Host Diagnostic Biomarkers of Infection in the ICU: Where Are We and Where Are We Going?

Abstract

Purpose of Review Early identification of infection in the critically ill patient and initiation of appropriate treatment is key to reducing morbidity and mortality. On the other hand, the indiscriminate use of antimicrobials leads to harms, many of which may be exaggerated in the critically ill population. The current method of diagnosing infection in the intensive care unit relies heavily on clinical gestalt; however, this approach is plagued by biases. Therefore, a reliable, independent biomarker holds promise in the accurate determination of infection. We discuss currently used host biomarkers used in the intensive care unit and review new and emerging approaches to biomarker discovery. Recent Findings White cell count (including total white cell count, left shift, and the neutrophil-leucocyte ratio), C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin are the most common host diagnostic biomarkers for sepsis used in current clinical practice. However, their utility in the initial diagnosis of infection, and their role in the subsequent decision to commence treatment, remains limited. Novel approaches to biomarker discovery that are currently being investigated include combination biomarkers, host ‘sepsis signatures’ based on differential gene expression, site-specific biomarkers, biomechanical assays, and incorporation of new and pre-existing host biomarkers into machine learning algorithms. Summary To date, no single reliable independent biomarker of infection exists. Whilst new approaches to biomarker discovery hold promise, their clinical utility may be limited if previous mistakes that have afflicted sepsis biomarker research continue to be repeated.

Independent Validation of Sepsis Index for Sepsis Screening in the Emergency Department

“…The strength of our study is that it was performed in a “real world” setting, including patients admitted to the ED as controls. Several studies use healthy individuals non-hospitalised individuals as controls, leading to a misleading evaluation of the real performance of a biomarker, as stated by Heffernan and Denny [ 20 ].…”

Diagnosis and prediction of COVID-19 severity: can biochemical tests and machine learning be used as prognostic indicators?

“…However, most of these studies included a small sample size, which may impact the model’s robustness and reliability of findings (e.g., low sensitivity) [ [14] , [15] , [16] ] and prevent its use in practice. Moreover, to date, specific biomarkers associated with the disease severity and patients’ hospitalisation in intensive care units are still unknown, which may hamper the development of further targeted treatments [ 13 ].…”

Artificial intelligence approach towards assessment of condition of COVID-19 patients - Identification of predictive biomarkers associated with severity of clinical condition and disease progression

“…Joshi et al (2020) applied a logistic regression model previously trained with 390 samples, out of which only 33 were positive for COVID-19, achieving sensitivity and specificity values of 93% and 43%, respectively [ 38 ]. Furthermore, precise biomarkers linked with illness severity and patients' hospitalization in critical care units are yet unclear, which may impede the development of future tailored therapies [ 39 ].…”