T-cell immunity status of children with combined infection with SARS-CoV-2 and human herpesviruses

There is an opinion that COVID-19 may be the cause of the reactivation of herpesviruses.
Purpose. To study the state of the cellular link of adaptive immunity in the combined course of herpesvirus infections and COVID-19, to describe the clinical and laboratory characteristics of such conditions.
Material and methods. In 2022–2023 a cross-sectional study was conducted. 71 patients aged from 1 month to 16 years were selected. Inclusion criteria: presence of signs of acute respiratory disease associated with SARS-CoV-2 and/or mononucleosis-like syndrome associated with active herpesvirus infection. All patients underwent a standard laboratory examination, determined by nosology, and an additional assessment of the cellular link of adaptive immunity (CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, CD3+HLA-DR+, CD3- CD16+CD56+ and CD20+) on a flow cytometer using monoclonal antibodies.
Results and conclusion. The clinical pattern of the combined course of herpesvirus infection and SARS-CoV-2 differs little from monoinfections. Only at the first encounter with the Epstein-Barr virus, lymphoproliferative syndrome and hepatomegaly were more often recorded (p<0.05). Comparing the nature of the cellular immune response in patients with COVID-19 and herpesvirus infection, we observed pronounced differences. In patients with primary herpesvirus infection, the T-cell immune response was an order of magnitude higher than in acute COVID-19, herpesvirus reactivation, and co-infection, and this was true for all studied lymphocyte subpopulations. With SARS-CoV-2, a decrease in the total number of T-lymphocytes, T-helpers, and cytotoxic lymphocytes was observed. This condition, of course, cannot be called immunosuppression, but some parallel is clearly traced. And even with the combined course of SARS-CoV-2 and herpesvirus infection, the absolute values of T-cell immunity indicators do not reach the same indicators in patients without COVID-19. It is likely that this reason underlies the phenomenon of reactivation of persistent herpesviruses in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.

1. Sehrawat S., Kumar D., Rouse B.T. Herpesviruses: Harmonious Pathogens but Relevant Cofactors in Other Diseases? Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2018; 25(8): 177. DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2018.00177

2. Barton E., White D., Cathelyn J., Brett-McClellan K.A., Engle M., Diamond M.S. et al. Herpesvirus latency confers symbiotic protection from bacterial infection. Nature 2007; 447: 326–329. DOI: 10.1038/nature05762

3. Litjens N., van der Wagen L., Kuball J., Kwekkeboom J. Potential Beneficial Effects of Cytomegalovirus Infection after Transplantation. Front Immunol 2018; 1(9): 389. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00389

4. Paces J., Strizova Z., Smrz D., Cerny J. COVID-19 and the immune system. Physiol Res 2020; 69(3): 379–388. DOI: 10.33549/physiolres.934492

5. Khairallah C., Déchanet-Merville J., Capone M. γδ T Cell-Mediated Immunity to Cytomegalovirus Infection. Front Immunol. 2017; 8: 105. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00105

6. Shafiee A., Teymouri Athar M.M., Amini M.J., Hajishah H., Siahvoshi S., Jalali M. et al. Reactivation of herpesviruses during COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Med Virol 2023; 33(3): e2437. DOI: 10.1002/rmv.2437

7. Chen J., Song J., Dai L., Post S.R., Qin Z. SARS-CoV-2 infection and lytic reactivation of herpesviruses: A potential threat in the postpandemic era? J Med Virol 2022; 94(11): 5103–5111. DOI: 10.1002/jmv.27994

8. Banko A., Miljanovic D., Cirkovic A. Systematic review with meta-analysis of active herpesvirus infections in patients with COVID-19: Old players on the new field. Int J Infect Dis 2023; 130: 108–125. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2023.01.036

9. Su Y., Yuan D., Chen D.G., Ng R.H., Wang K., Choi J. et al. Multiple early factors anticipate post-acute COVID-19 sequelae. Cell 2022; 185(5): 881–895.e20. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.01.014

10. Khaidukov S.V., Baidun L.V., Zurochka A.V., Totolyan A.A. Standardized technology “study of the subpopulation composition of peripheral blood lymphocytes using flow cytofluorometers-analyzers”. Rossiiskii immunologicheskii zhurnal 2014; 8(17): 4: 974–992. (in Russ.) DOI: 10.15789/1563–0625–2012–3–255–268

11. Sologub T.V., Ledvanov M.Yu., Maly V.P., Stukova N.Yu., Romantsov M.G., Bizenkova M.N., Polyakova T.D. Immune response in viral infections. Uspekhi sovremennogo estestvoznaniya 2009; 12: 29–33. (in Russ.)

12. Sulik A., Oldak E., Kroten A., Lipska A., Radziwon P. Epstein–Barr virus effect on frequency of functionally distinct T cell subsets in children with infectious mononucleosis. Adv Med Sc. 2014; 59(2): 227–222. DOI: 10.1016/j.advms.2014.04.003

13. Kashuba E.A., Antonova M.V., Drozdova T.G., Rychkova O.A., Lyubimtseva O.A., Khanipova L.V. et al. Indicators of cellular and humoral immunity in preschool children with infectious mononucleosis during primary infection and reactivation of the Epstein–Barr virus infection. Infektsionnye bolezni: novosti, mneniya, obucheniye 2022; 11(2): 57–63. (in Russ.) DOI: 10.33029/2305–3496–2022–11–2–57–63

14. Moss P. The T cell immune response against SARSCoV-2. Nat Immunol 2022; 23:186–193. DOI: 10.1038/s41590–021–01122-w

15. Lu X., Yamasaki S. Current understanding of T cell immunity against SARS-CoV-2. Inflamm Regener 2022; 42: 51. DOI: 10.1186/s41232–022–00242–6