C-reactive protein-guided use of procalcitonin in COVID-19

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Abstract

Background

A low procalcitonin (PCT) concentration facilitates exclusion of bacterial co-infections in COVID-19, but high costs associated with PCT measurements preclude universal adoption. Changes in inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein (CRP), can be concordant, and predicting low PCT concentrations may avoid costs of redundant tests and support more cost-effective deployment of this diagnostic biomarker.

Objectives

To explore whether, in COVID-19, low PCT values could be predicted by the presence of low CRP concentrations.

Methods

Unselected cohort of 224 COVID-19 patients admitted to hospital that underwent daily PCT and CRP measurements as standard care. Both 0.25 ng/mL and 0.5 ng/mL were used as cut-offs for positive PCT test results. Geometric mean was used to define high and low CRP values at each timepoint assessed.

Results

Admission PCT was <0.25 ng/mL in 160/224 (71.4%), 0.25–0.5 ng/mL in 27 (12.0%) and >0.5 ng/mL in 37 (16.5%). Elevated PCT was associated with increased risk of death (P = 0.0004) and was more commonly associated with microbiological evidence of bacterial co-infection (P < 0.0001). For high CRP values, significant heterogeneity in PCT measurements was observed, with maximal positive predictive value of 50% even for a PCT cut-off of 0.25 ng/mL. In contrast, low CRP was strongly predictive of low PCT concentrations, particularly <0.5 ng/mL, with a negative predictive value of 97.6% at time of hospital admission and 100% 48 hours into hospital stay.

Conclusions

CRP-guided PCT testing algorithms can reduce unnecessary PCT measurement and costs, supporting antimicrobial stewardship strategies in COVID-19.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.10.21251350: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.