Assessing Neutrophil CD64 Expression: A Key Biomarker for Diagnosing Infections and Evaluating Antibiotic Therapy in Acute Leukemia Patients

Mohebbi, Alreza; Saki, Najmaldin; Karimpourian, Hossein; Alizadeh, Shaban

doi:10.61186/ijbc.16.3.23

Volume 16, Issue 3 (September 2024 2024) Iranian Journal of Blood and Cancer 2024, 16(3): 23-31 | Back to browse issues page

‎ 10.61186/ijbc.16.3.23

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Mohebbi A, Saki N, Karimpourian H, Alizadeh S. Assessing Neutrophil CD64 Expression: A Key Biomarker for Diagnosing Infections and Evaluating Antibiotic Therapy in Acute Leukemia Patients. Iranian Journal of Blood and Cancer 2024; 16 (3) :23-31
URL: http://ijbc.ir/article-1-1575-en.html

Assessing Neutrophil CD64 Expression: A Key Biomarker for Diagnosing Infections and Evaluating Antibiotic Therapy in Acute Leukemia Patients

Alreza Mohebbi¹

, Najmaldin Saki²

, Hossein Karimpourian³

, Shaban Alizadeh ^*⁴

1- Department of Hematology and Blood Transfusion, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2- Thalassemia and Hemoglobinopathy Research Center, Health Research Institute, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran. & Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
3- Thalassemia and Hemoglobinopathy Research Center, Health Research Institute, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran & Department of Medical Oncology, School of Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
4- Department of Hematology and Blood Transfusion, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical sciences, Tehran, Iran , alizadehs@sina.tums.ac.ir

Abstract: (538 Views)

Introduction: Patients with acute leukemia (AL) are at an increased risk of infection, particularly in acute or critical situations, where timely identification of the cause of infection is crucial. While traditional methods such as microbial cultures remain the gold standard, they require 24–48 hours for results. In recent years, novel biomarkers like neutrophil CD64 expression have been widely investigated as indicators of infection. However, the diagnostic utility of CD64 within the clinical context of AL patients, especially those who are neutropenic and undergoing treatment, has not been extensively studied. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the diagnostic potential of neutrophil CD64 expression in monitoring the progression of infection and evaluating antibiotic therapy in AL patients complicated by infection.
Methods: Forty AL patients (20 in the infection group and 20 in the non-infection group), along with 40 healthy controls, were recruited. Data on the percentage of neutrophil CD64+ (%CD64+), CD64 index, C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell (WBC) count, and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) were collected.
Results: Patients with infection exhibited higher %CD64+, CD64 index, and CRP levels compared to those without infection (p<0.001). The sensitivity of both %CD64+ and the CD64 index in diagnosing infection was 90%, while their specificities were 83.3% and 86.7%, respectively. Furthermore, in the infection group, both %CD64+ and the CD64 index were significantly down-regulated after effective antibiotic therapy (p<0.001).
Conclusion: CD64 shows significant promise in enhancing diagnostic precision and in assessing the effectiveness of antibiotic therapy in AL patients.

Keywords: CD64 index, Infection, Acute leukemia, Antibiotic therapy

Full-Text [PDF 602 kb] (212 Downloads)

: Original Article | Subject: Adults Hematology & Oncology
Received: 2024/07/22 | Accepted: 2024/09/23 | Published: 2024/09/30

References

1. Bray, F., et al., Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin, 2018. 68(6): p. 394-424. [DOI:10.3322/caac.21492]

2. Hansen, B.A., et al., Febrile Neutropenia in Acute Leukemia. Epidemiology, Etiology, Pathophysiology and Treatment. Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis, 2020. 12(1): p. e2020009. [DOI:10.4084/mjhid.2020.009]

3. Tebbi, C.K., Etiology of Acute Leukemia: A Review. Cancers (Basel), 2021. 13(9). [DOI:10.3390/cancers13092256]

4. Crawford, J., D.C. Dale, and G.H. Lyman, Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: risks, consequences, and new directions for its management. Cancer, 2004. 100(2): p. 228-37. [DOI:10.1002/cncr.11882]

5. KVI, R., - Infections in Patients with Acute Leukemia. Infections in Hematology, 2014. 27: p. 3-23. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-662-44000-1_1]

6. Logan, C., D. Koura, and R. Taplitz, Updates in infection risk and management in acute leukemia. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program, 2020. 2020(1): p. 135-139. [DOI:10.1182/hematology.2020000098]

7. Kern, W.V., et al., Fluoroquinolone resistance of Escherichia coli at a cancer center: epidemiologic evolution and effects of discontinuing prophylactic fluoroquinolone use in neutropenic patients with leukemia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis, 2005. 24(2): p. 111-8. [DOI:10.1007/s10096-005-1278-x]

8. Fihman, V., et al., Stenotrophomonas maltophilia--the most worrisome threat among unusual non-fermentative gram-negative bacilli from hospitalized patients: a prospective multicenter study. J Infect, 2012. 64(4): p. 391-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.jinf.2012.01.001]

9. Lai, C.C., et al., Correlation between antibiotic consumption and resistance of Gram-negative bacteria causing healthcare-associated infections at a university hospital in Taiwan from 2000 to 2009. J Antimicrob Chemother, 2011. 66(6): p. 1374-82. [DOI:10.1093/jac/dkr103]

10. Freifeld, A.G., et al., Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of america. Clin Infect Dis, 2011. 52(4): p. e56-93. [DOI:10.1093/cid/cir073]

11. Fontela, P.S., S. O'Donnell, and J. Papenburg, Can biomarkers improve the rational use of antibiotics? Curr Opin Infect Dis, 2018. 31(4): p. 347-352. [DOI:10.1097/QCO.0000000000000467]

12. Larsen, F.F. and J.A. Petersen, Novel biomarkers for sepsis: A narrative review. Eur J Intern Med, 2017. 45: p. 46-50. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejim.2017.09.030]

13. García-Salido, A., et al., Accuracy of CD64 expression on neutrophils and monocytes in bacterial infection diagnosis at pediatric intensive care admission. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis, 2019. 38(6): p. 1079-1085. [DOI:10.1007/s10096-019-03497-z]

14. Rogina, P., et al., Neutrophil CD64 molecule expression can predict bloodstream infection in septic shock patients. Clin Chem Lab Med, 2017. 55(6): p. e130-e132. [DOI:10.1515/cclm-2016-0776]

15. Yang, A.P., et al., Neutrophil CD64 combined with PCT, CRP and WBC improves the sensitivity for the early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis. Clin Chem Lab Med, 2016. 54(2): p. 345-51. [DOI:10.1515/cclm-2015-0277]

16. Ye, Z., et al., Diagnostic performance of neutrophil CD64 index in patients with sepsis in the intensive care unit. J Int Med Res, 2019. 47(9): p. 4304-4311. [DOI:10.1177/0300060519860677]

17. Gros, A., et al., The sensitivity of neutrophil CD64 expression as a biomarker of bacterial infection is low in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med, 2012. 38(3): p. 445-52. [DOI:10.1007/s00134-012-2483-6]

18. Gao, Y., et al., Neutrophil CD64 index as a superior indicator for diagnosing, monitoring bacterial infection, and evaluating antibiotic therapy: a case control study. BMC Infectious Diseases, 2022. 22(1): p. 892. [DOI:10.1186/s12879-022-07725-4]

19. Hung, S.K., et al., Current Evidence and Limitation of Biomarkers for Detecting Sepsis and Systemic Infection. Biomedicines, 2020. 8(11). [DOI:10.3390/biomedicines8110494]

20. Liu, Y., et al., Biomarkers for diagnosis of sepsis in patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Springerplus, 2016. 5(1): p. 2091. [DOI:10.1186/s40064-016-3591-5]

21. Hamade, B. and D.T. Huang, Procalcitonin: Where Are We Now? Crit Care Clin, 2020. 36(1): p. 23-40. [DOI:10.1016/j.ccc.2019.08.003]

22. Tan, M., et al., The diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin and C-reactive protein for sepsis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cell Biochem, 2019. 120(4): p. 5852-5859. [DOI:10.1002/jcb.27870]

23. Vassallo, M., et al., Procalcitonin and C-Reactive Protein/Procalcitonin Ratio as Markers of Infection in Patients With Solid Tumors. Front Med (Lausanne), 2021. 8: p. 627967. [DOI:10.3389/fmed.2021.627967]

24. Guo, J., et al., [Diagnostic Value of CD64(+) Index of Neutrophils for Patients with Leukemia Combined with Early Infection]. Zhongguo Shi Yan Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi, 2016. 24(5): p. 1375-1378.

25. Dai, J., et al., Neutrophil CD64 as a diagnostic marker for neonatal sepsis: Meta-analysis. Advances in clinical and experimental medicine : official organ Wroclaw Medical University, 2017. 26(2): p. 327-332. [DOI:10.17219/acem/58782]

26. Qin, D.J., et al., [Value of combined determination of neutrophil CD64 and procalcitonin in early diagnosis of neonatal bacterial infection]. Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi, 2017. 19(8): p. 872-876.

27. Liang, J., et al., Neutrophil CD64: a potential biomarker for the diagnosis of infection in patients with haematological malignancies. Hematology, 2021. 26(1): p. 970-975. [DOI:10.1080/16078454.2021.2003064]

28. Guo, X.Y., Y.K. Kang, and S.X. Guo, [Comparison of Diagnosis Values of CD64 Infection Index, CRP, PCT and NEU% in the Leukemia Complicated with Bacterial Infection]. Zhongguo Shi Yan Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi, 2018. 26(1): p. 132-135.

29. Sack, U., CD64 expression by neutrophil granulocytes. Cytometry Part B: Clinical Cytometry, 2017. 92(3): p. 189-191. [DOI:10.1002/cyto.b.21216]

30. Standage, S.W. and H.R. Wong, Biomarkers for pediatric sepsis and septic shock. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther, 2011. 9(1): p. 71-9. [DOI:10.1586/eri.10.154]

31. Wang, X., et al., Neutrophil CD64 expression as a diagnostic marker for sepsis in adult patients: a meta-analysis. Crit Care, 2015. 19(1): p. 245. [DOI:10.1186/s13054-015-0972-z]

32. Yeh, C.F., et al., Comparison of the accuracy of neutrophil CD64, procalcitonin, and C-reactive protein for sepsis identification: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intensive Care, 2019. 9(1): p. 5. [DOI:10.1186/s13613-018-0479-2]

33. Hao-Min Lan, C.C.W., Su-Hsun Liu, Chih-Huang Li, Yu-Kang Tu, Kuan-Fu Chen, Biomarkers in Diagnosis of Sepsis and Infection: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis. SSRN Electron. J., 2019.

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb