Combination of inflammatory and vascular markers in the febrile phase of dengue is associated with more severe outcomes ======================================================================================================================= * Nguyen Lam Vuong * Phung Khanh Lam * Damien Keng Yen Ming * Huynh Thi Le Duyen * Nguyet Minh Nguyen * Dong Thi Hoai Tam * Duong Thi Hue Kien * Nguyen Van Vinh Chau * Ngoun Chanpheaktra * Lucy Chai See Lum * Ernesto Pleités * Cameron P. Simmons * Kerstin Rosenberger * Thomas Jaenisch * David Bell * Nathalie Acestor * Christine Halleux * Piero L. Olliaro * Bridget A. Wills * Ronald B. Geskus * Sophie Yacoub ## Abstract **Background** Early identification of severe dengue patients is important regarding patient management and resource allocation. We investigated the association of ten biomarkers (VCAM-1, SDC-1, Ang-2, IL-8, IP-10, IL-1RA, sCD163, sTREM-1, ferritin, CRP) with the development of severe/moderate dengue (S/MD). **Methods** We performed a nested case-control study from a multi-country study. A total of 281 S/MD and 556 uncomplicated dengue cases were included. **Results** On days 1-3 from symptom onset, higher levels of any biomarker increased the risk of developing S/MD. When assessing together, SDC-1 and IL-1RA were stable, while IP-10 changed the association from positive to negative; others showed weaker associations. The best combinations associated with S/MD comprised IL-1RA, Ang-2, IL-8, ferritin, IP-10, and SDC-1 for children, and SDC-1, IL-8, ferritin, sTREM-1, IL-1RA, IP-10, and sCD163 for adults. **Conclusions** Our findings assist the development of biomarker panels for clinical use and could improve triage and risk prediction in dengue patients. **Summary of the main point** Higher levels of any of VCAM-1, SDC-1, Ang-2, IL-8, IP-10, IL-1RA, sCD163, sTREM-1, ferritin, and CRP on illness days 1-3 increased the risk of developing severe/moderate dengue. The relationships differed between children and adults and some changed when assessed together. Keywords * Dengue * Biomarkers * Prognostic * IL1Ra * Syndecan ## Introduction Dengue is the most common arboviral disease to affect humans globally. In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) identified dengue as one of the top ten threats to global health;[1] transmission occurs in 129 countries, with an estimated 3.9 billion people being at risk.[2] Over the last two decades, the number of reported cases per year has increased more than eight-fold,[2] and in 2020 the annual number of dengue virus (DENV) infections was estimated to be 105 million, with 51 million cases being clinically apparent.[3] With climate change, increased travel and urbanization, this rise is forecasted to continue over the coming decades.[4,5] Despite the large disease burden, there is still no specific treatment for dengue, and the only licensed vaccine is recommended only in individuals with earlier dengue infection.[6] In many dengue-endemic settings seasonal epidemics can rapidly overwhelm fragile health systems. Although most symptomatic dengue infections are self-limiting, a small proportion of patients develop complications, most of which manifest at around 4-6 days from symptom onset. Thus, large numbers of patients require regular assessments to identify complications should they arise. The accurate and early identification of such patients, particularly within the first three days of illness in the febrile phase, should allow for appropriate care to be provided and potentially increase health system effectiveness. Although the 2009 WHO dengue guidelines set out specific warning signs for use in patient triage, utility of these guidelines at identifying those at risk for complications remains limited.[7] The pathogenesis of dengue involves a complex interplay between viral factors and the host response. It is hypothesized that an excessive immune response acting through inflammatory mediators can lead to the observed manifestations of bleeding, shock and organ dysfunction. Studies have shown that in secondary infections, adaptive immune activation can result in high circulating levels of plasma cytokines and chemokines.[8–10] Binding of viral NS1 protein onto endothelial cells can act in concert with vasoactive substances, cytokines and chemokines, to result in endothelial activation and glycocalyx disruption, and these processes likely underlie the increased vascular permeability and coagulopathy.[11–13] The role of blood biomarkers in predicting severe outcomes has been investigated in many studies, but mostly at later time-points or at hospital admission and many of these biomarkers either peak too late in the disease course or have too short a half-life to be clinically useful.[14–25] Acknowledging these characteristics, we selected ten candidate biomarkers from the vascular, immunological, and inflammatory pathways with good evidence supporting their involvement in the pathogenesis of dengue infection – focusing on those likely to be increased early in the disease course. We included vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1), syndecan-1 (SDC-1), and angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2) because they represent endothelial activation and glycocalyx integrity.[26–29] For markers of immune activation, we measured interleukin-8 (IL-8) and interferon gamma-induced protein-10 (IP-10) as these are associated with disease severity,[22,30,31] and IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1RA), soluble cluster of differentiation 163 (sCD163), and soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 (sTREM-1) as these are activation markers of monocytes and macrophages, the major targets for dengue replication.[14,21,23] For markers of general inflammation we included ferritin and C-reactive protein (CRP).[21,32-35] The aims of this study were: (1) to investigate the association of these ten biomarkers with development of more severe dengue outcomes, (2) to find the best combination of biomarkers associated with more severe dengue outcomes. The results of the second aim could help in developing multiplex panels for use in outpatient settings to rapidly identify patients who require hospitalization. ## Methods ### Study design We conducted a nested case-control study using the samples and clinical information from a large multi-country observational study named “Clinical evaluation of dengue and identification of risk factors for severe disease” (IDAMS study, [NCT01550016](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT01550016&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F15%2F2021.03.13.21253501.atom)).[36] The IDAMS study and the blood sample analysis were approved by the Scientific and Ethics Committees of all study sites and by the Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee. There were 7,428 participants in eight countries across Asia and Latin America enrolled in the IDAMS study. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged five years or older, had fever or history of fever for less than 72 hours, and had symptoms consistent with dengue, with no features strongly suggestive of another disease. Participants were followed daily with a standard schedule of clinical examination and blood samples. Individual management (including hospitalization) was in accordance with routine practice at each study site. All diagnostic samples were processed and stored following specific protocols, and later transferred to designated sites for diagnostic testing in order to ensure consistency. Laboratory-confirmed dengue was defined by a positive reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or a positive NS1 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) result. Immune status was classified based on capture IgG results on paired samples. A probable primary infection was defined by two negative IgG results on two consecutive specimens taken at least two days apart, with at least one specimen obtained during the convalescent phase (after illness day 5). A probable secondary infection was defined by a positive IgG result identified during either or both the febrile and convalescent phases. In all other cases with the absence of suitable specimens at the appropriate time points immune status was classified as inconclusive. Each participant was given an overall severity grade (severe, moderate, or uncomplicated dengue), using all available information and a grading system in line with current guidelines and recommendations to classify clinical endpoints in dengue clinical trials.[37] ### Study population Of the 2,694 laboratory-confirmed dengue cases in the IDAMS study, 38 and 266 cases were classified as severe and moderate dengue respectively. For this study, we selected all severe and moderate cases from five study sites in four countries (Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, and El Salvador), as residual plasma from these countries’ sample sets was available at the Oxford University Clinical Research Unit (OUCRU) in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. For the control group, we selected patients with uncomplicated dengue with similar geographic and demographic characteristics at a 2:1 ratio. In total 281 cases and 556 controls were included in the analysis (Figure 1). ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/F1) Figure 1. Study flowchart *The IDAMS study was performed in eight countries across Asia and Latin America. For this study, we selected cases in four countries (Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, and El Salvador) as the blood samples were stored at the laboratory of the Oxford University Clinical Research Unit in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. ### Laboratory evaluation (details in appendix 1) The biomarkers were measured at two time points: at enrollment (illness day 1-3) and after recovery (day 10-31 post-symptom onset), if available. Eight biomarkers (CRP and ferritin excepted) were combined in a premixed magnetic bead panel (Cat No. LXSAHM; R&D). CRP was measured using a separate commercial magnetic bead panel (Cat. No. HCVD3MAG-67K; EMD Millipore Corporation). These panels were analysed using the Luminex200TM analyzer with the Luminex calibration (Cat. No. LX200-CAL-K25) and verification kits (Cat. No. LX200-CON-K25). Ferritin was measured using the Human Ferritin ELISA kit (Cat. No. ARG80501, Arigo). All tests were done according to the manufacturer’s specifications. ### Study endpoints (details in appendix 2) The primary endpoint was combined severe and moderate dengue (S/MD), defined by the development of severe or moderate grades of any of the following - plasma leakage, haemorrhage, or organ impairment (including neurologic, hepatic, or cardiac involvement) (Table S1). We combined severe and moderate dengue to form the primary endpoint (S/MD) as severe dengue events were rare; this combined endpoint is relevant to clinical practice since the moderate group is likely to develop complications and therefore may also require medical intervention and hospitalization. We studied three secondary endpoints: severe dengue alone, severe dengue or dengue with warning signs according to the 2009 WHO classification, and hospitalization. These endpoints were selected as they also reflect the disease burden and severity and are generalizable across different settings. The decision to hospitalize was based only on clinical judgement and local guidelines particular to each study site, without use of any biomarker information. ### Statistical analysis (details in appendix 3) Plasma levels of all biomarkers were transformed to the base-2 logarithm (log-2) before analysis as a right skewed distribution was apparent. We used a logistic regression model for all endpoints. We investigated the non-linear effects of all biomarkers and age on the endpoints, using restricted cubic splines with three knots at the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles. For the first aim, i.e. to investigate the association of all biomarkers with the primary and secondary endpoints, we performed two different analyses: (1) fitting models for each biomarker separately (‘single models’), and (2) fitting models including all biomarkers together (‘global models’). In the ‘single models’ for a particular biomarker, only that biomarker along with age and their interaction were included, whereas in the ‘global models’ all the biomarkers along with their interactions with age were included. Results are reported as odds ratio (OR) and presented graphically. To find the best combination of biomarkers associated with the primary endpoint we built upon the results from the first aim to fit separate models for children and adults (<15 versus ≥15 years of age), as differences were apparent by age. We used variable selection based on the ‘best subset’ approach.[38,39] From an ‘initial model’ including all biomarkers, we determined the best general combination and the best combinations of 2, 3, 4, and 5 biomarkers, based on the Akaike information criterion (AIC). We then performed a bootstrap procedure by taking 1,000 samples and check the robustness (stability) of the selected models. All analyses were performed using the statistical software R version 3.6.3. ## Results ### Patient characteristics The majority of the patients were from Vietnam (640 cases, 76%). Median (1st, 3rd quartiles) age of the case and control groups were 12 (9, 22) and 16 (10, 24) years. Among the S/MD group, 127 cases (45%) were children and 154 cases (55%) were adults. Male gender was predominant (60% and 54% in the case and control groups respectively). Serotype distribution was similar between the S/MD and control groups, with DENV-1 predominating (42%), particularly in children (48%). Host immune status however differed: there was a higher proportion of secondary infections in the S/MD group compared with controls (78% versus 64%, respectively) and this was consistent in both children and adults. Overall, 38 patients developed severe dengue, most were severe plasma leakage (33/38 cases, 87%) and 29/38 (76%) were children. Most of the moderate dengue cases were plasma leakage and/or hepatic involvement. As expected, hospitalization was more common in the S/MD group (57% versus 31%) (Table 1). View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/T1) Table 1. Summary of clinical data by primary outcome ### Biomarker levels On average, the patients who progressed to S/MD had higher levels of the biomarkers in both children and adult patients, both at enrollment and at follow-up (Table 2, Figure 2). The levels of five biomarkers (VCAM-1, IL-8, IP-10, IL-1RA, and CRP) decreased between the two time-points, whereas SDC-1 increased slightly and the other markers showed no clear trends (Figure S1). Moderate-to-strong positive correlations were evident for some markers, in particular IP-10 and IL-1RA, and IP-10 and VCAM-1, both with Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients above 0.6 (Figure S2). ![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/F2) Figure 2. Biomarker levels by groups VCAM-1: vascular cell adhesion molecule-1; SDC-1: syndecan-1; Ang-2: angiopoietin-2; IL-8: interleukin-8; IP-10: interferon gamma-induced protein-10; IL-1RA: interleukin-1 receptor antagonist; sCD163: soluble cluster of differentiation 163; sTREM-1: soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1; CRP: C-reactive protein Y-axes are transformed using the fourth root transformation View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/T2) Table 2. Summary of biomarkers’ data ### Associations between biomarker levels and the endpoints In the single models, higher levels of each biomarker on illness day 1, 2 or 3 increased the risk of developing S/MD, with the exception of ferritin in adults where there was a downward trend at higher values (Figure 3, Table 3). We observed differences between children and adults for several biomarkers, the most pronounced being SDC-1, IL-8, ferritin, and IL-1RA. Associations between SDC-1 and IL-8 and the S/MD endpoint were stronger in adults than children, while the effects of IL-1RA and ferritin were stronger in children than adults. ![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/F3) Figure 3. Results from models for the primary endpoint (severe or moderate dengue) The odds ratio of severe/moderate dengue (the red and blue lines) and 95% confidence interval (the red and blue regions) are estimated from multivariable logistic regression models allowing for a non-linear relation of log-2 of the biomarker level with severe/moderate dengue using restricted cubic splines. Each single model contains the corresponding biomarker, age and their interaction, while the global model contains all biomarkers and their interaction with age. The reference values for the odds ratios where the odds ratio is equal to 1, represented by the vertical grey dashed lines, are chosen as the median of the biomarker levels of the whole study population (VCAM-1: 1636 ng/ml; SDC-1: 2519 pg/ml; Ang-2: 1204 pg/ml; IL-8: 14 pg/ml; IP-10: 3093 pg/ml; IL-1RA: 6434 pg/ml; sCD163: 295 ng/ml; sTREM-1: 85 ng/ml; ferritin: 243 ng/ml; and CRP: 28 mg/l). The x-axis represents biomarker levels; it is transformed using log-2 and is truncated by the 5th and 95th percentiles of the biomarker levels of whole study population. The rug plot on the x-axis represents the distribution of individual cases; the bottom rug plot represents the uncomplicated dengue cases and the top rug plot represents the severe/moderate dengue cases (children [<15 years of age] are in red and adults [≥15 years of age] are in blue). The red line and region represent for children, which are estimated at age of 10 years. The blue line and region represent for adults, which are estimated at age of 25 years. VCAM-1: vascular cell adhesion molecule-1; SDC-1: syndecan-1; Ang-2: angiopoietin-2; IL-8: interleukin-8; IP-10: interferon gamma-induced protein-10; IL-1RA: interleukin-1 receptor antagonist; sCD163: soluble cluster of differentiation 163; sTREM-1: soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1; CRP: C-reactive protein View this table: [Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/T3) Table 3. Results from models for the primary endpoint (severe or moderate dengue) In the global model there were some differences compared to the single models (Figure 3, Table 3). The biomarkers SDC-1 and IL-1RA were the most stable relative to the single models for both children and adults. However, for IP-10 the trend of the association with S/MD changed from positive to negative in both children and adults. In children, VCAM-1 changed the trend from positive to weakly negative and IL-8 changed the trend from weakly positive to negative. Other biomarkers showed weaker associations with the endpoint in the global model based on the ORs. In addition, the differences of the associations between children and adults were more marked, particularly for Ang-2, IL-8 and ferritin. Similar patterns were observed in the various analyses related to the secondary endpoints, as described in detail in the appendix 5. ### Best combinations of biomarkers associated with the primary endpoint For children, the best subset that showed the clearest association with S/MD was the combination of the six markers IL-1RA, Ang-2, IL-8, ferritin, IP-10, and SDC-1 with an AIC of 465.9. This model was selected most often in the bootstrap procedure, but was not highly robust (it was selected in 134 of the 1000 samples) (Tables 4, S5). Over the 1000 samples, the six variables had an inclusion frequency ranging from 73.5% for SDC-1 to 100% for IL-1RA (Table S6). The best combination of two biomarkers was IL-1RA and ferritin, the best of three added Ang-2, the best of four added IP-10, and the best of five added IL-8. The best combinations of two and five variables were most robust with a selection percentage of 43.7% and 44%. The best of five had almost the same AIC as the best subset of six markers (467.6 versus 465.9) (Table 4). The coefficients of the selected biomarkers were similar to the initial model estimates (Table S6). View this table: [Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/T4) Table 4. Best combinations of biomarkers associated with severe or moderate dengue for children For adults, the best subset included the seven markers SDC-1, IL-8, ferritin, sTREM-1, IL-1RA, IP-10, and sCD163. This model was selected 79 times among 1000 bootstrap samples, but still was selected more often than the other models (Tables 5, S7). Over the 1000 samples, the seven variables had a bootstrap inclusion frequency ranging from 59.1% for sCD163 to 99.2% for SDC-1 (Table S8). The best combination of two biomarkers included SDC-1 and IL-8, the best of three added ferritin, the best of four added IL-1RA, and the best of five added sTREM-1. The best combination of two was the most robust with a selection percentage of 56.7%, followed by the best of three variables (43.2%) (Table 5). The coefficients of the selected markers were also similar to the initial model estimates (Table S8). View this table: [Table 5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/T5) Table 5. Best combinations of biomarkers associated with severe or moderate dengue for adults ## Discussion This nested case-control study has shown that a range of endothelial, immune activation and inflammatory biomarkers measured during the early febrile phase of dengue are associated with progression to worse clinical outcomes in both children and adults. In children we found IL-1RA to have the most robust association with S/MD, whereas in adults we found SDC-1 and IL-8 to have the most robust association. For children, the best combination (ordered by robustness) included six biomarkers IL-1RA, Ang-2, IL-8, ferritin, IP-10, and SDC-1; for adults the best combination identified comprised seven biomarkers SDC-1, IL-8, ferritin, sTREM-1, IL-1RA, IP-10, and sCD163. These results are important, as they not only provide novel information on the utility of certain biomarkers alone and in combination for prediction of dengue progression using data from a large multi-country cohort study across endemic settings, but also demonstrate some key differences between paediatric and adult dengue. Clinical phenotypes of dengue in children and adults differ, with children experiencing more shock and adults more organ impairment and bleeding, with distinct clinical management guidelines published by the WHO. Our results imply dengue pathogenesis may differ by age, with distinct combinations of immune-activation and vascular markers demonstrated between children and adults. Hence patients’ age should be considered when developing biomarker panels for dengue risk prediction. Our results are directly applicable to the development of point-of-care panels capable of multiplex analysis and suited for use in outpatient settings for dengue prognosis, with scope for incorporation with innovative point-of-care technologies. Balancing model fit, robustness, and parsimony, we suggest the combination of five biomarkers IL-1RA, Ang-2, IL-8, ferritin, and IP-10 for children, and the combination of three biomarkers SDC-1, IL-8, and ferritin for adults to be used in practice. Our results add to the current literature on biomarkers in severe/moderate dengue compared with uncomplicated dengue, by including early time-points prior to the development of the severe manifestations as well as providing data on the use of biomarker combinations, which takes into consideration the complex immune-inflammatory-vascular pathogenesis of severe dengue. We observed that there were marked changes in the associations between individual biomarkers and outcomes when considering them together, while other biomarkers showed consistent associations. For example, the associations of SDC-1 and IL-1RA with S/MD were mostly similar in the single and global models, which suggests that they might be mediators in the pathway of the other biomarkers that we considered to severe outcomes. The use of biomarker panels for the prediction of severe outcomes in dengue has been investigated in previous studies, using several statistical approaches.[40–44] However, because of small sample size and differences in the biomarkers assessed, the associations found vary between studies and as yet there are no validated prognostic panels for dengue. Dengue cases are forecasted to increase over the next few decades and, given the limited healthcare resources available in many endemic settings, particularly during epidemics, there is an urgent need to develop innovative methods to rapidly identify patients likely to develop complications and require hospital care.[45] Previously we showed that CRP as a single biomarker was useful for early dengue diagnosis and risk prediction, which is currently easy to use in all settings.[35] However, future point-of-care testing could be improved by using a combination biomarkers outlined in this study. With the advent of novel technologies including microarray platforms and multiplex lateral flow assays, the cost is likely to come down in the future, allowing for wide-spread use in low-to-middle-income countries. Methods of variable selection have been discussed previously but there remains no clear consensus regarding the best approach.[46,47] We adopted a data-driven ‘best subset’ approach which we think offers advantages over other methods, given the complexity of the biomarkers involved and their interactions. We also explored other approaches for variable selection,[46–48] and the results were very similar. In children, four methods (backward elimination, forward selection, stepwise forward, and stepwise backward) resulted in the same six selected biomarkers as the best subset method. Augmented backward elimination added another biomarker (VCAM-1), while Bayesian projection eliminated one (SDC-1) (Table S9). In adults, two methods (backward elimination and stepwise backward) gave the same results as the best subset method. Forward selection and stepwise forward identified the same biomarkers as the best subset of five biomarkers. Augmented backward elimination also added VCAM-1, while Bayesian projection selected only two biomarkers, which were the same as the best subset of two (Table S10). Strengths of our study include the large sample size and use of a nested case-control dataset from a prospective multi-country cohort study with consistent data collection and standardized outcome definitions and laboratory methodologies. The biomarker panel we selected was guided by pathogenesis studies, focusing on pathways activated early in the disease course, thus ensuring clinical relevance. There are some limitations in our study. One being we analysed the biomarkers at only one time-point in the early phase; limited financial resources did not allow us to evaluate the full range of biomarkers across the whole IDAMS population and at more time-points. Secondly, we did not assess differences by serotype and primary/secondary infection due to a limited sample size. In conclusion, higher levels of the ten biomarkers (VCAM-1, SDC-1, Ang-2, IL-8, IP-10, IL-1RA, sCD163, sTREM-1, ferritin, and CRP), when considered individually, are associated with increased risk of adverse clinical outcomes in both children and adults with dengue. The best biomarker combination for children includes IL-1RA, Ang-2, IL-8, ferritin, IP-10, and SDC-1; for adults, SDC-1, IL-8, ferritin, sTREM-1, IL-1RA, IP-10, and sCD163 were selected. These findings serve to assist the development of biomarker panels to improve future triage and early assessment of dengue patients. This would aid not only individual patient management and facilitate healthcare allocation which would be of major public health benefit especially in outbreak settings, but could also serve as potential biological endpoints for dengue clinical trials. ## Data Availability All data referred to in the manuscript are available in the link below. [https://doi.org/10.5287/bodleian:JN2wXDpjq](https://doi.org/10.5287/bodleian:JN2wXDpjq) ## Funding This work was supported by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration (grant FP7-281803 IDAMS; [http://www.idams.eu](http://www.idams.eu); publication reference number IDAMS: 53), and by the World Health Organization, UNICEF/UNDP/ World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, and by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Trust through The Global Good Fund I, LLC at Intellectual Ventures. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, or preparation of the manuscript. The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this article and they do not necessarily represent the views, decisions or policies of the institutions with which they are affiliated. ## Conflicts of interest All authors report no conflicts of interest in relation to the present work. TJ reports receiving personal fees as members of the ROCHE Advisory Board on Severe Dengue. BAW reports receiving personal fees as a member of the Data Monitoring and Adjudication Committees for the Takeda dengue vaccine trials and as a member of the ROCHE Advisory Board on Severe Dengue. RBG report receiving personal fees from the Wellcome Trust (grant number 106680/Z/14/Z). SY reports receiving personal fees as a member of the ROCHE Advisory Board on Severe Dengue, for work on Janssen Pharmaceuticals Advisory Board for Dengue Antiviral Development, and from the Wellcome Trust (grant number 106680/Z/14/Z). ## Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge all the patients who took part in this study and the medical and nursing staff who looked helped in their management, at all the participating hospitals in Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, and El Salvador. ## Appendix 1. Laboratory evaluation of the ten biomarkers All research blood samples enrolled at different study sites were processed at site laboratories within one hour after drawn from participants with the same procedure. The blood samples were centrifuged at 500 g/min in 10 min at 4°C, collected plasma, and stored at −20°C. The specimens enrolled from international sites were transported on dry ice to the Oxford University Clinical Research Unit (OUCRU) laboratory by worldwide couriers. Biomarker levels were measured on these stored samples at two time-points: enrollment sample (illness day 1-3) and follow-up (day 10-31 post symptom onset) using the quantitative magnetic bead assays and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). Eight biomarkers (VCAM-1, SDC-1, Ang-2, IL-8, IP-10, IL-1RA, sCD163 and sTREM-1) combined in a premixed magnetic bead panel (Cat No. LXSAHM; R&D) was selected to investigate these interested targets. A commercial kit used for CRP level measurements was Human Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Magnetic Bead Panel 3 (Cat. No. HCVD3MAG-67K) produced by EMD Millipore Corporation. Each assay had two quality controls (low and high levels) which was acquired along with the standards and unknown specimens. The xPonent 3.1 software installed in the Luminex200TM analyzer was used to acquire and analyze the data of the magnetic luminex assays. The system was calibrated daily using the Luminex calibration (Cat. No. LX200-CAL-K25) and verification kits (Cat. No. LX200-CON-K25). Equipment settings included probe height adjustment, number of events for each analyte, sample size, gate settings, and bead set were followed as the kit’s instruction. A background was set up using assay buffer instead of sample in all luminex assays. As recommended by manufacturers, the magnetic bead assays were performed using samples with less than two freeze/thaw cycles and the samples after thawed completely were centrifuged to remove particles prior to use in the assays. The samples were diluted at the different dilutions in order to fall within the standard curve range in each assay. The magnetic bead assays were designed in multiplex sandwich ELISAs. The magnetic microparticles pre-coated with specific antibodies were pipetted into the wells containing standards or controls or diluted samples and the immobilized antibodies bound the analytes of interest for two hours incubation at room temperature or overnight (16-18 hours) at 4°C on a shaker. Then, these analytes were detected specifically by a secondary biotinylated antibody cocktail during the next incubation. After being washed to remove any unbound antibody, the streptavidin-phycoerythrin conjugate was added to bind to the biotinylated antibody. Finally, the microparticles were re-suspended in buffer and read using the Luminex200 analyzer. The microparticles were re-suspended immediately prior to reading by shaking the plate for two minutes on the shaker. Ferritin levels were measured separately using Human Ferritin ELISA kit (Cat. No. ARG80501, Arigo). This assay is a quantitative sandwich ELISA. An antibody specific for Ferritin was pre-coated onto a microplate plate. Standard or samples were pipetted into the wells and any Ferritin present was bound by the immobilized antibody. After washing away any unbound substances, a horseradish peroxidase (HRP) conjugated antibody specific for ferritin was added to each well and incubated. A substrate solution (3,3′,5,5′-tetramethylbenzidine [TMB]) was then added to the wells and color developed in proportion to the amount of ferritin bound in the initial step. The color development was stopped by addition of acid and the intensity of the color was measured by a wavelength of 450 nm. The concentration of ferritin in the sample was then determined by comparing the optical density of samples to the standard curve. ## Appendix 2. Clinical endpoint definition View this table: [Table S1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/T6) Table S1. Definition of severe and moderate dengue components ## Appendix 3. Statistical analysis ### Treatment of values lower than the limit of detection There were several biomarker values lower than the limit of detection (LOD): 9% for VCAM-1, 5% for Ang-2, 1% for IP-10 and sTREM-1, <1% for IL-8 and sCD163, and none for SDC-1, IL-1RA, ferritin, and CRP. All of them were set at the LOD and a dummy binary variable (Yes/No) was created for each biomarker to describe whether the value was lower than the LOD or not. In all models for the first aim (to investigate the association of biomarkers with clinical outcomes), for each biomarker that had values below a LOD, we included the binary variable “ * ![Graphic][2] is the estimate of parameter j in bootstrap sample b * ![Graphic][3] is the estimate of parameter j based on the initial model * *nbootstrap* is the number of bootstrap samples (1000) The RMSD ratio is the RMSD divided by the standard error of that coefficient in the initial model. 3. Relative bias conditional on selection for each parameter ![Formula][4] * ![Graphic][5] is the mean bootstrapped estimate of the parameter * ![Graphic][6] is the initial model estimate of the parameter * *BIF* is the bootstrap inclusion frequency of the corresponding biomarker 4. The selection frequencies for the finally selected model and the 20 most frequent selected models. 5. The median and the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the regression coefficient of each biomarker. In ii, iii and v, the value of a parameter was set at zero if the marker was not selected ## Appendix 4. Additional descriptive analysis ![Figure S1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/F4.medium.gif) [Figure S1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/F4) Figure S1. Biomarker levels by individual Y-axes are transformed using the fourth root transformation ![Figure S2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/F5.medium.gif) [Figure S2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/F5) Figure S2. Pairwise correlation of biomarker levels at enrollment and age All biomarker levels were transformed using log-2. The number inside each scatter plot represents the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient of the two variables at the corresponding column and row. When the column and row refer to the same variable, the corresponding scatter plot is replaced by a density plot to reflect the distribution of that biomarker. ## Appendix 5. Results for secondary endpoints In the single models, higher levels of the biomarkers generally increased the risk of developing severe dengue (SD), however, as the number of events was small, the confidence intervals (CIs) were wide and the association was not certain (Figure S3, Table S2). For severe dengue or dengue with warning signs (SD/DWWS) and hospitalization endpoints, the associations were similar to the primary endpoint, apart for sCD163, sTREM-1, and CRP (Figures S4-S5, Tables S3-S4) – these biomarkers did not show an association with endpoints. Moreover, the odds ratios (ORs) of SD/DWWS and hospitalization were generally lower than of severe or moderate dengue (S/MD) for every 2-fold difference in biomarker levels. The difference between the global and single models in the analysis of secondary endpoints was similar to in the primary endpoint. The most stable biomarkers were SDC-1 and IL-1RA, while IP-10 markedly changed the trend of the association with the endpoints; others showed a weaker association. ![Figure S3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/F6.medium.gif) [Figure S3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/F6) Figure S3. Results from models for severe dengue endpoint View this table: [Table S2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/T8) Table S2. Results from models for severe dengue endpoint ![Figure S4.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/F7.medium.gif) [Figure S4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/F7) Figure S4. Results from models for severe dengue or dengue with warning signs endpoint View this table: [Table S3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/T9) Table S3. Results from models for severe dengue or dengue with warning signs endpoint ![Figure S5.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/F8.medium.gif) [Figure S5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/F8) Figure S5. Results from models for hospitalization endpoint View this table: [Table S4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/T10) Table S4. Results from models for hospitalization endpoint ## Appendix 6. Results from bootstrap resampling to check model robustness Tables S5-S8 show the robustness (stability) of the selected models. The best subset models for children and adults based on the original data ranked first (Tables S5 and S7), but they were selected in only 13.4% and 7.9% of the resamples, indicating the instability of these models. The almost equal inclusion frequencies of the models ranked next suggest that there are many competing models of the selected one. Variable selection also added to uncertainty about the regression coefficients of the parameters, which is evidenced by the RMSD ratio of more than 1 in most of the biomarkers, except for sTREM-1 (0.92) and CRP (0.88) in children (Tables S6 and S8). Regarding relative conditional bias, which quantifies expected bias induced by variable selection of a parameter when it is selected, it is quite small for the first 3-4 selected parameters (IL-1RA, Ang-2, IL-8, and ferritin for children, and SDC-1, IL-8, and ferritin for adults), all of which have bootstrap inclusion percentages greater than 90%. This bias is much higher in the parameters for which selection is less certain. The bootstrap median and percentiles of the regression coefficients of the biomarkers reflect the variability of the coefficients over the different models selected in the bootstrap samples. The coefficients of the selected parameters from the initial estimates and the bootstrap median were very similar, suggesting no selection bias in the selected model. View this table: [Table S5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/T11) Table S5. Model selection frequencies for children View this table: [Table S6.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/T12) Table S6. Model stability for children View this table: [Table S7.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/T13) Table S7. Model selection frequencies for adults View this table: [Table S8.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/T14) Table S8. Model stability for adults ## Appendix 7. Results of variable selection using different approaches View this table: [Table S9.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/T15) Table S9. Results of variable selection for children View this table: [Table S10.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/T16) Table S10. Results of variable selection for adults ## Appendix 8. STROBE Statement - Checklist of items **Title:** Combination of inflammatory and vascular markers in the febrile phase of dengue is associated with more severe outcomes View this table: [Table17](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/15/2021.03.13.21253501/T17) ## List of abbreviations AIC : Akaike information criterion Ang-2 : angiopoietin-2 CRP : C-reactive protein DENV : dengue virus ELISA : enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay IL-1RA : interleukin-1 receptor antagonist IL-8 : interleukin-8 IP-10 : interferon gamma-induced protein-10 OR : odds ratio OUCRU : Oxford University Clinical Research Unit RT-PCR : reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction S/MD : severe and moderate dengue sCD163 : soluble cluster of differentiation 163 SDC-1 : syndecan-1 sTREM-1 : soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 VCAM-1 : vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 WHO : World Health Organization * Received March 13, 2021. * Revision received March 13, 2021. * Accepted March 15, 2021. * © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.World Health Organization. Strong country capacity, improved tools and community engagement critical to enhancing dengue prevention and control. Available at: [https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/14-11-2019-strong-country-capacity-improved-tools-and-community-engagement-critical-to-enhancing-dengue-prevention-and-control](https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/14-11-2019-strong-country-capacity-improved-tools-and-community-engagement-critical-to-enhancing-dengue-prevention-and-control). Accessed 18 December. 2. 2.World Health Organization. Dengue and severe dengue. Available at: [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dengue-and-severe-dengue](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dengue-and-severe-dengue). Accessed 18 December. 3. 3.Cattarino L, Rodriguez-Barraquer I, Imai N, Cummings DAT, Ferguson NM. Mapping global variation in dengue transmission intensity. Sci Transl Med 2020; 12(528). 4. 4.Yacoub S, Kotit S, Yacoub MH. Disease appearance and evolution against a background of climate change and reduced resources. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 2011; 369(1942): 1719–29. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1098/rsta.2011.0013&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21464067&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F15%2F2021.03.13.21253501.atom) 5. 5.Whitehorn J, Yacoub S. Global warming and arboviral infections. Clin Med (Lond) 2019; 19(2): 149–52. 6. 6.Redoni M, Yacoub S, Rivino L, Giacobbe DR, Luzzati R, Di Bella S. Dengue: Status of current and under-development vaccines. Rev Med Virol 2020; 30(4): e2101. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/rmv.2101&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32101634&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F15%2F2021.03.13.21253501.atom) 7. 7.Morra ME, Altibi AMA, Iqtadar S, et al. Definitions for warning signs and signs of severe dengue according to the WHO 2009 classification: Systematic review of literature. Rev Med Virol 2018; 28(4): e1979. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/rmv.1979&link_type=DOI) 8. 8.Midgley CM, Bajwa-Joseph M, Vasanawathana S, et al. An in-depth analysis of original antigenic sin in dengue virus infection. J Virol 2011; 85(1): 410–21. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoianZpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6Ijg1LzEvNDEwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjEvMDMvMTUvMjAyMS4wMy4xMy4yMTI1MzUwMS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 9. 9.Screaton G, Mongkolsapaya J, Yacoub S, Roberts C. New insights into the immunopathology and control of dengue virus infection. Nat Rev Immunol 2015; 15(12): 745–59. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nri3916&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26603900&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F15%2F2021.03.13.21253501.atom) 10. 10.Katzelnick LC, Gresh L, Halloran ME, et al. Antibody-dependent enhancement of severe dengue disease in humans. Science 2017; 358(6365): 929–32. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzNTgvNjM2NS85MjkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8wMy8xNS8yMDIxLjAzLjEzLjIxMjUzNTAxLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 11. 11.St John AL, Rathore AP, Raghavan B, Ng ML, Abraham SN. Contributions of mast cells and vasoactive products, leukotrienes and chymase, to dengue virus-induced vascular leakage. Elife 2013; 2: e00481. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7554/eLife.00481&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23638300&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F15%2F2021.03.13.21253501.atom) 12. 12.Modhiran N, Watterson D, Muller DA, et al. Dengue virus NS1 protein activates cells via Toll-like receptor 4 and disrupts endothelial cell monolayer integrity. Sci Transl Med 2015; 7(304): 304ra142. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTE6InNjaXRyYW5zbWVkIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE0OiI3LzMwNC8zMDRyYTE0MiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzAzLzE1LzIwMjEuMDMuMTMuMjEyNTM1MDEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 13. 13.McBride A, Khanh Lam P, Huynh Thi Le D, et al. Visual and biochemical evidence of glycocalyx disruption in human dengue infection, and association with plasma leakage severity. Front Med 2020; 7: 642. 14. 14.John DV, Lin YS, Perng GC. Biomarkers of severe dengue disease - a review. J Biomed Sci 2015; 22: 83. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12929-015-0191-6&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26462910&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F15%2F2021.03.13.21253501.atom) 15. 15.Yacoub S, Mongkolsapaya J, Screaton G. Recent advances in understanding dengue. F1000Res 2016; 5. 16. 16.Soo KM, Khalid B, Ching SM, Tham CL, Basir R, Chee HY. Meta-analysis of biomarkers for severe dengue infections. PeerJ 2017; 5: e3589. 17. 17.Yacoub S, Lam PK, Huynh TT, et al. Endothelial Nitric Oxide Pathways in the Pathophysiology of Dengue: A Prospective Observational Study. Clin Infect Dis 2017; 65(9): 1453–61. 18. 18.Puerta-Guardo H, Glasner DR, Espinosa DA, et al. Flavivirus NS1 Triggers Tissue-Specific Vascular Endothelial Dysfunction Reflecting Disease Tropism. Cell Rep 2019; 26(6): 1598–613.e8. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.celrep.2019.01.036&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30726741&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F15%2F2021.03.13.21253501.atom) 19. 19.Rathore AP, Farouk FS, St John AL. Risk factors and biomarkers of severe dengue. Curr Opin Virol 2020; 43: 1–8. 20. 20.Robinson M, Einav S. Towards Predicting Progression to Severe Dengue. Trends Microbiol 2020; 28(6): 478–86. 21. 21.Ab-Rahman HA, Rahim H, AbuBakar S, Wong PF. Macrophage Activation Syndrome-Associated Markers in Severe Dengue. Int J Med Sci 2016; 13(3): 179–86. 22. 22.Oliveira R, Cordeiro MT, Moura P, et al. Serum cytokine/chemokine profiles in patients with dengue fever (DF) and dengue hemorrhagic fever (FHD) by using protein array. J Clin Virol 2017; 89: 39–45. 23. 23.S SS, Pillai AB, Ramachandrappa VS, et al. Increased serum levels of macrophage activation marker sCD163 in Dengue patients. J Clin Virol 2017; 86: 62–7. 24. 24.Yong YK, Tan HY, Jen SH, et al. Aberrant monocyte responses predict and characterize dengue virus infection in individuals with severe disease. J Transl Med 2017; 15(1): 121. 25. 25.Vasey B, Shankar AH, Herrera BB, et al. Multivariate time-series analysis of biomarkers from a dengue cohort offers new approaches for diagnosis and prognosis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2020; 14(6): e0008199. 26. 26.Yacoub S, Lam PK, Vu le HM, et al. Association of Microvascular Function and Endothelial Biomarkers With Clinical Outcome in Dengue: An Observational Study. J Infect Dis 2016; 214(5): 697–706. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/infdis/jiw220&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27230099&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F15%2F2021.03.13.21253501.atom) 27. 27.Suwarto S, Sasmono RT, Sinto R, Ibrahim E, Suryamin M. Association of Endothelial Glycocalyx and Tight and Adherens Junctions With Severity of Plasma Leakage in Dengue Infection. J Infect Dis 2017; 215(6): 992–9. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/infdis/jix041&link_type=DOI) 28. 28.Han L, Ao X, Lin S, et al. Quantitative Comparative Proteomics Reveal Biomarkers for Dengue Disease Severity. Front Microbiol 2019; 10: 2836. 29. 29.Mapalagamage M, Handunnetti SM, Wickremasinghe AR, et al. High Levels of Serum Angiopoietin 2 and Angiopoietin 2/1 Ratio at the Critical Stage of Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever in Patients and Association with Clinical and Biochemical Parameters. J Clin Microbiol 2020; 58(4). 30. 30.Pandey N, Jain A, Garg RK, Kumar R, Agrawal OP, Lakshmana Rao PV. Serum levels of IL-8, IFNγ, IL-10, and TGF β and their gene expression levels in severe and non-severe cases of dengue virus infection. Arch Virol 2015; 160(6): 1463–75. 31. 31.Rathakrishnan A, Wang SM, Hu Y, et al. Cytokine expression profile of dengue patients at different phases of illness. PLoS One 2012; 7(12): e52215. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0052215&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23284941&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F15%2F2021.03.13.21253501.atom) 32. 32.Soundravally R, Agieshkumar B, Daisy M, Sherin J, Cleetus CC. Ferritin levels predict severe dengue. Infection 2015; 43(1): 13–9. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s15010-014-0683-4&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25354733&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F15%2F2021.03.13.21253501.atom) 33. 33.Finkelstein JL, Colt S, Layden AJ, et al. Micronutrients, Immunological Parameters, and Dengue Virus Infection in Coastal Ecuador: A Nested Case-Control Study in an Infectious Disease Surveillance Program. J Infect Dis 2020; 221(1): 91–101. 34. 34.Mukherjee S, Tripathi A. Association of serum C-reactive protein level and polymorphisms with susceptibility to dengue infection and severe clinical outcome among eastern Indian patients. Med Microbiol Immunol 2020; 209(5): 631–40. 35. 35.Vuong NL, Le Duyen HT, Lam PK, et al. C-reactive protein as a potential biomarker for disease progression in dengue: a multi-country observational study. BMC Med 2020; 18(1): 35. 36. 36.Jaenisch T, Tam DT, Kieu NT, et al. Clinical evaluation of dengue and identification of risk factors for severe disease: protocol for a multicentre study in 8 countries. BMC Infect Dis 2016; 16: 120. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12879-016-1440-3&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26968374&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F15%2F2021.03.13.21253501.atom) 37. 37.Tomashek KM, Wills B, See Lum LC, et al. Development of standard clinical endpoints for use in dengue interventional trials. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2018; 12(10): e0006497. 38. 38.Hocking RR, Leslie RN. Selection of the Best Subset in Regression Analysis. Technometrics 1967; 9(4): 531–40. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/1266192&link_type=DOI) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1967A255400003&link_type=ISI) 39. 39.Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Tibshirani RJ. Extended comparisons of best subset selection, forward stepwise selection, and the lasso. arXiv preprint arXiv:170708692 2017. 40. 40.Brasier AR, Ju H, Garcia J, et al. A three-component biomarker panel for prediction of dengue hemorrhagic fever. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2012; 86(2): 341–8. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoidHJvcG1lZCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiI4Ni8yLzM0MSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzAzLzE1LzIwMjEuMDMuMTMuMjEyNTM1MDEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 41. 41.Ju H, Brasier AR. Variable selection methods for developing a biomarker panel for prediction of dengue hemorrhagic fever. BMC Res Notes 2013; 6: 365. 42. 42.Conroy AL, Gélvez M, Hawkes M, et al. Host biomarkers are associated with progression to dengue haemorrhagic fever: a nested case-control study. Int J Infect Dis 2015; 40: 45–53. 43. 43.Pang J, Lindblom A, Tolfvenstam T, et al. Discovery and Validation of Prognostic Biomarker Models to Guide Triage among Adult Dengue Patients at Early Infection. PLoS One 2016; 11(6): e0155993. 44. 44.Lee YH, Leong WY, Wilder-Smith A. Markers of dengue severity: a systematic review of cytokines and chemokines. J Gen Virol 2016; 97(12): 3103–19. 45. 45.Rodriguez-Manzano J, Chia PY, Yeo TW, Holmes A, Georgiou P, Yacoub S. Improving Dengue Diagnostics and Management Through Innovative Technology. Curr Infect Dis Rep 2018; 20(8): 25. 46. 46.Heinze G, Wallisch C, Dunkler D. Variable selection - A review and recommendations for the practicing statistician. Biom J 2018; 60(3): 431–49. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F15%2F2021.03.13.21253501.atom) 47. 47.Sauerbrei W, Perperoglou A, Schmid M, et al. State of the art in selection of variables and functional forms in multivariable analysis-outstanding issues. Diagn Progn Res 2020; 4: 3. 48. 48.Piironen J, Vehtari A. Comparison of Bayesian predictive methods for model selection. Statistics and Computing 2017; 27(3): 711–35. ## References 1. 1.Tchetgen Tchetgen, EJ. A general regression framework for a secondary outcome in case–control studies. Biostatistics 2014; 15(1), 117–128. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/biostatistics/kxt041&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24152770&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F15%2F2021.03.13.21253501.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000328286700014&link_type=ISI) 2. 2.Schifano, ED. A review of analysis methods for secondary outcomes in case-control studies. Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods 2019; 26(2), 103–129. 3. 3.Heinze G, Wallisch C, Dunkler D. Variable selection - A review and recommendations for the practicing statistician. Biometrical Journal 2018; 60(3): 431–49. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F15%2F2021.03.13.21253501.atom) 4. 4.Sauerbrei W, Perperoglou A, Schmid M, et al. State of the art in selection of variables and functional forms in multivariable analysis-outstanding issues. Diagnostic and Prognostic Research 2020; 4: 3. 5. 5.Piironen J, Vehtari A. Comparison of Bayesian predictive methods for model selection. Statistics and Computing 2017; 27(3), 711–735. [1]: /embed/graphic-11.gif [2]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [4]: /embed/graphic-12.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif