Profiling of inflammatory cytokines in patients with caustic gastrointestinal tract injury.

INTRODUCTION: Study of inflammatory cytokines in patients with caustic gastrointestinal tract injury is sketchy. This study investigated the cytokine profiling of patients with caustic substance ingestion, and analyzed the differences between patients with severe and mild injury.
METHODS: This prospective, cross-sectional study enrolled 22 patients admitted to Chang Gung Memorial Hospital between March and October 2018. All patients underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy in 24 hours. Patients were categorized into two subgroups, as mild (<2b, n = 11) or severe (≥2b, n = 11) group.
RESULTS: The neutrophil count was higher in severe than mild group (P = 0.032). Patients in mild and severe groups exhibited significantly higher circulating inflammatory cytokines than healthy control, including interleukin (IL)-2, IL-5, IL-8, IL-9, IL-12, IL-13, interferon-gamma inducible protein-10, macrophage inflammatory protein-1 beta, regulated upon activation, normal T cell expressed and presumably secreted and tumor necrosis factor-alpha. Furthermore, the levels of IL-2 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha were significantly higher in patients with severe group than mild group. Although there was no difference in cumulative survival between both groups (P = 0.147), the severe group received more operations (P = 0.035) and suffered more gastrointestinal complications (P = 0.035) than mild group.
CONCLUSION: Caustic substance ingestion produces mucosal damages and leads to excessive neutrophils and inflammatory cytokines in peripheral blood.

Introduction

Caustic substance ingestion is an uncommon but life-threatening condition worldwide [1]. It causes a wide spectrum of damages on aero-digestive tract and in turn various complications that are challenging to manage [2]. The severity of damages on gastrointestinal tract is associated with the caustic amount, property, concentration, and type of ingested substances [3-5]. According to the 2019 annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers, there were 185139 cases of exposure to cleaning substance [6]. The total number of caustic injury cases in Taiwan between 1996 and 2010 according to National Health Insurance Research Database was 16,001 (8,991 female patients, 7,010 male patients) [7]. In Iran, up to 33% (115 patients) cases requiring surgery [8].

Computerized tomography scan of the chest and abdomen has been reported as alternative diagnostic modality to esophagogastroduodenoscopy for the estimation of caustic injury [9,10]. Zagar’s classification is widely used in caustic patient for staging the damage of gastrointestinal tract. Over two-thirds of patients with severe injury (≥2b) in gastrointestinal tract have been shown to have higher comorbidity and mortality [11,12]. Most of them required active treatments including dilatation or surgery. Severe caustic damage of gastrointestinal would often reduce the patient’s quality of life. Corticosteroids have been prescribed for caustic injury patients to prevent the stricture formation of gastrointestinal tract; however, the benefits of corticosteroids remain still controversial [13-18].

Theoretically, caustic injury of gastrointestinal tract mucosa is thought to be associated with a high degree of systemic inflammation or cytokine storm. Nevertheless, study of inflammatory cytokine profile in these patients is still sketchy. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the cytokine profiling of patients with caustic substance ingestion, and analyze the differences between patients with severe and mild caustic gastrointestinal tract injury.

Results

A total of 22 patients were enrolled and divided into two subgroups of 11 patients according the mucosal severity of Zagar’s classification as mild group (< 2b) or severe group (≥ 2b) (Table 1). Severe group patients presented six patients with grade 3b damage in stomach and/or esophagus. Duodenum was less injured in both groups, although a P value of 0.026 was noted between two groups. There was no different between both groups in endotracheal tube with mechanical ventilation used (P = 1.000). Two patients in mild group still needed ventilator support or prevention for endoscopy.

Table 1

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy findings of patients with caustic gastrointestinal injury (n = 22).

Variable	Severe group (n = 11)	Mild group (n = 11)	P value
Esophagus			<0.001*
Grade 0, n	1	6
Grade 1, n	0	5
Grade 2a, n	3	0
Grade 2b, n	0	0
Grade 3a, n	3	0
Grade 3b, n	4	0
Stomach			<0.001*
Grade 0, n	0	8
Grade 1, n	0	1
Grade 2a, n	0	2
Grade 2b, n	1	0
Grade 3a, n	6	0
Grade 3b, n	5	0
Duodenum †			0.026*
Grade 0, n	5	11
Grade 1, n	2	0
Grade 2a, n	0	0
Grade 2b, n	1	0
Grade 3a, n	1	0
Grade 3b, n	0	0
The most severe grade			<0.001*
Grade 0, n	0	6
Grade 1, n	0	3
Grade 2a, n	0	2
Grade 2b, n	1	0
Grade 3a, n	4	0
Grade 3b, n	6	0
Endotracheal tube with mechanical ventilation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy, n (%)	2 (18.2)	2 (18.2)	1.000

Note:

† The duodenal mucosa was invisible in two cases of the severe group due to patients’ intolerance for examination.

Basic characteristics of patients were listed in Table 2. The ingested amount of caustic substance was greater in severe group and P value was 0.019 [severe group: 188 ± 130 (20–400), mild group: 58 ± 64 (5–150)]. Severe group patients had severer psychiatric problem (severe group: 10 (90.9%), mild group: 4 (36.4%), P = 0.024]. There were no significant differences in gender, acid/alkaloid, and systemic comorbidities.

Table 2

Baseline demographics of patients with caustic gastrointestinal tract injury (n = 22).

Variable	Severe group (n = 11)	Mild group (n = 11)	P value
Age, year	52.3 ± 18.1 (18–80)	48.6 ± 24.3 (25–93)	0.356
Female, n (%)	6 (54.5)	4 (36.4)	0.392
Caustic substances
Property			0.395
Acid, n (%)	4 (36.4)	6 (54.5)
Alkaline, n (%)	7 (63.6)	4 (36.4)
Neutral, n (%)	0 (0)	1 (9.1)
Strong caustics (pH < 2 or > 12)	6 (54.5)	6 (54.5)	1.000
Amount, mL	188 ± 130 (20–400)	58 ± 64 (5–150)	0.019*
Intentional ingestion, n (%)	10 (90.9)	8 (72.7)	0.586
Previous suicide attempts, n (%)	2 (18.2)	1 (9.1)	1.000
Psychiatric comorbidities, n (%)	10 (90.9)	4 (36.4)	0.024*
Depressive disorders, n (%)	5 (45.5)	1 (9.1)	0.149
Adjustment disorder, n (%)	3 (27.3)	3 (27.3)	1.000
Bipolar disorders, n (%)	2 (18.2)	0 (0)	0.476
Schizophrenia, n (%)	1 (9.1)	0 (0)	1.000
Alcohol use disorder, n (%)	3 (27.3)	4 (36.4)	1.000
Systemic comorbidities
Hypertension, n (%)	4 (36.4)	2 (18.2)	0.635
Diabetes mellitus, n (%)	2 (18.2)	2 (18.2)	1.000
Fever, n (%)	1 (9.1)	2 (18.2)	1.000

Note: Data of continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (range), and those of categorical variables were presented as numbers with percentages.

The renal function, liver enzyme, C-reactive protein and white blood cell count were described in Table 3. There were no significant differences between both groups including white blood cell count, hemoglobin and platelet. The difference of white blood cell was further analyzed. It was noted that the percentage of neutrophils was higher in severe group (84.2 ± 10.0 versus 69.8 ± 16.6%, P = 0.032) than mild group.

Table 3

Laboratory data of patients with caustic gastrointestinal tract injury (n = 22).

Variables	Severe group (n = 11)		Mild group (n = 11)		P value
	Mean ± standard deviation	Range	Mean ± standard deviation	Range
Alanine aminotransferase, U/L	23.6 ± 7.4	15–36	31 ± 16.3	12–67	0.411
Creatinine, mg/dL	0.79 ± 0.19	0.52–1.15	1.06 ± 0.68	0.58–3.05	0.199
Estimated glomerular filtration rate, mL/min/1.73m2	102.7 ± 38.0	55.9–174.3	86.1 ± 30.2	15.1–134.3	0.562
C-reactive protein, mg/dL	41.0 ± 27.2	1.0–67.7	42.3 ± 43.8	1.6–96.5	0.699
Hemoglobin, g/dL	15.3 ± 1.7	12.6–18.6	14.2 ± 1.3	11.9–16.0	0.120
Hematocrit, %	45.7 ± 5.0	37.7–54.4	42.9 ± 3.1	37.9–46.7	0.091
Platelet, 103/μL	245.6 ± 58.2	166–367	282.6 ± 65.0	138–372	0.116
White blood cell, 103/μL	15.4 ± 5.0	7.7–25.7	11.5 ± 3.4	7.5–17.7	0.078
Neutrophil, %	84.2 ± 10.0	60.8–96.0	69.8 ± 16.6	48.0–88.5	0.032*
Lymphocyte, %	11.0 ± 9.1	2.0–32.0	23.0 ± 12.9	8.2–42.0	0.013*
Monocyte, %	4.0 ± 2.0	1.9–8.5	4.7 ± 2.4	1.0–8.2	0.508
Eosinophil, %	0.5 ± 0.4	0.0–1.4	2.1 ± 2.2	0.0–6.2	0.056
Basophil, %	0.4 ± 0.4	0.0–1.0	0.5 ± 0.3	0.1–1.0	0.503

Log-rank test was performed to explore the overall survival outcome and there was no significant difference between two subgroups (P = 0.147, Table 4). Two patients expired in severe group due to acute myocardial infarction and respiratory failure combined sepsis. Compared with mild group, the severe group received more operations (P = 0.035) and had more gastrointestinal complication including stricture (P = 0.035). The average length of in-hospital stay was significantly longer in severe group compared with that in mild group (24.4 ± 20.4 versus 6.6 ± 9.0 days, P = 0.003). There were no significant differences between both group in systemic complications, ICU admission and medications used.

Table 4

Clinical outcomes of patients with caustic gastrointestinal tract injury (n = 22).

Variables	Severe group (n = 11)	Mild group (n = 11)	P value
Admission, n (%)	10 (90.9)	5 (45.5)	0.063
Hospitality, day	24.4 ± 20.4 (3–65)	6.6 ± 9.0 (1–30)	0.003*
Intensive care unit admittance, n (%)	3 (27.3)	1 (9.1)	0.586
Intensive care unit period, day	7.3 (3–15)	8 (8–8)	1.000
Medication
Proton pump inhibitor, n (%)	11 (100)	10 (90.9)	1.000
Histamine 2 blocker, n (%)	0 (0)	1 (9.1)	1.000
Antibiotic, n (%)	8 (72.7)	4 (36.4)	0.087
Operation, n (%)	5 (45.5)	0 (0)	0.035*
Hemodialysis for acute kidney injury, n (%)	0 (0)	1 (9.1)	1.000
Systemic complications
Aspiration pneumonia, n (%)	3 (27.3)	2 (18.2)	1.000
Respiratory failure, n (%)	1 (9.1)	2 (18.2)	1.000
Hepatic, n (%)	2 (18.2)	0 (0)	0.476
Renal, n (%)	1 (9.1)	1 (9.1)	1.000
Disseminated intravascular coagulation, n (%)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1.000
Gastrointestinal complications, n (%)	5 (45.5)	0 (0)	0.035*
Stricture, n (%)	4 (36.4)	0 (0)	0.090
Perforation, n (%)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1.000
Fistula, n (%)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1.000
Bleeding, n (%)	4 (36.4)	0 (0)	0.090
Endoscopic dilation, n (%)	2 (18.2)	0 (0)	0.476
Overall survival			0.147 †
3-month, n (%)	11 (100.0)	11 (100.0)
6-month, n (%)	9 (81.8)	11 (100.0)
12-month, n (%)	9 (81.8)	11 (100.0)
Follow-up period, month	10.3 ± 4.4 (3–16)	11.9 ± 3.1 (8–16)	0.537

Note: Data of continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (range), and those of categorical variables were presented as numbers with percentages.

† The p value of overall survival outcome was obtained by log-rank test.

Clinical courses of 5 patients with caustic gastrointestinal tract injury who underwent surgery were presented in Table 5. The indications for surgery were mainly esophageal stricture or gastric outlet obstruction.

Table 5

Clinical courses of 5 patients with caustic gastrointestinal tract injury who underwent surgery.

Case	Time between caustic substance ingestion and surgery (day)	Type of surgery	Indication for surgery
1	87	Gastrojejunostomy and Roux-en-Y	Gastric outlet obstruction
2	77	Feeding jejunostomy	Esophageal inlet stricture
3	10	Feeding jejunostomy and tracheostomy	Esophageal stricture
4	15	Total gastrectomy and feeding jejunostomy	Gastric necrosis with obstruction
5	2	Esophagectomy and total gastrectomy and feeding jejunostomy	Severe corrosive injury

As shown in Figs 1 and 2, patients in mild and severe groups exhibited significantly higher circulating levels of inflammatory cytokines compared with those of healthy control, including interleukin (IL)-2, IL-5, IL-8, IL-9, IL-12, IL-13, interferon-gamma inducible protein-10, macrophage inflammatory protein-1 beta, regulated upon activation, normal T cell expressed and presumably secreted and tumor necrosis factor-alpha. Furthermore, the circulating levels of IL-2 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha were higher in patients with severe group than mild group.

Fig 1

Multiplex cytokine immunoassay.

Patients in mild and severe groups exhibited significantly higher circulating inflammatory cytokines compared with those of healthy control, including IL-2, IL-5, IL-8, IL-9, IL-12 and IL-13. Furthermore, the circulating IL-2 was higher in patients with severe group than mild group.

Fig 2

Multiplex cytokine immunoassay.

Patients in mild and severe groups exhibited significantly higher circulating inflammatory cytokines compared with those of healthy control, including interferon-gamma inducible protein-10, macrophage inflammatory protein-1 beta, regulated upon activation, normal T cell expressed and presumably secreted and tumor necrosis factor-alpha. Furthermore, the circulating tumor necrosis factor-alpha was higher in patients with severe group than mild group.

Discussion

The analysis showed increased circulating levels of inflammatory cytokines (IL-2, IL-5, IL-8, IL-9, IL-12, IL-13, interferon-gamma inducible protein-10, macrophage inflammatory protein-1 beta, regulated upon activation, normal T cell expressed and presumably secreted and tumor necrosis factor-alpha) in patients with caustic gastrointestinal injury than healthy controls. In addition, the neutrophil counts and circulating levels of certain cytokines (IL-2 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha) were higher in patients with severe than mild caustic gastrointestinal injury.

As reported by previous study, the tissue damage by traumatic injuries could produce rapid immune responses. Mediators and cells of adaptive immune systems suffered temporal modification that have been classified to pro-inflammatory and counter-inflammatory and were commonly consulted as systemic inflammatory response syndrome, compensatory anti-inflammatory response syndrome or mixed antagonist response syndrome [19-21]. Elevation of serum IL-6 and IL-10 levels has been reported in the initial phase of the immune response to sepsis. [19] Osuchowski et al [20] showed that plasma concentrations of pro-inflammatory (IL-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, IL-1β, kupffer cell, macrophage inflammatory protein-2, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, and eotaxin) and anti-inflammatory (tumor necrosis factor soluble receptors, IL-10, IL-1 receptor antagonist) biomarkers were increased at the early stage of sepsis in murine model. Nevertheless, no data are available at present for patents with caustic gastrointestinal tract injury. Therefore, it is thought that the changes in circulating cytokine levels might be potential biomarkers for outcome prediction.

The pathophysiology of caustic substance ingestion injuries in gastrointestinal tract depended on a lot of elements, including ingested substance formation, pH, concentration, amount, mucosal surface contact time, viscosity, and presence or absence of food in the stomach [1,2,22]. Alkali caustic substance induced saponification or liquefaction mucosa necrosis. Acid caustic substance causes coagulum and penetrates less deeply into exposure gastrointestinal lumen tissue. So, alkali caustic injuries were more severe then acid substance [23,24]. According to our past study, “pH-dependent” in alkalis and “dose-dependent” in acids were the risk of mortality and perforation [25]. High pH of alkalis was a simple result to induce serious injuries of caustic patients, whereas acid substance induced severe gastrointestinal tract damage (Zagar’s grade ≥2 b) by both large dose and low pH.

Acid damage tissues by denaturing proteins leading to coagulation necrosis, and alkali-associated damages are caused by saponifying fats of tissues. The coagulation change is to prevent the acid penetrating to deep tissue and limit the damage. Alkalis liquefaction necrosis was easily induced to extending penetration of tissue [1]. According to Nam’s study, visceral fat, leptin as well as circulating levels of IL-1 beta and IL-6 were higher in patients with reflux esophagitis than healthy controls. The cytokine changes in caustic gastrointestinal tract damage were different than reflex esophagitis [21].

None of our patients were treated with glucocorticoids. Beneficial effects of steroid on preventing stricture formation in severe caustic ingestion, is controversial [16-18,26,27]. The anti-inflammatory effect of glucocorticoids is suggested to be due to the suppression of nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells and activator protein 1 activity through interaction with glucocorticoid receptor [28]. IL-10 is considered as a potent immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory cytokine. In our study, no significant difference in IL-10 levels between two groups of caustic patients. The stricture of caustic injury in the esophagus and stomach was increased by 20.9- and 7.1-fold, respectively, by strong acid and alkalis according our previous study [25]. In our study, 36.4% caustic patients with gastrointestinal stricture only appear in severe group and there was no significant (P = 0.09). It is suggested that use of steroid had no benefit to prevent esophageal stricture after caustic ingestion.

The most obvious limitation in this study was small sample size. Moreover, there was no further analysis for cytokine change in complication such as systemic complication, or gastrointestinal complication such as stricture. Therefore, it was difficult to conclude that there is no benefit of steroid for prevent esophageal stricture owing to no significance difference in IL-10 between two groups of caustic patients. Notably, anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha treatment with infliximab did not ameliorate the degree of fibrosis in alkali burns of the esophagus in the rat [29]. Knowing the cytokine response related complication after caustic injury may evoke more study for treatment. Further studies are necessary to elucidate the influences of immune responses on the clinical outcomes of corrosive patients.

Conclusion

This is supposed to be the first study to profile inflammatory cytokines in patients with caustic gastrointestinal tract injury. Caustic injury of the upper gastrointestinal tract causes severe mucosal damages and leads to excessive levels of inflammatory cytokines and neutrophils in the peripheral blood. The findings of this translational study provide clinical significance. Our analysis found that caustic gastrointestinal tract injury is characterized by a systemic inflammatory response that involves elevated levels of circulating inflammatory cytokines and neutrophils. The analysis showed increased circulating levels of inflammatory cytokines (IL-2, IL-5, IL-8, IL-9, IL-12, IL-13, interferon-gamma inducible protein-10, macrophage inflammatory protein-1 beta, regulated upon activation, normal T cell expressed and presumably secreted and tumor necrosis factor-alpha) in patients with caustic gastrointestinal injury than healthy controls. Furthermore, the neutrophil counts and circulating levels of certain cytokines (IL-2 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha) were higher in patients with severe than mild caustic gastrointestinal injury. Additionally, since circulating levels of IL-2 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha were higher in nonsurvivors than in survivors, these two cytokines might have clinical potential as promising prognostic markers for caustic gastrointestinal injury. In this context, clinical determination of the circulating inflammatory response, particularly IL-2 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha levels, could serve as a valuable adjunct to physiological predictors for the prediction of poor outcome.

Materials and methods

Ethical statement

This study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki and had been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital. The Institutional Review Board number allocated to the study was 201602045B0. Informed written consent was obtained from all patients according to the guidelines of our institutional review board. Since some of the patients had psychiatric comorbidities, all patients were routinely assessed for capacity to consent by the principal investigator (H.-T.C.). Patient who had impaired capacity to consent were excluded from this study. The participation in this study was voluntary and patients can opt out at any time. None of the patients underwent treatment at the time of the study. Furthermore, participation in this study did not affect patient access to treatment. The Medical Ethics Committee of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital had approved the study protocol and consent procedure and knowing that some of the patients may have psychiatric comorbidities.

Patient recruitment—Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Between March 2018 and October 2018, we prospectively enrolled 22 patients, including 12 men and 10 women in Chang Gung Memorial Hospital. As mentioned, patients who refused to sign an informed consent or who had impaired capacity to consent were excluded from this study. All patients underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with blood serum collection within 24 hours after admission. The mucosal damage was graded using Zagar’s modified endoscopic classification scheme. Patients were divided into two subgroups according the mucosal severity of Zagar’s classification: mild group (< 2b) and severe group (≥ 2b). Laboratory data, including hematology and biochemistry, were collected upon arrival to the emergency department. The ingested caustic compounds were confirmed by referring to the label on containers. Strong caustics were defined as substances with pH < 2 or > 12. The obtainment of ingested dose and amounts of caustic compounds, intent of ingestion, psychiatric co-morbidities, previous suicide attempt records, treatment courses, intensive care unit admittance, and gastrointestinal/systemic complications were recorded for each case.

Endoscopic survey

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy was available around the clock at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital. The procedure was performed by experienced endoscopists within 24 hours after ingestion. Oral xylocaine spray was used, except in patients that needed ventilation support under general anesthesia for respiratory difficulty or unclear consciousness. Insufflations and retrovision maneuvers were carefully performed or avoided in patients with severe injury. Caustic mucosal damage of the gastrointestinal tract was graded using Zargar’s modified endoscopic classification as grade 0, 1, 2a, 2b, 3a or 3b [30].

Clinical management

Proton pump inhibitors or histamine 2 blockers were prescribed for the caustic injury patients. The patients also received parenteral nutrition without oral intake until their clinical status was regarded as stable. For suspected infection, blood cultures were obtained before the administration of antibiotics. Once a destabilized condition or respiratory difficulty encountered, the patient was transferred to the intensive care unit for critical care. After discharge, patients were followed in the outpatient clinic for at least 6 months.

Clinical complications

Any observed gastrointestinal or systemic complications were recorded during follow-up. Upper gastrointestinal complications included perforation, bleeding, fistula, and stricture formation. Bleeding was defined as melena, hematemesis, or coffee ground vomitus. Perforation and/or fistula formation was diagnosed using chest radiography, computed tomography or endoscopy. Stricture was indicated by symptoms of dysphagia, regurgitation, or odynophagia with confirmation via endoscopy or upper gastrointestinal radiography. Systemic complications included aspiration injury, respiratory failure, hepatic injury, renal injury, sepsis, and disseminated intravascular coagulation. Hepatic injury was defined as serum alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase levels elevated to three times the normal upper limit. Renal injury was defined as serum creatinine level >1.4 mg/dL without other noted renal diseases.

Cytokine measurements using multiplex immunoassay

Apart from blood samples of 22 patients with caustic gastrointestinal injury, blood samples from 18 healthy controls were included for comparison. Cytokine measurement was performed using the Bio-Plex Human cytokine assay kit (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA), namely IL-2, IL-5, IL-8, IL-9, IL-12, IL-13, interferon-gamma inducible protein-10, macrophage inflammatory protein-1 beta, regulated upon activation, normal T cell expressed and presumably secreted and tumor necrosis factor-alpha, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Samples from 18 healthy controls were included for comparison. In brief, 50 ul antibody-coupled beads per well were added to the flat bottom plate and wash two times. Then, 50 ul plasma sample was incubated with antibody-coupled beads for 30 minutes at room temperature. After washing three times to remove unbound materials, the beads were incubated with 25 ul biotinylated detection antibodies for 30 minutes at room temperature. After washing away the unbound biotinylated antibodies for three times washes, the beads were incubated with 50 ul streptavidin phycoerythrin for 10 minutes at room temperature. Following removal of excess streptavidin phycoerythrin for three times washes, the beads were resuspended in 125 ul assay buffer. Beads were read on the Bio-Plex suspension array system, and the data were analyzed using Bio-Plex Manager software version 6.0.

Statistical analysis

Demographic data of continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (range), and those of categorical variables were presented as numbers with percentages. All statistical tests were two-sided and were performed using IBM Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS), version 22 (IBM, Armonk, New York, USA). We conducted Mann-Whitney tests for comparing continuous variables. The categorical variables were assessed via Pearson χ2 tests, Fisher’s exact tests, or Fisher-Freeman-Halton test. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for the survival analysis, with the difference between survival curves assessed via the log-rank test. A P value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

7 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-18809

Profiling of inflammatory cytokines in patients with caustic gastrointestinal tract injury

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 21 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hsu-Heng Yen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please describe in your methods section how capacity to consent was determined for the participants in this study. Please also state whether your ethics committee or IRB approved this consent procedure. If you did not assess capacity please briefly outline why this was not necessary in this case.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors have made a good attempt to find the role of interleukins in caustic injury of GI tract. I have following comments to make:

1. Small sample size. How the study subjects were selected since both the groups (mild and severe) had equal number of patients.

2. Study was done in 2018 why it was not published in last 3 years.

3. Abbreviation of interleukin (IL) can be used instead of repeating it several times.

4. What was the aim/objective of the study.?

5. Kindly mention the aim in abstract as well.

6. Modify table 1. It is confusing as the authors have used "/"and several numbers are written in a single column. This will confuse the readers.

7. Authors should mention whether the study is cross-sectional or follow up study. They have vaguely mentioned in discussion and conclusion that it was a short follow up but the details on how the follow up was done and what was the outcome in each patients. They have mentioned that 2 patients died in 3-6 months which is very vague sentence and questions the credibility of the follow up.

8. Mention some more details regarding the type of surgery /indication/ timing etc in these patients.

9. What is the implication of this study on the treatment of patients as it is mentioned that steroids have no role in the treatment. How will the patients be benefitted by measuring the IL levels.

10. Mention the novelity of study and its role in future research.

Reviewer #2: This study analysis cytokine response after caustic gastrointestinal injury, and though the change in cytokine level might be the biomarker for outcome prediction. It showed elevation of such as interleukin (IL) 2,5, 8, 9, 12 interferon gamma, and tumor necrosis factor(TNF) alpha after caustic injury compaired with healthy controls. Especially IL-2 and TNF-alpha were higher in severe caustic injury group. But there is no further analysis for cytokine change in complication such as systemic complication, or GI complication such as stricture. It is hard to conclude that there is no benefit of steroid for prevent esophageal stricture owing to no significance difference in IL-10 in caustic injruy group. One study had analysis Infliximab, TNF alpha antibody, in experimental alkali burns of the oesophagus in the rat. Knowing the cytokine response related complication after caustic injury may evoke more study for treatment.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Shivaraj Afzalpurkar

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

1 Oct 2021

Reviewer #1: Authors have made a good attempt to find the role of interleukins in caustic injury of GI tract. I have following comments to make:

Point 1. Small sample size. How the study subjects were selected since both the groups (mild and severe) had equal number of patients.

Response: Thank you for the comment. All patients with caustic gastrointestinal tract injury seen at our hospital between March 2018 and October 2018 were included in the study. Patients who refused signed informed consent were excluded from the study. The equal number of patients of both groups was by coincidence.

Point 2. Study was done in 2018 why it was not published in last 3 years.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We apologize for the delay in manuscript preparation.

Point 3. Abbreviation of interleukin (IL) can be used instead of repeating it several times.

Response: Thank you for the comment. The term has been abbreviated.

Point 4. What was the aim/objective of the study?

Response: Thank you for the comment. This study aimed to investigate the cytokine profiling of patients with caustic substance ingestion, and analyzed the differences between patients with severe and mild caustic gastrointestinal tract injury.

Point 5. Kindly mention the aim in abstract as well.

Response: Thank you for the comment. The aim of this study has been included in the Abstract.

Point 6. Modify table 1. It is confusing as the authors have used "/"and several numbers are written in a single column. This will confuse the readers.

Response: Thank you for the comment. Table 1 has been revised.

Point 7. Authors should mention whether the study is cross-sectional or follow up study. They have vaguely mentioned in discussion and conclusion that it was a short follow up but the details on how the follow up was done and what was the outcome in each patients. They have mentioned that 2 patients died in 3-6 months which is very vague sentence and questions the credibility of the follow up.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We confirmed that this is a cross-sectional study. We apologize for the vague sentence, the inappropriate sentence has ben revised.

Point 8. Mention some more details regarding the type of surgery /indication/ timing etc in these patients.

Response: Thank you for the comment. A new Table 5 has been created to describe the clinical courses of the 5 patients who underwent surgery. The indications for operations were mainly esophageal stricture or gastric outlet obstruction.

Point 9. What is the implication of this study on the treatment of patients as it is mentioned that steroids have no role in the treatment. How will the patients be benefitted by measuring the IL levels?

Response: Thank you for the comment. None of our patients were treated with glucocorticoids. Beneficial effects of steroid on preventing stricture formation in severe caustic ingestion, is controversial according to published literatures. Nevertheless, the findings of this translational study provide clinical significance. Our analysis found that caustic gastrointestinal tract injury is characterized by a systemic inflammatory response that involves elevated levels of circulating inflammatory cytokines and neutrophils. The analysis showed increased circulating levels of inflammatory cytokines (IL-2, IL-5, IL-8, IL-9, IL-12, IL-13, interferon-gamma inducible protein-10, macrophage inflammatory protein-1 beta, regulated upon activation, normal T cell expressed and presumably secreted and tumor necrosis factor-alpha) in patients with caustic gastrointestinal injury than healthy controls. Furthermore, the neutrophil counts and circulating levels of certain cytokines (IL-2 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha) were higher in patients with severe than mild caustic gastrointestinal injury. Additionally, since circulating levels of IL-2 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha were higher in nonsurvivors than in survivors, these two cytokines might have clinical potential as promising prognostic markers for caustic gastrointestinal injury. In this context, clinical determination of the circulating inflammatory response, particularly IL-2 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha levels, could serve as a valuable adjunct to physiological predictors for the prediction of poor outcome.

Point 10. Mention the novelty of study and its role in future research.

Response: Thank you for the comment. This is supposed to be the first study to profile inflammatory cytokines in patients with caustic gastrointestinal tract injury. Caustic injury of the upper gastrointestinal tract causes severe mucosal damages and leads to excessive levels of inflammatory cytokines and neutrophils in the peripheral blood. The findings of this translational study provide clinical significance. Our analysis found that caustic gastrointestinal tract injury is characterized by a systemic inflammatory response that involves elevated levels of circulating inflammatory cytokines and neutrophils. The analysis showed increased circulating levels of inflammatory cytokines (IL-2, IL-5, IL-8, IL-9, IL-12, IL-13, interferon-gamma inducible protein-10, macrophage inflammatory protein-1 beta, regulated upon activation, normal T cell expressed and presumably secreted and tumor necrosis factor-alpha) in patients with caustic gastrointestinal injury than healthy controls. Furthermore, the neutrophil counts and circulating levels of certain cytokines (IL-2 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha) were higher in patients with severe than mild caustic gastrointestinal injury. Additionally, since neutrophil counts and circulating levels of IL-2 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha were higher in nonsurvivors than in survivors, these two cytokines might have clinical potential as promising prognostic markers for caustic gastrointestinal injury. In this context, clinical determination of the circulating inflammatory response, particularly IL-2 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha levels, could serve as a valuable adjunct to physiological predictors for the prediction of poor outcome.

Reviewer #2: This study analysis cytokine response after caustic gastrointestinal injury, and though the change in cytokine level might be the biomarker for outcome prediction. It showed elevation of such as interleukin (IL) 2,5, 8, 9, 12 interferon gamma, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha after caustic injury compaired with healthy controls. Especially IL-2 and TNF-alpha were higher in severe caustic injury group. But there is no further analysis for cytokine change in complication such as systemic complication, or GI complication such as stricture. It is hard to conclude that there is no benefit of steroid for prevent esophageal stricture owing to no significance difference in IL-10 in caustic injruy group. One study had analysis Infliximab, TNF alpha antibody, in experimental alkali burns of the oesophagus in the rat. Knowing the cytokine response related complication after caustic injury may evoke more study for treatment.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We are agreed that this study is limited by small sample size and lacking serial cytokine measurement. This important limitation has been included to the Discussion section.

The most obvious limitation in this study was small sample size. Moreover, there was no further analysis for cytokine change in complication such as systemic complication, or gastrointestinal complication such as stricture. Therefore, it was difficult to conclude that there is no benefit of steroid for prevent esophageal stricture owing to no significance difference in IL-10 between two groups of caustic patients. Notably, anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha treatment with infliximab did not ameliorate the degree of fibrosis in alkali burns of the esophagus in the rat. Knowing the cytokine response related complication after caustic injury may evoke more study for treatment. Further studies are necessary to elucidate the influences of immune responses on the clinical outcomes of corrosive patients.

Submitted filename: Response letter.doc

Click here for additional data file.

2 Nov 2021

Profiling of inflammatory cytokines in patients with caustic gastrointestinal tract injury

PONE-D-21-18809R1

Dear Dr. Yen,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Hsu-Heng Yen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

This article was reviewed by two expert reviewers and it can be accepted  in its present form.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: All the comments are addressed by the authors. As authors mentioned, clinical

determination of the circulating inflammatory response, particularly IL-2 and tumor

necrosis factor-alpha levels, could serve as a valuable adjunct to physiological

predictors for the prediction of poor outcome.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Shivaraj Afzalpurkar

8 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-18809R1

Profiling of inflammatory cytokines in patients with caustic gastrointestinal tract injury

Dear Dr. Yen:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Hsu-Heng Yen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE