Biomarkers for Lassa fever outcome?
Editorial

Biomarkers for Lassa fever outcome?

Kyle Rosenke1, David Safronetz2,3, Heinz Feldmann1,2

1Laboratory of Virology, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Rocky Mountain Laboratories, Hamilton, MT, USA; 2Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; 3Zoonotic Diseases and Special Pathogens, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Correspondence to: Kyle Rosenke. Laboratory of Virology, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Rocky Mountain Laboratories, Hamilton, MT, USA 59840; Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3E 3R2. Email: kyle.rosenke@nih.gov.

Provenance: This is an invited Editorial commissioned by the Executive Editor-in-Chief Bing Gu (Medical Technology Institute of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China; Department of Laboratory Medicine, the Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China).

Comment on: Okokhere P, Colubri A, Azubike C, et al. Clinical and laboratory predictors of Lassa fever outcome in a dedicated treatment facility in Nigeria: a retrospective, observational cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 2018;18:684-95.


Received: 31 August 2018; Accepted: 10 September 2018; Published: 26 September 2018.

doi: 10.21037/aoi.2018.09.02


Geographically, Lassa virus (LASV), the causative agent of Lassa fever (LF), is endemic to the countries of West Africa. It is thought to infect up to half a million people annually (1), although it is hard to estimate because there has never been a uniform surveillance performed across the region. Although human to human transmission occurs, particularly in nosocomial settings, LASV infection is thought to predominantly occur through interactions with a peridomestic rodent, the Mastomys natalensis (2,3). These rodents are abundant across sub-Saharan Africa living in and around homes scavenging for food, particularly in the dry season when food becomes hard to find. LASV infection is thought to occur through direct contact or ingestion of rodent excreta or saliva shed by an infected rodent.

There have been a limited number of published clinical studies on LF over the last 30 years and most are focused on epidemiology and included little information on human disease symptoms and progression. In Nigeria, the country where LASV is thought to have originated and the circulating virus population is most diverse, no large-scale studies have occurred. In a recent article published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, Okokhere and colleagues have described a rather unique clinical study on LF patients treated at the Irrua Specialist Teaching Hospital in Nigeria over nearly 5 years that followed 284 patients and matched known clinical outcomes to biomarkers (4).

In most cases, LASV causes subclinical infections or mild LF with general symptoms that include fever, headache and malaise. Pharyngitis may occur with cough, vomiting or gastrointestinal symptoms. A small proportion of LASV infections progresses beyond these general symptoms to an acute, life threatening illness. Severe cases of LF may display bleeding from mucosal surfaces, conjunctivitis, a petechial rash, swelling around the head and neck and shock. Death occurs from multi-organ failure approximately two weeks after the onset of symptoms (5-7). LF is particularly lethal during pregnancy and it is estimated that 95% of fetuses will not survive if infection occurs during the 3rd trimester (8). The study in Irrua reported a case fatality rate (CFR) of 24%. Mortality increased with age, as nearly 50% of patients over 50 years of age died. Clinical symptoms pertaining to the central nervous system (CNS) were also indicative of higher mortality rates, and those that developed encephalopathy only had a 25% chance of survival. This data correlates well with historical reports of CFRs of hospitalized cases of approximately 15–25%. Recent outbreaks in Nigeria, Liberia and Benin also reported CFR of 25% or greater (9,10) but a study in Sierra Leone reported a CFR of almost 70% in LF confirmed cases (11). However, most of those studies do not describe clinical biomarkers in association with disease outcome that Okokhere and colleagues report in their current study (4).

In the Irrua study, clinical biomarkers were found to be a more reliable marker of survival than clinical presentation of LF. Two biomarkers associated with kidney function were most indictive of fatal outcome; patients with increases in blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and creatine (CRE) were twice as likely to succumb to disease compared to those patients who did not show signs of renal damage (4). Although this is the first report in humans, the cynomolgus macaque model of LF shows similar changes in blood markers with BUN levels increasing significantly near the terminal stages of disease (12). Corresponding with the increase in BUN levels, high levels of LASV are found in the kidneys and consequently, LASV replication is the likely cause of the tissue damage and subsequent renal failure in infected macaques.

Establishing biomarkers associated with severe or lethal outcome is an important step in learning how best to manage LF patients. Apart from intensive care, the treatment of LF is still largely reliant on the broad-spectrum antiviral drug ribavirin. This nucleoside analog has been used to treat LF since the early 1980’s with varying results of efficacy. The effect of ribavirin is controversially discussed (13,14), but it is most effective when treatment is started in the first six days of illness (11,15-17). Recently, another broad-spectrum antiviral drug, favipiravir, has been successfully used to treat lethal LASV infections in mice, guinea pigs and cynomolgus macaques (18-20). This drug has received clearance in Japan to treat influenza and is in clinical trials in the United States for the same purpose. It has seen limited use for treating LF thus far (21), but the promising results in these studies suggest favipiravir use should expand in the clinic setting to further evaluate its efficacy in treating LF.

LASV load is an established diagnostic and laboratory marker for disease outcome. Unfortunately, Okokhere and colleagues (4) were unable to obtain viral load data and thus, future studies need to show the value of these newly identified biomarkers over viral load data for case patient management and disease outcome. Furthermore, viral sequencing data from the patients is not included in this study. Molecular characterization may link certain LASV clades with more severe renal or CNS complications, a finding of importance for public health.

In their study, Okokhere and colleagues have clearly expanded on the clinical aspects of LF and highlighted the significance of renal failure and to a lesser extent, CNS complications for LF outcome. Importantly, this study also serves to illustrate how much of the disease is still unknown and how much work is still needed to understand the mechanisms of LASV pathogenesis. New treatment options should continue to be developed, tested and advanced to the clinics, but moving favipiravir into clinical trials as a single treatment or combined with ribavirin seems a prudent next step. Vaccine development has taken a big step forward with support of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness (CEPI) and should continue to be improved until an efficacious universal LF vaccine is produced and distributed in West Africa. Finally, wildlife control measures need to be addressed and targeted towards the reservoir, the Mastomys natalensis.


Acknowledgements

Research on arenaviruses is funded by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.


Footnote

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


References

  1. McCormick JB. Epidemiology and control of Lassa fever. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 1987;134:69-78. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  2. Monath TP, Newhouse VF, Kemp GE, et al. Lassa virus isolation from Mastomys natalensis rodents during an epidemic in Sierra Leone. Science 1974;185:263-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. Lecompte E, Fichet-Calvet E, Daffis S, et al. Mastomys natalensis and Lassa fever, West Africa. Emerg Infect Dis 2006;12:1971-4. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  4. Okokhere P, Colubri A, Azubike C, et al. Clinical and laboratory predictors of Lassa fever outcome in a dedicated treatment facility in Nigeria: a retrospective, observational cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 2018;18:684-95. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  5. McCormick JB, King IJ, Webb PA, et al. A case-control study of the clinical diagnosis and course of Lassa fever. J Infect Dis 1987;155:445-55. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  6. Johnson KM, McCormick JB, Webb PA, et al. Clinical virology of Lassa fever in hospitalized patients. J Infect Dis 1987;155:456-64. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  7. McCormick JB, Webb PA, Krebs JW, et al. A prospective study of the epidemiology and ecology of Lassa fever. J Infect Dis 1987;155:437-44. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. Price ME, Fisher-Hoch SP, Craven RB, et al. A prospective study of maternal and fetal outcome in acute Lassa fever infection during pregnancy. BMJ 1988;297:584-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  9. Richmond JK, Baglole DJ. Lassa fever: epidemiology, clinical features, and social consequences. BMJ 2003;327:1271-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  10. Buba MI, Dalhat MM, Nguku PM, et al. Mortality Among Confirmed Lassa Fever Cases During the 2015-2016 Outbreak in Nigeria. Am J Public Health 2018;108:262-4. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  11. Shaffer JG, Grant DS, Schieffelin JS, et al. Lassa fever in post-conflict sierra leone. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2014;8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  12. Hensley LE, Smith MA, Geisbert JB, et al. Pathogenesis of Lassa fever in cynomolgus macaques. Virol J 2011;8:205. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  13. Hadi CM, Goba A, Khan SH, et al. Ribavirin for Lassa fever postexposure prophylaxis. Emerg Infect Dis 2010;16:2009-11. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. Bausch DG, Hadi CM, Khan SH, et al. Review of the literature and proposed guidelines for the use of oral ribavirin as postexposure prophylaxis for Lassa fever. Clin Infect Dis 2010;51:1435-41. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  15. Jahrling PB, Hesse RA, Eddy GA, et al. Lassa virus infection of rhesus monkeys: pathogenesis and treatment with ribavirin. J Infect Dis 1980;141:580-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  16. Jahrling PB, Peters CJ. Passive antibody therapy of Lassa fever in cynomolgus monkeys: importance of neutralizing antibody and Lassa virus strain. Infect Immun 1984;44:528-33. [PubMed]
  17. McCormick JB, King IJ, Webb PA, et al. Lassa fever. Effective therapy with ribavirin. N Engl J Med 1986;314:20-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  18. Oestereich L, Rieger T, Ludtke A, et al. Efficacy of Favipiravir Alone and in Combination With Ribavirin in a Lethal, Immunocompetent Mouse Model of Lassa Fever. J Infect Dis 2016;213:934-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  19. Rosenke K, Feldmann H, Westover JB, et al. Use of Favipiravir to Treat Lassa Virus Infection in Macaques. Emerg Infect Dis 2018;24:1696-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  20. Safronetz D, Rosenke K, Westover JB, et al. The broad-spectrum antiviral favipiravir protects guinea pigs from lethal Lassa virus infection post-disease onset. Sci Rep 2015;5:14775. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  21. Raabe VN, Kann G, Ribner BS, et al. Favipiravir and Ribavirin Treatment of Epidemiologically Linked Cases of Lassa Fever. Clin Infect Dis 2017;65:855-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
doi: 10.21037/aoi.2018.09.02
Cite this article as: Rosenke K, Safronetz D, Feldmann H. Biomarkers for Lassa fever outcome? Ann Infect 2018;2:4.