Dataset Information

Diagnostic value of procalcitonin and presepsin for sepsis in critically ill adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Early and accurate diagnosis of sepsis is challenging. Although procalcitonin and presepsin have been identified as potential biomarkers to differentiate between sepsis and other non-infectious causes of systemic inflammation, the diagnostic accuracy of these biomarkers remains controversial. Herein, we performed a comprehensive meta-analysis to assess the overall diagnostic value of procalcitonin and presepsin for the diagnosis of sepsis.

Methods

We searched three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) for relevant studies. Two authors independently screened articles on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were estimated. The quality of evidence for diagnostic accuracy in absolute effects, i.e., the number of true or false positives and true or false negatives, gave a particular pre-test probability.

Results

We included 19 studies (19 observational studies and no randomized controlled trials) that had enrolled 3012 patients. Analyses of summary receiver operating characteristic curves revealed areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.84 for procalcitonin and 0.87 for presepsin. The pooled sensitivities and specificities were 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.84) and 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.81) for procalcitonin. For presepsin, these values were 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.88) and 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.82), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in both pooled sensitivities (p?=?0.48) and specificities (p?=?0.57) between procalcitonin and presepsin.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis provided evidence that the diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin and presepsin in detecting infection was similar and that both are useful for early diagnosis of sepsis and subsequent reduction of mortality in critically ill adult patients.

Systematic review registration

The study was registered in PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42016035784.

SUBMITTER: Kondo Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6466719 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Procalcitonin (PCT) has been widely investigated for its prognostic value in septic patients. However, studies have produced conflicting results. The purpose of the present meta-analysis is to explore the diagnostic accuracy of a single PCT concentration and PCT non-clearance in predicting all-cause sepsis mortality. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge and the Cochrane Library. Articles written in English were included. A 2 × 2 contingency table was constructed based on all-cause mortality and PCT level or PCT non-clearance in septic patients. Two authors independently evaluated study eligibility and extracted data. The diagnostic value of PCT in predicting prognosis was determined using a bivariate meta-analysis model. We used the Q-test and I2 index to test heterogeneity. Twenty-three studies with 3,994 patients were included. An elevated PCT level was associated with a higher risk of death. The pooled relative risk (RR) was 2.60 (95% confidence interval (CI), 2.05-3.30) using a random-effects model (I(2) = 63.5%). The overall area under the summary receiver operator characteristic (SROC) curve was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.80), with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.67-0.82) and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.52-0.74), respectively. There was significant evidence of heterogeneity for the PCT testing time (P = 0.020). Initial PCT values were of limited prognostic value in patients with sepsis. PCT non-clearance was a prognostic factor of death in patients with sepsis. The pooled RR was 3.05 (95% CI, 2.35-3.95) using a fixed-effects model (I(2) = 37.9%). The overall area under the SROC curve was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.83), with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.58-0.82) and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.55-0.90), respectively. Elevated PCT concentrations and PCT non-clearance are strongly associated with all-cause mortality in septic patients. Further studies are needed to define the optimal cut-off point and the optimal definition of PCT non-clearance for accurate risk assessment.

Project description:BackgroundNumerous biomarkers have been proposed for diagnosis, therapeutic, and prognosis in sepsis. Previous evaluations of the value of biomarkers for predicting mortality due to this life-threatening condition fail to address the complexity of this condition and the risk of bias associated with prognostic studies. We evaluate the predictive performance of four of these biomarkers in the prognosis of mortality through a methodologically sound evaluation.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine, in critically ill adults with sepsis, whether procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and presepsin (sCD14) are independent prognostic factors for mortality. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2023. Only Phase-2 confirmatory prognostic factor studies among critically ill septic adults were included. Random effects meta-analyses pooled the prognostic association estimates.ResultsWe included 60 studies (15,681 patients) with 99 biomarker assessments. Quality of the statistical analysis and reporting domains using the QUIPS tool showed high risk of bias in > 60% assessments. The biomarker measurement as a continuous variable in models adjusted by key covariates (age and severity score) for predicting mortality at 28-30 days showed a null or near to null association for basal PCT (pooled OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.99-1.003), CRP (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.17), and IL-6 (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.01-1.03) and sCD14 (pooled HR = 1.003, 95% CI = 1.000 to 1.006). Additional meta-analyses accounting for other prognostic covariates had similarly null findings.ConclusionBaseline, isolated measurement of PCT, CRP, IL-6, and sCD14 has not been shown to help predict mortality in critically ill patients with sepsis. The role of these biomarkers should be evaluated in new studies where the patient selection would be standardized and the measurement of biomarker results.Trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD42019128790).

Project description:BackgroundProcalcitonin (PCT) has been widely investigated as an infection biomarker. The study aimed to prove that serum PCT, combining with other relevant variables, has an even better sepsis-detecting ability in critically ill patients.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study in a regional teaching hospital enrolling eligible patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) between July 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016, and followed them until March 31, 2017. The primary outcome measurement was the occurrence of sepsis. We used multivariate logistic regression analysis to determine the independent factors for sepsis and constructed a novel PCT-based score containing these factors. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) was applied to evaluate sepsis-detecting abilities. Finally, we validated the score using a validation cohort.ResultsA total of 258 critically ill patients (70.9±16.3 years; 55.4% man) were enrolled in the derivation cohort and further subgrouped into the sepsis group (n = 115) and the non-sepsis group (n = 143). By using the multivariate logistic regression analysis, we disclosed five independent factors for detecting sepsis, namely, "serum PCT level," "albumin level" and "neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio" at ICU admission, along with "diabetes mellitus," and "with vasopressor." We subsequently constructed a PCT-based score containing the five weighted factors. The PCT-based score performed well in detecting sepsis with the cut-points of 8 points (AUROC 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-0.85; sensitivity 0.70; specificity 0.76), which was better than PCT alone, C-reactive protein and infection probability score. The findings were confirmed using an independent validation cohort (n = 72, 69.2±16.7 years, 62.5% men) (cut-point: 8 points; AUROC, 0.79; 95% CI 0.69-0.90; sensitivity 0.64; specificity 0.87).ConclusionsWe proposed a novel PCT-based score that performs better in detecting sepsis than serum PCT levels alone, C-reactive protein, and infection probability score.

Project description:BackgroundProcalcitonin (PCT)-guided antibiotic discontinuation appears to decrease antibiotic use in critically ill patients, but its impact on survival remains less certain.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PCT-guided antibiotic discontinuation in critically ill adults reporting survival or antibiotic duration. Searches were conducted without language restrictions from inception to July 23, 2018. Two reviewers independently conducted all review stages; another adjudicated differences. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Study quality was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and evidence was graded using GRADEpro.ResultsAmong critically ill adults (5,158 randomized; 5,000 analyzed), PCT-guided antibiotic discontinuation was associated with decreased mortality (16 RCTs; risk ratio [RR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.97; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Death was the primary outcome in only one study and a survival benefit was not observed in the subset specified as sepsis (10 RCTs; RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85-1.03; I2 = 0%), those without industry sponsorship (nine RCTs; RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.87-1.10; I2 = 0%), high PCT-guided algorithm adherence (five RCTs; RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.71-1.22; I2 = 0%), and PCT-guided algorithms without C-reactive protein (eight RCTs; RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87-1.06; I2 = 0%). PCT-guided antibiotic discontinuation decreased antibiotic duration (mean difference, 1.31 days; 95% CI, -2.27 to -0.35; I2 = 93%) (low certainty).ConclusionsOur findings of increased survival and decreased antibiotic utilization associated with PCT-guided antibiotic discontinuation represent low-certainty evidence with a high risk of bias. This relationship was primarily observed in studies without high protocol adherence and in studies with algorithms combining PCT and C-reactive protein. Properly designed studies with mortality as the primary outcome are needed to address this question.Trial registryInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); No.: CRD42016049715; URL: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO_REBRANDING/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016049715.

Project description:BackgroundSepsis is a global health priority. Interventions to reduce the burden of sepsis need to be both effective and cost-effective. We performed a systematic review of the literature on health economic evaluations of sepsis treatments in critically ill adult patients and summarised the evidence for cost-effectiveness.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using thesaurus (e.g. MeSH) and free-text terms related to sepsis and economic evaluations. We included all articles that reported, in any language, an economic evaluation of an intervention for the management of sepsis in critically ill adult patients. Data extracted included study details, intervention details, economic evaluation methodology, and outcomes. Included studies were appraised for reporting quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.ResultsWe identified 50 records representing 46 economic evaluations for a variety of interventions including antibiotics (n = 5), fluid therapy (n = 2), early goal-directed therapy and other resuscitation protocols (n = 8), immunoglobulins (n = 2), and interventions no longer in clinical use such as monoclonal antibodies (n = 7) and drotrecogin alfa (n = 13). Twelve (26%) evaluations were of excellent reporting quality. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from dominant (lower costs and higher effectiveness) for early goal-directed therapy, albumin, and a multifaceted sepsis education program to dominated (higher costs and lower effectiveness) for polymerase chain reaction assays (LightCycler SeptiFast testing MGRADE®, SepsiTest™, and IRIDICA BAC BSI assay). ICERs varied widely across evaluations, particularly in subgroup analyses.ConclusionsThere is wide variation in the cost-effectiveness of sepsis interventions. There remain important gaps in the literature, with no economic evaluations identified for several interventions routinely used in sepsis. Given the high economic and social burden of sepsis, high-quality economic evaluations are needed to increase our understanding of the cost-effectiveness of these interventions in routine clinical practice and to inform decision makers.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42018095980.

Project description:Background: Systemic inflammation is a whole body reaction that can have an infection-positive (i.e. sepsis) or infection-negative origin. It is important to distinguish between septic and non-septic presentations early and reliably, because this has significant therapeutic implications for critically ill patients. We hypothesized that a molecular classifier based on a small number of RNAs expressed in peripheral blood could be discovered that would: 1) determine which patients with systemic inflammation had sepsis; 2) be robust across independent patient cohorts; 3) be insensitive to disease severity; and 4) provide diagnostic utility. The overall goal of this study was to identify and validate such a molecular classifier. Methods and Findings: We conducted an observational, non-interventional study of adult patients recruited from tertiary intensive care units (ICU). Biomarker discovery was conducted with an Australian cohort (n = 105) consisting of sepsis patients and post -surgical patients with infection-negative systemic inflammation. Using this cohort, a four-gene classifier consisting of a combination of CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLA2G7 and PLAC8 RNA biomarkers was identified. This classifier, designated SeptiCyteÂ® Lab, was externally validated using RT-qPCR and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in five cohorts (n = 345) from the Netherlands. Cohort 1 (n=59) consisted of unambiguous septic cases and infection-negative systemic inflammation controls; SeptiCyteÂ® Lab gave an area under curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-1.00). ROC analysis of a more heterogeneous group of patients (Cohorts 2-5; 249 patients after excluding 37 patients with infection likelihood possible) gave an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93). Disease severity, as measured by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score or the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score, was not a significant confounding variable. The diagnostic utility o f SeptiCyteÂ® Lab was evaluated by comparison to various clinical and laboratory parameters that would be available to a clinician within 24 hours of ICU admission. SeptiCyteÂ® Lab was significantly better at differentiating sepsis from infection-negative systemic inflammation than all tested parameters, both singly and in various logistic combinations. SeptiCyteÂ® Lab more than halved the diagnostic error rate compared to PCT in all tested cohorts or cohort combinations. Conclusions: SeptiCyteÂ® Lab is a rapid molecular assay that may be clinically useful in the management of ICU patients with systemic inflammation. SIRS and Sepsis ICU patients, admission samples Retrospective, mutli-site sutdy using retrospective physician adjudication as a comparator

Project description:Objective: It is unclear whether the host response of gram-positive sepsis differs from gram-negative sepsis at a transcriptome level. Using microarray technology, we compared the gene-expression profiles of gram-positive sepsis and gram-negative sepsis in critically ill patients. Design: A prospective cross-sectional study. Setting: A 20-bed general intensive care unit of a tertiary referral hospital. Patients: Seventy-two patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Interventions: Intravenous blood was collected for leukocyte separation and RNA extraction. Microarray experiements were then performed examing the expression level of 19,232 genes in each sample. Measurements and Main Results: There was no difference in the expression profile between gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis. The finding remained unchanged even when genes with lower expression level were included or after statistical stringency was lowered. There were, however, ninety-four genes differentially expressed between sepsis and control patients. These genes included those involved in immune regulation, inflammation and mitochondrial function. Hierarchical cluster analysis confirmed that the difference in gene expression profile existed between sepsis and control patients, but not between gram-positive and gram-negative patients. Conclusion: Gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis share a common host response at a transcriptome level. These findings support the hypothesis that the septic response is non-specific and is designed to provide a more general response that can be elicited by a wide range of different micro-organisms. The study included seventy-two critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of Nepean Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Of these, fifty-five patients were diagnosed to have sepsis, as confirmed by microbiological culture. The remaining seventeen patients did not have sepsis and were therefore used as controls. The study was approved by the hospital ethics committee and informed consent was obtained from all patients or their relatives. Patient Samples. Whole blood was taken from each patient on admission to ICU. Neutrophils were separated from whole blood using density-gradient separation with Ficoll-PaqueP P(Amersham). Subsequent neutrophil RNA extraction was performed using guanidinium thiocyanate (Ambion). Microarray Experiment. The neutrophil RNA was converted to cDNA, fluorescently labeled and hybridized to its complimentary sequences on the microarray (Invitrogen). The fluorescent signals on each micrroarray were captured using the GenePix 4000B laser scanner (Axon Instruments). Expression level of each gene was represented by the intensity of its fluorescent signal. Data Extraction. All signal intensity values were processed using background-subtraction method. Prior to analysis, all values were log-transformed and normalized by fitting a print-tip group Lowess curve. Normalization minimizes bias due to dye chemistry, signal intensity or location of a gene on the array. It ensures the detection of genes that are truly differentially expressed, instead of those caused by experimental artifacts or variation in the hybridization process. After normalization, genes that had more than 50% of data missing were removed. We then selected genes that had at least 80% of the data showing two-fold changes from the geneâs median values. After filtering, 1617 genes were available for further analysis.