Analysis of Serum Biomarkers in Patients with Pulmonary Tuberculosis Complicated by Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis
-
摘要:
目的 分析肺结核患者合并侵袭性肺曲霉菌感染的血清标志物在临床中的诊断价值。 方法 回顾性收集昆明市第三人民医院2021年1月至2024年5月间收治的54例首诊肺结核合并侵袭性肺曲霉菌感染患者实验室检测的血液分析、肝功能、淋巴细胞及细胞因子等血清标志物结果,收集首诊单纯肺结核患者70例以及健康体检人群50例作为对照组,比较三组的血清标志物水平,分析其对肺结核患者合并侵袭性肺曲霉菌感染的相关因素及诊断价值。 结果 肺结核合并侵袭性肺曲霉菌感染在不同年龄段占比中,青年29例(53.7%)、中年15例(27.8%)、老年10例(18.5%);在不同性别占比中男性41例(75.9%),女性13例(24.1%)。肺结核合并侵袭性肺曲霉菌组的CRP 6.85(2.10,27.0) ng/L、PCT 0.05(0.05,0.15) ng/mL、RBC(4.55±0.65) 1012/L、Hb(129.13±19.10) g/L、TP(66.23±6.82) g/L、ALB (37.03±4.77) g/L、CHOL 4.30(3.71,4.91) mmol/L与单纯结核组和健康对照组相比无明显差异(P > 0.05)。肺结核合并侵袭性肺曲霉菌组的CD3+T、CD4+T、CD8+T与单纯结核组和健康对照组相比均较低,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。肺结核合并侵袭性肺曲霉菌组的IL-2、IL-4、IL-5、IL-8、IL-10、IL-12p70、IFN-α、TNF-α与健康对照组相比均较高,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05);IL-8、IL12p70、IFN-α与单纯结核组相比均较高,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。 结论 肺结核合并侵袭性肺曲霉菌感染人数以男性和青年人群为主。肺结核合并侵袭性肺曲霉菌感染者的感染程度及营养状况血清指标与单纯结核感染类似,缺乏特异性,但免疫功能明显低于单纯结核感染者,细胞因子多指标升高,其中IL-8、IL12p70、IFN-α明显升高有助于鉴别诊断于肺结核感染。 Abstract:Objective To analyze the diagnostic value of serum biomarkers in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis complicated by invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. Methods A retrospective collection of laboratory test results, including blood analysis, liver function, lymphocyte counts, and cytokine levels, from 54 patients diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis admitted to the Third People's Hospital of Kunming between January 2021 and May 2024. Additionally, 70 patients with simple pulmonary tuberculosis and 50 healthy individuals were collected as control groups to compare serum biomarker levels across the three groups and analyze relevant factors and diagnostic value for pulmonary tuberculosis patients with invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. Results Among different age groups, the incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis with invasive pulmonary aspergillosis was 29 cases (53.7%) in youth, 15 cases (27.8%) in middle age, and 10 cases (18.5%) in the elderly. In terms of gender distribution, there were 41 males (75.9%) and 13 females (24.1%). The serum levels of CRP (6.85 [2.10, 27.0]) ng/L, PCT (0.05 [0.05, 0.15]) ng/mL, RBC (4.55±0.65)×1012/L, Hb (129.13±19.10) g/L, TP (66.23±6.82) g/L, ALB (37.03±4.77) g/L, and CHOL (4.30 [3.71, 4.91]) mmol/L in the invasive pulmonary aspergillosis group showed no significant difference compared to the simple tuberculosis group and healthy control group (P > 0.05). The levels of CD3+ T, CD4+ T, and CD8+ T in the invasive pulmonary aspergillosis group were significantly lower than those in the simple tuberculosis group and healthy control group (P < 0.05). The levels of IL-2, IL-4, IL-5, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12p70, IFN - α, and TNF - α in the invasive pulmonary aspergillosis group were significantly higher than those in the healthy control group (P < 0.05); IL-8, IL-12p70, and IFN-α were also higher compared to the simple tuberculosis group, with statistical significance (P < 0.05). Conclusion The population with pulmonary tuberculosis complicated by invasive pulmonary aspergillosis is predominantly male and younger.The serum indicators of infection severity and nutritional status in these patients are similar to those with simple tuberculosis and lack specificity; however, their immune function is significantly lower than that of simple tuberculosis patients. Multiple cytokines are elevated, particularly IL-8, IL-12p70, and IFN-α, which can aid in the differential diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis infection. -
图 2 肺结核合并侵袭性肺曲霉菌组与单纯结核组和健康对照组细胞因子比较
A:3组间IL-1β比较;B:3组间IL-2比较;C:3组间IL-4比较;D:3组间IL-5比较;E:3组间IL-6比较;F:3组间IL-8比较;G:3组间IL-10比较;H:3组间IL-12p70比较;I:3组间IL-17比较; J:3组间IFN-α比较;K:3组间IFN-γ比较;L:3组间TNF-α 比较。*P < 0.05,**P < 0.01,***P < 0.001,****P <
0.0001 。Figure 2. Comparison of cytokines amongpulmonary tuberculosis combined with invasive pulmonary aspergillus group,simple tuberculosis group and healthy control group
表 1 合并感染组与单纯结核组和健康对照组年龄、性别比较[n(%)]
Table 1. Comparison of age and sex between co-infection group,simple tuberculosis group and healthy control group[n(%)]
组别 TB合并IPA
(n = 54)单纯TB
(n = 70)健康对照
(n = 50)χ2 P 性别 男 41(75.9) 44(62.9) 34(68.0) 2.413 0.299 女 13(24.1) 26(37.1) 16(32.0) 年龄(岁) 青年(18~45岁) 29(53.7) 31(44.3) 26(52.0) 1.852 0.763 中年(45~60岁) 15(27.8) 20(28.6) 12(24.0) 老年(≥60岁) 10(18.5) 19(27.1) 12(24.0) 表 2 合并感染组与单纯结核组和健康对照组感染指标比较[($ \bar x \pm s $)/M(P25,P75)]
Table 2. Comparison of infection indicators among combined infection group,simple tuberculosis group and healthy control group[($ \bar x \pm s $)/M(P25,P75)]
项目 TB合并IPA
(n = 54)单纯TB
(n = 70)健康对照
(n = 50)t/U P WBC (109/L) 6.59±2.73 6.72±2.24 6.68±2.70 0.041 0.960 PLT (109/L) 272.65±94.01 285.37±115.68 289.52±105.51 0.365 0.694 CRP (ng/L) 6.85(2.10,27.0) 6.71(1.8,19.8) 6.2(2.3,15.0) 0.756 0.685 PCT (ng/mL) 0.05(0.05,0.15) 0.05(0.05,0.05) 0.05(0.05,0.05) 3.887 0.143 表 3 合并感染组与单纯结核组和健康对照组营养指标比较[($ \bar x \pm s $)/M(P25,P75)]
Table 3. Comparison of nutritional indicators among co-infection group,simple tuberculosis group and healthy control group[($ \bar x \pm s $)/M(P25,P75)]
项目 TB合并IPA
(n = 54)单纯TB
(n = 70)健康对照
(n = 50)t/U P RBC (1012) 4.55±0.65 4.44±0.72 4.46±0.69 0.371 0.690 Hb (109/L) 129.13±19.10 127.83±19.47 126.96±20.54 0.161 0.851 TP (g/L) 66.23±6.82 64.80±6.97 64.10±6.64 1.500 0.226 ALB (g/L) 37.03±4.77 34.55±6.51 33.32±5.02 3.035 0.051 GLOB (g/L) 29.20±7.23 29.57±6.29 29.47±5.72 0.395 0.821 TG (nmol/L) 1.10(0,90,1.48) 1.17(0.82,1.47) 1.21(0.99,1.56) 1.136 0.567 CHOL (nmol/L) 4.30(3.71,4.91) 4.19(3.76,4.84) 4.17(3.77,5.00) 0.168 0.920 HDL-C (mmol/L) 0.99(0.83,1.17) 1.00(0.75,1.26) 0.97(0.80,1.16) 0.027 0.986 表 4 合并感染组与单纯结核组和健康对照组淋巴细胞亚群比较[($ \bar x \pm s $)/M(P25,P75)]
Table 4. Comparison of lymphocyte subsets among co-infection group,simple tuberculosis group and healthy control group[($ \bar x \pm s $)/M(P25,P75)]
项目 TB合并IPA
(n = 54)单纯TB
(n = 70)健康对照
(n = 50)t/U P CD3 (个/μL) 984.74±430.90### 1025.59 ±463.70###1366.98 ±347.7613.573 <0.001*** CD4 (个/μL) 571.60±285.60## 605.33±311.11## 770.18±195.44 8.392 <0.001*** CD8 (个/μL) 397.61±201.87### 402.01±201.55## 547.58±183.01 10.042 <0.001*** CD4/CD8 (个/μL) 1.53(1.23,1.96) 1.48(1.08,1.79) 1.4(1.15,1.71) 1.962 0.090 3组间比较,***P < 0.001;TB合并IPA与健康对照比较,##P < 0.01,###P < 0.001;单纯TB与健康对照比较,##P < 0.01,###P < 0.001。 表 5 合并感染组与单纯结核组和健康对照组细胞因子比较[M(P25,P75),pg/mL]
Table 5. Comparison of cytokines among co-infection group,simple tuberculosis group and healthy control group[M(P25,P75),pg/mL]
项目 TB合并IPA
(n = 54)单纯TB
(n = 70)健康对照
(n = 50)U P IL-1β 4.99(2.64,12.46) 4.33(2.15,10.5) 3.32(1.71,6.81) 4.807 0.090 IL-2 2.39(1.32,3.02)# 1.67(1.10,3.29) 1.41(1.20,2.25) 6.311 0.043* IL-4 1.85(1.27,2.40)#### 1.49(1.07,2.36) 1.27(0.94,1.56) 17.763 <0.001*** IL-5 3.13(2.33,3.93)### 2.78(1.34,3.38) 1.60(1.09,2.92) 16.566 <0.001*** IL-6 4.53(2.85,7.55) 5.23(2.27,15.57) 4.58(2.95,7.55) 0.361 0.835 IL-8 2.47(1.36,5.32)#Δ 1.59(1.03,5.84) 1.62(1.23.3.51) 6.054 0.048* IL-10 2.03(1.21,2.75)# 1.46(0.85,2.16) 1.19(0,85,2.13) 7.456 0.024* IL-12p70 1.96(1.25,2.51)##Δ 1.48(0.69,2.13) 1.40(0.87,1.94) 11.228 0.004** IL-17 3.61(2.03,16.71) 2.27(1.34,13.26) 2.79(1.84,12.3) 2.614 0.271 IFN-α 2.21(1.40,2.95)##Δ 1.71(1.20,2.65) 1.42(1.06,2.05) 12.947 0.002** IFN-γ 5.34(3.11,11.59) 9.12(3.36,19.38) 4.07(2.77,10.24) 5.606 0.061 TNF-α 2.33(1.50,3.88)## 1.94(0.71,2.92) 1.24(0.42,3.09) 10.860 0.004** 3组间比较,*P < 0.05,**P < 0.01,***P < 0.001;TB合并IPA与健康对照比较,#P < 0.05,##P < 0.01,###P < 0.001,####P < 0.0001 ;TB合并IPA与单纯TB比较,ΔP < 0.05。 -
[1] Richterman A,Steer-Massaro J,Jarolimova J,et al. Cash interventions to improve clinical outcomes for pulmonary tuberculosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Bull World HealthOrganization,2018,96(7):471-483. doi: 10.2471/BLT.18.208959 [2] 徐艺铭,刘慧. 侵袭性肺曲菌病和浸润型肺结核的影像鉴别[J]. 影像研究与医学应用,2021,5(20):39-41. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2096-3807.2021.20.017 [3] 孟原竹,蒋国路,陈小兵,等. 肺结核合并侵袭性肺曲霉感染临床特征及危险因素分析[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版),2023,16(4):541-543. [4] 林俊杰,李嘉琪,罗素云,等. 胸部CT 结合床旁气管镜对侵袭性肺曲霉病的早期诊断价值研究[J]. 中国CT和MRI杂志,2023,21(4):73-75. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-5131.2023.04.026 [5] 张小红,周 宸,罗远明,等. 慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重患者合并侵袭性肺曲霉菌病的临床特征及相关因素分析[J]. 中华医学杂志,2023,103(22):1692-1699. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20221106-02333 [6] 中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会. 肺结核诊断标准(WS 288-2017)[J]. 中国感染控制杂志,2018,17(7):642-652. [7] De Pauw B,Walsh T J,Donnelly J P,et al. Revised definitions of invasive fungal disease from the European Organizationfor Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal InfectionsCooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) ConsensusGroup[J]. Clin Infect Dis,2008,16(12):1813-1821. [8] 中华医学会呼吸病学分会感染学组,中华结核和呼吸杂志编辑委员会. 肺真菌病诊断和治疗专家共识[J]. 中华结核和呼吸杂志,2007,30(11):821-834. doi: 10.3760/j.issn:1001-0939.2007.11.008 [9] Bagcchi Sanjeet. WHO’ s global tuberculosis report 2022[J]. The Lancet Microbe,2023,4(1):e20. [10] 舒薇,刘宇红. 世界卫生组织《2023年全球结核病报告》解读[J]. 结核与肺部疾病杂志,2024,5(1):15-19. [11] 邢二庆,王成祥,尚家星,等. 儿童肾病综合征并发侵袭性真菌感染危险因素及血清 PCT 和 CRP 水平[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志,2021,31(13):1987-1991. [12] 刘锴. 急性肺曲霉菌病动物模型建立及肿块型肺真菌病CT影像学特征研究[D]. 上海:第二军医大学,2011. [13] Shi C,Shan Q,Xia J,et al. Incidence,risk factors and mortality of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in patients with influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Mycoses,2022,65(2):152-163. [14] Yerbnaga I W,Nakanabo Diallo S,Rouamba T,et al. A systematic review of epidemiology,risk factors,diagnosis,antifungal resistance,and management of invasive aspergillosis inAfrica[J]. J Mycol Med,2022,33(1):101328. [15] 林亚纳,张小菲,洪亚妮,等. 不同免疫状态侵袭性肺曲霉菌病患者实验室指标分析[J]. 中国免疫学杂志,2023,39(10):2211-2216. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-484X.2023.10.034 [16] 胡传玺,刘灵燕,李漫. 血清白细胞介素-10、白细胞介素-17、白细胞介素-23检测对慢性阻塞性肺疾病合并侵袭性肺曲霉菌感染的诊断及预后评估价值[J]. 陕西医学杂志,2023,52(10):1415-1418. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7377.2023.10.030 [17] 邵长周,瞿介明,何礼贤,等. 侵袭性肺曲霉菌病鼠模型的建立及γ-干扰素和肺组织细菌负荷的动态变化[J]. 中国实用内科杂志,2007,(21):1725-1728. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-2194.2007.21.029 -