BackgroundThe sepsis-induced immunodepression contributes to impaired clinical outcomes of various stress conditions. This syndrome is well documented and characterized by attenuated function of innate and adaptive immune cells. Several pharmacological interventions aimed to restore the immune response are emerging of which interferon-gamma (IFNγ) is one. It is of paramount relevance to obtain clinical information on optimal timing of the IFNγ-treatment, −tolerance, −effectiveness and outcome before performing a RCT. We describe the effects of IFNγ in a cohort of 18 adult and 2 pediatric sepsis patients.MethodsIn this open-label prospective multi-center case-series, IFNγ treatment was initiated in patients selected on clinical and immunological criteria early (< 4 days) or late (> 7 days) following the onset of sepsis. The data collected in 18 adults and 2 liver transplanted pediatric patients were: clinical scores, monocyte expression of HLA-DR (flow cytometry), lymphocyte immune-phenotyping (flow cytometry), IL-6 and IL-10 plasma levels (ELISA), bacterial cultures, disease severity, and mortality.ResultsIn 15 out of 18 patients IFNγ treatment was associated with an increase of median HLA-DR expression from 2666 [IQ 1547; 4991] to 12,451 [IQ 4166; 19,707], while the absolute number of lymphocyte subpopulations were not affected, except for the decrease number of NK cells 94.5 [23; 136] to 32.5 [13; 90.8] (0.0625)]. Plasma levels of IL-6 464 [201–770] to 108 (89–140) ng/mL (p = 0.04) and IL-10 from IL-10 from 29 [12–59] to 9 [1–15] pg/mL decreased significantly. Three patients who received IFNγ early after ICU admission (<4 days) died. The other patients had a rapid clinical improvement assessed by the SOFA score and bacterial cultures that were repeatedly positive became negative. The 2 pediatric cases improved rapidly, but 1 died for hemorrhagic complication.ConclusionGuided by clinical and immunological monitoring, adjunctive immunotherapy with IFNγ appears well-tolerated in our cases and improves immune host defense in sepsis induced immuno suppression. Randomized clinical studies to assess its potential clinical benefit are warranted.

No abstract

Letter to the Editor This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.

OBJECTIVES: Although clinical presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 has been extensively described, immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 remains yet not fully understood. Similarities with bacterial sepsis were observed; however, few studies specifically addressed differences of immune response between both conditions. Here, we report a longitudinal analysis of the immune response in coronavirus disease 2019 patients, its correlation with outcome, and comparison between severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients and septic patients. DESIGN: Longitudinal, retrospective observational study. SETTING: Tertiary-care hospital during the first 2020 coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak in France. PATIENTS: All successive patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection admitted to the emergency department, medical ward, and ICU with at least one available immunophenotyping performed during hospital stay. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Between March and April 2020, 247 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 were included and compared with a historical cohort of 108 severe septic patients. Nonsevere coronavirus disease 2019 patients (n = 153) presented normal or slightly altered immune profiles. Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (n = 94) immune profile differed from sepsis. Coronavirus disease 2019 exhibited profound and prolonged lymphopenia (mostly on CD3, CD4, CD8, and NK cells), neutrophilia, and human leukocyte antigen D receptor expression on CD14+ monocytes down-regulation. Surprisingly, coronavirus disease 2019 patients presented a unique profile of B cells expansion, basophilia, and eosinophilia. Lymphopenia, human leukocyte antigen D receptor expression on CD14+ monocytes down-regulation, and neutrophilia were associated with a worsened outcome, whereas basophilia and eosinophilia were associated with survival. Circulating immune cell kinetics differed between severe coronavirus disease 2019 and sepsis, lack of correction of immune alterations in coronavirus disease 2019 patients during the first 2 weeks of ICU admission was associated with death and nosocomial infections. CONCLUSIONS: Circulating immune cells profile differs between mild and severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Severe coronavirus disease 2019 is associated with a unique immune profile as compared with sepsis. Several immune features are associated with outcome. Thus, immune monitoring of coronavirus disease 2019 might be of help for patient management.