Evidence Hub

CD4+ T cells stratification unveils a dynamic pathogen landscape in severe pneumonia: a targeted next-generation sequencing-based cohort study

Shuai-Shuai Wang, Yue Yu, Lihe Che, Lu-yao Sun, Na Du, Ming-Lei Zhang

Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, 2025

286 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Background The host’s immune status is a critical determinant of the pathogen profile in pulmonary infections, but quantitative indicators to delineate this dynamic association are lacking. This study aimed to use CD4+ T cells count as an objective parameter to systematically characterize the evolution of the pathogen profile in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid-targeted next-generation sequencing (BALF-tNGS) from patients with severe pneumonia. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 286 adult patients who underwent BALF-tNGS for severe pneumonia. Patients were stratified into four strata based on CD4+ T cells count: severe immunosuppression, moderate immunosuppression, low-normal immunity, and immunocompetent. Cochran-Armitage trend test, cluster analysis, and Kruskal-Wallis test were used to analyze the associations between CD4+ T cells strata and pathogen detection rates/co-infection complexity. Results The detection rates of Pneumocystis jirovecii (PJP) and Cytomegalovirus (CMV) showed a highly significant increasing trend with decreasing CD4+ T cells strata (p < 0.05). CD4+ T cells count < 100 cells/μL was the most significant risk factor for PJP infection (detection rate 39.6%). Meanwhile, as the CD4+ T cells count decreased, the number of pathogen species detected in the patient’s BALF significantly increased, with a statistically significant difference between groups (p < 0.05). The median number in the severe immunosuppression stratum was significantly higher than that in…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 286 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free