C-reactive protein and other biomarkers—the sense and non-sense of using inflammation biomarkers for the diagnosis of severe bacterial infection

IF 0.3 Q4 IMMUNOLOGY
T. Niehues
{"title":"C-reactive protein and other biomarkers—the sense and non-sense of using inflammation biomarkers for the diagnosis of severe bacterial infection","authors":"T. Niehues","doi":"10.14785/LYMPHOSIGN-2018-0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Severe bacterial infection (SBI) poses a significant clinical problem as its mortality and morbidity is still unacceptably high. A systematic literature analysis was performed with an emphasis on recent meta analyses examining the specificity and sensitivity of conventional inflammation biomarkers (C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, interleukin-6, interleukin-8) for diagnosing SBI. Most inflammation biomarkers do not show high sensitivity and are of limited value regarding SBI detection. To the practicing clinician, the sole use of inflammation markers is not useful for differentiating between viral or bacterial origin of infection in an individual patient. Thus, only in combination with clinical biometric markers, taken from patient history and physical examination, is the analysis of inflammation biomarkers to some degree helpful in clinical practice. To date, their sensitivity and specificity have been best captured in the field of neonatology, where levels of interleukin-6 have been measured in combination with relevant perinatal factors. The indiscriminate use of inflammation biomarkers for the diagnosis of SBI may lead to over diagnosis. Novel technologies for pathogen detection and more precise measurement of the host-response using microarrays, allowing for simultaneous detection of multiple genes or proteins, promise to improve the value of laboratory biomarkers for the diagnosis of SBI. Statement of novelty: Presented here is an up-to-date systematic analysis of C-reactive protein and inflammation biomarkers with regard to their use in the diagnosis of SBI. I question whether a broad use of C-reactive protein is useful in patients presenting with infection. The results of the systematic analysis are put into context with recent concerns about over-diagnosing in medicine. This paper is adapted from a publication in the German journal Monatsschrift Kinderheilkunde.","PeriodicalId":53881,"journal":{"name":"LymphoSign Journal-The Journal of Inherited Immune Disorders","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LymphoSign Journal-The Journal of Inherited Immune Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14785/LYMPHOSIGN-2018-0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Severe bacterial infection (SBI) poses a significant clinical problem as its mortality and morbidity is still unacceptably high. A systematic literature analysis was performed with an emphasis on recent meta analyses examining the specificity and sensitivity of conventional inflammation biomarkers (C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, interleukin-6, interleukin-8) for diagnosing SBI. Most inflammation biomarkers do not show high sensitivity and are of limited value regarding SBI detection. To the practicing clinician, the sole use of inflammation markers is not useful for differentiating between viral or bacterial origin of infection in an individual patient. Thus, only in combination with clinical biometric markers, taken from patient history and physical examination, is the analysis of inflammation biomarkers to some degree helpful in clinical practice. To date, their sensitivity and specificity have been best captured in the field of neonatology, where levels of interleukin-6 have been measured in combination with relevant perinatal factors. The indiscriminate use of inflammation biomarkers for the diagnosis of SBI may lead to over diagnosis. Novel technologies for pathogen detection and more precise measurement of the host-response using microarrays, allowing for simultaneous detection of multiple genes or proteins, promise to improve the value of laboratory biomarkers for the diagnosis of SBI. Statement of novelty: Presented here is an up-to-date systematic analysis of C-reactive protein and inflammation biomarkers with regard to their use in the diagnosis of SBI. I question whether a broad use of C-reactive protein is useful in patients presenting with infection. The results of the systematic analysis are put into context with recent concerns about over-diagnosing in medicine. This paper is adapted from a publication in the German journal Monatsschrift Kinderheilkunde.
c反应蛋白和其他生物标志物——使用炎症生物标志物诊断严重细菌感染的意义和无意义
严重细菌感染(SBI)是一个严重的临床问题,因为其死亡率和发病率仍然高得令人无法接受。进行了系统的文献分析,重点是最近的荟萃分析,检查了常规炎症生物标志物(C反应蛋白、降钙素原、白细胞介素-6、白细胞素-8)诊断SBI的特异性和敏感性。大多数炎症生物标志物并不显示出高灵敏度,对SBI检测的价值有限。对于执业临床医生来说,仅仅使用炎症标志物对于区分个体患者感染的病毒或细菌来源是没有用处的。因此,只有与从患者病史和体检中提取的临床生物特征标记物相结合,炎症生物标志物的分析才能在一定程度上对临床实践有所帮助。到目前为止,它们的敏感性和特异性在新生儿科领域得到了最好的体现,其中白细胞介素-6的水平已结合相关围产期因素进行了测量。炎症生物标志物在SBI诊断中的滥用可能导致过度诊断。病原体检测的新技术和使用微阵列更精确地测量宿主反应的新技术,允许同时检测多种基因或蛋白质,有望提高实验室生物标志物对SBI诊断的价值。新颖性声明:本文对C反应蛋白和炎症生物标志物在SBI诊断中的应用进行了最新的系统分析。我怀疑广泛使用C反应蛋白是否对感染患者有用。系统分析的结果与最近对医学过度诊断的担忧相结合。本文改编自德国《Monatsschrift Kinderheilkunde》杂志上的一篇文章。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
12.50%
发文量
12
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信