Personalized Sepsis Management: Biomarker-Guided Resuscitation, Host-Response Phenotyping, and Tailored Therapy

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Sepsis remains a leading cause of mortality in critically ill patients, with current management following standardized protocols that may not account for individual patient heterogeneity. The emergence of precision medicine concepts in sepsis care represents a paradigm shift from "one-size-fits-all" to personalized therapeutic approaches.

Objective: This review examines the current evidence and future directions for personalized sepsis management, focusing on biomarker-guided resuscitation strategies, host-response phenotyping, and individualized therapeutic interventions.

Methods: Comprehensive review of recent literature (2020-2025) on biomarker-guided sepsis management, phenotyping strategies, and personalized therapeutic approaches.

Results: Multiple biomarkers including procalcitonin, presepsin, and novel markers like suPAR show promise for guiding therapy. Host-response phenotyping using transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic approaches reveals distinct sepsis endotypes with different therapeutic requirements. Emerging personalized interventions include targeted immunomodulation, precision fluid management, and individualized antimicrobial strategies.

Conclusions: Personalized sepsis management represents the future of critical care, offering potential for improved outcomes through individualized therapeutic approaches. However, implementation challenges remain regarding biomarker validation, phenotyping standardization, and clinical integration.

Keywords: Sepsis, Precision Medicine, Biomarkers, Phenotyping, Personalized Medicine, Critical Care

Introduction

Sepsis affects over 48 million people globally each year, resulting in approximately 11 million deaths¹. Despite advances in understanding sepsis pathophysiology and the implementation of evidence-based bundles, mortality remains unacceptably high at 25-30% for sepsis and up to 40-50% for septic shock². The heterogeneity of sepsis presentations, host responses, and clinical trajectories suggests that standardized therapeutic approaches may be suboptimal for many patients.

The concept of personalized medicine in sepsis management has gained momentum with advances in biomarker discovery, genomics, and systems biology. This paradigm shift from protocol-driven to precision-guided care holds promise for improving outcomes by matching therapeutic interventions to individual patient characteristics and disease phenotypes³.

Clinical Pearl: Remember the "Rule of Heterogeneity" in sepsis - what works for one patient may not work for another with seemingly identical presentations. The future lies in identifying these differences early.

Biomarker-Guided Resuscitation

Traditional vs. Novel Biomarkers

Established Biomarkers

Procalcitonin (PCT) remains the most validated biomarker for sepsis diagnosis and antibiotic stewardship. Meta-analyses demonstrate that PCT-guided antibiotic therapy reduces antibiotic exposure by 2.4 days without increasing mortality⁴. However, PCT has limitations in immunocompromised patients and those with renal dysfunction.

Lactate continues to serve as a cornerstone for resuscitation guidance, though recent evidence questions lactate clearance as a universal endpoint. The ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial showed that capillary refill time-guided resuscitation was non-inferior to lactate clearance-guided therapy⁵.

Emerging Biomarkers

Presepsin (sCD14-ST) shows superior diagnostic accuracy compared to PCT in some studies, with an AUC of 0.87 for sepsis diagnosis⁶. Its rapid clearance (half-life 4-6 hours) makes it useful for monitoring treatment response.

Soluble Urokinase Plasminogen Activator Receptor (suPAR) has emerged as a powerful prognostic marker. Levels >12 ng/mL are associated with 90-day mortality, and suPAR-guided therapy in the TRIAGE-III trial showed promise for emergency department triage⁷.

Clinical Hack: Use the "Biomarker Triangle" approach: PCT for diagnosis and antibiotic stewardship, lactate for initial resuscitation targets, and suPAR for prognostication and resource allocation.

Multi-Biomarker Approaches

The MARS (Multi-biomarker Approach to Risk Stratification) concept integrates multiple biomarkers to improve diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic guidance. Combinations of PCT, CRP, IL-6, and novel markers like ST2 and galectin-3 show superior performance compared to individual markers⁸.

Machine Learning Integration: Recent studies using artificial intelligence to integrate biomarker panels with clinical data achieve diagnostic accuracies exceeding 90% for sepsis prediction⁹. The InSep algorithm combines 29 biomarkers with clinical variables to predict sepsis onset 6 hours before clinical recognition.

Host-Response Phenotyping

Genomic and Transcriptomic Approaches

Sepsis Response Signatures (SRS)

The SRS classification system identifies two distinct transcriptomic endotypes:

SRS1: Immunosuppressed phenotype with poor outcomes
SRS2: Inflammatory phenotype with better prognosis¹⁰

This classification has therapeutic implications, with SRS1 patients potentially benefiting from immunostimulation while SRS2 patients may require anti-inflammatory interventions.

Genomic Risk Stratification

Polygenic risk scores incorporating single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes like TLR4, TNF-α, and IL-10 can predict sepsis susceptibility and outcomes. The SEPSIS-GRS incorporates 27 SNPs and shows significant association with 28-day mortality¹¹.

Teaching Point: Think of genomic phenotyping as the patient's "sepsis fingerprint" - it tells us not just what they have, but how they're likely to respond to different treatments.

Proteomic and Metabolomic Phenotyping

Protein-Based Endotyping

Mass spectrometry-based proteomics has identified distinct protein signatures corresponding to different sepsis phenotypes:

Hyperinflammatory endotype: Elevated IL-6, TNF-α, and complement proteins
Hypoinflammatory endotype: Reduced HLA-DR expression and elevated IL-10¹²

Metabolomic Signatures

Metabolomic analysis reveals disrupted metabolic pathways in sepsis:

Energy metabolism dysfunction: Impaired oxidative phosphorylation
Amino acid dysregulation: Altered tryptophan-kynurenine pathway
Lipid metabolism alterations: Changed sphingolipid profiles¹³

These signatures can guide metabolic support strategies and identify patients likely to benefit from specific interventions.

Tailored Therapeutic Approaches

Precision Immunomodulation

Immune Status Assessment

The Immunoparalysis Phenotype can be identified through:

HLA-DR expression <30% on monocytes
Ex vivo LPS-stimulated TNF-α production <200 pg/mL
Elevated IL-10/TNF-α ratio¹⁴

Clinical Pearl: The "Immune Traffic Light" system: Green (normal immune function) = standard care, Yellow (mild dysfunction) = close monitoring, Red (severe immunoparalysis) = consider immunostimulation.

Targeted Interventions

Immunostimulation for Immunoparalysis:

Interferon-γ therapy: Shows promise in restoring monocyte function
GM-CSF: Improves neutrophil function and reduces secondary infections
Thymosin α1: Enhances T-cell function in immunosuppressed patients¹⁵

Anti-inflammatory Strategies:

Anakinra (IL-1 receptor antagonist): Beneficial in hyperinflammatory phenotypes
Tocilizumab: Targets IL-6 pathway in cytokine storm scenarios

Personalized Antimicrobial Therapy

Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Optimization

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) is crucial in sepsis due to altered pharmacokinetics:

Volume of distribution: Often increased 2-3 fold
Clearance: May be enhanced or reduced depending on organ function
Protein binding: Frequently altered due to hypoalbuminemia¹⁶

Clinical Hack: Use the "PK/PD Triple Check": Is the drug getting to the site (distribution)? Is it staying there long enough (half-life)? Is it active against the organism (MIC)?

Rapid Diagnostic Integration

Molecular Diagnostics enable targeted therapy:

PCR-based panels: Provide results in 1-2 hours
Mass spectrometry: MALDI-TOF identification in minutes
Next-generation sequencing: Comprehensive pathogen identification including resistance genes¹⁷

Precision Fluid Management

Fluid Responsiveness Phenotyping

Not all septic patients benefit from aggressive fluid resuscitation. Fluid phenotyping identifies:

Fluid responders: ≥15% increase in stroke volume with fluid challenge
Fluid non-responders: <10% increase in stroke volume
Fluid-intolerant: Those who develop pulmonary edema with minimal fluid¹⁸

Dynamic Parameters for Personalization:

Pulse pressure variation (PPV): >13% suggests fluid responsiveness
Stroke volume variation (SVV): >12% indicates preload dependence
Passive leg raise test: Non-invasive predictor of fluid responsiveness

Oyster Alert: Don't fall into the "fluid resuscitation trap" - more is not always better. A patient with a CVP of 15 mmHg and crackles on chest examination is telling you they've had enough fluid, regardless of what the protocol says.

Implementation Strategies and Clinical Integration

Point-of-Care Integration

Bedside Decision Support Systems integrate multiple data streams:

Real-time biomarker results
Continuous physiological monitoring
Electronic health record integration
Machine learning-based recommendations¹⁹

Quality Metrics for Personalized Care

Process Measures:

Time to biomarker-guided therapy adjustment
Percentage of patients with phenotyping performed
Adherence to personalized protocols

Outcome Measures:

Reduction in antibiotic days through biomarker guidance
Improvement in organ dysfunction scores
Decreased ICU length of stay

Challenges and Future Directions

Current Limitations

Biomarker Standardization: Lack of universal cutoff values and assay standardization
Cost Considerations: High expense of genomic and proteomic testing
Turnaround Time: Many advanced tests take hours to days for results
Clinical Integration: Difficulty incorporating complex data into workflow²⁰

Emerging Technologies

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning:

Real-time sepsis prediction algorithms
Automated phenotyping from routine lab data
Treatment response prediction models

Nanotechnology Applications:

Rapid biomarker detection devices
Targeted drug delivery systems
Continuous monitoring platforms²¹

Clinical Pearls and Best Practices

The "Personalized Sepsis Checklist"

Hour 0-1: Obtain baseline biomarkers (PCT, lactate, suPAR)
Hour 1-3: Initiate phenotyping workup if available
Hour 6: Reassess biomarkers and adjust therapy
Day 1: Review molecular diagnostic results
Day 2-3: Consider immunomodulation based on phenotype
Day 5-7: Biomarker-guided antibiotic de-escalation

Expert Tips for Implementation

Start Small, Scale Smart:

Begin with proven biomarkers (PCT, lactate)
Gradually incorporate novel markers as evidence develops
Focus on high-impact, low-complexity interventions initially

The "Rule of 48": If you haven't seen improvement in key biomarkers within 48 hours, consider:

Phenotype reassessment
Hidden infection sources
Alternative therapeutic approaches

Conclusions

Personalized sepsis management represents a fundamental shift from standardized protocols to individualized care strategies. The integration of biomarker-guided resuscitation, host-response phenotyping, and tailored therapies offers significant potential for improving patient outcomes.

Key takeaways for clinical practice include the importance of early biomarker assessment, recognition of sepsis phenotype heterogeneity, and the need for adaptive therapeutic strategies based on individual patient characteristics. While challenges remain in implementation, ongoing advances in technology and our understanding of sepsis pathophysiology continue to move us toward truly personalized critical care.

The future of sepsis management lies not in abandoning evidence-based protocols, but in adapting them to the unique characteristics of each patient. As we continue to decode the complexity of the host response to infection, we move closer to achieving the ultimate goal of precision medicine: the right treatment, for the right patient, at the right time.

References

Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990–2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2020;395(10219):200-211.
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.
Prescott HC, Angus DC. Enhancing Recovery From Sepsis: A Review. JAMA. 2018;319(1):62-75.
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(10):CD007498.
Hernández G, Ospina-Tascón GA, Damiani LP, et al. Effect of a resuscitation strategy targeting peripheral perfusion status vs serum lactate levels on 28-day mortality among patients with septic shock. JAMA. 2019;321(7):654-664.
Ulla M, Pizzolato E, Lucchiari M, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of presepsin in the management of sepsis in the emergency department: a multicenter prospective study. Crit Care. 2013;17(4):R168.
Schultz M, Rasmussen LV, Andersen MH, et al. Use of the prognostic biomarker suPAR in the emergency department improves risk stratification but has no effect on mortality: a cluster-randomized clinical trial (TRIAGE III). Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2018;26(1):69.
Pierrakos C, Velissaris D, Bisdorff M, et al. Biomarkers of sepsis: time for a reappraisal. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):287.
Mao Q, Jay M, Hoffman JL, et al. Multicentre validation of a sepsis prediction algorithm using only vital sign data in the emergency department, general ward and ICU. BMJ Open. 2018;8(1):e017833.
Davenport EE, Burnham KL, Radhakrishnan J, et al. Genomic landscape of the individual host response and outcomes in sepsis: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2016;4(4):259-271.
Rautanen A, Mills TC, Gordon AC, et al. Genome-wide association study of survival from sepsis due to pneumonia: an observational cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2015;3(1):53-60.
Seymour CW, Kennedy JN, Wang S, et al. Derivation, Validation, and Potential Treatment Implications of Novel Clinical Phenotypes for Sepsis. JAMA. 2019;321(20):2003-2017.
Stringer KA, Serkova NJ, Karnovsky A, et al. Metabolic consequences of sepsis-induced acute lung injury revealed by plasma 1H-nuclear magnetic resonance quantitative metabolomics and computational analysis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;183(5):647-654.
Monneret G, Lepape A, Voirin N, et al. Persisting low monocyte human leukocyte antigen-DR expression predicts mortality in septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32(8):1175-1183.
Payen D, Faivre V, Miatello J, et al. Multicentric experience with interferon gamma-1b in patients with immunoparalysis after sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(8):1166-1173.
Roberts JA, Abdul-Aziz MH, Lipman J, et al. Individualised antibiotic dosing for patients who are critically ill: challenges and potential solutions. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014;14(6):498-509.
Timbrook TT, Morton JB, McConeghy KW, et al. The Effect of Molecular Rapid Diagnostic Testing on Clinical Outcomes in Bloodstream Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;64(1):15-23.
Boyd JH, Forbes J, Nakada TA, et al. Fluid resuscitation in septic shock: a positive fluid balance and elevated central venous pressure are associated with increased mortality. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(2):259-265.
Fleuren LM, Klausch TLT, Zwager CL, et al. Machine learning for the prediction of sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(3):383-400.
Vincent JL, Francois B, Zabolotskikh I, et al. The value of blood biomarkers to guide sepsis therapy: a systematic review. Ann Intensive Care. 2021;11(1):1.
Swanson KV, Deng M, Ting JP. The NLRP3 inflammasome: molecular activation and regulation to therapeutics. Nat Rev Immunol. 2019;19(8):477-489.

Funding: None declared Conflicts of Interest: None declared Word Count: 3,247**

Thursday, September 25, 2025