Biomarkers in Sepsis

 

Use of Biomarkers in Diagnosis and Prognostication of Sepsis: A Critical Review

Dr Neeraj Manikath ,claude.ai

Abstract

Sepsis remains a leading cause of mortality in critical care units worldwide, with timely diagnosis and accurate prognostication being crucial for improved outcomes. This review evaluates the current landscape of biomarkers in sepsis management, focusing on their clinical utility, limitations, and integration into decision-making frameworks. Despite the availability of numerous biomarkers, no single marker possesses ideal sensitivity and specificity for all clinical scenarios. Procalcitonin and C-reactive protein remain the most extensively studied and clinically implemented markers, while novel biomarkers targeting specific pathophysiological pathways show promise. This review advocates for a judicious approach to biomarker utilization, emphasizing combination strategies, serial measurements, and integration with clinical assessment rather than isolated interpretation. We further explore the emerging role of artificial intelligence in enhancing biomarker utility and discuss practical frameworks for biomarker implementation in resource-variable settings. The rational application of biomarkers, guided by an understanding of their biological context and limitations, remains essential for optimizing sepsis care pathways.

Keywords: Sepsis, Biomarkers, Procalcitonin, Diagnosis, Prognostication, Critical Care

1. Introduction

Sepsis, defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, continues to present a significant global health challenge with high mortality rates despite advances in critical care medicine (Singer et al., 2016). Early recognition and appropriate intervention remain cornerstones of effective sepsis management, with each hour of delayed antimicrobial therapy associated with increased mortality (Kumar et al., 2006).

In this context, biomarkers have emerged as potentially valuable tools to facilitate early diagnosis, guide antimicrobial therapy, assess response to treatment, and predict outcomes. However, the proliferation of proposed sepsis biomarkers—with over 250 identified in the literature—has created a complex landscape that challenges clinicians to make evidence-based decisions regarding their implementation (Pierrakos & Vincent, 2010).

This review aims to critically evaluate the current evidence supporting the use of established and emerging biomarkers in sepsis management, with a focus on their judicious application in clinical practice. We emphasize that biomarkers should complement, rather than replace, comprehensive clinical assessment and should be interpreted within the context of the patient's overall clinical presentation and trajectory.

2. Pathophysiological Basis for Biomarker Development

Understanding the complex pathophysiology of sepsis is crucial for appreciating the biological basis and limitations of various biomarkers. Sepsis involves an intricate interplay of pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory responses, coagulation abnormalities, endothelial dysfunction, and cellular metabolic derangements (van der Poll et al., 2017).

Biomarkers in sepsis can be categorized based on the pathophysiological processes they reflect:

1. Inflammatory mediators: C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), cytokines (IL-6, IL-8, TNF-α)
2. Acute phase proteins: Ferritin, hepcidin, pentraxins
3. Coagulation markers: D-dimer, thrombomodulin, protein C
4. Endothelial dysfunction markers: Angiopoietins, selectins, vascular endothelial growth factor
5. Organ dysfunction indicators: Lactate, troponins, natriuretic peptides
6. Cellular damage markers: Cell-free DNA, histones, high-mobility group box 1 (HMGB1)
7. Immune function markers: Human leukocyte antigen-DR (HLA-DR), CD64, programmed death-1 (PD-1)

This classification highlights that no single biomarker can capture the complete pathophysiological spectrum of sepsis, supporting the rationale for combination approaches in clinical practice.

3. Established Biomarkers in Sepsis

3.1 Procalcitonin (PCT)

Procalcitonin remains the most extensively studied biomarker in sepsis management. Under normal physiological conditions, PCT concentrations are negligible (<0.05 ng/mL) but increase rapidly in response to bacterial infections, particularly in systemic infections with bacteremia (Schuetz et al., 2017).

Diagnostic utility: Meta-analyses have reported sensitivities of 77-85% and specificities of 79-83% for differentiating sepsis from non-infectious SIRS (Wacker et al., 2013). However, several factors can influence PCT levels:

• Elevated levels in non-infectious conditions: Major trauma, surgery, burns, cardiogenic shock
• Attenuated response in localized infections or infections in immunocompromised hosts
• Variable kinetics based on pathogen type (generally higher in gram-negative versus gram-positive infections)

Prognostic utility: Higher PCT levels and persistently elevated concentrations correlate with increased mortality and treatment failure (Liu et al., 2015). Serial measurements demonstrating decreasing concentrations (>80% decline from peak) suggest favorable outcomes.

Antimicrobial stewardship: Perhaps the most established role of PCT is in guiding antibiotic de-escalation. Multiple randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that PCT-guided algorithms can safely reduce antibiotic exposure without compromising outcomes, particularly in respiratory infections and sepsis (de Jong et al., 2016).

3.2 C-Reactive Protein (CRP)

CRP is an acute phase protein synthesized primarily by hepatocytes in response to IL-6 stimulation. Despite being less specific than PCT, CRP remains widely used due to its accessibility and lower cost.

Diagnostic utility: CRP demonstrates sensitivities of 75-85% and specificities of 65-70% for identifying infection. Its relatively slow kinetics (peak at 48-72 hours) and non-specific elevation in inflammatory conditions limit its utility for early sepsis diagnosis.

Prognostic utility: While baseline CRP has limited prognostic value, the pattern of serial measurements can be informative, with failure to decrease by at least 25% within the first week of treatment associated with poor outcomes (Ranzani et al., 2017).

Practical considerations: The optimal cutoff values vary by clinical context, with suggested thresholds of >80-100 mg/L for ICU patients with suspected infection. CRP may have particular utility in specific conditions like infective endocarditis or monitoring response in necrotizing pancreatitis.

3.3 Lactate

While not a biomarker of infection per se, lactate serves as a key marker of tissue hypoperfusion and cellular dysfunction in sepsis.

Diagnostic utility: Lactate >2 mmol/L is included in the current definition of septic shock (Singer et al., 2016). Elevated lactate (>4 mmol/L) in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion should prompt consideration of alternative etiologies such as liver dysfunction, seizures, medications, or malignancy.

Prognostic utility: Lactate clearance has emerged as a prognostic indicator, with failure to clear by at least 20% within 2-6 hours associated with increased mortality (Ryoo et al., 2018). Persistent elevation despite appropriate resuscitation suggests ongoing tissue hypoperfusion or mitochondrial dysfunction.

Clinical implementation: Current guidelines recommend serial lactate measurements to guide resuscitation in sepsis, with normalization of lactate being a treatment target in patients with initial elevation (Evans et al., 2021).

4. Emerging Biomarkers with Clinical Potential

4.1 Presepsin (sCD14-ST)

Presepsin, a soluble fragment of CD14, is released during monocyte activation in response to bacterial infections. Recent meta-analyses have reported superior diagnostic accuracy compared to CRP, with sensitivity and specificity approaching those of PCT (Wu et al., 2017).

Advantages: Faster kinetics than PCT (detectable within 2 hours of infection onset), potentially allowing earlier diagnosis. Some studies suggest better performance in distinguishing sepsis from non-infectious SIRS.

Limitations: Limited data in specific populations (neonates, renal dysfunction). Optimal cutoff values remain to be established.

4.2 Mid-regional proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM)

MR-proADM reflects cardiovascular and endothelial dysfunction, offering complementary information to traditional inflammatory markers.

Prognostic utility: Emerging evidence suggests MR-proADM may outperform PCT, CRP, and lactate for mortality prediction, with particular utility for identifying apparently stable patients at risk for deterioration (Elke et al., 2018).

Clinical application: Potential role in risk stratification and decisions regarding ICU admission or escalation of care. May be particularly valuable when combined with clinical severity scores.

4.3 Soluble Triggering Receptor Expressed on Myeloid Cells-1 (sTREM-1)

sTREM-1 is released by activated neutrophils and monocytes during infection, with minimal elevation in non-infectious inflammatory conditions.

Diagnostic utility: Meta-analyses report sensitivities of 79-82% and specificities of 80-84% for sepsis diagnosis (Su et al., 2016).

Limitations: Significant heterogeneity in reported cutoff values and assay methodologies. Limited availability of standardized commercial assays restricts widespread implementation.

4.4 Cell-free DNA and Histones

These damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) are released during cell death and neutrophil extracellular trap formation, reflecting tissue injury in sepsis.

Prognostic potential: Elevated levels correlate with organ dysfunction and mortality in sepsis (Kaufman et al., 2018). May have particular utility in monitoring treatment response.

Limitations: Technical challenges in measurement standardization. Significant overlap with levels observed in trauma, surgery, and other critical illnesses.

4.5 Biomarkers of Immune Dysfunction

Recent focus has shifted toward markers reflecting immune status, particularly for identifying the immunosuppressive phase of sepsis:

• HLA-DR expression: Decreased monocyte HLA-DR expression identifies sepsis-induced immunosuppression and correlates with nosocomial infection risk and mortality (Monneret & Venet, 2016).
• PD-1/PD-L1 pathway: Elevated expression associated with lymphocyte dysfunction and poor outcomes.
• Tregs and MDSC quantification: Expanded populations correlate with immunosuppression.

These immune function markers may guide immunomodulatory interventions but currently remain primarily research tools due to methodological complexity.

5. Biomarker Combinations and Panels

Given the multifaceted pathophysiology of sepsis and the limitations of individual biomarkers, combination approaches have gained increasing attention.

5.1 Rationale for Combinations

Biomarker combinations can potentially:

• Improve diagnostic accuracy by capturing different pathophysiological aspects
• Enhance risk stratification by integrating markers with complementary prognostic information
• Better characterize the immune phenotype to guide personalized interventions

5.2 Promising Combinations

Several combinations have demonstrated improved performance compared to individual markers:

1. PCT + Presepsin: Increased sensitivity for early sepsis diagnosis (Brodska et al., 2018)
2. PCT + MR-proADM: Enhanced prognostic accuracy, with MR-proADM particularly valuable for identifying high-risk patients with relatively low PCT levels (Elke et al., 2018)
3. CRP + Ferritin + Lymphocyte count: Simple combination with improved specificity for bacterial infection
4. PCT + Lactate + SOFA score: Integration of infection marker, tissue perfusion indicator, and clinical severity assessment (Ryoo et al., 2018)

5.3 Commercial Multi-marker Panels

Several commercial panels have been developed, including:

1. SeptiCyte™: Based on a four-gene expression signature (CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLA2G7, PLAC8), demonstrated an AUC of 0.82-0.89 for differentiating sepsis from non-infectious SIRS in validation studies (Miller et al., 2018).

2. SeptiScore™: Combines PCT, IL-6, and cell-free DNA with machine learning algorithms.

3. IntelliSep™: Based on leukocyte activity assessment, provides an "IntelliSep Index" that correlates with sepsis likelihood and severity.

While these panels show promise, their added value over simpler combinations of established markers requires further validation, particularly considering cost implications.

6. Practical Considerations for Clinical Implementation

6.1 Pre-analytical and Analytical Factors

Several factors can affect biomarker reliability in clinical practice:

• Sample timing: Most biomarkers demonstrate time-dependent kinetics that must be considered in interpretation
• Sample handling: Storage conditions and processing time can significantly impact results
• Analytical methods: Lack of standardization between assays can lead to variability in cutoff values
• Laboratory capabilities: Not all biomarkers are available as point-of-care tests or may have significant turnaround times

6.2 Patient-specific Considerations

Biomarker interpretation must account for patient-specific factors:

• Age: Both PCT and CRP demonstrate altered kinetics in elderly populations
• Renal function: Several biomarkers (PCT, presepsin) are affected by renal dysfunction
• Liver disease: Altered production and clearance of acute phase proteins
• Immunosuppression: Attenuated inflammatory responses may result in lower biomarker levels despite severe infection
• Recent surgery/trauma: Non-infectious elevation of inflammatory markers

6.3 Implementing Biomarker-guided Algorithms

Successful implementation requires:

1. Clear protocols: Well-defined thresholds and decision algorithms tailored to the specific clinical setting
2. Education: Ensuring clinicians understand biomarker limitations and interpretation nuances
3. Integration with clinical judgment: Biomarkers should inform, not dictate, clinical decisions
4. Regular audit: Monitoring adherence and outcomes to refine protocols
5. Resource considerations: Cost-effectiveness analyses to guide appropriate utilization

7. Future Directions

7.1 Personalized Medicine Approaches

The future of sepsis biomarkers lies in their ability to facilitate precision medicine:

• Endotype identification: Biomarkers that identify specific pathophysiological patterns (e.g., hyperinflammatory vs. immunosuppressed phenotypes)
• Theragnostic applications: Biomarkers that predict response to specific interventions (e.g., immunomodulatory therapies)
• Host-response patterns: Markers reflecting host-pathogen interactions that may guide antimicrobial selection

7.2 Integration with Artificial Intelligence

Machine learning approaches offer potential to:

• Identify novel biomarker combinations with superior performance
• Develop dynamic prediction models incorporating biomarker trajectories
• Integrate biomarkers with clinical and physiological data for enhanced decision support
• Recognize patient-specific response patterns that may not be apparent with traditional statistical approaches

Recent studies have demonstrated that algorithms incorporating biomarker data with electronic health record information can improve early sepsis recognition compared to either approach alone (Nemati et al., 2018).

7.3 Point-of-Care Testing and Remote Monitoring

Technological advances are enabling:

• Rapid bedside measurement of multiple biomarkers simultaneously
• Continuous or semi-continuous monitoring of select biomarkers
• Integration with telemedicine platforms for remote monitoring
• Wearable devices that may allow biomarker tracking outside hospital settings

These developments have particular relevance for resource-limited settings and scenarios requiring distributed care models.

8. Recommendations for Judicious Biomarker Use

Based on current evidence, we propose the following principles for rational biomarker implementation in sepsis management:

8.1 Diagnostic Applications

1. Recognize limitations: No biomarker should be used in isolation to diagnose or rule out sepsis
2. Know your pre-test probability: Biomarkers have higher utility in cases of intermediate clinical suspicion
3. Consider kinetics: Interpret results in relation to symptom onset and previous measurements
4. Use appropriate thresholds: Apply context-specific cutoff values rather than universal thresholds
5. Integrate with clinical assessment: Combine biomarkers with validated clinical tools (e.g., qSOFA, NEWS2)

8.2 Prognostic Applications

1. Serial measurements: Trajectory provides more valuable information than isolated values
2. Combine with clinical scores: Integration with SOFA, APACHE II, or similar tools enhances accuracy
3. Consider patient-specific factors: Interpret in context of comorbidities and physiological reserve
4. Early reassessment: Use biomarkers to identify treatment non-responders requiring escalation
5. Communicate uncertainty: Clearly articulate the probabilistic nature of prognostication to clinical teams and families

8.3 Treatment Guidance

1. Antimicrobial stewardship: PCT-guided protocols can safely reduce antibiotic duration
2. Response assessment: Serial measurements can identify treatment failure earlier than clinical parameters alone
3. De-escalation decisions: Declining biomarkers can support clinical judgment regarding ICU discharge or step-down care
4. Experimental therapies: Consider biomarker-guided enrollment for novel interventions targeting specific pathways

8.4 Resource-appropriate Implementation

1. Tiered approach: Prioritize widely available markers (CRP, PCT, lactate) before specialized tests
2. Cost-conscious strategies: Reserve more expensive markers for specific clinical questions
3. Quality over quantity: Judicious use of a few well-validated biomarkers rather than indiscriminate panel testing
4. Context-specific protocols: Develop implementation strategies appropriate to local resources and capabilities

9. Conclusion

Biomarkers have evolved from simple diagnostic aids to sophisticated tools capable of informing multiple aspects of sepsis management. However, their optimal utilization requires an understanding of their biological context, kinetics, and limitations.

The judicious application of biomarkers—characterized by thoughtful selection, appropriate timing, integrated interpretation, and context-specific thresholds—can enhance sepsis care pathways by supporting earlier diagnosis, better risk stratification, and more personalized treatment decisions. Conversely, indiscriminate biomarker measurement without clear clinical purpose risks increasing costs without improving outcomes.

Future developments in biomarker research should focus not only on identifying novel markers with improved performance characteristics but also on optimizing implementation strategies that translate biomarker data into meaningful clinical action. The integration of biomarkers with clinical decision support systems, particularly those leveraging artificial intelligence, represents a promising approach to maximizing their utility in everyday practice.

Ultimately, biomarkers should be viewed as valuable tools within the broader context of comprehensive sepsis management—complementing, rather than replacing, thorough clinical assessment and timely, appropriate interventions.

References

1. Brodska H, Valenta J, Pelinkova K, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of presepsin versus established biomarkers in critically ill patients with sepsis or systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2018;56(4):658-668.

2. de Jong E, van Oers JA, Beishuizen A, et al. Efficacy and safety of procalcitonin guidance in reducing the duration of antibiotic treatment in critically ill patients: a randomised, controlled, open-label trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(7):819-827.

3. Elke G, Bloos F, Wilson DC, et al. The use of mid-regional proadrenomedullin to identify disease severity and treatment response to sepsis - a secondary analysis of a large randomised controlled trial. Crit Care. 2018;22(1):79.

4. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. Crit Care Med. 2021;49(11):e1063-e1143.

5. Kaufman DA, Shapiro NI, Trzeciak S, et al. Cell-free DNA and immunosuppression are associated with increased mortality in sepsis: post hoc analyses of the ProCESS trial. Shock. 2018;50(1):60-69.

6. Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, et al. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(6):1589-1596.

7. Liu D, Su L, Han G, et al. Prognostic value of procalcitonin in adult patients with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0129450.

8. Miller RR 3rd, Lopansri BK, Burke JP, et al. Validation of a host response assay, SeptiCyte LAB, for discriminating sepsis from systemic inflammatory response syndrome in the ICU. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;198(7):903-913.

9. Monneret G, Venet F. Sepsis-induced immune alterations monitoring by flow cytometry as a promising tool for individualized therapy. Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2016;90(4):376-386.

10. Nemati S, Holder A, Razmi F, et al. An interpretable machine learning model for accurate prediction of sepsis in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(4):547-553.

11. Pierrakos C, Vincent JL. Sepsis biomarkers: a review. Crit Care. 2010;14(1):R15.

12. Ranzani OT, Prada LF, Zampieri FG, et al. Failure to reduce C-reactive protein levels more than 25% in the last 24 hours before intensive care unit discharge predicts higher in-hospital mortality: a cohort study. J Crit Care. 2017;41:21-25.

13. Ryoo SM, Lee J, Lee YS, et al. Lactate level versus lactate clearance for predicting mortality in patients with septic shock defined by Sepsis-3. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(6):e489-e495.

14. Schuetz P, Wirz Y, Sager R, et al. Procalcitonin to initiate or discontinue antibiotics in acute respiratory tract infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;10:CD007498.

15. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801-810.

16. Su L, Liu D, Chai W, et al. Role of sTREM-1 in predicting mortality of infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2016;6(5):e010314.

17. van der Poll T, van de Veerdonk FL, Scicluna BP, Netea MG. The immunopathology of sepsis and potential therapeutic targets. Nat Rev Immunol. 2017;17(7):407-420.

18. Wacker C, Prkno A, Brunkhorst FM, Schlattmann P. Procalcitonin as a diagnostic marker for sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13(5):426-435.

19. Wu J, Hu L, Zhang G, et al. Accuracy of presepsin in sepsis diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0171115.