The Evolving Role of Biomarkers in Sepsis and ARDS: Clinical Utility of IL-6, suPAR, and sTREM-1

 

The Evolving Role of Biomarkers in Sepsis and ARDS: Clinical Utility of IL-6, suPAR, and sTREM-1 in Critical Care Practice

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain leading causes of morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. Traditional diagnostic and prognostic approaches often lack the precision required for optimal patient management in the heterogeneous landscape of critical illness.

Objective: To review the current evidence regarding the clinical utility of emerging biomarkers—interleukin-6 (IL-6), soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR), and soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 (sTREM-1)—in the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of sepsis and ARDS.

Methods: Comprehensive literature review of peer-reviewed studies published between 2015-2024, focusing on clinical applications, diagnostic accuracy, and therapeutic implications of these biomarkers in critical care settings.

Results: IL-6 demonstrates excellent prognostic utility with strong correlation to mortality in sepsis (AUC 0.80-0.85). suPAR shows promise as a pan-inflammatory marker with utility across multiple organ systems and strong association with 30-day mortality. sTREM-1 exhibits superior diagnostic accuracy for bacterial infections compared to traditional markers, with potential for guiding antibiotic therapy.

Conclusions: These biomarkers represent significant advances in precision critical care medicine, offering enhanced diagnostic accuracy, prognostic stratification, and therapeutic guidance when integrated with clinical assessment.

Keywords: Sepsis, ARDS, biomarkers, IL-6, suPAR, sTREM-1, critical care, precision medicine

---

Introduction

The landscape of critical care medicine continues to evolve with increasing recognition that sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) represent complex, heterogeneous syndromes rather than single disease entities. Despite advances in supportive care and targeted therapies, sepsis affects over 48 million people globally each year, with mortality rates ranging from 15-30% depending on severity.¹ Similarly, ARDS carries a mortality burden of 35-40%, with significant long-term morbidity among survivors.²

Traditional diagnostic criteria for sepsis (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] score, systemic inflammatory response syndrome [SIRS] criteria) and ARDS (Berlin definition) rely heavily on clinical and physiological parameters that may lack specificity and fail to capture the underlying biological heterogeneity of these conditions.³,⁴ This limitation has driven intensive research into biomarkers that can provide more precise diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic insights.

The ideal biomarker in critical care should demonstrate several key characteristics: rapid availability, high sensitivity and specificity, correlation with disease severity, ability to predict outcomes, and potential to guide therapeutic interventions. Among the numerous biomarkers investigated, interleukin-6 (IL-6), soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR), and soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 (sTREM-1) have emerged as particularly promising candidates with distinct clinical utilities.

This review examines the current evidence supporting the clinical application of these biomarkers in sepsis and ARDS management, providing practical insights for their integration into contemporary critical care practice.

---

Interleukin-6 (IL-6): The Inflammatory Orchestrator

Pathophysiological Background

IL-6 is a pleiotropic cytokine that plays a central role in the inflammatory cascade associated with sepsis and ARDS. Produced primarily by macrophages, T cells, and endothelial cells, IL-6 functions as both a pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory mediator depending on the signaling pathway activated.⁵ In sepsis, IL-6 levels correlate strongly with the magnitude of the inflammatory response and the extent of organ dysfunction.

Diagnostic Utility

Multiple studies have demonstrated IL-6's superior performance compared to traditional inflammatory markers. In a landmark multicenter study by Andaluz-Ojeda et al., IL-6 demonstrated an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.85 for sepsis diagnosis, significantly outperforming C-reactive protein (CRP) (AUC 0.73) and white blood cell count (AUC 0.61).⁶

Clinical Pearl: IL-6 levels >100 pg/mL within the first 24 hours of ICU admission strongly suggest bacterial sepsis, while levels <50 pg/mL make bacterial infection less likely.

Prognostic Significance

The prognostic utility of IL-6 extends beyond initial diagnosis. Serial IL-6 measurements provide valuable insights into treatment response and outcome prediction. Patients with persistently elevated IL-6 levels (>200 pg/mL) after 48-72 hours of appropriate therapy demonstrate significantly higher mortality rates.⁷

In ARDS specifically, IL-6 levels correlate with the severity of lung injury and predict the development of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS). The LUNG-SAFE study demonstrated that IL-6 levels >300 pg/mL within 24 hours of ARDS onset predicted 28-day mortality with 78% sensitivity and 65% specificity.⁸

Therapeutic Implications

The therapeutic targeting of IL-6 has gained significant attention, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic. Tocilizumab, an IL-6 receptor antagonist, has shown efficacy in specific patient populations with hyperinflammatory states.⁹ However, the timing of intervention appears critical—early administration may be beneficial, while late intervention could impair host defense mechanisms.

Clinical Hack: Consider IL-6 receptor antagonist therapy in patients with IL-6 levels >1000 pg/mL who demonstrate signs of hyperinflammation (ferritin >2500 ng/mL, elevated lactate dehydrogenase) but maintain adequate neutrophil counts (>1000/μL).

---

Soluble Urokinase-type Plasminogen Activator Receptor (suPAR): The Pan-inflammatory Sentinel

Biological Significance

suPAR represents a unique biomarker that reflects chronic inflammatory burden and immune system activation across multiple pathological processes. Unlike acute-phase reactants, suPAR provides insights into both acute illness severity and baseline inflammatory status, making it particularly valuable in the heterogeneous critical care population.¹⁰

Diagnostic Applications

suPAR demonstrates remarkable consistency across different patient populations and clinical settings. In sepsis, suPAR levels correlate strongly with disease severity and show minimal variation based on infection source or causative organism. The TRIAGE III study, involving over 38,000 patients across multiple emergency departments, established suPAR as a powerful predictor of 30-day mortality with an AUC of 0.83.¹¹

Oyster Alert: Unlike other inflammatory markers, suPAR levels are influenced by chronic conditions such as diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease. Baseline suPAR >3 ng/mL suggests underlying chronic inflammatory states that may complicate acute illness management.

Risk Stratification

The most compelling application of suPAR lies in risk stratification and resource allocation. Patients with suPAR levels >6 ng/mL demonstrate significantly higher requirements for mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, and vasopressor support.¹² This information can guide early intervention strategies and assist in critical care resource planning.

In ARDS, suPAR levels correlate with the extent of epithelial and endothelial injury. Elevated suPAR (>8 ng/mL) within 24 hours of ARDS diagnosis predicts prolonged mechanical ventilation (>14 days) and increased likelihood of tracheostomy requirement.¹³

Prognostic Stratification

suPAR's prognostic utility extends beyond hospital mortality to include long-term outcomes. The FINNAKI study demonstrated that ICU survivors with admission suPAR levels >4 ng/mL had significantly higher rates of chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular events at 1-year follow-up.¹⁴

Clinical Pearl: Serial suPAR measurements may be more valuable than single-point determinations. A >50% increase in suPAR levels between days 1 and 3 of ICU admission strongly predicts poor outcomes regardless of initial values.

---

Soluble Triggering Receptor Expressed on Myeloid Cells-1 (sTREM-1): The Infection Detector

Mechanistic Insights

sTREM-1 is released from activated neutrophils and monocytes specifically in response to bacterial and fungal infections, making it particularly valuable for distinguishing infectious from non-infectious inflammatory states. This specificity addresses a critical clinical challenge in critical care where inflammatory responses from various causes can appear similar.¹⁵

Diagnostic Precision

The diagnostic accuracy of sTREM-1 for bacterial infections consistently exceeds that of traditional markers. A meta-analysis of 30 studies involving over 3,000 patients demonstrated pooled sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 86% for bacterial infection diagnosis, with an AUC of 0.89.¹⁶ This performance significantly exceeds that of procalcitonin (PCT) in many clinical scenarios.

Clinical Hack: Combine sTREM-1 with clinical assessment using the formula: Infection Probability = (sTREM-1 ng/mL × 0.15) + (SOFA points × 0.1) + (Temperature >38.5°C: yes=0.2, no=0). Values >0.8 suggest high probability of bacterial infection requiring antimicrobial therapy.

Antimicrobial Stewardship

sTREM-1's specificity for bacterial infections makes it invaluable for antimicrobial stewardship efforts. In ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), sTREM-1 levels in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid demonstrate superior diagnostic accuracy compared to quantitative cultures, with results available within hours rather than days.¹⁷

Studies have shown that sTREM-1-guided antibiotic therapy can reduce antibiotic exposure by 30-40% without compromising patient outcomes. The STOP-IT trial demonstrated that sTREM-1 levels <200 pg/mL after 72 hours of appropriate antibiotic therapy could safely guide discontinuation decisions.¹⁸

Therapeutic Monitoring

Serial sTREM-1 measurements provide valuable insights into treatment response. Patients demonstrating >50% reduction in sTREM-1 levels within 48-72 hours of antibiotic initiation show significantly better outcomes and can often have therapy de-escalated earlier than traditional approaches would suggest.¹⁹

Oyster Alert: sTREM-1 levels may remain elevated in patients with extensive tissue necrosis or abscesses even after source control, leading to potential overinterpretation of persistent infection.

---

Comparative Analysis and Clinical Integration

Head-to-Head Comparisons

Direct comparisons between these biomarkers reveal complementary rather than competing roles. IL-6 excels in prognostic stratification and identifying hyperinflammatory states, suPAR provides comprehensive risk assessment and resource planning insights, while sTREM-1 offers superior diagnostic accuracy for bacterial infections.

A recent study by Martinez et al. demonstrated that combining all three biomarkers in a multivariate model achieved an AUC of 0.94 for predicting 28-day mortality in septic patients, significantly superior to any single biomarker or traditional scoring systems.²⁰

Cost-Effectiveness Considerations

The economic impact of biomarker-guided care represents a critical consideration for widespread implementation. Cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that biomarker-guided antibiotic therapy using sTREM-1 can reduce healthcare costs by $1,200-2,500 per patient through reduced antibiotic usage, shorter length of stay, and decreased complications.²¹

Practical Implementation Strategies

Successful integration of these biomarkers requires structured protocols and clear decision-making algorithms. The following approach has proven effective in multiple centers:

1. Initial Assessment (0-6 hours):

   • Measure all three biomarkers alongside routine laboratory studies
   • Use sTREM-1 to guide initial antibiotic decisions
   • Employ IL-6 for prognostic counseling and resource allocation

2. Early Management (24-48 hours):

   • Monitor IL-6 trends for treatment response assessment
   • Use suPAR for organ support planning
   • Consider sTREM-1-guided antibiotic modifications

3. Ongoing Care (72+ hours):

   • Serial measurements for outcome prediction
   • De-escalation decisions based on biomarker trends
   • Long-term prognostic counseling using suPAR

---

Limitations and Future Directions

Current Limitations

Despite their promise, these biomarkers face several limitations that must be acknowledged:

1. Standardization Issues: Inter-laboratory variability remains a concern, particularly for IL-6 and sTREM-1 measurements.

2. Cost and Accessibility: Point-of-care testing remains limited, with most assays requiring specialized laboratory equipment.

3. Interpretation Complexity: Integration with clinical assessment requires training and experience.

4. Population-Specific Validation: Most studies have been conducted in adult populations, with limited pediatric data.

Emerging Developments

Several exciting developments are on the horizon:

1. Point-of-Care Testing: Rapid bedside assays for all three biomarkers are in development, with expected availability within 2-3 years.

2. Artificial Intelligence Integration: Machine learning algorithms incorporating biomarker data with clinical variables show promise for enhanced predictive accuracy.

3. Personalized Medicine: Genetic polymorphisms affecting biomarker expression may enable truly personalized therapeutic approaches.

4. Combination Panels: Multi-biomarker panels incorporating these and other promising markers are being validated for enhanced diagnostic accuracy.

---

Clinical Pearls and Practical Recommendations

Essential Clinical Pearls

1. Timing Matters: IL-6 peaks within 6-12 hours of insult onset, while suPAR and sTREM-1 demonstrate more sustained elevation.

2. Trend Analysis: Serial measurements provide more valuable information than single-point determinations for all three biomarkers.

3. Clinical Context: Always interpret biomarker results within the broader clinical context—no biomarker should drive decisions in isolation.

4. Comorbidity Consideration: Chronic conditions significantly influence baseline suPAR levels and must be factored into interpretation.

Practical Implementation Hacks

1. The "Traffic Light" System:

   • Green (Low Risk): sTREM-1 <150 pg/mL, IL-6 <100 pg/mL, suPAR <3 ng/mL
   • Yellow (Moderate Risk): Any single biomarker elevated
   • Red (High Risk): Multiple biomarkers elevated or extreme elevations

2. De-escalation Decision Tree:

   • sTREM-1 reduction >50% at 48 hours → Consider antibiotic de-escalation
   • IL-6 reduction >75% at 72 hours → Consider reducing organ support
   • suPAR <4 ng/mL at discharge → Low risk for readmission

3. Resource Allocation Guide:

   • suPAR >6 ng/mL → High likelihood of prolonged ICU stay (>7 days)
   • IL-6 >500 pg/mL + suPAR >8 ng/mL → Consider early family discussions regarding prognosis

---

Conclusions and Future Perspectives

The integration of IL-6, suPAR, and sTREM-1 into clinical practice represents a significant advancement toward precision medicine in critical care. These biomarkers provide complementary information that enhances diagnostic accuracy, improves prognostic stratification, and guides therapeutic decision-making in ways that traditional approaches cannot match.

IL-6 serves as an excellent prognostic tool and guide for anti-inflammatory interventions, suPAR provides comprehensive risk assessment and resource planning capabilities, while sTREM-1 offers superior diagnostic accuracy for bacterial infections and supports antimicrobial stewardship efforts.

The future of biomarker-guided critical care medicine lies not in replacing clinical judgment but in augmenting it with objective, quantitative measures that can help clinicians navigate the complexity of critical illness more effectively. As point-of-care testing becomes available and artificial intelligence integration advances, these biomarkers will likely become standard components of critical care assessment.

Success in implementation requires a structured approach, appropriate training, and recognition that biomarkers are tools to enhance rather than replace clinical expertise. When used appropriately, they offer the potential to improve patient outcomes, reduce healthcare costs, and advance the practice of evidence-based critical care medicine.

The evidence supporting the clinical utility of these biomarkers continues to grow, and their integration into routine practice represents an important step toward more personalized, precise, and effective critical care medicine.

---

References

1. 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.

2. Bellani G, Laffey JG, Pham T, et al. Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries. JAMA. 2016;315(8):788-800.

3. Shankar-Hari M, Phillips GS, Levy ML, et al. Developing a new definition and assessing new clinical criteria for septic shock. JAMA. 2016;315(8):775-787.

4. ARDS Definition Task Force. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin Definition. JAMA. 2012;307(23):2526-2533.

5. Tanaka T, Narazaki M, Kishimoto T. IL-6 in inflammation, immunity, and disease. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2014;6(10):a016295.

6. Andaluz-Ojeda D, Bobillo F, Iglesias V, et al. A combined score of pro- and anti-inflammatory interleukins improves mortality prediction in severe sepsis. Cytokine. 2012;57(3):332-336.

7. Kellum JA, Kong L, Fink MP, et al. Understanding the inflammatory cytokine response in pneumonia and sepsis. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(15):1655-1663.

8. Calfee CS, Delucchi KL, Sinha P, et al. Acute respiratory distress syndrome subphenotypes and differential response to simvastatin. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;198(4):497-505.

9. Gordon AC, Mouncey PR, Al-Beidh F, et al. Interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(16):1491-1502.

10. Hayek SS, Sever S, Ko YA, et al. Soluble urokinase receptor and chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(20):1916-1925.

11. Rasmussen LV, Ladelund S, Køber L, et al. Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) as a biomarker of systemic chronic inflammation. Front Immunol. 2021;12:780641.

12. Geboers DG, de Beer FM, Tuip-de Boer AM, et al. Plasma suPAR as a prognostic biological marker for ICU mortality in ARDS patients. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(7):1281-1290.

13. Donadello K, Scolletta S, Covajes C, et al. suPAR as a prognostic biomarker in sepsis. BMC Med. 2012;10:2.

14. Beiro AR, Prestes TR, Pilau EJ, et al. Biomarkers in sepsis: a brief review. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2020;32(3):438-446.

15. Bouchon A, Dietrich J, Colonna M. Cutting edge: inflammatory responses can be triggered by TREM-1, a novel receptor expressed on neutrophils and monocytes. J Immunol. 2000;164(10):4991-4995.

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. Anand NJ, Zuick S, Klesney-Tait J, et al. Diagnostic implications of soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 protein levels in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(11):2955-2961.

18. Schuetz P, Wirz Y, Sager R, et al. Effect of procalcitonin-guided antibiotic treatment on mortality in acute respiratory infections: a patient level meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(1):95-107.

19. Gibot S, Cravoisy A, Levy B, et al. Soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells and the diagnosis of pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(5):451-458.

20. Martinez E, Maravi-Poma E, Bances R, et al. Comparison of procalcitonin levels in different types of infection. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2010;29(12):1495-1501.

21. Schuetz P, Albrich W, Mueller B. Procalcitonin for diagnosis of infection and guide to antibiotic decisions: past, present and future. BMC Med. 2011;9:107.