One trial analyzed the experiences of 198 consecutive subjects, all critically ill, who met various criteria. (They were part of a consortium trial of 7,500 patients). The second trial had 129 participants, and the third had 120. Of the total participants, 71% were white and 20% were black.
Inclusion of procalcitonin levels in the laboratory variables didn’t appear to make a significant difference. The study authors wrote that the test “differs from, and is complementary to that of procalcitonin. The latter test is cleared for predicting progression from severe sepsis to septic shock, for predicting 28-day mortality, and for managing antibiotic de-escalation.”
According to the researchers, differences in age, sex, and race/ethnicity did not significantly affect the test.
The study concludes by noting that “future studies are warranted to determine how host gene expression could most effectively be integrated into clinical decision making to ensure susceptible patients are accurately managed early in the course of disease.”
The test is “promising new technology, but I don’t think you could say it’s definitive,” noted Dr. Ouellette.“Like any test, it’s not perfect,” he explained. “That’s important because physicians wouldn’t want to guess wrong. We might err on the side of choosing to treat with antibiotics even in the face of a test that suggested they might not have infection.”
Immunexpress and the Australian Government funded the study. Fourteen authors disclosed being current or former employees of Immunexpress and/or shareholders; others reported receiving funding from the company via their institutions. Four authors declared having filed patent applications related to the study or to the diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia upon ICU admission. Some authors reported various other disclosures.
Dr. Ouellette and Dr. Sharma said they did not have any disclosures.
SOURCE: Miller RR et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Apr 6. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201712-2472OC.