Abstract
Background
Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) virus (SFTSV) is an emerging tick-borne phlebovirus with a high fatality rate. Previous studies have demonstrated the poor prognostic role of eosinophils (EOS) and basophils (BAS) in predicting multiple viral infections. This study aimed to explore the role of EOS and BAS in predicting prognosis of patients with SFTS.
Methodology
A total of 194 patients with SFTS who were admitted to Yantai City Hospital from November 2019 to November 2021 were included. Patients’ demographic and clinical data were collected. According to the clinical prognosis, they were divided into survival and non-survival groups. Independent risk factors were determined by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.
Findings
There were 171 (88.14%) patients in the survived group and 23 (11.86%) patients in the non-survived group. Patients’ mean age was 62.39 ± 11.85 years old, and the proportion of males was 52.1%. Older age, neurological manifestations, hemorrhage, chemosis, and increased levels of laboratory variables, such as EOS% and BAS% on admission, were found in the non-survival group compared with the survival group. EOS%, BAS%, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), direct bilirubin (DBIL), and older age on admission were noted as independent risk factors for poor prognosis of SFTS patients. The combination of the EOS% and BAS% had an area under the curve (AUC) of (0.82; 95% CI: 0.725, 0.932, P = 0.000), which showed an excellent performance in predicting prognosis of patients with SFTS compared with neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and both exhibited a satisfactory performance in predicting poor prognosis compared with De-Ritis ratio (AST/alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ratio). EOS% and BAS% were positively correlated with various biomarkers of tissue damage and the incidence of neurological complications in SFTS patients.
Conclusion
EOS% and BAS% are effective predictors of poor prognosis of patients with early-stage SFTS. The combination of EOS% and BAS% was found as the most effective approach.
Author summary
Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) is an emerging tick-borne infectious disease caused by a novel phlebovirus (SFTS virus, SFTSV), which has a wide range of clinical manifestations, from hyperthermia, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, and gastrointestinal symptoms to hemorrhage, altered consciousness, and multiple organ dysfunction. It has a high mortality rate of about 11–30%. There is no specific treatment for SFTS, thus it is urgent to concentrate on patients infected with SFTSV and to identify the associated risk factors to reduce the number of critically ill and fatal cases. In the present study, EOS% and BAS% were for the first time used as variables to predict clinical outcomes of early-stage SFTS patients. The combination of EOS% and BAS% exhibited a satisfactory predictive performance compared with previously reported measures related to clinical outcomes. We also found that EOS% and BAS% were associated with neurological symptoms and signs. This study contributed to the risk factors findings on SFTS, which will be useful as guidelines for identifying the critical patients with SFTS.
Introduction
Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) is an emerging tick-borne infectious disease caused by a novel phlebovirus (SFTS virus, SFTSV), which belongs to the family phenuiviridae of the order Bunyavirales [1]. SFTS was initially reported in China in 2009 [2], and from 2010 to 2018, a total of 7,721 confirmed cases of SFTS were reported in 25 provinces of China [3]. SFTS cases have also been reported in Korea [4], Japan [5], and Vietnam [6]. Moreover, the Heartland virus genotype from sufferers in the United States is comparable to SFTSV [7]. SFTSV has multiple transmission routes. A previous study found that humans are the primary host of SFTSV, and human infection primarily occurs through tick bites, leading to human-to-human transmission. [8] In addition, direct contact with the body fluids of infected animals can lead to SFTSV infection in humans, and even aerosol formation is a potential transmission route of SFTSV [9,10].
SFTS has a wide range of clinical manifestations, from hyperthermia, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, and gastrointestinal symptoms to hemorrhage, altered consciousness, and multiple organ dysfunction. It has a high mortality rate of about 11–30%, and aging, high viral load, and neurological manifestations are risk factors associated with poor prognosis [2,5,11–13]. Due to its high lethality and potential for pandemic transmission, SFTS is classified as a nationally reported disease in China, and the World Health Organization (WHO) listed SFTS as one of the top 10 priority infectious diseases in urgent need of investigation in 2017 [14]. Although some clinical trials have shown that Favipiravir can reduce the mortality of SFTS, the experimental design of the existing studies needs further improvement to clarify its efficacy [15]. Thus, it is urgent to concentrate on patients infected with SFTSV and to identify the associated risk factors to reduce the number of critically ill and fatal cases.
Previous studies have suggested that the primary role of eosinophils (EOS) and basophils (BAS) is associated with anti-parasitic and allergic reactions. Later, antiviral effects of EOS and BAS were confirmed, which were mainly reported in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), influenza A viruses, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) [16–22]. Our retrospective study found significant differences in EOS% and BAS% of patients who were weakened compared with those who survived. We observed the elevated EOS% and BAS% in the non-survived group compared with the survived group, which was in contrast with other viral infections. They were also positively correlated with the frequency of neurological manifestations. The present study aimed to investigate EOS% and BAS% in the differential diagnosis and prognostic assessment of patients with SFTS using routine blood tests. In addition, it was attempted to explore the underlying mechanism and to elucidate its clinical significance of SFTS.
Methods
Ethics statement
This research was approved by the Ethics Committee of Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University (Beijing, China; Approval No. DTEC-KY2022-022-01), and it was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Study design and patients’ enrollment
This retrospective study included 226 SFTS patients from Yantai City Hospital (Yantai, China) between November 2019 and November 2021. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Existence of epidemiological data; (2) Patients with fever (temperature >37.5°C); (3) Occurrence of thrombocytopenia; (4) Patients with positive-serum nucleic acid test, immunoglobulin G (IgG) and/or IgM antibody for SFTSV, or SFTS isolated from specimens. However, 32 patients were excluded based on the following exclusion criteria: (1) Patients with other viral infections, such as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS); (2) Patients with autoimmune diseases; (3) Patients with acute and chronic liver diseases; (4) Patients with blood disorders, such as leukemia and idiopathic thrombocytopenia; (5) Patients undergoing radiotherapy or chemotherapy for diverse types of cancer; (6) Patients receiving transfusion of blood products in two weeks; (7) Incomplete clinical data (Fig 1).
Fig 1. Schematic illustration of the study design.
Data collection
We collected patients’ demographics (gender, age, disease history, disease course, outcome), vital signs, neurological examination of the nervous system, and laboratory tests, including routine blood tests, biochemical tests, coagulation, tissue damage, and inflammatory biomarkers. The collected data were then analyzed by two professional researchers using Einmatrix platform (https://www.einmatrix.com/#!/signin) on admission.
Definition
Neurological examination included the assessment of neurological signs and consciousness disorders. Skin change was defined as occurrence of at least one of the following signs: skin color changing, skin eruption, and nodule. Hemorrhage was defined as occurrence of at least one of the following symptoms: petechia, purpura, ecchymosis, hemoptysis, hematemesis, and melena. Neurological sign was defined as appearance of at least one of the following changes:muscle tension, involuntary movements, and neural reflexes. The observational endpoint was defined as in-hospital death or discharge on improvement.
Statistical analysis
Normally distributed data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (x ± s), in which they were compared between groups using the independent-samples t-test, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized for making comparison among multiple groups. Abnormally distributed data were expressed as median (M) with interquartile range (IQR), in which they were compared between groups using the Mann-Whitney U test, and Kruskal-Wallis test was utilized for making comparison among multiple groups. Categorical variables were expressed as percentage (n, %) and were analyzed by the χ2 test or the Fisher’s exact test. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with the severity of SFTS. However, to identify independent prognostic factors for SFTS, variables with P-values less than 0.1 in the univariate logistic regression were imported into the multivariate logistic regression using the forward stepwise approach. Hosmer–Lemeshow test (H-L test) determined the model’s good calibration (predictive accuracy). The predictive performance of the model for in-hospital mortality in early-stage was further evaluated by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The ROC curve analysis was used to calculate the optimal cut-off values for EOS% and BAS%. Finally, correlation matrixes were generated using the Spearman correlation coefficient, which did not make any assumption about the underlying distribution. The statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS 25.0 software (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). A two-sided P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
SFTS patients’ demographics and clinical characteristics
The study included 194 patients who were admitted to the Yantai City Hospital from November 2019 to November 2021. Patients were assigned into two groups depending on clinical outcomes, including 171 (88.14%) patients in the survival group and 23 (11.86%) patients in the non-survival group. For patients who were diagnosed with SFTS, their demographic and clinical characteristics are summarized in Tables 1–3.
Table 1. Demographics and clinical characteristics of patients with SFTS.
| Parameters | Total (n = 194) |
Survival (n = 171) |
Non-survival (n = 23) |
P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 62.39±11.85 | 61.20±11.38 | 71.22±11.76 | 0.000 |
| ≤45, n (%) | 16/194(8.2) | 15/171(8.8) | 1/23(4.3) | 0.749 |
| 46–60, n (%) | 64/194(33.0) | 62/171(36.3) | 2/23(8.7) | 0.008 |
| 61–75, n (%) | 86/194(44.3) | 75/171(43.9) | 11/23(47.8) | 0.719 |
| ≥76, n (%) | 28/194(14.4) | 19/171(11.1) | 9/23(39.1) | 0.001 |
| Male, n (%) | 101/194(52.1) | 89/171(52.0) | 12/23(52.2) | 0.991 |
| Time from onset to admission, days | 5.0(4.0–7.0) | 5.0(4.0–7.0) | 5.0(4.0–7.0) | 0.954 |
| ≤3, n (%) | 42/194(21.6) | 38/171(22.2) | 4/23(17.4) | 0.796 |
| 4–7, n (%) | 114/194(58.8) | 100/171(58.5) | 14/23(60.9) | 0.827 |
| >7, n (%) | 38/194(19.6) | 33/171(19.3) | 5/23(21.7) | 1.000 |
| Hospitalization, days | 10.0(6.0–13.0) | 10.0(7.0–13.0) | 4.0(2.0–6.0) | 0.000 |
| ≤7, n (%) | 67/194(34.5) | 47/171(27.5) | 20/23(87.0) | 0.000 |
| 8–14, n (%) | 93/194(47.9) | 90/171(52.6) | 3/23(13.0) | 0.000 |
| >14, n (%) | 34/194(17.5) | 34/171(19.9) | 0 | 0.039 |
| Highest body temperature, °C | 38.0(37.0–38.8) | 38.0(37.0–38.8) | 37.8(36.8–38.6) | 0.440 |
| 38–38.9°C, n (%) | 60/194(30.9) | 53/171(31.0) | 7/23(30.4) | 0.957 |
| >39°C, n (%) | 40/194(20.6) | 36/171(21.1) | 4/23(17.4) | 0.894 |
| Bite by ticks, n (%) | ||||
| Positive | 40/194(20.6) | 39/171(22.8) | 1/23(4.3) | 0.075 |
| Negative | 128/194(66.0) | 107/171(62.6) | 21/23(91.3) | 0.006 |
| Unkown | 26/194(13.4) | 25/171(14.6) | 1/23(4.3) | 0.302 |
| History, n (%) | 78/194(40.2) | 71/171(41.5) | 7/23(30.4) | 0.309 |
| Diabetes | 7/194(3.6) | 7/171(4.1) | 0 | 1.000 |
| Hypertensive disease | 31/194(16.0) | 28/171(16.4) | 3/23(13.0) | 0.915 |
| CHD | 11/194(5.7) | 9/171(5.3) | 2/23(8.7) | 0.851 |
| Cerebral infarction | 9/194(4.6) | 9/171(5.3) | 0 | 0.549 |
| Liver disease | 6/194(3.1) | 5/171(2.9) | 1/23(4.3) | 0.536 |
| Tumor related history | 4/194(2.1) | 4/171(2.3) | 0 | 1.000 |
| kidney disease | 1/194(0.5) | 1/171(0.6) | 0 | 1.000 |
| Other medical histories | 27/194(13.9) | 24/171(14.0) | 3/23(13.0) | 1.000 |
Abbreviations: CHD: Coronary Heart Disease
Continuous variable data are presented as mean (SD), median(interquartile ranges, IQR). Classified variable dates are presented as n/N (%), where N is the total number of patients with available data. P values comparing the group of survival and the group of non-survival.
Table 3. Laboratory results of patients with SFTS on admission.
| Parameters (reference values) |
Total (n = 194) |
Survival (n = 171) |
Non-survival (n = 23) |
P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blood routine | ||||
| WBC (3.5–9.5×109/L) |
2.39 (1.50–4.06) |
2.38 (1.51–3.86) |
2.85 (1.36–4.25) |
0.662 |
| <3.5, n (%) | 135/194(69.6) | 121/171(70.8) | 14/23(60.9) | 0.333 |
| >9.5, n (%) | 5/194(2.6) | 3/171(1.8) | 2/23(8.7) | 0.204 |
| Neutrophils (1.8–6.3×109/L) |
1.31 (0.80–2.48) |
1.24 (0.79–2.44) |
2.02 (0.91–3.34) |
0.293 |
| <1.8, n (%) | 117/194(60.3) | 106/171(62.0) | 11/23(47.8) | 0.192 |
| >6.3, n (%) | 6/194(3.1) | 4/171(2.3) | 2/23(8.7) | 0.312 |
| NEU% (40–75) |
61.85 (46.94–74.46) |
59.70 (46.94–73.74) |
69.90 (44.80–77.90) |
0.363 |
| <40, n (%) | 26/194(13.4) | 23/171(13.5) | 3/23(13.0) | 1.000 |
| >75, n (%) | 46/194(23.7) | 38/171(22.2) | 8/23(34.8) | 0.184 |
| Lymphocytes (1.1–3.2×109/L) |
0.62 (0.38–1.15) |
0.63 (0.39–1.21) |
0.44 (0.31–0.80) |
0.079 |
| <1.1, n (%) | 139/194(71.6) | 120/171(70.2) | 19/23(82.6) | 0.214 |
| >3.2, n (%) | 5/194(2.9) | 0 | 5/23() | 0.528 |
| LYM% (20–50) |
29.62 (16.99–42.64) |
30.30 (19.20–43.54) |
19.40 (14.80–33.80) |
0.017 |
| <20, n (%) | 59/194(30.4) | 47/171(27.5) | 12/23(52.2) | 0.016 |
| >50, n (%) | 20/194(10.3) | 20/171(11.6) | 0 | 0.071 |
| Monocytes (0.1–0.6×109/L) |
0.15 (0.07–0.36) |
0.15 (0.07–0.33) |
0.16 (0.03–0.56) |
0.682 |
| <0.1, n (%) | 70/194(36.1) | 60/171(35.1) | 10/23(43.5) | 0.431 |
| >0.6, n (%) | 24/194(12.4) | 20/171(11.7) | 4/23(17.4) | 0.659 |
| MON% (3–10) |
6.50 (3.64–10.47) |
6.50 (3.80–9.84) |
7.40 (1.60–27.00) |
0.669 |
| <3, n (%) | 34/194(17.5) | 26/171(15.2) | 8/23(34.8) | 0.043 |
| >10, n (%) | 109/194(56.2) | 104/171(60.8) | 5/23(51.7) | 0.000 |
| Eosinophils (0.02–0.5×109/L) |
0 (0–0.01) |
0 (0–0.01) |
0.01 (0–0.15) |
0.010 |
| <0.02, n (%) | 164/194(84.5) | 150/171(87.7) | 14/23(60.9) | 0.002 |
| >0.5, n (%) | 4/194(2.1) | 1/171(0.6) | 3/23(13.0) | 0.002 |
| EOS% (0.4–8) |
0 (0–0.4) |
0 (0–0.30) |
0.50 (0–1.90) |
0.000 |
| <0.4, n (%) | 143/194(73.7) | 134/171(78.4) | 9/23(39.1) | 0.000 |
| 0.4–8, n (%) | 51/194(26.3) | 37/171(21.6) | 14/23(60.9) | 0.000 |
| Basophils (0–0.06×109/L) |
0 (0–0.01) |
0 (0–0.01) |
0 (0–0.03) |
0.079 |
| BAS% (0–1) |
0.10 (0–0.40) |
0.04 (0–0.40) |
0.30 (0.20–0.90) |
0.000 |
| RBC (4.3–5.8×109/L) |
4.49 (4.14–4.86) |
4.48 (4.16–4.86) |
4.57 (3.76–5.04) |
0.584 |
| HGB (130-175g/L) |
137.50 (127.00–149.00) |
137.00 (127.00–147.00) |
148.00 (126.00–155.00) |
0.198 |
| PLT (125–350×109/L) |
57.50 (40.00–78.75) |
59.00 (41.00–84.00) |
39.00 (18.00–59.00) |
0.000 |
| MPV (6.5–12 fL) |
11.20 (10.28–12.00) |
11.30 (10.50–12.20) |
10.0 (8.60–11.00) |
0.000 |
| Tissue damage marker | ||||
| LDH (80–285 U/L) |
668.0(392.00–1076.50) | 573.4(375.00–922.00) | 900.0(682.00–2506.35) | 0.000 |
| CK (0–190 U/L) |
374.5(170.00–997.00) | 326.0(145.00–890.12) | 1655.9(2663.00–425.90) | 0.000 |
| Biochemical marker | ||||
| ALT (9–50 U/L) |
89.00 (49.00–165.56) |
80.53 (47.00–136.00) |
165.10 (109.00–283.00) |
0.000 |
| AST (15–40 U/L) |
160.15 (80.33–323.93) |
153.00 (71.00–267.00) |
645.0(247.00–1082.00) | 0.000 |
| TBIL (2.0–20.4 umol/L) |
10.20 (7.79–14.03) |
10.10 (7.40–13.50) |
15.10 (9.00–23.70) |
0.002 |
| DBIL (0–6.8 umol/L) |
4.65 (3.40–6.30) |
4.50 (3.20–6.08) |
6.89 (5.06–12.42) |
0.000 |
| ALB (35–53 g/L) |
33.37 (30.00–36.62) |
33.70 (31.00–37.00) |
27.00 (28.10–31.00) |
0.000 |
| GLOB (20–40 g/L) |
24.47 (21.68–26.80) |
24.41 (21.50–26.60) |
24.75 (22.55–28.20) |
0.193 |
| GGT (11–49 U/L) |
50.50 (24.00–96.00) |
46.00 (23.00–96.00) |
113.00 (65.00–195.80) | 0.000 |
| ALP (40–150 U/L) |
67.00 (52.76–87.75) |
65.00 (52.00–80.00) |
96.00 (66.00–192.00) | 0.000 |
| GLU (4.16–6.44 mmol/L) |
6.57 (5.60–8.16) |
6.51 (5.58–8.16) |
7.50 (5.70–9.00) |
0.317 |
| K+ (3.5–5.1 mmol/L) |
3.84 (3.53–4.15) |
3.81 (3.53–4.15) |
3.90 (3.67–4.15) |
0.629 |
| Na+ (136–146 mmol/L) |
134.00 (130.80–136.60) |
134.00 (130.40–136.70) |
134.00 (131.40–136.00) |
0.825 |
| Ca2+ (2.2–2.55 mmol/L) |
1.95 (1.90–2.02) |
1.95 (1.92–2.02) |
1.91 (1.76–1.97) |
0.009 |
| PCT (0–0.06 ng/ml) |
13.00 (11.98–14.74) |
0.46 (0.11–0.81) |
0.81 (0.50–1.72) |
0.001 |
| CRP (5-10mg/L) |
7.69 (2.30–11.64) |
6.10 (1.98–11.64) |
11.64 (10.20–23.70) |
0.001 |
| Kidney injury | ||||
| UREA (1.7–8.3 mmol/L) |
5.28 (4.10–7.16) |
5.09 (4.07–7.13) |
7.34 (5.97–11.13) |
0.000 |
| CREA (40-106umol/L) |
66.28 (54.45–81.27) |
64.20 (54.00–81.00) |
81.27 (63.50–110.90) | 0.002 |
| Coagulation | ||||
| TT (14-21s) |
19.65 (17.20–21.00) |
19.65 (17.50–20.90) |
18.80 (15.80–24.90) |
0.763 |
| APTT (28–43.5s) |
46.90 (38.25–48.16) |
46.70 (38.60–48.61) |
61.30 (33.70–85.00) |
0.052 |
| PT (11–14.5s) |
13.00 (11.98–14.74) |
13.20 (12.00–14.74) |
12.60 (11.50–13.80) |
0.177 |
| INR (0.8–1.2) |
1.02 (1.00–1.09) |
1.02 (1.00–1.09) |
1.01 (0.95–1.10) |
0.372 |
Abbreviations: WBC: White Blood Cell, NEU: Neutrophil, LYM: Lymphocyte, MON: Monocyte, EOS: Eosinophils, BAS: Basophils, RBC: Red Blood Cell, HGB: Hemoglobin, PLT: Platelet, MPV: Mean Platelet Volume, LDH: Lactate dehydrogenase, CK: Creatine phosphokinase, ALT: Alanine aminotransaminase, AST: Aspartate aminotransferase, TBIL: Total Bilirubin, DBIL: Direct Bilirubin, ALB: Albumin, GLOB: Globulin, GGT: γ-glutamyl transferase, ALP: Alkaline phosphatase, GLU: Glucose, PCT: Procalcitonin, CRP: C-reactive protein, CREA: Creatinine, TT: Thrombin Time, APTT: Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time, PT: Prothrombin time, INR: Internationally Standardized Ratio.
Continuous variable data are presented as median (interquartile ranges, IQR). Classified variable dates are presented as n/N (%), where N is the total number of patients with available data. P values comparing the group of survival and the group of non-survival.
Table 2. Symptomatic and signs characteristics of patients with SFTSV infection on admission.
| Parameters | Total (n = 194) |
Survival (n = 171) |
Non-survival (n = 23) |
P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Symptoms, n (%) | ||||
| Fever | 127/194(65.5) | 112/171(65.5) | 15/23(65.2) | 0.545 |
| Shiver | 68/194(35.1) | 62/171(36.3) | 6/23(26.1) | 0.337 |
| Weak | 124/194(63.9) | 110/171(64.3) | 14/23(60.9) | 0.746 |
| Chest distress | 6/194(3.1) | 5/171(2.9) | 1/23(4.3) | 0.536 |
| Palpitation | 1/194(0.5) | 1/171(0.6) | 0 | 1.000 |
| Muscular soreness | 81/194(41.8) | 73/171(42.7) | 8/23(34.8) | 0.470 |
| Arthralgia | 47/194(23.2) | 44/171(25.7) | 3/23(9.4) | 0.044 |
| Oliguria | 7/194(3.6) | 7/171(4.1) | 0 | 1.000 |
| Digestive system Symptoms | 167/194(86.1) | 149/171(87.1) | 18/23(78.3) | 0.405 |
| Inappetence | 145/194(74.7) | 132/171(77.2) | 13/23(56.5) | 0.032 |
| Nausea | 96/194(49.5) | 89/171(52.0) | 7/23(30.4) | 0.052 |
| Vomiting | 31/194(16.0) | 27/171(15.8) | 4/23(17.4) | 1.000 |
| Bloating | 13/194(6.7) | 12/171(7.0) | 1/23(4.3) | 0.971 |
| Abdominal pain | 15/194(7.7) | 14/171(8.2) | 1/23(4.3) | 0.817 |
| Diarrhea | 26/194(13.4) | 21/171(12.3) | 5/23(21.7) | 0.355 |
| Neurological Symptoms | 23/194(11.9) | 15/171(8.8) | 8/23(34.8) | 0.001 |
| Confusion | 14/194(7.2) | 10/171(5.8) | 4/23(17.4) | 0.114 |
| Delirium | 1/194(0.5%) | 0 | 1/23(4.3) | 0.119 |
| Stupor | 5/194(2.) | 5/171(2.9) | 0 | 1.000 |
| Somnolence | 1/194(0.5) | 0 | 1/23(4.3) | 0.119 |
| Coma | 2/194(1.0) | 0 | 2/23(8.7) | 0.014 |
| Signs, n (%) | ||||
| Skin changes | 24/194(12.4) | 18/171(10.5) | 6/23(26.1) | 0.073 |
| Hemorrhage | 6/194(3.1) | 2/171(1.2) | 4/23(17.4) | 0.002 |
| Pharyngeal swelling | 43/194(22.2) | 37/171(21.6) | 6/23(26.1) | 0.630 |
| Chemosis | 10/194(5.2) | 3/171(1.8) | 7/23(30.4) | 0.000 |
| Breath rough | 36/194(18.6) | 30/171(17.5) | 6/23(26.1) | 0.482 |
| Rales | 12/194(6.2) | 8/171(4.7) | 4/23(17.4) | 0.055 |
| Lymphadenectasis | 29/194(14.9) | 24/171(14.0) | 5/23(21.7) | 0.508 |
| Hepatosplenomegaly | 15/194(7.7) | 15/171(8.8) | 0 | 0.288 |
| Abdominal Tenderness | 15/194(7.7) | 13/171(7.6) | 2/23(8.7) | 1.000 |
| Hyperactive bowel sounds | 3/194(1.5) | 3/171(1.18) | 0 | 1.000 |
| Neurological signs | 25/194(12.9) | 16/171(9.4) | 9/23(39.1) | 0.000 |
Classified variable dates are presented as n/N (%), where N is the total number of patients with available data. P values comparing the group of survival and the group of non-survival.
Patients’ mean age was 62.39 ± 11.85 years old, in which patients in the non-survival group (71.22±11.76 years old) were older than those in the survival patient group (61.20±11.38 years old). Patients in the non-survival group had a shorter hospitalization than those in the survival group, in which 20 (87.0%) cases experienced shortened hospitalization. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding gender, time from onset to admission, body temperature, history of tick bites, hypertensive disease, diabetes, coronary heart disease (CHD), and history of other diseases. Symptoms of digestive disorders (86.1%) accounted for the highest proportion, including poor appetite, nausea, vomiting, bloating, abdominal pain, and diarrhea, followed by fever (65.5%), and fatigue (63.9%). Compared with the survival group, higher incidence rates of chemosis, hemorrhage, and neurological manifestations were found in the non-survival group. A decrease in platelet (PLT) count was found in all the patients. In the non-survival group, higher levels of EOS%, BAS%, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), dehydrogenase (LDH), creatine kinase (CK), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT), urea, creatinine (CREA), C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), and lower lymphocyte (LYM)%, mean platelet volume (MPV), Ca2+, PLT, and albumin (ALB) were detected compared with those in the survival patients. No significant differences were detected between the two groups for the remaining indicators.
Independent risk factors for non-survived patients with SFTS
The independent risk factors of SFTS were explored for early and effective identification of severe SFTS patients and prediction of their clinical outcomes. Significant predictors were first selected by univariate logistic regression analysis (S1 Table). The results of multivariate logistic regression analysis could be summarized as follows: age (odds ratio (OR), 1.070; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.007–1.137, P = 0.028), EOS% (OR, 3.215; 95% CI: 1.543–6.699, P = 0.002), BAS% (OR, 2.290; 95% CI: 1.156–4.535, P = 0.017), AST (OR, 1.003; 95%CI: 1.001–1.005, P = 0.001), and direct bilirubin (DBIL) (OR = 1.120; 95%CI: 1.004–1.248, P = 0.041), which could serve as independent predictors of early mortality in SFTS patients.
According to the results of the multivariate logistic regression analysis, the logistic regression equation can be expressed as follows: logit(p) = -3.055+1.116EOS%+1.235BAS%. The EOS% had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.744 (95% CI: 0.616–0.872, P = 0.000), BAS% had an AUC of 0.721 (95% CI: 0.614–0.828, P = 0.001), and the combination of the EOS% and BAS% had an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.725–0.932, P = 0.000), indicating a good predictive performance compared with other risk factors in our cohort (Fig 2A). The AST/ALT (De-Ritis) ratio had an AUC of 0.775 (95% CI: 0.648–0.903, P = 0.000) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) had an AUC of 0.611 (95% CI: 0.491–0.732, P = 0.083). Optimum cutoff value was calculated from the largest Youden’s index (Table 4).
Fig 2. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for evaluating the predictive ability of the factors associated with severity of SFTS on admission.
(A) The combination of the EOS% and BAS% (orange line) had an AUC of 0.82 (P = 0.000); AST (blue line) had an AUC of 0.805 (P = 0.000); DBIL (red line) had an AUC of 0.777 (P = 0.000); Age (green line) had an AUC of 0.764 (P = 0.000). (B) The combination of the EOS% and BAS% (green line) had an AUC of 0.828 (P = 0.000); De-Ritis ratio (red line) had an AUC of 0.775 and the cut-off value was 2.69 (P = 0.000); NLR (blue line) had an AUC of 0.611 and the cut-off value was 2.27 (P = 0.083). Abbreviations: EOS: Eosinophils, BAS: Basophils, AST: Aspartate aminotransferase, DBIL: Direct Bilirubin, AUC: Area under the ROC curve, CI: Confidence interval, De-Ritis ratio: AST/ALT ratio, NLR: Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio.
Table 4. Predictive value of risk factors for SFTS severity.
| Parameters | AUC | Cut off Values | Sensitivity | Specificity | 95%CI | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EOS% | 0.744 | 0.35 | 0.652 | 0.784 | (0.616,0.872) | 0.000 |
| BAS% | 0.721 | 0.17 | 0.826 | 0.614 | (0.614,0.828) | 0.001 |
| AST | 0.805 | 628.30 | 0.565 | 0.959 | (0.693,0.971) | 0.000 |
| DBIL | 0.777 | 5.51 | 0.739 | 0.678 | (0.680,0.874) | 0.000 |
| EOS%+BAS% | 0.828 | / | 0.826 | 0.754 | (0.725,0.932) | 0.000 |
| De Ritis Ratio | 0.775 | 2.69 | 0.696 | 0.854 | (0.648,0.903) | 0.000 |
| NLR | 0.611 | 2.27 | 0.652 | 0.561 | (0.491,0.732) | 0.083 |
Abbreviations: EOS: Eosinophils, BAS: Basophil, AST: Aspartate aminotransferase, DBIL: Direct Bilirubin, AUC: Area Under the ROC Curve, CI: 95% Confidence Interval, De Ritis Ratio: AST/ALT-Ratio, NLR: Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio.
The cut-off points were selected by maximizing the sum of sensitivity and specificity.
The predictive value of EOS%+BAS% for the prognosis on admission
In our study, the OR value did not significantly change, either after adjusting for age, gender, body temperature, arthralgia, hemorrhage, symptoms of digestive disorders, neurological symptoms and signs, hypertensive disease, and CHD, indicating that the combination of the EOS% and BAS% was a stable risk factor for prognosis of SFTS patients (S2 Table). According to the H-L test (P = 0.294), the combination of EOS% and BAS% had an excellent predictability for prognosis of patients with SFTS compared with NLR, and both had a satisfactory performance in predicting poor prognosis compared with De-Ritis ratio (Fig 2B) (S3 Table).
The effects of different EOS% levels on the clinical characteristics of SFTS patients
According to the results of the multivariate logistic regression model, EOS% was an independent risk factor for early death in patients with SFTS (OR, 3.215; 95% CI: 1.543–6.699). All patients were divided into EOS%low and EOS%high groups based on the cutoff value (0.35%). The EOS%high group had a higher fatality rate (28.8% vs. 5.6%, P = 0.000), a higher percentage of hospitalization ≤7 days (48.1% vs. 29.6% P = 0.016), and included more patients with neurological signs (21.2% vs. 9.9%, P = 0.038) compared with the EOS%low group. No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of age (P = 0.256), gender (P = 0.981), the highest body temperature (P = 0.853), and history of the tick bite (P = 0.136) (Table 5).
Table 5. Clinical characteristics of patients with SFTS, according the EOS% cutoff value on admission.
| Parameters | Total (n = 194) | EOS%low (<0.35 = (n = 142) |
EOS%high (≥0.35) (n = 52) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinic outcome, n (%) | 23/194(11.84) | 8/142(5.6) | 15/52(28.8) | 0.000 |
| Age, years | 62.39±11.85 | 61.74±11.03 | 64.17±13.80 | 0.256 |
| ≤45, n (%) | 16/194(8.2) | 13/142(9.2) | 3/52(5.8) | 0.642 |
| 46–60, n (%) | 64/194(33.0) | 48/142(33.8) | 16/52(30.8) | 0.691 |
| 61–75, n (%) | 86/194(44.3) | 67/142(47.2) | 19/52(36.5) | 0.186 |
| ≥76, n (%) | 28/194(14.4) | 14/142(9.9) | 14/52(26.9) | 0.003 |
| Male, n (%) | 101/194(52.1) | 74/142(52.1) | 27/52(51.9) | 0.981 |
| Time from onset to admission, days | 5.0(4.0–7.0) | 5.0(4.0–7.0) | 5.0(4.0–7.5) | 0.609 |
| ≤3, n (%) | 42/194(21.6) | 31/142(21.8) | 11/52(21.2) | 0.919 |
| 4–7, n (%) | 114/194(58.8) | 86/142(60.6) | 28/52(53.8) | 0.400 |
| >7, n (%) | 38/194(19.6) | 25/142(17.6) | 13/52(25.0) | 0.250 |
| Hospitalization, days | 10.0(6.0–13.0) | 7.0(10.0–13.0) | 8.0(4.0–12.0) | 0.008 |
| ≤7, n (%) | 67/194(34.5) | 42/142(29.6) | 25/52(48.1) | 0.016 |
| 8–14, n (%) | 93/194(47.9) | 73/142(51.4) | 20/52(38.5) | 0.110 |
| >14, n (%) | 34/194(17.5) | 27/142(19.0) | 7/52(13.5) | 0.368 |
| Highest body temperature, °C | 38.0(37.0–38.8) | 38.0(37.0–38.8) | 37.9(37.0–38.6) | 0.853 |
| 38–38.9°C, n (%) | 60/194(30.9) | 45/142(31.7) | 15/52(28.8) | 0.704 |
| >39°C, n (%) | 40/194(20.6) | 29/142(20.4) | 11/52(21.2) | 0.911 |
| Bite by ticks, n (%) | 40/194(20.6) | 33/142(23.2) | 7/52(13.5%) | 0.136 |
| Neurological Symptoms, n (%) | 23/194(11.9) | 13/142(9.2) | 10/52(19.) | 0.054 |
| Confusion | 14/194(7.2) | 7/142(4.9) | 7/52(13.5) | 0.085 |
| Delirium | 1/194(0.5) | 0 | 1/52(1.9) | 0.268 |
| Stupor | 5/194(2.6) | 4/142(2.8) | 1/52(1.9) | 1.000 |
| Somnolence | 1/194(0.5) | 0 | 1/52(1.9) | 0.268 |
| Coma | 2/194(1.0) | 2/142(1.4) | 0 | 1.000 |
| Neurological signs, n (%) | 25/194(12.9) | 14/142(9.9) | 11/52(21.2) | 0.038 |
Continuous variable data are presented as median (interquartile ranges, IQR).
Classified variable dates are presented as n/N (%), where N is the total number of patients with available data. P values comparing between the group of EOS%low and the group of EOS%high.
Based on EOS count, patients were assigned into three groups: less than the lower limit of normal (group A), normal (group B), and greater than the upper limit of normal (group C). Group C was associated with a higher rate of death, older age, a shorter hospitalization, and a higher incidence of neurological symptoms and the presence of neurological signs than other two groups. There were no significant differences among the three groups in terms of gender (P = 0.369), maximum body temperature (P = 0.943), or history of the tick bite (P = 0.072) (S4 Table).
The absolute value of EOS was divided into >0 group and equal to 0 group. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes (P = 0.076), age (P = 0.181), gender (P = 0.746), length of hospitalization (P = 0.133), the highest body temperature (P = 0.910), neurological symptoms (P = 0.076), and neurological signs (P = 0.066) between the two groups (S5 Table).
Correlation between circulating EOS% and the frequency of neurological manifestations in SFTS patients
Through Spearman correlation analysis, it was revealed that EOS% was positively correlated with the frequency of neurological symptoms in SFTS patients (r = 0.158, P = 0.028) and was positively correlated with the frequency of neurological signs (r = 0.180, P = 0.012) (S6 Table).
The effects of different BAS% levels on the clinical characteristics of SFTS patients
BAS% was found as an independent risk factor for patients with early-stage SFTS (OR, 2.290; 95% CI: 1.156–4.535, P = 0.017). All patients were divided into BAS%low and BAS%hight groups based on the cutoff value (0.17%). The BAS%high group had a higher fatality rate (22.4% vs. 3.7%, P = 0.000), older age (65.60±11.09 vs. 59.89±11.87, P = 0.001), and a shorter hospitalization (9.0 days, IQR: 4.5–12.5 vs. 11.0 days, IQR: 6.0–13.0, P = 0.012) than the BAS%low group. No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of gender (P = 0.051), the highest body temperature (P = 0.065), history of the tick bite (P = 0.207), neurological symptoms (P = 0.680), and neurological signs (P = 0.394) (Table 6).
Table 6. Clinical characteristics of patients with SFTS, according to the BAS% cutoff value on admission.
| Parameters | Total (n = 194) | BAS%low (<0.17) (n = 109) | BAS%high (≥0.17) (n = 85) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinic outcome, n (%) | 23/194(11.84) | 4/109(3.7) | 19/85(22.4) | 0.000 |
| Age, years | 62.39±11.85 | 59.89±11.87 | 65.60±11.09 | 0.001 |
| ≤45, n (%) | 16/194(8.2) | 12/109(11.0) | 4/85(4.7) | 0.113 |
| 46–60, n (%) | 64/194(33.0) | 44/109(40.4) | 20/85(23.5) | 0.013 |
| 61–75, n (%) | 86/194(44.3) | 41/109(37.6) | 45/85(52.9) | 0.033 |
| ≥76, n (%) | 28/194(14.4) | 12/109(11.0) | 16/85(18.8) | 0.124 |
| Male, n (%) | 101/194(52.1) | 50/109(45.9) | 51/85(60.0) | 0.051 |
| Time from onset to admission, days | 5.0(4.0–7.0) | 5.0(3.5–7.0) | 5.0(4.0–8.0) | 0.102 |
| ≤3, n (%) | 42/194(21.6) | 27/109(24.8) | 15/85(17.6) | 0.232 |
| 4–7, n (%) | 114/194(58.8) | 67/109(61.5) | 47/85(55.3) | 0.386 |
| >7, n (%) | 38/194(19.6) | 15/109(13.8) | 23/85(27.1) | 0.021 |
| Hospitalization, days | 10.0(6.0–13.0) | 11.0(6.0–13.0) | 9.0(4.5–12.5) | 0.012 |
| ≤7, n (%) | 67/194(34.5) | 32/109(29.4) | 35/85(41.2) | 0.086 |
| 8–14, n (%) | 93/194(47.9) | 52/109(47.7) | 41/85(48.2) | 0.942 |
| >14, n (%) | 34/194(17.5) | 25/109(22.9) | 9/85(10.6) | 0.025 |
| Highest body temperature, °C | 38.0(37.0–38.8) | 38.0(37.2–38.9) | 37.8(36.8–38.6) | 0.065 |
| 38–38.9°C, n (%) | 60/194(30.9) | 34/109(31.2) | 26/85(30.6) | 0.928 |
| >39°C, n (%) | 40/194(20.6) | 25/109(22.9) | 15/85(17.6) | 0.366 |
| Bite by ticks, n (%) | 40/194(20.6) | 26/109(23.9) | 14/85(16.5) | 0.207 |
| Neurological Symptoms, n (%) | 23/194(11.9) | 12/109(11.0) | 11/85(12.9) | 0.680 |
| Confusion, n (%) | 14/194(7.2) | 7/109(6.4) | 7/85(8.2) | 0.628 |
| Delirium, n (%) | 1/194(0.5) | 0 | 1/85(1.2) | 0.438 |
| Stupor, n (%) | 5/194(2.6) | 5/109(4.6) | 0 | 0.123 |
| Somnolence, n (%) | 1/194(0.5) | 0 | 1/85(1.2) | 0.438 |
| Coma, n (%) | 2/194(1.0) | 0 | 2/85(2.4) | 0.191 |
| Neurological signs, n (%) | 25/194(12.9) | 12/109(11.0) | 13/85(15.1) | 0.394 |
Continuous variable data are presented as median (interquartile ranges, IQR).
Classified variable date are presented as n/N (%), where N is the total number of patients with available data. P values comparing the group of BAS%low and the group of BAS%high.
According to basophilic count, patients were divided into two groups: normal range and greater than the upper limit of normal. The group of greater than the upper limit of normal was associated with a higher rate of death (50.0% vs. 10.1%, P = 0.007) and a higher incidence of neurological symptoms (50% vs. 10.2%, P = 0.008) and the presence of neurological signs (50% vs. 11.3%, P = 0.008) than the normal range group. No significant differences were found between the two groups in age (P = 0.145), gender (p = 0.890), the highest body temperature (P = 0.979), or history of the tick bite (P = 0.305) (S7 Table).
Correlation between circulating BAS% and clinical parameters of SFTS patients
Through Spearman correlation analysis, it was revealed that BAS% was positively correlated with monocyte (MON)% (r = 0.292, P = 0.000), EOS% (r = 0.308, P = 0.000), LDH (r = 0.39, P = 0.000), CK (r = 0.216, P = 003), AST (r = 0.189, P = 0.008), ALT (r = 0.185, P = 0.010), total bilirubin (TBIL) (r = 0.220, P = 0.002), DBIL (r = 0.284, P = 0.000), GGT (r = 0.312, P = 0.000), ALP (r = 0.247, P = 0.001), UREA (r = 0.170, P = 0.018), CREA (r = 0.169, P = 0.018), CRP (r = 0.143, P = 0.047), and was negatively correlated with neutrophil (NEU)% (r = -0.142, P = 0.048), MPV (r = 0.174, P = 0.015), ALB (r = 0.292, P = 0.000), and PCT (r = -0.237, P = 0.001) (Fig 3). BAS% was positively correlated with the frequency of neurological signs in SFTS patients (r = 0.146, P = 0.043) (S8 Table)
Fig 3. Correlation among circulating EOS%, BAS%, and laboratory parameters in SFTS patients.
Abbreviations: MON: Monocyte, EOS: Eosinophils, BAS: Basophils, PCT: Procalcitonin, CRP: C-reactive protein, LDH: Lactate dehydrogenase, CK: Creatine phosphokinase, AST: Aspartate aminotransferase, ALB: Albumin, GGT: γ-glutamyl transferase, ALP: Alkaline phosphatase, CREA: Creatinine.
Discussion
In the present study, EOS% and BAS% were for the first time used as variables to predict clinical outcomes of early-stage SFTS patients. The combination of EOS% and BAS% exhibited a satisfactory predictive performance compared with previously reported measures related to clinical outcomes. We also found that EOS% and BAS% were associated with neurological symptoms and signs. Patients mainly presented with thrombocytopenia, liver dysfunction, elevated biomarkers of tissue damage, and a higher frequency of neurological-related manifestations, particularly in non-survived patients, which is in parallel with previous studies [3],[23,24].
EOS are bone marrow-derived leukocytes. As research has progressed, a comprehensive understanding of the critical role of EOS in immunity and host defense has emerged [20,25]. EOS has been used as an indicator for disease progression and outcomes. In our cohort, EOS% was noted as an independent risk factor for death on admission and was positively associated with neurological signs and/or symptoms. Eosinophilic Cationic Protein (ECP) is one of the main components of EOS, and the level of ECP was reported to be positively correlated with EOS% and was associated with neurological damage [26,27]. ECP can alter the permeability of cell membranes, subsequently causing calcium influx, which can ultimately lead to cell apoptosis.[28] In addition, Peng et al. showed that the increased intracellular cation levels lead to the sequential activation of the caspase-9, pro-caspase-3 and 8, inducing apoptosis of neuronal cells [29]. In our study, EOS% was found to be positively correlated with the incidence of neurological symptoms and signs, with no significant correlation with delirium, stupor, somnolence, and coma, which could be related to the inadequate number of cases with associated symptoms.
Basophils are an essential component of innate immunity and are also a promoter of type 2 immune responses, which play a role in parasitic infections, allergic reactions, and viral infections. In our study, BAS% was identified as a predictor of poor prognosis of early-stage SFTS patients, which was consistent with studies on the COVID-19 [30,31]. However, indifferent to COVID-19 [32], the relative elevation of basophils in the non-survived group compared with that in the survived group may be related to tick bite transmission.[33] With multiple pattern recognition receptors on basophils, such as Dendritic Cell-Specific Intercellular adhesion molecule 3-Grabbing Nonintegrin (DC-SIGN) and C-type lectin, basophils may provide a stable cellular basis for HIV capture and transmission [21,34]. Importantly, several studies found that SFTS enters host cells via these two receptors, thereby involving basophils as one of the target cells for SFTS [35,36]. Studies have shown that SFTSV infection drove macrophage differentiation skewed to M2 phenotype, which facilitated virus shedding, and resulted in viral spread [37]. Interleukin-4 (IL-4) production from basophils can contribute to the differentiation of macrophages towards the M2 phenotype. [38] In addition to promoting M2 macrophage differentiation, IL-4 can cause microvascular infiltration and a procoagulant state through remodeling and upregulation of the expression levels of vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1) and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), which may result in damage to the endothelium [39]. IL-4 induces T cell differentiation towards the TH2 phenotype, and a significant correlation of Th1/Th2 with disease severity in SFTS patients was reported [40,41]. In addition, the activation of BAS may cause the release of large amounts of cytokines, such as IL-6 and IL-8, which are essential components of the cytokine storm and are associated with the poor prognosis of SFTS patients [42,43]. Hence, we hypothesized that organ failure in SFTS patients could be attributed to immune dysfunction associated with the involvement of BAS.
Prediction of the clinical outcomes by innate immune cells and immune checkpoints has been frequently reported. Studies have shown that immune checkpoints are associated with viral escape from host immunity [44,45]. In the study of COVID-19, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), one of the immune checkpoints, was highly expressed in EOS and BAS in severe patients, and it was positively correlated with sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores, providing a new idea for subsequent studies on SFTS [46].
There are still some limitations in this study. Firstly, the small sample size should be noted, as well as the lack of viral load data, and there was no validation cohort. Secondly, the cerebrospinal fluid of patients was not examined to assess the cause of neurological symptoms because of thrombocytopenia. Finally, the role of EOS and BAS in systemic tissue damage in SFTS patients was not investigated. Hence, it is essential to eliminate the abovementioned limitations.
In conclusion, both EOS% and BAS% were found as independent risk factors for poor prognosis of patients with early-stage SFTS, and combination of EOS% and BAS% was the most effective approach. EOS% and BAS% are rapid, simple, effective, and inexpensive prognostic markers, and they may be efficacious for diagnosing and treating a variety of diseases.
Supporting information
(Created with BioRender.com).
(TIF)
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our gratitude to all the healthcare workers who helped with this study. We thank the Yantai City Hospital for Infectious Disease for their support. We thank Shengqi Huang and Qinghuan Lin for supporting statistical software and data processing in this study.
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.
Funding Statement
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 82072295), Changjiang Scholar Program of Chinese Ministry of Education, and National Key Clinical Specialty Discipline Construction Program for infectious disease of China were awarded to ZC. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
References
- 1.Abudurexiti A, Adkins S, Alioto D, Alkhovsky SV, Avsic-Zupanc T, Ballinger MJ, et al. Taxonomy of the order Bunyavirales: update 2019. Arch Virol. 2019;164(7):1949–65. Epub 2019/05/09. doi: 10.1007/s00705-019-04253-6 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Yu XJ, Liang MF, Zhang SY, Liu Y, Li JD, Sun YL, et al. Fever with thrombocytopenia associated with a novel bunyavirus in China. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(16):1523–32. Epub 2011/03/18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1010095 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Miao D, Liu MJ, Wang YX, Ren X, Lu QB, Zhao GP, et al. Epidemiology and Ecology of Severe Fever With Thrombocytopenia Syndrome in China, 20102018. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73(11):e3851–e8. Epub 2020/10/18. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1561 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Kim YR, Yun Y, Bae SG, Park D, Kim S, Lee JM, et al. Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome Virus Infection, South Korea, 2010. Emerg Infect Dis. 2018;24(11):2103–5. Epub 2018/10/20. doi: 10.3201/eid2411.170756 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Takahashi T, Maeda K, Suzuki T, Ishido A, Shigeoka T, Tominaga T, et al. The first identification and retrospective study of Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome in Japan. J Infect Dis. 2014;209(6):816–27. Epub 2013/11/16. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jit603 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Tran XC, Yun Y, Van An L, Kim SH, Thao NTP, Man PKC, et al. Endemic Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome, Vietnam. Emerg Infect Dis. 2019;25(5):1029–31. Epub 2019/04/20. doi: 10.3201/eid2505.181463 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Brault AC, Savage HM, Duggal NK, Eisen RJ, Staples JE. Heartland Virus Epidemiology, Vector Association, and Disease Potential. Viruses. 2018;10(9). Epub 2018/09/19. doi: 10.3390/v10090498 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Jiang XL, Zhang S, Jiang M, Bi ZQ, Liang MF, Ding SJ, et al. A cluster of person-to-person transmission cases caused by SFTS virus in Penglai, China. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015;21(3):274–9. Epub 2015/02/18. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2014.10.006 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Koga S, Takazono T, Ando T, Hayasaka D, Tashiro M, Saijo T, et al. Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome Virus RNA in Semen, Japan. Emerg Infect Dis. 2019;25(11):2127–8. Epub 2019/10/19. doi: 10.3201/eid2511.190061 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Moon J, Lee H, Jeon JH, Kwon Y, Kim H, Wang EB, et al. Aerosol transmission of severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome virus during resuscitation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2019;40(2):238–41. Epub 2018/12/20. doi: 10.1017/ice.2018.330 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Li H, Lu QB, Xing B, Zhang SF, Liu K, Du J, 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;18(10):1127–37. Epub 2018/07/29. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30293-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Wang L, Zou Z, Ding K, Hou C. Predictive risk score model for severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome mortality based on qSOFA and SIRS scoring system. BMC Infect Dis. 2020;20(1):595. doi: 10.1186/s12879-020-05299-7 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Gong L, Zhang L, Wu J, Lu S, Lyu Y, Zhu M, et al. Clinical Progress and Risk Factors for Death from Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome: A Multihospital Retrospective Investigation in Anhui, China. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2021;104(4):1425–31. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.20-0270 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Annual review of diseases prioritized under the Research and Development Blueprint (WHO Meeting report, World Health Organization, 2017)
- 15.Li H, Jiang X-M, Cui N, Yuan C, Zhang S-F, Lu Q-B, et al. Clinical effect and antiviral mechanism of T-705 in treating severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome. Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy. 2021;6(1):145. doi: 10.1038/s41392-021-00541-3 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Xie G, Ding F, Han L, Yin D, Lu H, Zhang M. The role of peripheral blood eosinophil counts in COVID-19 patients. Allergy. 2021;76(2):471–82. Epub 2020/06/21. doi: 10.1111/all.14465 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Yan B, Yang J, Xie Y, Tang X. Relationship between blood eosinophil levels and COVID-19 mortality. World Allergy Organ J. 2021;14(3):100521. Epub 2021/02/17. doi: 10.1016/j.waojou.2021.100521 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Tiwary M, Rooney RJ, Liedmann S, LeMessurier KS, Samarasinghe AE. Eosinophil Responses at the Airway Epithelial Barrier during the Early Phase of Influenza A Virus Infection in C57BL/6 Mice. Cells. 2021;10(3). Epub 2021/03/07. doi: 10.3390/cells10030509 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Moore ML, Newcomb DC, Parekh VV, Van Kaer L, Collins RD, Zhou W, et al. STAT1 negatively regulates lung basophil IL-4 expression induced by respiratory syncytial virus infection. J Immunol. 2009;183(3):2016–26. Epub 2009/07/10. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0803167 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Su YC, Townsend D, Herrero LJ, Zaid A, Rolph MS, Gahan ME, et al. Dual proinflammatory and antiviral properties of pulmonary eosinophils in respiratory syncytial virus vaccine-enhanced disease. J Virol. 2015;89(3):1564–78. Epub 2014/11/21. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01536-14 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Jiang A-P, Jiang J-F, Guo M-G, Jin Y-M, Li Y-Y, Wang J-H. Human Blood-Circulating Basophils Capture HIV-1 and Mediate Viral trans-Infection of CD4+ T Cells. J Virol. 2015;89(15):8050–62. Epub 2015/05/29. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01021-15 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Bonam SR, Chauvin C, Levillayer L, Mathew MJ, Sakuntabhai A, Bayry J. SARS-CoV-2 Induces Cytokine Responses in Human Basophils. Front Immunol. 2022;13:838448. Epub 2022/03/15. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.838448 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Wang L, Xu Y, Zhang S, Bibi A, Xu Y, Li T. The AST/ALT Ratio (De Ritis Ratio) Represents an Unfavorable Prognosis in Patients in Early-Stage SFTS: An Observational Cohort Study. Frontiers In Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 2022;12:725642. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.725642 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Wang X, Lin L, Zhao Z, Zhou W, Ge Z, Shen Y, et al. The predictive effect of the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) on the risk of death in patients with severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS): a multi-center study in China. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9(3):208. Epub 2021/03/13. doi: 10.21037/atm-20-4736 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Samarasinghe AE, Melo RC, Duan S, LeMessurier KS, Liedmann S, Surman SL, et al. Eosinophils Promote Antiviral Immunity in Mice Infected with Influenza A Virus. J Immunol. 2017;198(8):3214–26. Epub 2017/03/12. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1600787 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Shah SN, Grunwell JR, Mohammad AF, Stephenson ST, Lee GB, Vickery BP, et al. Performance of Eosinophil Cationic Protein as a Biomarker in Asthmatic Children. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9(7). doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2021.02.053 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Navarro S, Boix E, Cuchillo CM, Nogués MV. Eosinophil-induced neurotoxicity: the role of eosinophil cationic protein/RNase 3. J Neuroimmunol. 2010;227(1–2):60–70. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2010.06.012 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Mattson MP. Calcium and neurodegeneration. Aging Cell. 2007;6(3):337–50. Epub 2007/03/03. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-9726.2007.00275.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Peng J, Wu Z, Wu Y, Hsu M, Stevenson FF, Boonplueang R, et al. Inhibition of caspases protects cerebellar granule cells of the weaver mouse from apoptosis and improves behavioral phenotype. J Biol Chem. 2002;277(46):44285–91. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M207407200 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Ten-Caten F, Gonzalez-Dias P, Castro Í, Ogava RLT, Giddaluru J, Silva JCS, et al. In-depth analysis of laboratory parameters reveals the interplay between sex, age, and systemic inflammation in individuals with COVID-19. International Journal of Infectious Diseases: IJID: Official Publication of the International Society For Infectious Diseases. 2021;105:579–87. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.03.016 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Sun Y, Zhou J, Ye K. White Blood Cells and Severe COVID-19: A Mendelian Randomization Study. J Pers Med. 2021;11(3). doi: 10.3390/jpm11030195 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Qin C, Zhou L, Hu Z, Zhang S, Yang S, Tao Y, et al. Dysregulation of Immune Response in Patients With Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) in Wuhan, China. Clinical Infectious Diseases: an Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2020;71(15):762–8. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa248 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Wada T, Ishiwata K, Koseki H, Ishikura T, Ugajin T, Ohnuma N, et al. Selective ablation of basophils in mice reveals their nonredundant role in acquired immunity against ticks. J Clin Invest. 2010;120(8):2867–75. doi: 10.1172/JCI42680 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Lundberg K, Rydnert F, Broos S, Andersson M, Greiff L, Lindstedt M. C-type Lectin Receptor Expression on Human Basophils and Effects of Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy. Scand J Immunol. 2016;84(3):150–7. doi: 10.1111/sji.12457 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Tani H, Fukuma A, Fukushi S, Taniguchi S, Yoshikawa T, Iwata-Yoshikawa N, et al. Efficacy of T-705 (Favipiravir) in the Treatment of Infections with Lethal Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome Virus. mSphere. 2016;1(1). doi: 10.1128/mSphere.00061-15 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Suzuki T, Sato Y, Sano K, Arashiro T, Katano H, Nakajima N, et al. Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome virus targets B cells in lethal human infections. J Clin Invest. 2020;130(2):799–812. doi: 10.1172/JCI129171 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Zhang L, Fu Y, Wang H, Guan Y, Zhu W, Guo M, et al. Severe Fever With Thrombocytopenia Syndrome Virus-Induced Macrophage Differentiation Is Regulated by miR-146. Frontiers In Immunology. 2019;10:1095. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.01095 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Kuroda E, Ho V, Ruschmann J, Antignano F, Hamilton M, Rauh MJ, et al. SHIP represses the generation of IL-3-induced M2 macrophages by inhibiting IL-4 production from basophils. Journal of Immunology (Baltimore, Md: 1950). 2009;183(6):3652–60. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0900864 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Oschatz C, Maas C, Lecher B, Jansen T, Björkqvist J, Tradler T, et al. Mast cells increase vascular permeability by heparin-initiated bradykinin formation in vivo. Immunity. 2011;34(2):258–68. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2011.02.008 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Kawakami T. Basophils now enhance memory. Nat Immunol. 2008;9(7):720–1. Epub 2008/06/20. doi: 10.1038/ni0708-720 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Li M-M, Zhang W-J, Weng X-F, Li M-Y, Liu J, Xiong Y, et al. CD4 T cell loss and Th2 and Th17 bias are associated with the severity of severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS). Clin Immunol. 2018;195. doi: 10.1016/j.clim.2018.07.009 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Park A, Park SJ, Jung KL, Kim SM, Kim EH, Kim YI, et al. Molecular Signatures of Inflammatory Profile and B-Cell Function in Patients with Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome. mBio. 2021;12(1). Epub 2021/02/18. doi: 10.1128/mBio.02583-20 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Sun Q, Jin C, Zhu L, Liang M, Li C, Cardona CJ, et al. Host Responses and Regulation by NFκB Signaling in the Liver and Liver Epithelial Cells Infected with A Novel Tick-borne Bunyavirus. Sci Rep. 2015;5:11816. doi: 10.1038/srep11816 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Wang Z, Wang S, Goplen NP, Li C, Cheon IS, Dai Q, et al. PD-1 CD8 resident memory T cells balance immunity and fibrotic sequelae. Sci Immunol. 2019;4(36). doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.aaw1217 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Wykes MN, Lewin SR. Immune checkpoint blockade in infectious diseases. Nat Rev Immunol. 2018;18(2). doi: 10.1038/nri.2017.112 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Vitte J, Diallo AB, Boumaza A, Lopez A, Michel M, Allardet-Servent J, et al. A Granulocytic Signature Identifies COVID-19 and Its Severity. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2020;222(12):1985–96. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiaa591 . [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.
Supplementary Materials
(Created with BioRender.com).
(TIF)
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
Data Availability Statement
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.