Title |
Procalcitonin-guided diagnosis and antibiotic stewardship revisited
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medicine, January 2017
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12916-017-0795-7 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Ramon Sager, Alexander Kutz, Beat Mueller, Philipp Schuetz |
Abstract |
Several controlled clinical studies have evaluated the potential of the infection biomarker procalcitonin (PCT) to improve the diagnostic work-up of patients with bacterial infections and its influence on decisions regarding antibiotic therapy. Most research has focused on lower respiratory tract infections and critically ill sepsis patients. A clinical utility for PCT has also been found for patients with urinary tract infections, postoperative infections, meningitis, and patients with acute heart failure with possible superinfection (i.e., pneumonia). In these indications, PCT levels measured on hospital admission were found to substantially reduce the initiation of antibiotic treatment in low-risk situations (i.e., bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation). For more severe infections (i.e., pneumonia, sepsis), antibiotic stewardship by monitoring of PCT kinetics resulted in shorter antibiotic treatment durations with early cessation of therapy. Importantly, these strategies appear to be safe without increasing the risk for mortality, recurrent infections, or treatment failures. PCT kinetics also proved to have prognostic value correlating with disease severity (i.e., pancreatitis, abdominal infection) and resolution of illness (i.e., sepsis). Although promising findings have been published in these different types of infections, there are a number of limitations regarding PCT, including suboptimal sensitivity and/or specificity, which makes a careful interpretation of PCT in the clinical context mandatory. This narrative review aims to update clinicians on the strengths and limitations of PCT for patient management, focusing on research conducted within the last 4 years. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 13 | 27% |
Colombia | 6 | 13% |
United Kingdom | 6 | 13% |
Spain | 3 | 6% |
France | 2 | 4% |
Canada | 1 | 2% |
Mexico | 1 | 2% |
Haiti | 1 | 2% |
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 2% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 14 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 36 | 75% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 13% |
Scientists | 4 | 8% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 1 | <1% |
Mexico | 1 | <1% |
Denmark | 1 | <1% |
Pakistan | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 482 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Other | 73 | 15% |
Student > Postgraduate | 58 | 12% |
Student > Master | 51 | 10% |
Researcher | 49 | 10% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 38 | 8% |
Other | 117 | 24% |
Unknown | 100 | 21% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 254 | 52% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 23 | 5% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 4% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 14 | 3% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 12 | 2% |
Other | 51 | 10% |
Unknown | 114 | 23% |