Hrev_master [page 42] [Emergency Care Journal 2017; 13:6877] Academy of Emergency Medicine and Care-Society of Clinical Biochemistry and Clinical Molecular Biology consensus recommendations for clinical use of sepsis biomarkers in the emergency department Giuseppe Lippi,1 Martina Montagnana,1 Fiamma Balboni,2 Andrea Bellone,3 Ivo Casagranda,4 Mario Cavazza,5 Giorgio Da Rin,6 Daniele Coen,3 Davide Giavarina,7 Fabrizio Giostra,8 Stefano Guzzetti,9 Paola Pauri,10 Rodolfo Sbrojavacca,11 Tommaso Trenti,12 Marcello Ciaccio,13 Gianfranco Cervellin14 1Clinical Biochemistry Section, University of Verona, Verona; 2Clinical-Chemical Analysis Laboratory, Florentine Institute of Care and Assistance, Florence; 3Emergency Medicine Department, Niguarda Hospital, Milan; 4Emergency Medicine Department, Hospital, Alessandria; 5Emergency Medicine Department, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital- University of Bologna, Bologna; 6Laboratory Medicine Unit, AULSS 7 Pedemontana, Bassano del Grappa (VI); 7Clinical Chemistry and Hematology Laboratory, “San Bortolo” Hospital, Vicenza; 8Emergency Medicine Department, ASUR Marche, Fermo; 9Emergency Medicine Department, L. Sacco Hospital, Milan; 10Clinical Pathology Unit/Analysis Laboratory, Carlo Urbani Hospital, Jesi; 11Emergency Medicine Department, ASUI Udine, Udine; 12Laboratory Medicine and Pathological Anatomy Units, Modena Local Health Units, Modena; 13Department of Biopathology and Medical Biotechnologies, University of Palermo, Palermo; 14Emergency Medicine Department, Academic Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy Abstract Increasing evidence is emerging that the measurement of circulating biomarkers may be clinically useful for diagnosing and mon- itoring sepsis. Eight members of AcEMC (Academy of Emergency Medicine and Care) and eight members of SIBioC (Italian Society of Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine) were identified by the two scientific societies for producing a consensus document aimed to define practi- cal recommendations about the use of bio- markers for diagnosing of sepsis and man- aging antibiotic therapy in the emergency department (ED). The cumulative opinions allowed defining three grade A recommen- dations (i.e., highly recommended indica- tions), entailing ordering modality (bio- markers always available on prescription), practical use (results should be interpreted according to clinical information) and test ordering defined according to biomarker kinetics. Additional grade B recommenda- tions (i.e., potentially valuable indications) entailed general agreement that biomarkers assessment may be of clinical value in the diagnostic approach of ED patients with suspected sepsis, suggestion for combined assessment of procalcitonin (PCT) and C- reactive protein (CRP), free availability of the selected biomarker(s) on prescription, adoption of diagnostic threshold prioritizing high negative predictive value, preference for more analytically sensitive techniques, along with potential clinical usefulness of measuring PCT for monitoring antibiotic treatment, with serial testing defined according to biomarker kinetics. PCT and CRP were the two biomarkers that received the largest consensus as sepsis biomarkers (grade B recommendation), and a grade B recommendation was also reached for rou- tine assessment of blood lactate. The assess- ment of biomarkers other than PCT and CRP was discouraged, with exception of presepsin for which substantial uncertainty in favor or against remained. Introduction Around the 700 BC the ancient Greeks identified with the term sηψiζ (i.e., sepsis), intended as decomposition or putrefaction, a severe medical condition carrying a high risk of infection-related mortality.1 Despite this rather long history, clinicians felt the need for a more precise definition of the syndrome only in the last decades of the past century, and three essential - though not fully concor- dant - milestones were set in 1992, 2003 and 2016.2 After the third international conference on sepsis and septic shock, sepsis was hence defined as a life-threatening organic dysfunc- tion caused by a disordered response of the host to an infection.3 Notably, this definition brings back to the illuminating intuition of Sir William Osler, who had already written at the beginning of the 1900s that with rare excep- tions, the patient seems to die because of the body’s reaction to infection rather than because of the infection itself.4 The term sep- tic shock refers instead to a particular type of sepsis, whose deep circulatory, cellular and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than sepsis alone. As regards the epidemiology, recent data shows that the frequency of sepsis is approx- imately 2% in the general hospital popula- tion, but can increase up to 6-30% in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).5 Nevertheless, these estimates are influenced by considerable heterogeneity depending on geographical setting, type of facility and hos- pital department, since more than 50% of patients with severe sepsis are admitted to the ICU with a considerably high mortality rate (i.e., between 28-50%).6 The recent findings of an observational study in the United States attest that the frequency of sepsis in hospital- ized patients will approximately increase by 9% per year.7 In the emergency room setting, an Australian prospective study has recently shown that most (i.e., over 97%) of patients admitted with severe sepsis in the ICU had been earlier triaged in the emergency depart- ment (ED).8 Notably, sepsis could be identi- fied in only 53% of these patients while in the ED, thus emphasizing the need to further refine the diagnostic tools available to the emergency physicians. The recent conclusions of the Sepsis-3 group substantially simplified the classifica- tion, eliminating the subgroups of SIRS (Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome) and severe sepsis, thus maintain- ing only the two categories of sepsis and sep- tic shock.3 The SIRS has hence disappeared as an autonomous condition, since it is now considered an appropriate physiological response to a large number of infectious and non-infectious conditions and remains as a set of signs and symptoms characterizing sep- sis only with the concomitant presence of Emergency Care Journal 2017; volume 13:6877 Correspondence: Gianfranco Cervellin, Emergency Department, University Hospital of Parma, Via Gramsci 14, 43126 Parma, Italy. E-mail: gcervellin@ao.pr.it Key words: Sepsis; Biomarkers; Procalcitonin; C reactive Protein; Presepsin. Primary publication: this article will also be published in Biochimica Clinica after mutual agreement between the publishers. Received for publication: 4 July 2017. Accepted for publication: 7 July 2017. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (by-nc 4.0). ©Copyright G. Lippi et al., 2017 Licensee PAGEPress, Italy Emergency Care Journal 2017; 13:6877 doi:10.4081/ecj.2017.6877 Non co mmerc ial us e o nly organ damage identified by attributing at least two points to the SOFA (Sequential [Sepsis- Related] Organ Failure Assessment) score.3 Since the parameters of both SIRS and SOFA scores also include laboratory tests, the authors have searched for, and have identi- fied, a simplified clinical system which allows a high degree of suspicion and atten- tion from the triage. This simplified system involves the assessment of three simple parameters, i.e., respiratory rate, altered men- tal status and arterial pressure. The combina- tion of these three parameters was included in a simplified and fast score, called qSOFA (quick-SOFA) score. The task force suggests that the qSOFA criteria, when positive, should allow to early detecting organ damage and infection sources, as well as initiating, or early reinforcing, the therapy.3 According to the conclusions of the task force, the qSOFA is not intended as a diagnostic criterion, but rather a sort of red flag for triage. Interestingly, the definition of sepsis iron- ically resembles that of time; the closer we get, the farther we are. The conclusions of the Sepsis-3 task force have already raised criti- cisms and demands for revision and/or fur- ther validation. One of the main criticisms is that the validation of qSOFA criteria has been obtained retrospectively in ICU patients, thus lacking reliable data on large populations of patients evaluated in the ED and then hospi- talized. Therefore, prospective validation is needed in these care settings.9 A first observa- tional study conducted outside the ICU does not seemingly support the usefulness of qSOFA, which has a significantly lower diag- nostic performance than the MEWS (Modified Early Warning Score) and NEWS (National Early Warning Score), which are already widely used in many emergency rooms.10 According to the new definitions, sepsis and septic shock are treated as syn- dromes and not as specific diseases. The chal- lenges to establishing whether sepsis may actually be secondary to an infection, and which is the etiology and the site of the infec- tion, still represent important limitations for clinical use in the individual patient. Some clinical conditions mimicking sep- sis may be due to non-infectious conditions, such as acute pancreatitis, major trauma, burns and venous thromboembolism.9 The search for the septic source, when not imme- diately apparent, is a priority, which can be somehow supported by bedside ultrasound.11 Therefore, there is ongoing research for iden- tifying other tools which may support clini- cians not only for identifying patients pre- senting with sepsis, but also for defining the potential etiology and stratifying the risk ear- lier and more accurately, since the outcome is strongly influenced by early diagnosis and appropriate and timely treatment.12,13 The Opinion Report Table 1. Definition of the strength of recommendations, in accordance with the National Guidelines Program. A Highly recommended indication: Indicates a specific recommendation supported by good-quality scientific evidence B Doubts remain that a specific indication may always be recommended, but there is general consensus that it should be carefully considered C There is substantial uncertainty in favor of or against this recommendation D The indication is discouraged E Highly discouraged indication [Emergency Care Journal 2017; 13:6877] [page 43] Figure 1. Electronic search strategy conducted on the three major scientific databases (Medline with PubMed interface, Scopus and Web of Science), using the keywords sepsis AND biomarker (s) AND meta-analysis, without language and/or date restrictions. Non co mmerc ial us e o nly Opinion Report Ta bl e 2. M et a- an al ys es a bo ut b io m ar ke rs f or t he d ia gn os is o f se ps is . Au th or s B io m ar ke rs C ut -o ff S tu dy a nd p op ul at io ns S et ti ng H et er og en ei ty R es ul ts Ad ul ts Uz za n et a l., 20 06 17 P CT , C RP P CT : 0 .6- 5.0 n g/m L; 3 3 s tu di es , 3 94 3 p at ie nt s Pa tie nt s i n in te ns ive ca re Si gn ifi ca nt P CT : A UC , 0 .78 (9 5% C I, 0.7 1- 0.8 4) ; C RP : 3 9- 18 0 m g/L (p ro sp ec tiv e/ ca se - c on tro l s tu di es ) fo r t ra um a/s ur ge ry s en sit ivi ty, 0. 42 -1 .00 ; s pe cif ici ty, 0. 48 -1 .00 C RP : A UC , 0 .71 (9 5% C I, 0.6 4- 0.7 6) ; se ns iti vit y, 0.3 5- 1.0 0; sp ec ifi cit y, 0.1 8- 0.8 5 Ta ng et a l., 20 07 18 P CT 0.5 0- 20 n g/m L 18 st ud ie s, 20 97 p at ie nt s Pa tie nt s i n in te ns ive ca re (1 4 s tu di es ) S ign ifi ca nt P CT : A UC , 0 .78 ; s en sit ivi ty, 0. 71 (9 5% C I, 67 -7 6) ; ( pr os pe ct ive /ca se - c on tro l s tu di es ) a nd /o r e m er ge nc y d ep ar tm en t ( 4 s tu di es ) sp ec ifi cit y, 0.7 1 ( 95 % CI , 6 7- 76 ) W u et a l., 20 12 19 sT RE M -1 4 0- 35 00 p g/m L 11 st ud ie s, 17 95 p at ie nt s P at ie nt s w ith sy st em ic in fla m m at io n Si gn ifi ca nt sT RE M -1 : A UC , 0 .87 (9 5% C I, 0.8 4 t o 0.8 9) ; s en sit ivi ty, 0. 79 ; ( pr os pe ct ive /ca se - c on tro l s tu di es ) s pe cif ici ty, 0. 80 (s en sit ivi ty, 0. 83 e sp ec ifi cit y, 0.6 8 i n em er ge nc y d ep ar tm en t) W ac ke r e t a l., 20 13 20 P CT 0. 10 -1 5.7 5 n g/m L 3 0 s tu di es , 3 24 4 p at ie nt s P at ie nt s w ith sy st em ic S ign ifi ca nt P CT : A UC , 0 .85 (9 5% C I, 0.8 1- 0.8 8) ; ( pr os pe ct ive /ca se - c on tro l s tu di es ) i nf lam m at io n s en sit ivi ty, 0. 77 ; s pe cif ici ty, 0. 79 Le e et a l., 20 13 21 PC T PC T: 0.2 0- 0.5 1 n g/m L; 4 st ud ie s, 76 0 p at ie nt s E ld er ly po pu lat io n (≥ 65 ye ar s) S ign ifi ca nt P CT : A UC , 0 .89 (9 5% C I, 0.8 6- 0.9 2) ; C RP : 3 0- 17 5 m g/L (o nl y p ro sp ec tiv e st ud ie s) se ns iti vit y, 0.8 3; sp ec ifi cit y, 0.8 3 (s en sit ivi ty, 0. 97 e sp ec ifi cit y, 0.6 1 i n em er ge nc y d ep ar tm en t) CR P: A UC , n on -c alc ul at ed ; s en sit ivi ty, 0. 91 ; s pe cif ici ty, 0. 36 Ho eb oe re t a l., 20 15 22 P CT 0 .15 -1 7 n g/m L 5 8 s tu di es , 1 65 14 p at ie nt s U ns el ec te d po pu lat io n S ign ifi ca nt P CT : A UC , 0 .79 ; s en sit ivi ty, 0. 76 ; ( op tim al: 0. 5 n g/m L) (p ro sp ec tiv e/ ca se - c on tro l s tu di es ) sp ec ifi cit y, 0.8 0 ( AU C 0.7 8, se ns iti vit y, 0.7 6 e sp ec ifi cit y, 0.6 8 i n em er ge nc y d ep ar tm en t) Re n et a l., 20 15 23 P CT 0. 5- 30 n g/m L 8 st ud ie s, 56 6 p at ie nt s ( no n- sp ec ifi ed ty pe s o f s tu di es ) B ur n pa tie nt s S ign ifi ca nt P CT : A UC , 0 .92 (9 5% C I, 0.8 1- 0.8 8) ; s en sit ivi ty, 0. 74 ; s pe cif ici ty, 0. 88 W an ge t a l., 20 15 24 n CD 64 A rb itr ar y 8 st ud ie s, 19 86 p at ie nt s ( no n- sp ec ifi ed ty pe s o f s tu di es ) U ns el ec te d po pu lat io n S ign ifi ca nt n CD 64 : A UC , 0 .95 (± 0.0 2) ; s en sit ivi ty, 0. 76 ; s pe cif ici ty, 0. 85 W u et a l., 20 15 25 P re se ps in 31 7- 70 0 p g/m L 9 s tu di es , 2 15 9 p at ie nt s ( on ly pr os pe ct ive st ud ie s) Un se le ct ed p op ul at io n S ign ifi ca nt P re se ps in : A UC , 0 .89 (9 5% C I, 0.8 4- 0.9 4) ; se ns iti vit y, 0.7 8; sp ec ifi cit y, 0.8 3 To ng et a l., 20 15 26 Pr es ep sin 31 7- 86 4 p g/m L 11 st ud ie s, 31 06 p at ie nt s U ns el ec te d po pu lat io n S ign ifi ca nt P re se ps in : A UC , 0 .89 (9 5% C I, 0.8 6- 0.9 2) ; (1 0 p ro sp ec tiv e st ud ie s, 1 c as e- co nt ro l s tu dy ) se ns iti vit y, 0.8 3; sp ec ifi cit y, 0.8 1 Ch en gf en et a l., 20 15 27 P CT 0 .1- 15 .75 n g/m L 2 4 s tu di es , 3 10 7 p at ie nt s U ns el ec te d po pu lat io n S ign ifi ca nt P CT : A UC in n on -s ur gic al pa tie nt s, 0.8 0 ( 95 % CI , 0 .75 -0 .85 ); ( pr os pe ct ive /ca se - c on tro l s tu di es ) A UC in su rg ica l p at ie nt s, 0.7 1 ( 95 % CI , 0 .65 -0 .81 ); se ns iti vit y, 0.7 4; sp ec ifi cit y, 0.7 0 Zh an g e t a l., 20 15 28 P re se ps in 31 7- 72 9 p g/m L 8 st ud ie s, 18 15 p at ie nt s Pa tie nt s w ith sy st em ic S ign ifi ca nt P re se ps in : A UC , 0 .89 (9 5% C I, 0.8 6- 0.9 2) ; ( on ly pr os pe ct ive st ud ie s) i nf lam m at io n se ns iti vit y, 0.8 6; sp ec ifi cit y, 0.7 8 ( se ns iti vit y, 0.8 5 e sp ec ifi cit y, 0.7 9 i n em er ge nc y d ep ar tm en t) Zh an g e t a l., 20 15 29 P re se ps in 31 7- 72 9 p g/m L 11 st ud ie s, 30 52 p at ie nt s U ns el ec te d po pu lat io n S ign ifi ca nt P re se ps in : A UC , 0 .88 (9 5% C I, 0.8 4- 0.9 0) ; s en sit ivi ty, 0. 83 ; ( pr os pe ct ive /ca se - c on tro l s tu di es ) sp ec ifi cit y, 0. 78 (s lig ht ly lo we r i n em er ge nc y d ep ar tm en t) Zh en ge t a l., 20 15 30 P re se ps in 31 7- 72 9 p g/m L 8 st ud ie s, 17 57 p at ie nt s Pa tie nt s w ith sy st em ic S ign ifi ca nt P re se ps in : A UC , 0 .86 (± 0.0 2) ; s en sit ivi ty, ( on ly pr os pe ct ive st ud ie s) i nf lam m at io n 0 .77 ; s pe cif ici ty, 0. 73 Ch en et a l., 20 16 31 L BP 2 7.3 -6 4.4 µ g/m L 8 st ud ie s, 16 84 p at ie nt s ( pr os pe ct ive st ud ie s) Un se le ct ed p op ul at io n S ign ifi ca nt LB P; A UC , 0 .68 (9 5% C I, 0.6 4- 0.7 2) ; s en sit ivi ty, 0. 64 ; sp ec ifi cit y, 0.6 3 ( se ns iti vit y, 0.7 0 e sp ec ifi cit y, 0. 56 in e m er ge nc y d ep ar tm en t o r g en er al m ed ici ne ) M a e t a l., 20 16 32 IL -6 , P CT , C RP I L- 6, 0.0 2- 10 00 p g/m L; 2 2 s tu di es , 2 68 0 p at ie nt s P at ie nt s w ith sy st em ic in fla m m at io n Si gn ifi ca nt IL -6 : A UC , 0 .80 (± 0.0 3) ; s en sit ivi ty, 0. 68 ; s pe cif ici ty, 0. 73 PC T, 0.1 -6 .0 ng /m L: C RP , (p ro sp ec tiv e/ ca se - c on tro l s tu di es ) P CT : A UC , 0 .83 (± 0.0 3) ; s en sit ivi ty, 0. 78 ; s pe cif ici ty, 0. 67 1 1- 40 0 m g/L C RP : A UC ; 0 .71 (± 0.0 2) ; s en sit ivi ty, 0. 78 ; s pe cif ici ty, 0. 67 Co nt in ue d on n ex t p ag e [page 44] [Emergency Care Journal 2017; 13:6877] Non co mmerc ial us e o nly [Emergency Care Journal 2017; 13:6877] [page 45] Opinion Report co nt in ue d fr om p re vi ou s pa ge . Au th or s B io m ar ke rs C ut -o ff S tu dy a nd p op ul at io ns S et ti ng H et er og en ei ty R es ul ts Ad ul ts Li u et a l., 20 16 33 P CT , C RP , I L- 6, IQ R: P CT , 0 .5- 1.7 g/ m L; 86 st ud ie s, 10 43 8 p at ie nt s P at ie nt s w ith sy st em ic in fla m m at io n Si gn ifi ca nt P CT : A UC , 0 .85 (0 .82 -0 .88 ); se ns iti vit y, 0.7 9; sp ec ifi cit y, 0.7 8 s TR EM -1 , p re se ps in , C RP , 3 8- 14 0 m g/L ; (n on -s pe cif ie d typ es o f s tu di es ) C RP : A UC , 0 .77 (0 .73 -0 .81 ); se ns iti vit y, 0.7 5; sp ec ifi cit y, 0.6 7 L BP , n CD 64 IL -6 , 7 5- 22 0 p g/m L; IL -6 : A UC , 0 .79 (0 .75 -0 .82 ); se ns iti vit y, 0.7 2; sp ec ifi cit y, 0.7 3 s TR EM -1 , 3 5- 59 4 p g/m L; sT RE M -1 : A UC , 0 .85 (0 .82 -0 .88 ); se ns iti vit y, 0.7 8; sp ec ifi cit y, 0.7 8 p re se ps in , 4 15 -6 47 p g/m L; P re se ps in : A UC , 0 .88 (0 .85 -0 .90 ); se ns iti vit y, 0.8 4; sp ec ifi cit y, 0.7 7 LB P, 24 .3- 32 µ g/m L; L BP : A UC , 0 .71 (0 .67 -0 .75 ); se ns iti vit y, 0.6 2; sp ec ifi cit y, 0.7 0 n CD 64 , n on -s pe cif ie d n CD 64 : A UC , 0 .96 (0 .94 -0 .97 ); se ns iti vit y, 0.8 7; sp ec ifi cit y, 0.9 3 Ni et a l., 20 16 34 su PA R 2. 7- 9.5 n g/m L 7 st ud ie s, 10 62 p at ie nt s P at ie nt s w ith an d wi th ou t s ys te m ic S ign ifi ca nt s uP AR : A UC , 0 .82 (9 5% C I, 0.7 8- 0.8 5) ; s en sit ivi ty, 0. 67 ; (4 st ud ie s a nd 48 12 p at ie nt s in fla m m at io n s pe cif ici ty, 0. 80 (f or d iag no sin g s ep sis in p at ie nt s w ith w ith sy st em ic in fla m m at io n; sy st em ic in fla m m at io n: A UC , 0 .68 e 95 % CI , 0 .64 -0 .72 ; 6 p ro sp ec tiv e st ud ie s a nd se ns iti vit y, 0.6 1; sp ec ifi cit y, 0.8 2) 1 ca se -c on tro l s tu dy ) Ca br al et a l., 20 16 35 P CT 0.5 -5 .0 ng /m L 14 st ud ie s, 83 0 p at ie nt s ( pr os pe ct ive /ca se - c on tro l s tu di es ) B ur n pa tie nt s S ign ifi ca nt PC T: AU C, 0. 87 (± 0.0 4) ; s en sit ivi ty, 0. 77 ; s pe cif ici ty, 0. 65 Ne on at es Yu et a l., 20 10 36 P CT , C RP N on -s pe cif ie d 22 st ud ie s, 28 36 p at ie nt s N eo na te s S ign ifi ca nt P CT fo r n eo na ta l s ep sis : A UC , 0 .77 ; s en sit ivi ty, 0. 72 ; s pe cif ici ty, 0. 77 . C RP fo r p ro ba bl e ne on at al se ps is: A UC , 0 .88 ; s en sit ivi ty, 0. 81 ; s pe cif ici ty, 0. 92 C RP fo r n eo na ta l s ep sis : A UC , 0 .75 ; se ns iti vit y, 0.5 5, sp ec ifi cit y, 0.8 5. CR P fo r p ro ba bl e ne on at al se ps is: A UC , 0 .81 ; se ns iti vit y, 0.7 7, sp ec ifi cit y, 0.7 9 Vo ul ou m an ou et a l., 20 11 37 P CT 0 .50 -5 .75 n g/m L 1 6 s tu di es , 1 95 9 p at ie nt s N eo na te s S ign ifi ca nt P CT : A UC , 0 .87 (9 5% C I, 0.8 4- 0.9 0) ; se ns iti vit y, 0.8 1; sp ec ifi cit y, 0.7 9 Yu an e t a l., 2 01 33 8 S AA , C RP No n- sp ec ifi ed 9 st ud ie s, 82 3 pa tie nt s N eo na te s S ig ni fic an t S AA : A UC , 0 .90 ( 95 % C I, 0.8 7- 0.9 3) ; s en si tiv ity , 0 .84 ; s pe ci fic ity , 0 .89 C RP : A UC , 0 .92 ( 0.8 7- 0.9 3) ; ( 95 % C I, to ); s en si tiv ity , 0 .67 ; s pe ci fic ity , 0 .92 Lv e t a l., 2 01 43 9 T NF -α 0.1 8- 20 00 0 pg /m L 1 5 ar tic ol i e 2 3 tr ia ls Ne on at es S ig ni fic an t T NF -α in a rt ic le s: AU C, 0 .74 ( 95 % C I, 0.7 0- 0.7 8) ; s en si tiv ity , 0 .66 ; s pe ci fic ity , 0 .76 T NF -α in tr ia ls : A UC , 0 .87 ( 95 % C I, 0.8 5- 0.8 9) ; s en si tiv ity , 0 .68 ; s pe ci fic ity , 0 .73 Zh ou e t a l., 2 01 54 0 IL -8 0. 6- 30 0 pg /m L 8 s tu di es , 5 48 p at ie nt s N eo na te s S ig ni fic an t I L- 8: AU C, 0 .89 ( ± 0.0 5) ; s en si tiv ity , 0 .78 ; s pe ci fic ity , 0 .83 Xu e t a l., 2 01 64 1 C RP 2 .5- 21 .0 m g/ L 3 1 st ud ie s, 56 98 p at ie nt s N eo na te s S ig ni fic an t C RP : A UC , 0 .85 ( ± 0.0 5) ; s en si tiv ity , 0 .69 ; s pe ci fic ity , 0 .77 Sh i e t a l., 2 01 64 2 n CD 64 1.6 3- 61 36 ( ar bi tr ar y m ea su re u ni t) 1 7 st ud ie s, 34 78 p at ie nt s N eo na te s S ig ni fic an t C RP : A UC , 0 .87 ( ± 0.0 2) ; s en si tiv ity , 0 .77 ; s pe ci fic ity , 0 .74 Po nt re lli e t a l., 2 01 74 3 P CT 0.2 8- 14 .0 ng /m L 17 s tu di es , 1 40 8 pa tie nt s P ed ia tr ic p op ul at io n No n- si gn ifi ca nt P CT : A UC , n on -c al cu la te d; s en si tiv ity , 0 .85 ; s pe ci fic ity , 0 .54 AU C, A re a Un de r t he C ur ve ; I L- 6, in te rle uk in 6 ; I L- 8, in te rle uk in 8 ; I Q R, in te rq ua rt ile ra ng e; L BP , l ip op ol ys ac ch ar id e- bi nd in g pr ot ei n; n CD 64 , n eu tr op hi l C D6 4; P CT , p ro ca lc ito ni n; C RP , C re ac tiv e pr ot ei n; S AA , S er um A m ylo id A ; s uP AR , s er um s ol ub le u ro ki na se -ty pe p la sm in og en a ct iva to r r ec ep to r; sT RE M - 1, s ol ub le tr ig ge rin g re ce pt or e xp re ss ed o n m ye lo id c el ls -1 ; T NF -α , t um or n ec ro si s fa ct or -α .Non co mmerc ial us e o nly [page 46] [Emergency Care Journal 2017; 13:6877] measurement of circulating infective bio- markers is one of the most promising tools that have recently emerged. The term bio- marker is conventionally used to define a measurable analyte, which can improve diag- nostic accuracy, simplify complex clinical algorithms and improve the clinical decision- making.14 In the specific area of sepsis, an ideal marker should allow early diagnosis (i.e., be measurable before or at the appear- ance of clinical signs), be very sensitive and specific also for the differential diagnosis of infectious and non-infectious forms of sys- temic dysfunction, permit to obtain valid clin- ical information about the course and progno- sis of sepsis and, last but not least, provide reliable indications for guiding antibiotic therapy. Search strategy An electronic search strategy was con- ducted on the three major scientific databas- es (Medline with PubMed interface, Scopus and Web of Science),15 using the keywords sepsis AND biomarker (s) AND meta- analysis, without language and/or date restrictions (Figure 1). The existence of additional meta-analyses published in sci- entific journals was then verified by accu- rately checking the list of bibliographic ref- erences. The title, summary and, when nec- essary, the full text of the documents identi- fied with the search criteria were independ- ently evaluated by two authors (GL and MM), with exclusion of all meta-analyses in which the diagnostic performance of bio- markers for diagnosing sepsis and manag- ing antibiotic therapy was unavailable. The following information was reported, when available, for all selected documents: (A) clinical setting; (B) number of studies included in the meta-analysis; (C) total number of patients included in the meta- analysis and characteristics of the studies (i.e., prospective and/or case-control); (D) heterogeneity of studies (significant, >50%); (E) diagnostic performance expressed in terms of area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity, or clini- cal efficacy in case of biomarker-guided antibiotic therapy; (F) diagnostic cut-offs. The consensus document was drafted after identification by both scientific soci- eties SIBioC (Italian Society of Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine) and AcEMC (Academy of Emergency Medicine and Care) of eight members each, to whom a questionnaire was administered. The con- sensus members were asked to rate some recommendations about the use of biomark- ers for diagnosing sepsis and managing antibiotic therapy in the ED. In accordance with the National Guidelines Program (PNLG) (16), the recommendations were then formulated with a grading system based on the strength of the recommendation expressed in letters (from A to E), as sum- marized in Table 1. The questionnaire con- taining the recommendations was sent by e- mail to all participants, who were asked to rate each recommendation from A to E, as in Table 1. The final grade of recommendation was expressed as the average (and standard deviation; SD) of individual opinions after rating was converted in numeric data (A = 1; B = 2; C = 3; D = 4; E = 5). A mean score of <1.5 was rated as grade A, between 1.5 and <2.5 as grade B, between 2.5 and <3.5 as grade C, between 3.5 and <4.5 as grade D and ≥4.5 as grade E. Results and Discussion The systematic search, carried out according to the above-mentioned criteria, allowed identifying 79 documents after duplicates elimination. Forty-six items were excluded since they were not relevant for the purpose of this document (Figure 1). Six out of the 33 remaining documents con- tained data about the use of biomarkers for monitoring antibiotic therapy in sepsis patients (all about procalcitonin, PCT), whereas 27 dealt with the use of biomarkers for diagnosing sepsis. Eight of these docu- ments were carried out in pediatric popula- tions, the remaining 19 in adult populations. The agreement between the two authors who analyzed the search products was 100%. Documents about the use of bio- markers for diagnosing sepsis in the adult17- 35 and pediatric populations (added for com- prehensiveness)36-43 are summarized in Table 2.17-43 The documents containing data about biomarker-guided antibiotic therapy is summarized in Table 3.44-49 The hetero- geneity of the studies was found to be sig- nificant in almost all meta-analyses. In par- ticular, only 4 of the 6 meta-analyses about biomarker-guided antibiotic therapy were not characterized by significant heterogene- Opinion Report Table 3. Meta-analyses about the biomarker-guided antibiotic therapy. Authors Biomarkers Studies and population Setting Heterogeneity Results Kopterides et al., 201044 PCT 7 studies, 1131 patients Intensive care Significant Reduction of 4.2 days (95% CI, 3.4-5.0) duration of antibiotic therapy; reduction of 18% antibiotic therapy expenditure Heyland et al., 201145 PCT 5 studies, 947 patients Intensive care Non-significant Reduction of 2.1 days (95% CI, 1.8-2.5) duration of antibiotic therapy; likely economic benefit Schuetz et al., 201146 PCT 14 studies, 4467 patients Primary care, Non-significant Reduction of 29% (95% CI, 15-37%) emergency department, duration of antibiotic therapy intensive care (34%; 95% CI, 15-53 for emergency department) Soni et al., 201347 PCT 18 studies, number of patients Intensive care Non-significant Reduction of 2.0 days (95% CI, 1.5-2.6) unavailable duration of antibiotic therapy Prkno et al., 201348 PCT 7 studies, 1075 patients Intensive care Non-significant Reduction of 27% (95% CI, 5-53%) duration of antibiotic therapy Andriolo et al., 201749 PCT 10 studies, 1215 patients Unselected population Significant Reduction of 1.3 days (95% CI, 0.6-2.0) duration of antibiotic therapy PCT, procalcitonin; CI, confidence interval. Non co mmerc ial us e o nly [Emergency Care Journal 2017; 13:6877] [page 47] ity. The main source of heterogeneity in studies included in the different meta-analy- ses was attributable to the use of different diagnostic cut-offs (Table 2). In most cases, the meta-analyses included a large number of prospective studies (Table 2). The largest number of meta-analyses on the use of biomarkers for diagnosing sepsis in adults contained data about PCT (10 overall) (Table 4). Six meta-analyses con- tained information about presepsin and three meta-analyses contained data about C reactive protein (CRP). Information about interleukin 6 (IL-6), lipopolysaccharide- binding protein (LBP), neutrophil CD64 (nCD64) and soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 (sTREM-1) was available in two meta-analyses for each of these markers, whereas only one meta- analysis contained data about soluble uroki- nase-type plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR). The most favorable diagnostic performance, expressed as area under the curve (AUC), was observed for nCD64, PCT, sTREM-1, suPAR and presepsin, although none of these biomarkers reached a diagnostic efficiency close to 100% (Table 4). The AUC of IL-6, LBP and CRP in the adult population were overall lower than Opinion Report Table 4. Summary of individual biomarker performance research for diagnosing sepsis in adult populations. Biomarker Meta-analyses (n) Range AUC Range sensitivity Range specificity IL-6 2 0.79-0.80 0.68-0.72 0.73-0.73 LBP 2 0.68-0.71 0.62-0.70 0.56-0.70 nCD64 2 0.95-0.96 0.76-0.87 0.85-0.93 PCT 10 0.78-1.00 0.71-1.00 0.61-0.88 CRP 3 0.71-0.77 0.75-0.91 0.36-0.67 Presepsin 6 0.86-0.89 0.77-0.85 0.73-0.88 sTREM-1 2 0.85-0.87 0.78-0.83 0.68-0.78 suPAR 1 0.82 0.80 0.80 AUC, area under the curve; IL-6, interleukin 6; LBP, lipopolysaccharide-binding protein; nCD64, neutrophil CD64; PCT, procalcitonin; CRP, C reactive protein; sTREM-1, soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1; suPAR, serum soluble urokinase-type plasminogen acti- vator receptor. Table 5. Kinetics of C reactive protein, procalcitonin, presepsin, and suggested cut-off for ruling out sepsis. Increase (h) Peak (h) Half-life (h) Cut-off for ruling out sepsis CRP 12-24 48-72 20 <10 mg/L PCT 2-4 6-8 20-24 <2.0 mg/L Presepsin 2 3 4-5 <500-600 pg/mL CRP, C reactive protein; PCT, procalcitonin. Table 6. Cumulative recommendations according to the available literature data, and to the opinions of the consensus group. Recommendation Score Strenght The measurement of biomarkers may be of clinical significance in the diagnostic approach of patients with suspect sepsis 1.56±1.06 B In the diagnostic approach of patients with suspect sepsis, biomarker assessment should be: Always available on prescription (24/365) 1.36±1.04 A Free on prescription (i.e., no need to contact the laboratory to agree on the request) 1.63±0.78 B In the diagnostic approach of patients with suspect sepsis, it is advisable to measure IL-6 3.88±0.99 D LBP 4.06±0.83 D nCD64 3.69±0.92 D PCT 1.56±0.79 B CRP 2.00±0.94 B Presepsin 2.50±1.06 C sTREM-1 3.81±0.88 D suPAR 3.50±0.79 D The biomarker cut-off should be selected: Favoring a high negative predictive value, for ruling out a diagnosis of sepsis 1.75±0.83 B Favoring a high positive predictive value, for enabling a diagnosis of sepsis 2.75±0.90 C Test results should always be interpreted according to clinical data 1.00±0.00 A For PCT assessment immunoassays with better functional sensitivity (i.e., ≤0.05 ng/mL) should be preferred 1.63±0.60 B The assessment of a second biomarker may be useful when the result of the first biomarker is negative in patients with 2.38±1.11 B a strong clinical suspect of sepsis Due to availability of multiple assays, short turnaround time and low costs, CRP should be the second sepsis biomarker 2.31±1.31 B Serial testing in patients with sepsis should be defined according to biomarker kinetics 1.38±0.99 A (repeated testing not early that 18-24 hours for PCT and CRP, not earlier than 5 hours for presepsin) Serial PCT testing can be used for monitoring antibiotic therapy in patients with sepsis 1.50±1.00 B Serial testing for monitoring antibiotic therapy should be defined according to biomarker kinetics 1.63±1.05 B (i.e., repeated testing not early that 18-24 hours for PCT) The test panel in patients with sepsis should also include the assessment of lactic acid 1.50±0.79 B IL-6, interleukin 6; LBP, lipopolysaccharide-binding protein; nCD64, neutrophil CD64; PCT, procalcitonin; CRP, C reactive protein; sTREM-1, soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1; suPAR, serum sol- uble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor. Non co mmerc ial us e o nly [page 48] [Emergency Care Journal 2017; 13:6877] those of the other biomarkers. The values of sensitivity and specificity were globally aligned with those of the AUCs (Table 4). As regards the five biomarkers display- ing the better diagnostic performance (i.e., nCD64, PCT, presepsin, sTREM-1 and suPAR), some additional considerations may be necessary about the analytical tech- nology used for their assessment. Only for PCT and presepsin automatic or semi-auto- matic immunoassays are currently available for urgent measurement, whereas only man- ual enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) are available for sTREM-1 and suPAR, thus making their assessment rather impractical for rapid diagnosis of sepsis.50 A similar consideration can be made for nCD64. This biomarker can only be assessed with flow-cytometry and specific kits, so that the measurement of nCD64 is currently incompatible with an urgent diag- nosis of sepsis in most clinical laborato- ries.50 Although PCT can now be measured with a wide range of commercial methods based on different analytical techniques (immunochemiluminescence, immunofluo- rescence, immunoturbidimetry), and so potentially adaptable to the vast majority of clinical and immunochemical analyzers available in clinical laboratories,51 the quan- tification of presepsin is now only possible using a single point-of-care (POC) analyzer. It is also noteworthy that the analytical per- formance of the PCT immunoassays cur- rently commercially available may substan- tially differ. The techniques with better sen- sitivity are usually characterized by a func- tional sensitivity ≤0.05 ng/mL (51) and are hence more suited for monitoring of antibi- otic therapy. The in vivo kinetics of PCT, presepsin and CRP in patients with sepsis are described in Table 5.52 A single meta-analysis could be identified in pediatric populations for each of serum amyloid A (SAA), tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and interleukin 8 (IL-8) (Table 3), so that translation of diagnostic performance in adults is unadvisable according to the search criteria defined in this consensus document. As regards monitoring of antibiotic therapy, all the six meta-analyzes identified by our literature search dealt with PCT. In all cases the serial assessment of this bio- marker allowed to significantly reducing the duration of antibiotic therapy (Table 3). In the two meta-analyses also evaluating economic issues, PCT-guided antibiotic therapy allowed to reduce the overall cost of patient management. Unfortunately, little evidence is currently available about the effectiveness of PCT-guided antibiotic ther- apy to narrow the spectrum of antibiotic therapy. Notably, a retrospective study including more than 20000 patients hospi- talized in 107 UTI failed to show significant benefits (in terms of outcome or duration of therapy) in patients with serial PCT test- ing.53 Recommendations According to the available literature data, and to the opinions of the consensus group, the following cumulative recom- mendations can be made (the score reflects the mean and SD of individual opinions) as in Table 6. Conclusions The World Health Organization (WHO) has recently published a firm resolution mandating that sepsis should be considered a global health priority.54-57 Among the var- ious recommended actions for reducing the global burden of this time-critical medical emergency, the WHO urges member states to develop evidence-based strategies for early diagnosis and appropriate treatment in order to avert deterioration, improve out- comes and ensure patient safety. Our con- sensus document should hence be seen as a timely reaction to the WHO resolution. The cumulative opinions of the mem- bers of this consensus document allowed to define three grade A recommendations (i.e., highly recommended indications), substan- tially in line with those previously pub- lished in our country and complementing the indications about blood culture (55-57), but are now supported by a more systematic and recent collection of evidence analyzed by means of an interdisciplinary consensus between two scientific societies of Emergency (AcEMC) and Laboratory (SIBioC) Medicine. The three grade A recommendations entailed the ordering modality (biomarkers always available on prescription), the prac- tical use (results should be interpreted according to clinical information) and test ordering defined according to biomarker kinetics. Additional grade B recommenda- tions (i.e., potentially valuable indications) entailed general agreement that biomarkers assessment may be of clinical value in the diagnostic approach of ED patients with suspect sepsis, suggestion for combined assessment of PCT and CRP, free availabil- ity of the selected biomarker(s) on prescrip- tion, adoption of diagnostic threshold prior- itizing a high negative predictive value giv- ing preference to more analytically sensi- tive techniques, along with the potential clinical usefulness of measuring PCT for monitoring antibiotic treatment, with serial testing defined according to biomarker kinetics. PCT and CRP were the two bio- markers, which received the largest consen- sus as biomarkers of sepsis (grade B recom- mendation), and a grade B recommendation was also reached for routine assessment of blood lactate. The assessment of biomarkers other than PCT and CRP was discouraged, with the exception of presepsin for which substantial uncertainty in favor or against remained. References 1. Funk DJ, Parrillo JE, Kumar A. Sepsis and septic shock: a history. Crit Care Clin 2009;25:83-101. 2. Scott MC. Defining and diagnosing sepsis. Emerg Med Clin N Am 2017;35: 1-9. 3. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 2016;315:801-10. 4. Osler W. The Evolution of Modern Medicine. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1913. 5. Martin GS. Sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock: changes in incidence, pathogens and outcomes. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2012;10:701-6. 6. Perman SM, Goyal M, Gaieski DF. Initial emergency department diagnosis and management of adult patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2012;20: 41. 7. Martin GS, Mannino DM, Eaton S, et al. The epidemiology of sepsis in the United States from 1979 through 2000. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1546-54. 8. Chamberlain DJ, Willis E, Clark R, et al. Identification of the severe sepsis patient at triage: a prospective analysis of the Australasian Triage Scale. Emerg Med J 2015;32:690-7. 9. Abraham E. New definitions for sepsis and septic shock. Continuing evolution but with much still to be done. JAMA 2016;315:757-9. 10. Churpek MM, Snyder A, Han X, et al. Quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and early warning scores for detecting clinical deteriora- tion in infected patients outside the intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017;195:906-11. 11. Cortellaro F, Ferrari L, Molteni F, et al. Accuracy of point of care ultrasound to identify the source of infection in septic patients: a prospective study. Intern Emerg Med 2017;12:371-8. Opinion Report Non co mmerc ial us e o nly [Emergency Care Journal 2017; 13:6877] [page 49] 12. Seymour CW, Gesten F, Prescott HC, et al. Time to Treatment and Mortality during Mandated Emergency Care for Sepsis. N Engl J Med 2017;376:2235- 44. 13. Tamma PD, Avdic E, Li DX, et al. Association of adverse events with antibiotic use in hospitalized patients. JAMA Intern Med 2017;177:1308-15. 14. Schuetz P, Aujesky D, Müller C, et al. Biomarker-guided personalised emer- gency medicine for all - hope for anoth- er hype? Swiss Med Wkly 2015;145:w14079. 15. Lippi G, Favalor EJ, Simundic AM. Biomedical research platforms and their influence on article submissions and journal rankings: an update. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2012;22:7-14. 16. Istituto Superiore di Sanità. Manuale metodologico - Come produrre, dif- fondere e aggiornare raccomandazioni per la pratica clinica. Available from: www.iss.it/binary/lgmr2/cont/Manuale _PNLG.1234439852.pdf 17. Uzzan B, Cohen R, Nicolas P, et al. Procalcitonin as a diagnostic test for sepsis in critically ill adults and after surgery or trauma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2006;34:1996-2003. 18. Tang BM, Eslick GD, Craig JC, et al. Accuracy of procalcitonin for sepsis diagnosis in critically ill patients: sys- tematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2007;7:210-7. 19. Wu Y, Wang F, Fan X, et al. Accuracy of plasma sTREM-1 for sepsis diagnosis in systemic inflammatory patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 2012;16:R229. 20. Wacker C, Prkno A, Brunkhorst FM, et al. Procalcitonin as a diagnostic marker for sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2013;13:426-35. 21. Lee SH, Chan RC, Wu JY, et al. Diagnostic value of procalcitonin for bacterial infection in elderly patients - a systemic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pract 2013;67:1350-7. 22. Hoeboer SH, van der Geest PJ, Nieboer D, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of pro- calcitonin for bacteraemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015;21:474-81. 23. Ren H, Li Y, Han C, et al. Serum procal- citonin as a diagnostic biomarker for sepsis in burned patients: a meta-analy- sis. Burns 2015;41:502-9. 24. Wang X, Li ZY, Zeng L, et al. Neutrophil CD64 expression as a diag- nostic marker for sepsis in adult patients: a meta-analysis. Crit Care 2015;19:245. 25. Wu J, Hu L, Zhang G, et al. Accuracy of presepsin in sepsis diagnosis: a system- atic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015;10:e0133057. 26. Tong X, Cao Y, Yu M, et al. Presepsin as a diagnostic marker for sepsis: evidence from a bivariate meta-analysis. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2015;11:1027-33. 27. Chengfen Y, Tong L, Xinjing G, et al. Accuracy of procalcitonin for diagnosis of sepsis in adults: a Meta-analysis. Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue 2015;27:743-9. 28. Zhang X, Liu D, Liu YN, et al. The accuracy of presepsin (sCD14-ST) for the diagnosis of sepsis in adults: a meta- analysis. Crit Care 2015;19:323. 29. Zhang J, Hu ZD, Song J, et al. Diagnostic Value of Presepsin for Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94:e2158. 30. Zheng Z, Jiang L, Ye L, et al. The accu- racy of presepsin for the diagnosis of sepsis from SIRS: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intensive Care 2015;5:48. 31. Chen KF, Chaou CH, Jiang JY, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of lipopolysaccha- ride-binding protein as biomarker for sepsis in adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2016;11:e0153188. 32. Ma L, Zhang H, Yin YL, et al. Role of interleukin-6 to differentiate sepsis from non-infectious systemic inflam- matory response syndrome. Cytokine 2016;88:126-35. 33. Liu Y, Hou JH, Li Q, et al. Biomarkers for diagnosis of sepsis in patients with systemic inflammatory response syn- drome: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Springerplus 2016;5:2091. 34. Ni W, Han Y, Zhao J, et al. Serum solu- ble urokinase-type plasminogen activa- tor receptor as a biological marker of bacterial infection in adults: a systemat- ic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2016;6:39481. 35. Cabral L, Afreixo V, Almeida L, et al. The use of procalcitonin (PCT) for diagnosis of sepsis in burn patients: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2016;11:e0168475. 36. Yu Z, Liu J, Sun Q, et al. The accuracy of the procalcitonin test for the diagno- sis of neonatal sepsis: a meta-analysis. Scand J Infect Dis 2010;42:723-33. 37. Vouloumanou EK, Plessa E, Karageorgopoulos DE, et al. Serum procalcitonin as a diagnostic marker for neonatal sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med 2011;37:747-62. 38. Yuan H, Huang J, Lv B, et al. Diagnosis value of the serum amyloid A test in neonatal sepsis: a meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int 2013;2013:520294. 39. Lv B, Huang J, Yuan H, et al. Tumor necrosis factor-α as a diagnostic marker for neonatal sepsis: a meta-analysis. Sci World J 2014;2014:471463. 40. Zhou M, Cheng S, Yu J, et al. Interleukin-8 for diagnosis of neonatal sepsis: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015;10:e0127170. 41. Xu L, Li Q, Mo A, et al. Diagnostic value of C-reactive protein in neonatal sepsis: A meta-analysis Eur J Inflamm 2016;14:100-8. 42. Shi J, Tang J, Chen D. Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of neutrophil CD64 for neonatal sepsis. Ital J Pediatr 2016;42:57. 43. Pontrelli G, De Crescenzo F, Buzzetti R, et al. Accuracy of serum procalci- tonin for the diagnosis of sepsis in neonates and children with systemic inflammatory syndrome: a meta-analy- sis. BMC Infect Dis 2017;17:302. 44. Kopterides P, Siempos II, Tsangaris I, et al. Procalcitonin-guided algorithms of antibiotic therapy in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta- analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care Med 2010;38:2229-41. 45. Heyland DK, Johnson AP, Reynolds SC, et al. Procalcitonin for reduced antibiotic exposure in the critical care setting: a systematic review and an eco- nomic evaluation. Crit Care Med 2011;39:1792-9. 46. Schuetz P, Chiappa V, Briel M, et al. Procalcitonin algorithms for antibiotic therapy decisions: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and rec- ommendations for clinical algorithms. Arch Intern Med 2011;171:1322-31. 47. Soni NJ, Samson DJ, Galaydick JL, et al. Procalcitonin-guided antibiotic ther- apy: a systematic review and meta- analysis. J Hosp Med 2013;8:530-40. 48. Prkno A, Wacker C, Brunkhorst FM, et al. Procalcitonin-guided therapy in intensive care unit patients with severe sepsis and septic shock--a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 2013;17:R291. 49. Andriolo BN, Andriolo RB, Salomão R, et al. Effectiveness and safety of procal- citonin evaluation for reducing mortali- ty in adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;1:CD010959. 50. Clerico A. Biomarkers for sepsis: an unfinished journey. Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:1135-8. Opinion Report Non co mmerc ial us e o nly [page 50] [Emergency Care Journal 2017; 13:6877] 51. Dipalo M, Guido L, Micca G, et al. Multicenter comparison of automated procalcitonin immunoassays. Pract Lab Med 2015;2:22-8. 52. Markanday A. Acute phase reactants in infections: evidence-based review and a guide for clinicians. Open Forum Infect Dis 2015;2:ofv098. 53. Chu DC, Mehta AB, Walkey AJ. Practice patterns and outcomes associ- ated with procalcitonin use in critically ill patients with sepsis. Clin Infect Dis 2017;64:1509-15. 54. Reinhart K, Daniels R, Kissoon N, Machado FR, Schachter RD, Finfer S. Recognizing sepsis as a global health priority - A WHO resolution. N Engl J Med 2017;377:414-7. 55. Pezzati P, Balboni F, Piazzini T, et al. Procalcitonin and sepsis: hints on clini- cal appropriateness. Biochim Clin 2013;37:15-22. 56. Di Somma S, Magrini L, Travaglino F, et al. Opinion paper on innovative approach of biomarkers for infectious diseases and sepsis management in the emergency department. Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:1167-75. 57. Monti M, Stefanecchia L, Fusco Moffa I, et al. Management of the patient with sepsis in emergency department: a new alternative protocol. Emerg Care J 2014;10:2241. Opinion Report Non co mmerc ial us e o nly