Neutrophil Z Is a Novel Marker to Differentiate Disease Flares From Bacterial Infections in Febrile SLE Patients
- PMID: 40302194
- DOI: 10.1111/1756-185X.70243
Neutrophil Z Is a Novel Marker to Differentiate Disease Flares From Bacterial Infections in Febrile SLE Patients
Abstract
Aim and objectives: To assess the role of newer biomarkers like neutrophil Z, myeloid-related protein 8/14 (MRP 8/14), IL-6, sCD14, and neutrophil CD64 (nCD64) to distinguish flare from infection in febrile lupus patients.
Methods: In this prospective multicentric observational study to determine the etiology of fever in febrile lupus patients, in addition to routine tests, serum procalcitonin, neutrophil X, neutrophil Y, and neutrophil Z were done. sCD14, MRP8/14, and IL-6 were done by ELISA. nCD64 expression was measured by flow cytometry. All these biomarkers were assessed individually and in combination to see their ability to distinguish between infection and lupus flare.
Results: Among 159 febrile SLE patients, there were 55 infections, 65 disease flares, 38 flares and infections combined, and 1 malignancy. Patients with bacterial infections had a higher CRP, procalcitonin, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, Neutrophil Z, sCD14 levels, and neutrophil CD64 expression. While patients with flares had lower C3, C4, and higher anti-DsDNA antibody levels. IL-6 and MRP8/14 levels were similar in both groups. Combination of neut-Z with C3 or anti-dsDNA antibody could discriminate between flare and infection with AUC 0.88 (0.80-0.96) and 0.86 (0.78-0.95). Addition of TLC or procalcitonin or nCD64 MFI to these scores improved them marginally. Though composite scores with CRP and anti-dsDNA/procalcitonin also performed well but these were inferior to neutrophil Z-based composite models. These results were consistent in sensitivity analysis.
Conclusion: Neutrophil Z, complement C3, anti-dsDNA antibody levels, and TLC or procalcitonin-based composite score are good tools to differentiate between infection and flare in a febrile lupus patient. Serum MRP 8/14, IL-6, sCD14, and nCD64 did not perform well. Simple biomarkers such as neut-Z should be investigated further in SLE.
Keywords: anti‐dsDNA autoantibody; bacterial infections; biomarkers; interleukin‐6; neutrophil Z; procalcitonin; systemic lupus erythematosus.
© 2025 Asia Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Similar articles
-
Peripheral neutrophil CD64 index combined with complement, CRP, WBC count and B cells improves the ability of diagnosing bacterial infection in SLE.Lupus. 2019 Mar;28(3):304-316. doi: 10.1177/0961203319827646. Epub 2019 Feb 2. Lupus. 2019. PMID: 30712491
-
Differentiating flare and infection in febrile lupus patients: Derivation and validation of a calculator for resource constrained settings.Lupus. 2022 Sep;31(10):1254-1262. doi: 10.1177/09612033221112066. Epub 2022 Jul 3. Lupus. 2022. PMID: 35786213
-
Neutrophil CD64 expression, procalcitonin and presepsin are useful to differentiate infections from flares in SLE patients with SIRS.Lupus. 2018 Jun;27(7):1130-1139. doi: 10.1177/0961203318763740. Epub 2018 Mar 14. Lupus. 2018. PMID: 29540108
-
Serum procalcitonin and C-reactive protein levels as diagnostic markers for distinguishing bacterial infections from lupus flares in systemic lupus erythematosus: A systematic review and meta‑analysis.Int Immunopharmacol. 2021 Dec;101(Pt B):108304. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2021.108304. Epub 2021 Oct 30. Int Immunopharmacol. 2021. PMID: 34731783
-
Development and validation of a risk calculator to differentiate flares from infections in systemic lupus erythematosus patients with fever.Autoimmun Rev. 2015 Jul;14(7):586-93. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2015.02.005. Epub 2015 Feb 20. Autoimmun Rev. 2015. PMID: 25703012 Review.
References
-
- N. Ambrose, T. A. Morgan, J. Galloway, et al., “Differences in Disease Phenotype and Severity in SLE Across Age Groups,” Lupus 25 (2016): 1542–1550, https://doi.org/10.1177/0961203316644333.
-
- A. M. Harvey, L. E. Shulman, P. A. Tumulty, C. L. Conley, and E. H. Schoenrich, “Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Review of the Literature and Clinical Analysis of 138 Cases,” Medicine (Baltimore) 33 (1954): 291–437, https://doi.org/10.1097/00005792‐195412000‐00001.
-
- M. Pistiner, D. J. Wallace, S. Nessim, A. L. Metzger, and J. R. Klinenberg, “Lupus Erythematosus in the 1980s: A Survey of 570 Patients,” Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism 21 (1991): 55–64, https://doi.org/10.1016/0049‐0172(91)90057‐7.
-
- J. Font, R. Cervera, M. Ramos‐Casals, et al., “Clusters of Clinical and Immunologic Features in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Analysis of 600 Patients From a Single Center,” Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism 33 (2004): 217–230, https://doi.org/10.1053/s0049‐0172(03)00133‐1.
-
- W. J. Zhou and C. D. Yang, “The Causes and Clinical Significance of Fever in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Retrospective Study of 487 Hospitalized Patients,” Lupus 18 (2009): 807–812, https://doi.org/10.1177/0961203309103870.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous