RATIONALE: A molecular test to distinguish between sepsis and systemic inflammation of noninfectious etiology could potentially have clinical utility. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of a molecular host response assay (SeptiCyte LAB) designed to distinguish between sepsis and noninfectious systemic inflammation in critically ill adults. METHODS: The study employed a prospective, observational, noninterventional design and recruited a heterogeneous cohort of adult critical care patients from seven sites in the United States (n = 249). An additional group of 198 patients, recruited in the large MARS (Molecular Diagnosis and Risk Stratification of Sepsis) consortium trial in the Netherlands ( www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01905033), was also tested and analyzed, making a grand total of 447 patients in our study. The performance of SeptiCyte LAB was compared with retrospective physician diagnosis by a panel of three experts. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, SeptiCyte LAB had an estimated area under the curve of 0.82-0.89 for discriminating sepsis from noninfectious systemic inflammation. The relative likelihood of sepsis versus noninfectious systemic inflammation was found to increase with increasing test score (range, 0-10). In a forward logistic regression analysis, the diagnostic performance of the assay was improved only marginally when used in combination with other clinical and laboratory variables, including procalcitonin. The performance of the assay was not significantly affected by demographic variables, including age, sex, or race/ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: SeptiCyte LAB appears to be a promising diagnostic tool to complement physician assessment of infection likelihood in critically ill adult patients with systemic inflammation. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01905033 and NCT02127502).
RATIONALE: A molecular test to distinguish between sepsis and systemic inflammation of noninfectious etiology could potentially have clinical utility. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of a molecular host response assay (SeptiCyte LAB) designed to distinguish between sepsis and noninfectious systemic inflammation in critically ill adults. METHODS: The study employed a prospective, observational, noninterventional design and recruited a heterogeneous cohort of adult critical care patients from seven sites in the United States (n = 249). An additional group of 198 patients, recruited in the large MARS (Molecular Diagnosis and Risk Stratification of Sepsis) consortium trial in the Netherlands ( www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01905033), was also tested and analyzed, making a grand total of 447 patients in our study. The performance of SeptiCyte LAB was compared with retrospective physician diagnosis by a panel of three experts. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, SeptiCyte LAB had an estimated area under the curve of 0.82-0.89 for discriminating sepsis from noninfectious systemic inflammation. The relative likelihood of sepsis versus noninfectious systemic inflammation was found to increase with increasing test score (range, 0-10). In a forward logistic regression analysis, the diagnostic performance of the assay was improved only marginally when used in combination with other clinical and laboratory variables, including procalcitonin. The performance of the assay was not significantly affected by demographic variables, including age, sex, or race/ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: SeptiCyte LAB appears to be a promising diagnostic tool to complement physician assessment of infection likelihood in critically ill adultpatients with systemic inflammation. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01905033 and NCT02127502).
Authors: Franz Ratzinger; Helmuth Haslacher; Thomas Perkmann; Klaus G Schmetterer; Wolfgang Poeppl; Dieter Mitteregger; Georg Dorffner; Heinz Burgmann Journal: Eur J Clin Invest Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 4.686
Authors: Prashant Mahajan; Nathan Kuppermann; Asuncion Mejias; Nicolas Suarez; Damien Chaussabel; T Charles Casper; Bennett Smith; Elizabeth R Alpern; Jennifer Anders; Shireen M Atabaki; Jonathan E Bennett; Stephen Blumberg; Bema Bonsu; Dominic Borgialli; Anne Brayer; Lorin Browne; Daniel M Cohen; Ellen F Crain; Andrea T Cruz; Peter S Dayan; Rajender Gattu; Richard Greenberg; John D Hoyle; David M Jaffe; Deborah A Levine; Kathleen Lillis; James G Linakis; Jared Muenzer; Lise E Nigrovic; Elizabeth C Powell; Alexander J Rogers; Genie Roosevelt; Richard M Ruddy; Mary Saunders; Michael G Tunik; Leah Tzimenatos; Melissa Vitale; J Michael Dean; Octavio Ramilo Journal: JAMA Date: 2016 Aug 23-30 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jethro A Herberg; Myrsini Kaforou; Victoria J Wright; Hannah Shailes; Hariklia Eleftherohorinou; Clive J Hoggart; Miriam Cebey-López; Michael J Carter; Victoria A Janes; Stuart Gormley; Chisato Shimizu; Adriana H Tremoulet; Anouk M Barendregt; Antonio Salas; John Kanegaye; Andrew J Pollard; Saul N Faust; Sanjay Patel; Taco Kuijpers; Federico Martinón-Torres; Jane C Burns; Lachlan J M Coin; Michael Levin Journal: JAMA Date: 2016 Aug 23-30 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Michael Bauer; Evangelos J Giamarellos-Bourboulis; Andreas Kortgen; Eva Möller; Karen Felsmann; Jean Marc Cavaillon; Orlando Guntinas-Lichius; Olivier Rutschmann; Andriy Ruryk; Matthias Kohl; Britta Wlotzka; Stefan Rußwurm; John C Marshall; Konrad Reinhart Journal: EBioMedicine Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 8.143
Authors: Leo McHugh; Therese A Seldon; Roslyn A Brandon; James T Kirk; Antony Rapisarda; Allison J Sutherland; Jeffrey J Presneill; Deon J Venter; Jeffrey Lipman; Mervyn R Thomas; Peter M C Klein Klouwenberg; Lonneke van Vught; Brendon Scicluna; Marc Bonten; Olaf L Cremer; Marcus J Schultz; Tom van der Poll; Thomas D Yager; Richard B Brandon Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2015-12-08 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Sonia Y Velásquez; Anna Coulibaly; Carsten Sticht; Jutta Schulte; Bianka Hahn; Timo Sturm; Roman Schefzik; Manfred Thiel; Holger A Lindner Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 8.786
Authors: Roman A Lukaszewski; Helen E Jones; Vivian H Gersuk; Paul Russell; Andrew Simpson; David Brealey; Jonathan Walker; Matt Thomas; Tony Whitehouse; Marlies Ostermann; Alexander Koch; Kai Zacharowski; Mogens Kruhoffer; Damien Chaussabel; Mervyn Singer Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2022-07-13 Impact factor: 41.787
Authors: Hollis R O'Neal; Roya Sheybani; Terrell S Caffery; Mandi W Musso; Diana Hamer; Shannon M Alwood; Matthew S Berlinger; Tonya Jagneaux; Katherine W LaVie; Catherine S O'Neal; Michael A Sanchez; Morgan K Walker; Ajay M Shah; Henry T K Tse; Christopher B Thomas Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2021-06-15
Authors: Dayle Sampson; Thomas D Yager; Brian Fox; Laura Shallcross; Leo McHugh; Therese Seldon; Antony Rapisarda; Roslyn A Hendriks; Richard B Brandon; Krupa Navalkar; Nandi Simpson; Sian Stafford; Eliza Gil; Cristina Venturini; Evi Tsaliki; Jennifer Roe; Benjamin Chain; Mahdad Noursadeghi Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-07-21 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Rishi K Gupta; Joshua Rosenheim; Lucy C Bell; Aneesh Chandran; Jose A Guerra-Assuncao; Gabriele Pollara; Matthew Whelan; Jessica Artico; George Joy; Hibba Kurdi; Daniel M Altmann; Rosemary J Boyton; Mala K Maini; Aine McKnight; Jonathan Lambourne; Teresa Cutino-Moguel; Charlotte Manisty; Thomas A Treibel; James C Moon; Benjamin M Chain; Mahdad Noursadeghi Journal: Lancet Microbe Date: 2021-07-06