Dataset Information

CMV in critically ill patients: pathogen or bystander?

ABSTRACT: Despite broad variability in study populations, methodologies for CMV detection, and analytic methods used, multiple studies have documented frequent CMV infection in non-immunocompromised adults with critical illness due to a variety of causes. Higher rates of CMV infection in studies of seropositive patients suggest that reactivation of latent infection rather than primary infection is the main mechanism in this setting. Risk factors for CMV reactivation (other than seropositivity) have not been clearly defined and there does not appear to be a consistent association with severity of illness. Furthermore, CMV reactivation in this setting has been associated with important adverse clinical outcomes, including increased duration of mechanical ventilation, longer length of stay and all-cause mortality. There are several biologically plausible mechanisms that could link CMV reactivation with adverse outcomes, including: direct lung injury (CMV pneumonia), amplification of inflammation systemically and within the lung, or predisposition to other nosocomial infections, but clinical data in the ICU setting are limited. Further observational studies are unlikely to significantly advance our understanding of the role of CMV in critically ill patients. Given the significant impact of critical illness, limited current therapeutic options, the availability of generally well-tolerated antiviral options for CMV, and the clinical data supporting a possible pathogenic role for CMV, there is a strong rationale for a randomised controlled trial of CMV prevention as a novel means of improving the outcomes of critically ill patients.

SUBMITTER: Limaye AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2987685 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

CMV in critically ill patients: pathogen or bystander?

Limaye Ajit P AP Boeckh Michael M

Reviews in medical virology 20101101 6

Despite broad variability in study populations, methodologies for CMV detection, and analytic methods used, multiple studies have documented frequent CMV infection in non-immunocompromised adults with critical illness due to a variety of causes. Higher rates of CMV infection in studies of seropositive patients suggest that reactivation of latent infection rather than primary infection is the main mechanism in this setting. Risk factors for CMV reactivation (other than seropositivity) have not be ...[more]

PMID: 20931610

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: COVID19 is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and has been associated with severe inflammation leading to organ dysfunction and mortality. Our aim was to profile the transcriptome in leukocytes from critically ill ICU patients positive for COVID19 vs. those negative for COVID19 to better understand the COVID19 associated host response. Design: Transcriptome profiling of buffy coat cells via ribonucleic acid sequencing (RNAseq) at the time of admission to the ICU. Setting: Tertiary care ICU and academic laboratory. Subjects: All patients admitted to the ICU suspected of being infected with SARS-CoV-2, using standardized hospital screening methodologies, had blood samples collected at the time of admission to the ICU. Interventions: None. Measurement and Main Results: Age- and sex-matched ICU patients that were either COVID19+ (PCR positive, 2 genes) or COVID19- (PCR negative) were enrolled. Cohorts were well-balanced with the exception that COVID19- patients had significantly higher total white blood cell counts and circulating neutrophils and COVID19+ patients were more likely to suffer bilateral pneumonia compared to COVID19- patients. Further, the mortality rate for this cohort of COVID19+ ICU patients was 29%. Transcriptional analysis revealed that when compared to COVID19- patients, the altered transcriptional responses of leukocytes in critically ill COVID19+ ICU patients appeared to be associated with multiple interrelated outcomes, including but not limited to robust interferon (IFN)-associated transcriptional responses, a marked decrease in the transcriptional activity of genes contributing to protein synthesis and the dysregulated expression of genes that contribute to coagulation, platelet activation, Toll-like receptor activation, neurotrophin signaling, and protein SUMOylation/ubiquitination. Conclusions: COVID19+ patients on day 1 of admission to the ICU display a unique leukocyte transcriptional profile that distinguishes them from COVID19- patients. Identification of this profile provides guidance for future targeted studies exploring novel prognostic/therapeutic aspects of COVID19.

Project description:Objective: It is unclear whether the host response of gram-positive sepsis differs from gram-negative sepsis at a transcriptome level. Using microarray technology, we compared the gene-expression profiles of gram-positive sepsis and gram-negative sepsis in critically ill patients. Design: A prospective cross-sectional study. Setting: A 20-bed general intensive care unit of a tertiary referral hospital. Patients: Seventy-two patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Interventions: Intravenous blood was collected for leukocyte separation and RNA extraction. Microarray experiements were then performed examing the expression level of 19,232 genes in each sample. Measurements and Main Results: There was no difference in the expression profile between gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis. The finding remained unchanged even when genes with lower expression level were included or after statistical stringency was lowered. There were, however, ninety-four genes differentially expressed between sepsis and control patients. These genes included those involved in immune regulation, inflammation and mitochondrial function. Hierarchical cluster analysis confirmed that the difference in gene expression profile existed between sepsis and control patients, but not between gram-positive and gram-negative patients. Conclusion: Gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis share a common host response at a transcriptome level. These findings support the hypothesis that the septic response is non-specific and is designed to provide a more general response that can be elicited by a wide range of different micro-organisms. The study included seventy-two critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of Nepean Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Of these, fifty-five patients were diagnosed to have sepsis, as confirmed by microbiological culture. The remaining seventeen patients did not have sepsis and were therefore used as controls. The study was approved by the hospital ethics committee and informed consent was obtained from all patients or their relatives. Patient Samples. Whole blood was taken from each patient on admission to ICU. Neutrophils were separated from whole blood using density-gradient separation with Ficoll-PaqueP P(Amersham). Subsequent neutrophil RNA extraction was performed using guanidinium thiocyanate (Ambion). Microarray Experiment. The neutrophil RNA was converted to cDNA, fluorescently labeled and hybridized to its complimentary sequences on the microarray (Invitrogen). The fluorescent signals on each micrroarray were captured using the GenePix 4000B laser scanner (Axon Instruments). Expression level of each gene was represented by the intensity of its fluorescent signal. Data Extraction. All signal intensity values were processed using background-subtraction method. Prior to analysis, all values were log-transformed and normalized by fitting a print-tip group Lowess curve. Normalization minimizes bias due to dye chemistry, signal intensity or location of a gene on the array. It ensures the detection of genes that are truly differentially expressed, instead of those caused by experimental artifacts or variation in the hybridization process. After normalization, genes that had more than 50% of data missing were removed. We then selected genes that had at least 80% of the data showing two-fold changes from the geneâs median values. After filtering, 1617 genes were available for further analysis.

Dataset Information

CMV in critically ill patients: pathogen or bystander?

Publications

CMV in critically ill patients: pathogen or bystander?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets