5 (8.9) 5 (8.9) 1.000
    G-I bleeding 0 (0.0) 1 (1.8) N/A
    HLH 0 (0.0) 3 (5.4) N/A
    DIC 0 (0.0) 3 (5.4) N/A
    Others b 8 (14.3) 2 (3.6) .047

Abbreviation: DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation; G-I, gastro-intestinal; HLH, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis; MOD, multiple organ dysfunction; N/A, not available.

a Analysis using Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test.

b Other complications included acute cerebral infarction, acute respiratory distress syndrome, aspiration pneumonia, azotaemia, infectious mononucleosis, intracranial haemorrhage, metabolic encephalopathy, respiratory failure, and toxic hepatitis.

Discussion

SFTS is an emerging infectious disease that was first identified in 2011 [5]. This tick-borne infection has been mainly reported in Korea, China, and Japan [9]. The number of patients with SFTS has increased annually in Korea [6]. However, few studies have analyzed the efficacy of SFTS treatment. In patients with Crimean–Congo hemorrhagic fever, which is similar to SFTS in terms of being a zoonotic disease transmitted by ticks and characterized by fever and hemorrhage, the administration of high-dose methylprednisolone increases platelet counts and reduces the requirement for blood products [17]. Moreover, three case reports from Japan demonstrated the efficacy of short-term glucocorticoid therapy for SFTS accompanied by encephalopathy [11]. However, in the current study, 48 hours before and after steroid treatment, the patients GCS score reduced, which is contradictory to the results of the previous study. Although this study was limited by the use of various steroids and doses, it confirmed the effect of steroids on SFTS patients.

In early-stage SFTS infection, the function and differentiation of T follicular helper cells are disrupted by impaired antigen presentation due to monocyte and dendritic cell apoptosis, which ultimately leads to failure of virus-specific humoral response [18]. Furthermore, previous studies have reported that steroid administration resulted in enhanced T and B cell (CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, and CD19+ B cells) apoptosis, suggesting a potentially negative effect on immune function following steroid administration [19,20]. This research constitutes the background to our study.

In a simple comparative analysis of treatment methods, steroid therapy was administered to 40.8% (58/142) of patients, of which a higher proportion died after having received steroid therapy [69.7% of those who died and 32.1% of survivors received steroid therapy (P < .001)]. However, this simple comparison of mortality according to treatment was not useful for our analysis of therapeutic effects due to possible biases; for example, patients with severe disease were more likely to be administered steroid therapy or ribavirin. Therefore, it was necessary to match and analyze each treatment group based on severity and risk factors. With regard to the risk factors for mortality, the APACHE II score and the frequency of symptoms such as febrile sensation and chills differed. We confirmed that symptoms were subjective data; as the APACHE II score increased, the patient had lesser time to express their symptoms due to loss of consciousness. For the risk factor as confounders of treatment effect, we did not only include the patient’s subjective symptoms but also the objective data such as laboratory results. Thus, we employed propensity score matching for a more accurate comparison between the two treatment groups.

In this study, the survival time in the steroid group was lower than in the non-steroid group both before and after propensity score matching, especially between the early (symptom onset within 5 days) and non-steroid groups. Analysis of 30-day survival after matching in the steroid and non-steroid groups according to SFTS severity revealed a significantly shorter survival time in the steroid group than in the non-steroid group for APACHE II scores <14. In addition, univariate and multivariate analyses of 30-day survival showed increased mortality in the steroid group (aHR: 3.31, P = .016). Therefore, steroid administration may be more harmful than beneficial in patients with SFTS. The early use of hydrocortisone within 1 week of symptom onset in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) may cause higher plasma viral loads in the second and third weeks of symptom onset [21]. This suggests that there is a need for additional prospective studies concerning the effects of steroid administration on SFTSV kinetics while identifying the potential side effects of steroid therapy such as immunosuppressive effects, bacterial/fungal superinfection, hyperglycemia, electrolyte imbalance, and psychosis [22,23].

A retrospective analysis of Japanese patients with SFTS from 2013 to 2014 reported hemophagocytosis in 15 of 18 patients who underwent bone marrow examination. It also showed that steroid administration should be considered when treating hemophagocytosis [7]. However, 10% of patients from the same study experienced fungal infections such as invasive aspergillosis, and four cases of SFTS accompanied by invasive pulmonary aspergillosis were reported in China [2]. In our study we observed an increase in various complications in those who received steroid therapy after propensity score matching. Although it was uncertain when those complications related to steroids occurred due to retrospective nature of this study, the results of our analysis on the effects of steroid therapy suggest that this therapy may increase mortality rather than provide benefits.

This study had some limitations. This hospital-based study may be not easily generalizable. As this is a retrospective study and not a randomized control trial, it was difficult to assess the effects of steroid monotherapy because patients often received other treatments in combination with steroid therapy. In addition, the sample size in each subgroup may not be sufficient to analyze the effects of treatment based on the type of steroid and doses, time of steroid treatment initiation, or APACHE II score. Additional analysis as part of a systematic prospective study is necessary to determine which infectious complications increase after the administration of steroids as well as the reasons for decreased survival after steroid administration.

In conclusion, we observed increased complications after steroid therapy among patients with SFTS. Steroid therapy should be used with caution considering its possible negative effects on survival within 5 days of symptom onset or in patients with an APACHE II score <14. Further prospective studies on determining the role of steroids therapy is essential for reducing mortality of patients with SFTS.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Additional Information of General and Clinical Characteristics of Patients with SFTS in the Non-Fatal and Fatal Groups (2013–2017).

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Additional Information on the Clinical Characteristics of Patients with SFTS in the Steroid and Non-Steroid Groups (2013–2017).

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank the following people for providing epidemiological data: Song Mi Moon, M.D., Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, Republic of Korea; and Hong Sang Oh, M.D., Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Armed Forces Capital Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

D-MK received grant number 2017-P23002-00 by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC), http://www.kdca.go.kr. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Yu X-J, Liang M-F, Zhang S-Y, Liu Y, Li J-D, Sun Y-L, et al. Fever with thrombocytopenia associated with a novel bunyavirus in China. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(16): 1523–1532. 10.1056/NEJMoa1010095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chen X, Yu Z, Qian Y, Dong D, Hao Y, Liu N, et al. Clinical features of fatal severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome that is complicated by invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. J Infect Chemother. 2018; 24(6): 422–427. 10.1016/j.jiac.2018.01.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kang SW, Doan HTT, Choe SE, Noh JH, Yoo MS, Reddy KE, et al. Molecular investigation of tick-borne pathogens in ticks from grazing cattle in Korea. Parasitol Int. 2013; 62(3): 276–282. 10.1016/j.parint.2013.02.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Yun S-M, Lee W-G, Ryou J, Yang S-C, Park S-W, Roh JY, et al. Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome virus in ticks collected from humans, South Korea, 2013. Emerg Infect Dis. 2014; 20(8): 1358. 10.3201/eid2008.131857 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.LI D-x. Fever with thrombocytopenia associated with a novel bunyavirus in China. Chinese Journal of Experimental and Clinical Virology. 2011; 25(2): 81–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Statistic data for Infectious disease [cited 2019 August 20]. In: Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Website; [Internet]. Available from: http://www.cdc.go.kr/npt/biz/npp/ist/bass/bassDissStatsMain.do. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kato H, Yamagishi T, Shimada T, Matsui T, Shimojima M, Saijo M, et al. Epidemiological and clinical features of severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome in Japan, 2013–2014. PLoS One. 2016; 11(10): e0165207. 10.1371/journal.pone.0165207 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lin T-L, Ou S-C, Maeda K, Shimoda H, Chan JP-W, Tu W-C, et al. The first discovery of severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome virus in Taiwan. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020; 9(1): 148–151. 10.1080/22221751.2019.1710436 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Robles NJC, Han HJ, Park S-J, Choi YK. Epidemiology of severe fever and thrombocytopenia syndrome virus infection and the need for therapeutics for the prevention. Clinical and experimental vaccine research. 2018; 7(1): 43–50. 10.7774/cevr.2018.7.1.43 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Choi SJ, Park S-W, Bae I-G, Kim S-H, Ryu SY, Kim HA, et al. Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome in South Korea, 2013–2015. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016; 10(12): e0005264. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005264 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Nakamura S, Azuma M, Maruhashi T, Sogabe K, Sumitani R, Uemura M, et al. Steroid pulse therapy in patients with encephalopathy associated with severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome. J Infect Chemother. 2018; 24(5): 389–392. 10.1016/j.jiac.2017.11.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gai Z-T, Zhang Y, Liang M-F, Jin C, Zhang S, Zhu C-B, et al. Clinical progress and risk factors for death in severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome patients. J Infect Dis. 2012; 206(7): 1095–1102. 10.1093/infdis/jis472 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Han MA, Kim C-M, Kim D-M, Yun NR, Park S-W, Han MG, et al. Seroprevalence of severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome virus antibodies in rural areas, South Korea. Emerg Infect Dis. 2018; 24(5): 872. 10.3201/eid2405.152104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Shin J, Kwon D, Youn S-K, Park J-H. Characteristics and factors associated with death among patients hospitalized for severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome, South Korea, 2013. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015; 21(10): 1704. 10.3201/eid2110.141928 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kim WY, Choi W, Park S-W, Wang EB, Lee W-J, Jee Y, et al. Nosocomial transmission of severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome in Korea. Clin Infect Dis. 2015; 60(11): 1681–1683. 10.1093/cid/civ128 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Critical care medicine. 1985; 13(10): 818–829. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sharifi-Mood B, Alavi-Naini R, Metanat M, Mohammadi M, Shakeri A, Amjadi A. Efficacy of high-dose methylprednisolone in patients with Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever and severe thrombocytopenia. Trop Doct. 2013; 43(2): 49–53. 10.1177/0049475513486642 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Song P, Zheng N, Liu Y, Tian C, Wu X, Ma X, et al. Deficient humoral responses and disrupted B-cell immunity are associated with fatal SFTSV infection. Nat Commun. 2018; 9(1): 3328. 10.1038/s41467-018-05746-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Andreau K, Lemaire C, Souvannavong V, Adam A. Induction of apoptosis by dexamethasone in the B cell lineage. Immunopharmacology. 1998; 40(1): 67–76. 10.1016/s0162-3109(98)00034-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ashwell JD, Lu FW, Vacchio MS. Glucocorticoids in T cell development and function. Annu Rev Immunol. 2000; 18(1): 309–345. 10.1146/annurev.immunol.18.1.309 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lee N, Chan KA, Hui DS, Ng EK, Wu A, Chiu RW, et al. Effects of early corticosteroid treatment on plasma SARS-associated Coronavirus RNA concentrations in adult patients. J Clin Virol. 2004; 31(4): 304–309. 10.1016/j.jcv.2004.07.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Oray M, Abu Samra K, Ebrahimiadib N, Meese H, Foster CS. Long-term side effects of glucocorticoids. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2016; 15(4): 457–465. 10.1517/14740338.2016.1140743 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Dodiuk-Gad RP, Ish-Shalom S, Shear NH. Systemic glucocorticoids: important issues and practical guidelines for the dermatologist. Int J Dermatol. 2015; 54(6): 723–729. 10.1111/ijd.12642 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009128.r001

Decision Letter 0

A Desiree LaBeaud, Anita K McElroy

9 Oct 2020

Dear Dr. Kim,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Effects of Steroid Therapy in Patients with Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome: A Multicenter Clinical Cohort StudyEffects of Steroid Therapy in Patients with Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome: A Multicenter Clinical Cohort Study" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Anita K. McElroy, MD, PhD

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

A. Desiree LaBeaud

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: I have no major concerns about the methods. I do think that the sample size is somewhat small to use for propensity score matching, but I understand that patient volume does not currently allow greater numbers, and the authors are trying to achieve a comparison of the treatment between similar groups.

Reviewer #2: See Summary and General Comments

Other comments:

Pg 5, line 109: what were the specific inclusion and exclusion criteria? Was hospitalization an inclusion criterion?

Pg 5, line 116: What other pathogens were routinely tested for?

Pg 6, line 131: It would be useful to list the components of the APACHE II score (possibly in a supplementary table)

Reviewer #3: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of steroids in the treatment of patients hospitalized with SFTSV. The study presented was a multicenter retrospective cohort study, which is an appropriate study design to address this clinical question, given the relative infrequency of infection with this virus. The population under study is well-described, and is sufficiently large for the authors to identify statistically significant effects associated with steroid treatment.

Of critical concern in the interpretation of retrospective cohort studies is the potential for confounding. In this study, a possible alternative explanation for the author’s findings is that the population receiving steroid treatment is different than the untreated population in some way, for instance, in severity of disease, timing after symptom onset, prominence of respiratory symptoms, etc. Propensity matching is an appropriate method to control for some of these differences, however, concerns regarding residual confounding remain.

Additional comments regarding methods:

Line 112 – 115: The authors state that the diagnosis of SFTS is made by a combination of molecular methods (PCR/RTPCR) and serology. The sensitivity and specificity of these tests are presumably quite different; therefore, it would be useful to specify how many study participants were diagnosed via molecular methods v. serology.

Line 130: To assess differences in 30d mortality, the authors state that they used a Cox regression model adjusted for initial APACHE score and hospitalization within seven days of symptom onset. Why were these variables chosen? Table 2 suggests that there is a small (but significant) difference in APACHE scores between those participants who received steroids and those who did not, but the variable entitled ‘Symptom onset to admission’ in Table 2 was the same between the two groups. Does the description in the methods ‘hospitalization within 7 days of symptom onset’ represent a categorical variable derived from the continuous variable ‘Symptom onset to admission’? This should be clearer.

Line 140: What do ‘Initial altered mental state’ and ‘initial intensive care unit (ICU) admission’ mean?

Line 213: Were all of the variables used for univariate analysis included in the multivariate analysis in Table 4?

Line 221: What variables were included in the multivariate analysis presented in Table 5? Are these variables the same as those included in the multivariate analysis in Table 4? This should be clearer.

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: Tables 1 and 2 are especially long and more appropriate as supplemental tables. Both include information that I am not sure is necessary for the purposes of the paper, such as tick bit and occupation info in table 1 and two classifications each for elevated AST and ALT. Clinical manifestations could perhaps be reduced to the system and the most important symptoms, such as altered mentation and GCS for the central nervous system.

It is also unclear to me whether ICU admission in these tables refers to any point in the hospital course or if that is describing where they were initially admitted. My presumption is the former, but then this means that 15% of patients who died were never admitted to the ICU.

The information regarding steroid administration is extremely vague, simply giving a range of doses received without any additional information other than median duration. A dose of dexamethasone 5 mg or methylpred 40 mg is quite different from dexamethasone 30 mg or methylpred 1000 mg. Knowing the distribution in doses would help the reader frame this analysis appropriately. The ideal analysis would stratify by steroid dosing in some way, but it is unlikely there are sufficient numbers for this.

Regarding Table 3, the authors should clarify how values were selected if there was more than 1 in that timeframe? For instance, there were no doubt multiple body temperature measurements in the 48 hours before and after treatment. Did they select the highest temperature, an average of the values, or base in on time criteria? Likely some patients had labs performed more than once in that period as well.

Lastly, additional information on when patients were admitted to the ICU and developed complications in relation to timing of steroids would be appreciated. If most patients received steroids prior to ICU admission, that frames this differently than if most patients received steroids after worsening and transfer to the ICU. The authors note that mechanical ventilation was required more often and DIC was more common in the steroid group. However, it is not at all clear whether these complications developed before or after steroid administration. Without this information, it is very easy to imagine (particularly when considering the late steroid group) that steroids were actually given because of these complications.

Reviewer #2: It would be useful to add the total number of patients tested for SFTS during the time period.

Were all eligible patients included? If not, authors need to explain why not.

Table 1: the numbers of evaluable cases of “memory of tick bite” (n=130) and “presence of bite wound” (n=131) should be added to indicate that some were missing. The statistical test for comparing respiration rates should be checked—the difference does not appear significant although p=0.013

Pg 10, line 177: Steroid therapy: did any local hospital-based guidelines exist that may explain why some patients received steroids whereas others didn’t? Did rates of steroid use differ between hospitals? What type of steroid was used for patients who did not receive dexamethasone or methylprednisolone (n=9)? The authors state that 58 patients received steroids but the numbers who received steroids alone (n=19), steroids + ribavirin (n=20), steroids + IVIG (n=25) and steroids + plasmapheresis (n=15) exceeds 58.

Table 2:

GCS in each group appears to be very similar but p=0.008; stats should be checked

Table 3:

It is not clear why the numbers of patients included in the “before vs after” steroid treatment groups are different because the authors stated on pg 12, line 198 that patients who “underwent laboratory testing BOTH pre- and post-steroid treatment are shown”. Therefore, it seems the numbers should be the same in each group.

Pg 19, line 268: there is a typo—it should read “in the NON-STEROID group than in the STEROID group” not vice versa

Table 7:

It is unnecessary to include n for each variable since they are all the same—n can be included as a footnote.

The figures are of sufficient quality for clarity

Reviewer #3: The presented analysis matches the analysis plan. Overall, the results were clearly presented, and support the author’s conclusions. However, there are several inconsistencies and omissions than should be addressed before the paper is published. In particular, it is disconcerting that the analyses presented in Figures 2 and 3 include different numbers of participants than from each other, or from the table outlining the propensity-matched data set in Table 6. Given the relatively small sample size, the most rigorous approach would be to conduct the analyses presented here using the same propensity matched dataset.

Additional comments regarding results:

Line 149: The results state that of 142 patients, 33 died. Were these deaths captured within a certain period of time after hospitalization? Are these in-hospital deaths? Deaths within 30d of admission? Fatal should be better defined here and in Table 1.

Line 173: These symptoms are noted as ‘initial major symptoms’. Does that mean that only those patients who had fever, chills, etc., at the time of presentation are counted as positive? If these symptoms developed later, are patients still counted as positive?

Line 176: Why are fatal cases less likely to have fever, chills, and myalgias than nonfatal cases? The higher incidence of altered mental status may mean that patients ware less likely to report subjective symptoms (chills, myalgias), but the lower rate of fever raises concerns that patients who end up dying are already different at the time of presentation. Are fatal cases further along in their disease course than nonfatal cases? Are they already receiving some intervention that masks fevers, such as steroids or CRRT? This finding raises concerns about underlying confounding between fatal and nonfatal cases that might bias the analysis of steroids and other interventions – if fatal cases were already sicker at the time of presentation, and are started on CRRT or steroids more rapidly, then the apparent reduction in 30d mortality may reflect confounding rather than effects attributable to an intervention.

Table 177: Of the 58 patients who received steroid therapy, 24 died. This information is not currently available in Table 1 or Table 2. It should be in one place or the other, preferably both. Would include a line in Table 1 denoting steroid treatment, and a line in Table 2 denoting mortality.

Line 177 – 180: Information about steroid dosing should be included in Table 2.

Line 180 – 183: This information is included almost verbatim in the next paragraph. It doesn’t need to be repeated.

Line 212: How were these variables selected for univariate analysis? Were other variables considered?

Line 233 – 238: Does this information about 30d survival appear elsewhere in the study?

Table 6: Why did the number of participants go from 56 to 58 after propensity matching? Might be helpful to know why those two participants were excluded.

Figure 2B: Why were 7 patients excluded (n=135 instead of n = 142)? Should include a footnote explaining the exclusions.

Figure 2C: Why does the non-steroid group now have 52 participants instead of 56 after propensity matching? Is this figure legend incorrect, or is Table 6 incorrect?

Figure 3A: Why does this analysis have 120 instead of 135 participants? Again, if patients are being excluded, should create a footnote detailing why.

Line 286: Would be careful with chi-square P values for groups that have fewer than 5 members; it is difficult to conclude that the frequency of DIC was actually significant given small sample size.

Table 7: Would omit columns for ‘N’, since these are the same for all values; doesn’t add anything to table.

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: Pending response to the issues above, the conclusion by the authors may be too strong. In the last paragraph, they state that they observed increased complications after steroid therapy. They may very well have observed this, but this is not clearly demonstrated by the data presented in the paper. They otherwise are reasonably cautious about whether steroids may cause increased mortality in SFTS. Depending on the distribution of steroid doses, I believe the lack of similar steroid dosing may also be a limitation of the analysis and should be commented on.

The Kaplan-Meier curves both potentially strengthen and weaken their arguments. It is noteworthy that the survival time for the late-steroid group is longer than the early-steroid group, and is perhaps the strongest supporting piece of data for steroids increasing mortality. However, it is also notable that the late-steroid group appears to diverge from the non-steroid group around day 5 to 6, but the late-steroid group by definition received steroids after day 5. Thus, this divergence would not be due to steroids and suggests that matching still left the late-steroid group with sicker patients. This is likely another sign of a limitation of the paper.

This analysis is also limited by a fairly small sample size, particularly with regard to the subgroup analyses based on APACHE score.

Reviewer #2: The changes suggested in the Summary and General Comments as well as other specific comments should be incorporated into the discussion where appropriate.

Reviewer #3: The conclusions reached by the authors are broadly supported by the data as presented. The analyses performed on the propensity matched dataset are the most compelling data presented in this study, and support a conclusion that steroid therapy may lead to adverse outcomes, particularly in mild cases of SFTS. Given the importance of propensity matching to this study, it all the more important that the presented analyses are performed on the same matched dataset. The authors discuss the limitations of their study, and mention the potential for confounding by severity, as sicker patients were more likely to receive steroids and ribavirin, but this remains the largest potential weakness of the study.

Additional comments regarding conclusions:

Line 316: I don’t think the data regarding 30d survival after steroid therapy for patients with mild disease actually appears in the paper. If it is going to be a discussion point, the data should be included.

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Major revision required to address the above issues.

Reviewer #3: Line 54: Would capitalize ‘phlebovirus’ as the proper name of a viral genus

Line 64: The reported CI for mean survival in patients with mild disease after steroid treatment is reported in the abstract as 24.9 (95% CI 20.21 – 28.53), but in Figure 3B it is reported as 24.9 (95% CI 21.21 – 28.53). Which is correct?

Line 74: Would capitalize ‘phlebovirus’ as the proper name of a viral genus

Line 170: The text states that of the 142 patients, 130 had confirmed data related to a tick bite. Would recommend including this information in Table 1 (would create a footnote, as was done for ‘Initial clinical manifestation’ and ‘Complications, total’.

Line 162: Would present data from non-fatal group first, followed by fatal group, to match formatting of Table 1.

Line 171: The line ‘Of the 131 patients with a confirmed diagnosis on the basis of physical examination’ is unclear. Does that mean that only 131 patients had a physical exam performed?

Line 187: The line that ends with (P = .144, P = .889) should cite Table 2, as this is the first reference to that table.

Line 190 – 192: Would reorder these therapies in order that they appear in the table.

Line 202: Keep significant units consistent. Most AST/ALT results are reported to the nearest whole number.

Line 202: The P value for AST is reported as 0.023 in the text, but 0.024 in Table 3.

Figure 2A: Should include a column for ‘n’ in this figure (similar to other figures)

Line 307-308: Unclear what this sentence regarding ribavirin contributes to the discussion or to the analysis overall.

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: The authors undertook a retrospective analysis using propensity score matching to attempt to achieve a measure of equipoise in comparing steroids to no steroids in the treatment of SFTS given a lack of data comparing this. As with any retrospective analysis, there are limitations that restrict how strong of a conclusion can be drawn. In particular, the range of steroid dosing appears to be quite wide, and there is a suggestion from the KM curves that those who received steroids were still sicker than those who did not. Presumably, from the wording of the conclusion section, the increased complications in the steroid group occurred after steroids were given, but this is not apparent from the results section and should be clarified. Regardless, there is a suggestion of harm with steroids, and clinicians should carefully consider whether to administer them in patients with SFTS until better data is available.

Reviewer #2: The authors evaluated the effects of steroid therapy on Korean patients hospitalized at multiple centers with documented Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (SFTS), a potentially fatal tick-borne viral infection. To address potential indication bias in this retrospective study, they performed propensity score matching and showed that mortality was significantly higher in steroid-treated patients who were either less severely ill (low APACHE II) or who were treated early (<5 days after symptom onset). Therefore, they recommend caution when using steroids for SFTS.

This is a well conducted study with rigorous statistical analyses and appropriate adjustments for potential biases. There are no other published studies that have addressed the utility and complications of steroid use for SFTS. Therefore, within its limitations as outlined by the authors, this study may be useful for clinicians where the disease is prevalent (Korea, China and Japan).

However, there are major weaknesses that should be addressed:

1) It appears that the rate of SFTS increased from 2013 to 2017 (Figure 1) but it is unclear if this trend may have been associated with increased testing (other possible reasons could have been an epidemic or increased virulence of the virus). The authors should present the total number of patients tested and the proportion of positive tests each year during that time period.

2) The potential effect of unidentified co-infections: (pg 6, line 148) “no patient had a confirmed co-infection”. What other infections were tested, were they routinely tested and what proportion of patients were tested? This should be added.

3) It is not clear what the distribution of “time to start of steroids” was in patients who survived vs those who died –this should be added to Table 1.

4) How do the authors explain that frequencies of certain clinical variables were lower in the steroid group vs the non-steroid group (Table 2) such as: fever, chills, myalgia and fatigue although the APACHE II score was higher? This should be discussed.

5) The Glasgow Coma Scale was lower after steroid treatment (Table 3) which should be commented on in the discussion in the context of the paper they cite (Nakamura et al) that recommended steroids for SFTS-associated encephalopathy.

6) On pg 14 (Table 4), the authors describe risk factors for 30-day mortality but most of these are later events and complications (eg ICU admission, mechanical ventilator, hemodialysis) and are not contextualized within the relevant literature describing prediction models that they have not cited such as:

a. He et al. Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiology, clinical signs, routine laboratory diagnosis, risk factors, and outcomes. BMC Infect Dis. 2020; 20: 575

b. Wang et al. A nomogram to predict mortality in patients with severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome at the early stage - A multicenter study in China. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019 Nov; 13(11): e0007829

c. Liu et al. Analysis of the laboratory indexes and risk factors in 189 cases of severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Jan;99(2):e18727.

d. Li et al. Epidemiological and clinical features of laboratory-diagnosed severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome in China, 2011–17: a prospective observational study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Oct;18(10):1127-1137.

7) The authors compared the rates of complications in the steroid vs non-steroid groups (Table 7) but they did not adjust for severity and potential indication bias as they did in Table 6. Therefore, some of these complications may have been related to severe disease and not steroids. Propensity score matching should be added and the discussion should be modified.

Reviewer #3: Overall, this study presents novel findings that may inform treatment for a significant emerging pathogen, and is thus of importance from both a clinical and public health standpoint. The primary strength of this study is novelty, and the incorporation of a number of SFTS patients from several centers over multiple years potentially makes it more generalizable. However, the number of patients included in this study is still relatively small, and with any retrospective cohort study, it is difficult to identify and control for all potential confounding variables. The possibility that patients receiving steroids are more sick, or at a different point in their illness, leading to both poorer outcomes and making it more likely that they will receive steroids, is the biggest potential source of error. Still, the novelty and potential clinical impact of this study are of interest, and warrant publication with minor revisions.

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ian C. Michelow, MD, MMed, DTM&H

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-methods

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009128.r003

Decision Letter 1

A Desiree LaBeaud, Anita K McElroy

28 Dec 2020

Dear Dr. Kim,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Effects of Steroid Therapy in Patients with Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome: A Multicenter Clinical Cohort Study" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.  

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. 

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Anita K. McElroy, MD, PhD

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

A. Desiree LaBeaud

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: I had no prior concerns about the methods and this remains the case

Reviewer #2: The authors explained the inclusion criteria in their response to reviewers but need to include it in the Methods section

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: I appreciate that the authors have provided further information regarding steroid dosing in Table 2 with median and IQR, as this certainly gives a better sense than what is described in the body of the paper. I think adding this information in Table 1 for the non-fatal and fatal groups would also be useful though in order to have some sense as to whether those that died received a different sort of dosing regimen than those that survived.

For Table 7, in their response regarding timing of complications relative to timing steroid dosing, they stated that due to the retrospective nature of the study, they had difficulty in determining timing of complications. This is understandable, but then this uncertainty should be made explicitly clear in the paper.

Reviewer #2: Overall much improved

The methods of testing (PCR and serology) were explained in their response to reviewers but were not included in the text.

The authors explained in their responses that the steroid dosages and types of steroids used differed significantly among centers but they need to add a comment in the text or as a footnote

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: Following the point about timing of complications in results, the authors on pg 19, lines 328-329 state "In our study we observed an increase in various complications following steroid therapy"; there is a similar sentence on line 338. However, their response mentioned above seems to suggest that they were unable to actually assess the timing of most complications relative to steroid therapy. Thus, if they wish to point out the increase in complications, it should read something to the effect of "an increase in various complications in those who received steroid therapy".

Otherwise, I believe their conclusions are adequately supported by the results. The most significant limitations of the analysis are beyond the control of the authors, namely sample size and heterogeneity of practice, but as they state, a prospective analysis would be needed to address this. Thus, demonstrating the uncertainty of the role of steroids and need for prospective study is perhaps the most important conclusion.

Reviewer #2: Limitations are explained better

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: Minor revision and would endorse accepting after the above changes are made.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: The authors have incorporated most of the feedback previously provided and I believe the paper is stronger as a result. With a few small modifications and clarifications, I believe it would be suitable for publication. Although its small sample size and retrospective nature is certainly not enough to base practice on, it does provide some suggestion of worse outcome with steroids, in contradiction to other published results in support of steroids, and thus as the authors state, supports the need for prospective study of the subject.

Reviewer #2: I am satisfied with the authors responses overall

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ian C. Michelow, MD DTM&H

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009128.r005

Decision Letter 2

A Desiree LaBeaud, Anita K McElroy

12 Jan 2021

Dear Dr. Kim,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Effects of Steroid Therapy in Patients with Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome: A Multicenter Clinical Cohort Study' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Anita K. McElroy, MD, PhD

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

A. Desiree LaBeaud

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009128.r006

Acceptance letter

A Desiree LaBeaud, Anita K McElroy

16 Feb 2021

Dear Dr. Kim,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Effects of Steroid Therapy in Patients with Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome: A Multicenter Clinical Cohort Study," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Additional Information of General and Clinical Characteristics of Patients with SFTS in the Non-Fatal and Fatal Groups (2013–2017).

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Additional Information on the Clinical Characteristics of Patients with SFTS in the Steroid and Non-Steroid Groups (2013–2017).

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response letter PNTD-D-20-01574.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response letter PNTD-D-20-01574R1.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES