| Literature DB >> 29888294 |
Rongjiong Zheng1, Songsong Xie1, Shaniya Niyazi1, Xiaobo Lu1, Lihua Sun1, Yan Zhou1, Yuexin Zhang1, Kai Wang2.
Abstract
Brucellosis is one of the most prevalent zoonotic diseases in the world, but its pathogenesis is not very clear. At present, it is thought that it may be related to the immunity of T cells. The conclusions of related studies are inconsistent, and its clinical significance is not explicit. We searched published articles in electronic databases up to December 2017 identified as relating to the clinical features of human brucellosis in China. Only eight studies had sufficient quality for data extraction. Meta-analysis showed a significantly decreased proportion of CD4+ T cells in human brucellosis patients compared to healthy subject individuals. The frequency of CD8+ T cells was significantly higher in human brucellosis patients than that in the healthy control group. The pooled analysis presented a significant decrease of the CD4+/CD8+ ratio in human brucellosis patients compared to healthy subjects. There is immunologic dysfunction of T lymphocyte in patients with human brucellosis, the CD4+ and CD8+ T cells might be the important factors affecting the progress of brucellosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29888294 PMCID: PMC5985067 DOI: 10.1155/2018/8439813
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Immunol Res ISSN: 2314-7156 Impact factor: 4.818
Figure 1Procedure of the selection process.
Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis.
| Year | Author(s) | Region | Treatment status | Study design | Number | Sex (M/F) | NOS scale | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient | Control | Patient | Control | ||||||
| 2015 | Gao et al. [ | China | No report | Case-control design | 142 | 45 | 89/53 | 27/18 | 7 |
| 2016 | Gu et al. [ | China | No report | Case-control design | 50 | 50 | 42/8 | 38/12 | 7 |
| 2010 | Manuel et al. [ | Spain | All patients were treated | Case-control and cohort design | 24 | 24 | 17/7 | 18/6 | 8 |
| 2006 | Panagiotis et al. [ | Greece | No report | Case-control design | 35 | 15 | 28/7 | 11/4 | 7 |
| 2005 | Celik et al. [ | Turkey | All patients were treated | Case-control and cohort design | 43 | 20 | 19/24 | 11/9 | 8 |
| 1996 | Pourfathollah et al. [ | Iran | No report | Case-control design | 56 | 26 | — | 15/11 | 6 |
| 1996 | Zapata et al. [ | Spain | All patients were treated | Case-control and cohort design | 21 | 21 | 19/2 | — | 6 |
| 2005 | Akbulut et al. [ | Turkey | No report | Case-control design | 25 | 11 | 16/9 | 7/4 | 7 |
Figure 2Forest plot of the changes of peripheral blood CD3+ T cell in human brucellosis patients compared with controls.
The results of CD3+ T cell data sensitivity analysis.
| Influential analysis (random effects model) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD | 95% CI |
| Tau2 |
| |
| Omitting 1 | 0.5238 | [−2.5631; 3.6106] | 0.7395 | 10.5972 | 74.9% |
| Omitting 2 | 2.4580 | [−1.2836; 6.1997] | 0.1979 | 17.8897 | 85.7% |
| Omitting 3 | 1.9108 | [−1.9972; 5.8188] | 0.3379 | 20.2834 | 87.8% |
| Omitting 4 | 0.7666 | [−2.9579; 4.4912] | 0.6866 | 17.5758 | 85.1% |
| Omitting 5 | 2.2725 | [−1.6304; 6.1755] | 0.2538 | 19.6843 | 86.5% |
| Omitting 6 | 2.1258 | [−1.9855; 6.2371] | 0.3109 | 21.8144 | 84.7% |
| Omitting 7 | 1.2547 | [−2.6029; 5.1123] | 0.5238 | 19.8369 | 87.8% |
Figure 3Forest plot of the changes of peripheral blood CD4+ T cell in human brucellosis patients compared with controls.
The results of CD4+ T cell data sensitivity analysis.
| Influential analysis (random effects model) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD | 95% CI |
| Tau2 |
| |
| Omitting 1 | −9.4574 | [−14.0627; −4.8521] | <0.0001 | 33.4726 | 91.0% |
| Omitting 2 | −7.8215 | [−11.0090; −4.6339] | <0.0001 | 13.7059 | 80.3% |
| Omitting 3 | −8.7126 | [−13.0720; −4.3533] | <0.0001 | 30.0784 | 93.2% |
| Omitting 4 | −10.1635 | [−14.0935; −6.2334] | <0.0001 | 23.9963 | 91.9% |
| Omitting 5 | −9.2435 | [−13.6663; −4.8207] | <0.0001 | 30.8919 | 93.1% |
| Omitting 6 | −9.2212 | [−13.6181; −4.8242] | <0.0001 | 30.5423 | 93.1% |
| Omitting 7 | −9.8610 | [−13.9606; −5.7614] | <0.0001 | 26.2844 | 92.4% |
| Omitting 8 | −7.6681 | [−11.5829; −3.7532] | 0.0001 | 24.6279 | 92.3% |
Figure 4Forest plot of the changes of peripheral blood CD8+ T cell in human brucellosis patients compared with controls.
The results of CD8+ T cell data sensitivity analysis.
| Influential analysis (random effects model) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD | 95% CI |
| Tau2 |
| |
| Omitting 1 | 6.7050 | [5.7618; 7.6482] | <0.0001 | 8.3543 | 77.5% |
| Omitting 2 | 4.8388 | [3.5210; 6.1566] | <0.0001 | 8.5000 | 71.9% |
| Omitting 3 | 6.5501 | [5.6575; 7.4427] | <0.0001 | 5.7473 | 74.8% |
| Omitting 4 | 6.5028 | [5.6013; 7.4042] | <0.0001 | 7.5933 | 79.0% |
| Omitting 5 | 6.0810 | [5.1607; 7.0012] | <0.0001 | 7.4068 | 77.1% |
| Omitting 6 | 6.5711 | [5.6481; 7.4941] | <0.0001 | 8.3139 | 78.9% |
| Omitting 7 | 6.6377 | [5.7287; 7.5466] | <0.0001 | 6.5298 | 75.8% |
| Omitting 8 | 6.2442 | [5.3510; 7.1373] | <0.0001 | 7.1158 | 78.5% |
Figure 5Forest plot of the changes of peripheral blood CD4+/CD8+ ratio in human brucellosis patients compared with controls.
Figure 6Forest plot of the changes of peripheral blood Th1 cell in human brucellosis patients compared with controls.
Figure 7Forest plot of the changes of peripheral blood Th2 cell in human brucellosis patients compared with controls.