C-reactive protein-guided use of procalcitonin in COVID-19
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
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
-
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
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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:…
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
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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.
-
-