Immune phenotyping based on neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and IgG predicts disease severity and outcome for patients with COVID-19

Introduction

Since December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has quickly spread across the world.¹ Approximately 20-30% of cases would develop severe illness, and some need further intervention in intensive care unit. Organ dysfunction including acute respiratory distress syndrome, shock, acute cardiac injury, and acute renal injury, could occur in severe cases with COVID-19, which lead to poor clinical outcome.^2,3 Following SARS-CoV-2 infection, a high viral load and overexuberant host immune response involving innate and acquired immunity, simultaneously contributes to the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and organ injury.^2-4 The activated host immunity is characterized as lymphopenia, cytokine release storm (CRS), and dysfunctional immune responses to virus-specific antigen. Increasing clinical data indicated that the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was identified as a powerful predictive and prognostic indicator for severe COVID-19. However, the dynamic of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody upon virus infection and their relation to disease status and outcome remains to be determined.⁵

Here, we evaluated antibody response within 35 days after symptom onset in laboratory-confirmed case with COVID-19 as one component of an overall exaggerated immune activation in severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, and developed an immune phenotyping based on late IgG response and NLR that could help determine disease severity and clinical outcome of COVID-19 patients.

Methods

Results

A total of 222 patients with a diagnosis of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recorded in the Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University were analyzed. Median age was 62 years (IQR; range from 52 to 69 years), and 48.2% of patients were male. 39.2% of patients were severe at the time of sampling. As of March 12, 2020, 5 patients (2.3%) died. A total of 121 patients (54.5%) required supplemental oxygen at some stage of illness. A total of 111 patients were administrated with high-dose corticosteroid. The number of patients receiving mechanical ventilation and administration of intravenous immunoglobin were 31 (14.0%) and 123 (55.4%), respectively. 194 patients recovered from this infected disease, and 59 severe patients recovered by anti-viral and supported therapy.

All patients had convalescent-phase sera for analysis. Of these, 98.6% of patients had anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG detected in sera, and 82.0% had anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgM detected in sera. As shown in figure 1A, IgG was first detected on day 4 of illness, and its peak levels occurred in the fourth week, whereas IgM was first detected on day 3 of illness, and its peak levels occurred in the second week. Median IgG and IgM levels in convalescent-phase sera (within 35 days) for all included patients were compared among severe and nonsevere patients. Higher IgM levels were detected in patients with severe disease compared to those with nonsevere disease at early stage (<14 days), whereas higher IgG levels were detected at late stage (≥21 days) (figure 1B and 1C). We used median as cut-off value to stratify high and levels of IgM and IgG. Interestingly, severe cases were more frequently occurred in patients with low IgM levels (<34.1 AU/mL) than those with high IgM levels (≥3.04 AU/mL) (81.3% versus 40%; p=0.024) (figure 1D). Severe cases were more frequently found in patients with high IgG levels (≥116.9 AU/mL), compared to those who with low IgG levels (<116.9 AU/mL) (51.8% versus 32.3%; p=0.008) (figure 1E).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Median anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM levels in patients with severe or nonsevere illness within 35 days after symptom onset.

(A) Median IgG and IgM levels in all patients. (B) Comparing median IgG levels between severe and nonsevere patients. (C) Comparing median IgM levels between severe and nonsevere patients. (D) Comparing the frequency of severity and nonseverity between patients with low IgM levels (<34.1 AU/mL) or high IgM levels (≥3.04 AU/mL). (E) Comparing the frequency of severity and nonseverity between patients with low IgG levels (<116.9 AU/mL) or high IgG levels (≥116.9 AU/mL). CLIA: chemiluminescence analysis.

Considering NLR is linked to innate immunity, and anti-IgG response is an indicator of acquired immunity, we stratified patients at late stage into four different immune response phenotypes: high NLR and high IgG levels (NLR^hiIgG^hi), high NLR and low IgG levels (NLR^hiIgG^lo), low NLR and high IgG levels (NLR^loIgG^hi), and low NLR and high IgG levels (NLR^loIgG^lo), according to NLR (cutoff: 3.04) and detected IgG levels (cutoff: 116.9 AU/mL). Severity rates for patients with NLR^hiIgG^hi, NLR^hiIgG^lo, NLR^loIgG^hi, and NLR^loIgG^lo phenotype were 72.3% (34/47), 48.5% (16/33), 33.3% (12/36), and 15.6% (5/32), respectively (p<0.0001) (figure 2A).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Immune response phenotyping with diverse disease severity according to NLR and IgG levels.

We next asked whether proinflammatory cytokines levels and T cell count were consistent with the above immune phenotyping. As shown in table 1, severe patients had higher proinflammatory cytokines levels including IL-2, IL-6 and IL-10 than nonsevere patients, especially in the NLR^hiIgG^hi or NLR^hiIgG^lo phenotype (p<0.05). Furthermore, severe patients with the NLR^hiIgG^hi or NLR^hiIgG^lo phenotype had higher proinflammatory cytokines levels including IL-2, IL-6 and IL-10, and decreased CD4+ T cell count, compared to those with the NLR^loIgG^lo phenotype (p<0.05). In particular, only IgG and IgM were higher in severe patients with the NLR^loIgG^hi phenotype than those in the NLR^loIgG^lo phenotype (p<0.05).

We also analyzed the treatment and clinical outcome for patients with different combined immune response phenotypes. Follow up the patients so far, 44.1% of patients with NLR^hiIgG^hi phenotype, 43.8% of patients NLR^hiIgG^lo phenotype, 16.7% of patients with NLR^loIgG^hi phenotype received mechanical ventilation, but no patients with NLR^loIgG^lo phenotype were treated with mechanical ventilation. All nonsevere patients did not develop severe disease. Recovery rate for severe patients with NLR^hiIgG^hi, NLR^hiIgG^lo, NLR^loIgG^hi, and NLR^loIgG^lo phenotype was 58.8% (20/34), 68.8% (11/16), 80.0% (4/5), and 100% (12/12), respectively (p=0.0592) (figure 2B). Dead cases only found in population with the NLR^hiIgG^hi or the NLR^hiIgG^lo phenotypes (figure 2C). However, too few severe cases at early stage had convalescent sera collected to allow separate analysis of anti-IgM response.

Discussion

In this study, we found enhanced IgM levels at early stage, and high levels were more frequently found in patients with severe disease. IgG levels increased at late stage, whereas high levels of IgG were frequently found in patients with severe disease. These results indicated that beside the antiviral efficacy, the antibody response might be associated with secondary antibody-mediated organ damage. Using NLR and IgG levels detected in sera at late stage, we develop a combined immune response phenotype, which could predict disease severity and the outcome of COVID-19 patient. To our knowledge, this is the first in the literatures to combine indicators from innate and acquired immunity to predict disease severity and outcome.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG can be detected at day 4 after onset, and it has peak levels at the fourth week, which is similar to the Anti-SARS-CoV-IgG response profile.⁶ Previous data showed severe SARS was associated more robust serological responses including early seroconversion (<day 16) and higher IgG levels.⁷ Low antibody titres were observed in patients with mild SARS or diseases with other viral infection.^8-10 Be consistent with findings, present study supported that a robust humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 correlated with disease severity. Furthermore, we believe that this robust acquired anti-IgG response not only contributes to viral clearance, but also leads to robust immune-mediated tissue damage.

Lymphopenia, neutrophilia, and high NLR are commonly presented and associated with more severe viral infection.^3,11,12 Recent data indicated that the NLR was identified as a powerful predictive and prognostic factor for severe COVID-19.⁵ Thus, we develop simple combined immune response phenotypes using NLR, an indicator of innate immunity, and IgG, an indicator of acquired immunity. These four immune response phenotypes could be useful to distinguish the severe from the nonsevere cases and predict clinical outcome. We observed more severe cases occurred in NLR^hiIgG^hi or NLR^hiIgG^lo phenotypes, with only three dead cases. Patients with NLR^hiIgG^hi or NLR^hiIgG^lo appeared to be difficult to recover from severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to NLR^loIgG^hi or NLR^loIgG^lo phenotype. A third of patients with NLR^loIgG^hi had critical illness, suggesting that IgG response alone could lead to disease deterioration. Furthermore, high Th1 cytokine IFN-γ, proinflammatory cytokines IL-6, TNF-α, and IL-10 were noted in NLR^hiIgG^hi or NLR^hiIgG^lo phenotypes. Accordingly, we speculated that anti-IgG humoral response directly contributed to tissue damage. In SARS-CoV/macaque models, Liu et al. found anti-spike IgG, the presence of high anti-spike IgG prior to viral clearance, abrogated wound-healing responses and promoted proinflammatory cytokines monocyte chemotactic protein 1 and IL-8 production and monocyte/macrophage recruitment and accumulation, eventually cause fatal acute lung injury during SARS-CoV infection.¹³

Thus, we proposed potential mechanisms associated with different immune response phenotypes and presented specific treatment recommendations which would be helpful in guiding clinical decision (figure 3). For example, in the NLR^hiIgG^lo group, both virus directly mediated tissue damage and CRS are responsible for disease development. In this scenario, anti-virus, tocilizumab, and serum from convalescent should be considered. However, serum from convalescent should only be used in patients with low IgG levels and should not be used in the patients with high IgG level since its use might aggravate the disease especially in the patients with NLR^hiIgG^hi phenotype.¹⁴ Tocilizumab treatment might not be beneficial for patients with low NLR, because these patients are in the immunosuppression stage rather than in CRS stage.¹⁵

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3: Immune response phenotyping with different immunological mechanisms associated with organ damage, and potential therapeutic strategies against severe COVID-19.

Our retrospective investigation had some limitations. Firstly, virus titers were not monitored during SARS-CoV-2 infection and patient recovery. Higher IgG levels, however, were previously detected in patients who had negative pre-discharge fecal RT-PCR results and SARS-CoV-infected rhesus macaques that had markedly reducing virus titers.⁷ Secondly, it is unknown whether the change or increase of IgM or IgA is related to disease severity. The mechanism responsible for the immunopathologic reaction of IgG remains elusive. Finally, the IgG response and its correlation to the severity of COVID-19 in patients without high-dose corticosteroid intervention have not been addressed. Nevertheless, our findings indicate that severe COVID-19 was associated with a more robust IgG response that can be developed as an acquired immunity-related marker to predictive disease severity, along with other innate immunity-relate makers such as NLR. Further study on the immunopathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is warranted.

Contributors

JW, BZ and QS had the idea for and designed the study and had full access to all data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. BiZh, XZ and CZ contributed to writing of the report. BZ contributed to critical revision of the report. JW and BiZh contributed to the statistical analysis. All authors contributed to data acquisition, data analysis, or data interpretation, and reviewed and approved the final version.

Declaration of interests

All authors declare no competing interests.

Data sharing

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Participant data without names and identifiers will be made available after approval from the corresponding author and National Health Commission. After publication of study findings, the data will be available for others to request. The research team will provide an email address for communication once the data are approved to be shared with others. The proposal with detailed description of study objectives and statistical analysis plan will be needed for evaluation of the reasonability to request for our data. The corresponding author will make a decision based on these materials. Additional materials may also be required during the process.