A two-transcript biomarker of host classifier genes for discrimination of bacterial from viral infection in acute febrile illness: a multicentre discovery and validation study

A computational framework to improve cross-platform implementation of transcriptomics signatures

The emergence of next-generation sequencing technologies and computational advances have expanded our understanding of gene expression regulation (i.e., the transcriptome). This has also led to an increased interest in using transcriptomic biomarkers to improve disease diagnosis and stratification, to assess prognosis and predict the response to treatment. Significant progress in identifying transcriptomic signatures for various clinical needs has been made, with large discovery studies accounting for challenges such as patient variability, unwanted batch effects, and data complexities; however, obstacles related to the technical aspects of cross-platform implementation still hinder the successful integration of transcriptomic technologies into standard diagnostic workflows. In this article, we discuss the challenges associated with integrating transcriptomic signatures derived using high-throughput technologies (such as RNA-sequencing) into clinical diagnostic tools using nucleic acid amplification (NAA) techniques. The novelty of the proposed approach lies in our aim to embed constraints related to cross-platform implementation in the process of signature discovery. These constraints could include technical limitations of amplification platform and chemistry, the maximal number of targets imposed by the chosen multiplexing strategy, and the genomic context of identified RNA biomarkers. Finally, we propose to build a computational framework that would integrate these constraints in combination with existing statistical and machine learning models used for signature identification. We envision that this could accelerate the integration of RNA signatures discovered by high-throughput technologies into NAA-based approaches suitable for clinical applications.

Ruxolitinib plus standard of care in severe hospitalized adults with severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS): an exploratory, single-arm trial

BACKGROUND

Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) is an emerging tick-borne infectious disease, and its morbidity and mortality are increasing. At present, there is no specific therapy available. An exacerbated IFN-I response and cytokine storm are related to the mortality of patients with SFTS. Ruxolitinib is a Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor that can block proinflammatory cytokines and inhibit the type I IFN pathway. We aimed to explore the use of ruxolitinib plus standard of care for severe SFTS.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, single-arm study of severe SFTS. We recruited participants aged 18 years or older who were admitted to the hospital with laboratory-confirmed severe SFTS and whose clinical score exceeded 8 points within 6 days of symptom onset. Participants received oral ruxolitinib (10 mg twice a day) for up to 10 days. The primary endpoint was 28-day overall survival. The secondary endpoints included the proportion of participants who needed intensive care unit (ICU) admission, total cost, changes in neurologic symptoms and clinical laboratory parameters, and adverse events (AEs) within 28 days. A historical control group (HC group, n = 26) who met the upper criteria for inclusion and hospitalized from April 1, 2021, to September 16, 2022, was selected and 1:1 matched for baseline characteristics by propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Between Sep 16, 2022, and Sep 16, 2023, 26 participants were recruited into the ruxolitinib treatment group (RUX group). The 28-day overall mortality was 7.7% in the RUX group and 46.2% in the HC group (P = 0.0017). There was a significantly lower proportion of ICU admissions (15.4% vs 65.4%, p < 0.001) and total hospitalization cost in the RUX group. Substantial improvements in neurologic symptoms, platelet counts, hyperferritinemia, and an absolute decrease in the serum SFTS viral load were observed in all surviving participants. Treatment-related adverse events were developed in 6 patients (23.2%) and worsened in 8 patients (30.8%), and no treatment-related serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that ruxolitinib has the potential to increase the likelihood of survival as well as reduce the proportion of ICU hospitalization and being tolerated in severe SFTS. Further trials are needed.

TRAIL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2200063759, September 16, 2022.

A two-gene marker for the two-tiered innate immune response in COVID-19 patients

For coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a pandemic disease characterized by strong immune dysregulation in severe patients, convenient and efficient monitoring of the host immune response is critical. Human hosts respond to viral and bacterial infections in different ways, the former is characterized by the activation of interferon stimulated genes (ISGs) such as IFI27, while the latter is characterized by the activation of anti-bacterial associated genes (ABGs) such as S100A12. This two-tiered innate immune response has not been examined in COVID-19. In this study, the activation patterns of this two-tiered innate immune response represented by IFI27 and S100A12 were explored based on 1421 samples from 17 transcriptome datasets derived from the blood of COVID-19 patients and relevant controls. It was found that IFI27 activation occurred in most of the symptomatic patients and displayed no correlation with disease severity, while S100A12 activation was more restricted to patients under severe and critical conditions with a stepwise activation pattern. In addition, most of the S100A12 activation was accompanied by IFI27 activation. Furthermore, the activation of IFI27 was most pronounced within the first week of symptom onset, but generally waned after 2-3 weeks. On the other hand, the activation of S100A12 displayed no apparent correlation with disease duration and could last for several months in certain patients. These features of the two-tiered innate immune response can further our understanding on the disease mechanism of COVID-19 and may have implications to the clinical triage. Development of a convenient two-gene protocol for the routine serial monitoring of this two-tiered immune response will be a valuable addition to the existing laboratory tests.

Systematic review of host genomic biomarkers of invasive bacterial disease: Distinguishing bacterial from non-bacterial causes of acute febrile illness

Background

Infectious diseases play a significant role in the global burden of disease. The gold standard for the diagnosis of bacterial infection, bacterial culture, can lead to diagnostic delays and inappropriate antibiotic use. The advent of high- throughput technologies has led to the discovery of host-based genomic biomarkers of infection, capable of differentiating bacterial from other causes of infection, but few have achieved validation for use in a clinical setting.

Methods

A systematic review was performed. PubMed/Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase and Scopus databases were searched for relevant studies from inception up to 30/03/2022 with forward and backward citation searching of key references. Studies assessing the diagnostic performance of human host genomic biomarkers of bacterial infection were included. Study selection and assessment of quality were conducted by two independent reviewers. A meta-analysis was undertaken using a diagnostic random-effects model. The review was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021208462).

Findings

Seventy-two studies evaluating the performance of 116 biomarkers in 16,216 patients were included. Forty-six studies examined TB-specific biomarker performance and twenty-four studies assessed biomarker performance in a paediatric population. The results of pooled sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio of genomic biomarkers of bacterial infection were 0.80 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.82), 0.86 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.88), 0.18 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.21), 5.5 (95% CI 4.9 to 6.3), 30.1 (95% CI 24 to 37), respectively. Significant between-study heterogeneity (I² 77%) was present.

Interpretation

Host derived genomic biomarkers show significant potential for clinical use as diagnostic tests of bacterial infection however, further validation and attention to test platform is warranted before clinical implementation can be achieved.

Funding

No funding received.

Systematic comparison of published host gene expression signatures for bacterial/viral discrimination

Background

Measuring host gene expression is a promising diagnostic strategy to discriminate bacterial and viral infections. Multiple signatures of varying size, complexity, and target populations have been described. However, there is little information to indicate how the performance of various published signatures compare to one another.

Methods

This systematic comparison of host gene expression signatures evaluated the performance of 28 signatures, validating them in 4589 subjects from 51 publicly available datasets. Thirteen COVID-specific datasets with 1416 subjects were included in a separate analysis. Individual signature performance was evaluated using the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUC) value. Overall signature performance was evaluated using median AUCs and accuracies.

Results

Signature performance varied widely, with median AUCs ranging from 0.55 to 0.96 for bacterial classification and 0.69–0.97 for viral classification. Signature size varied (1–398 genes), with smaller signatures generally performing more poorly (P < 0.04). Viral infection was easier to diagnose than bacterial infection (84% vs. 79% overall accuracy, respectively; P < .001). Host gene expression classifiers performed more poorly in some pediatric populations (3 months–1 year and 2–11 years) compared to the adult population for both bacterial infection (73% and 70% vs. 82%, respectively; P < .001) and viral infection (80% and 79% vs. 88%, respectively; P < .001). We did not observe classification differences based on illness severity as defined by ICU admission for bacterial or viral infections. The median AUC across all signatures for COVID-19 classification was 0.80 compared to 0.83 for viral classification in the same datasets.

Conclusions

In this systematic comparison of 28 host gene expression signatures, we observed differences based on a signature’s size and characteristics of the validation population, including age and infection type. However, populations used for signature discovery did not impact performance, underscoring the redundancy among many of these signatures. Furthermore, differential performance in specific populations may only be observable through this type of large-scale validation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13073-022-01025-x.