Diagnostic and Prognostic Ability of Pancreatic Stone Protein: A Scoping Review.

Pancreatic stone protein (PSP) is an acute-phase reactant mainly produced in response to stress. Its diagnostic and prognostic accuracy for several types of infection has been studied in several clinical settings. The aim of the current review was to assess all studies examining a possible connection of pancreatic stone protein levels with the severity and possible complications of patients diagnosed with infection. We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrials.gov to identify original clinical studies assessing the role of pancreatic stone protein in the diagnosis and prognosis of infectious diseases. We identified 22 eligible studies. Ten of them provided diagnostic aspects, ten studies provided prognostic aspects, and another two studies provided both diagnostic and prognostic information. The majority of the studies were performed in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting, five studies were on patients who visited the emergency department (ED), and three studies were on burn-injury patients. According to the literature, pancreatic stone protein has been utilized in patients with different sites of infection, including pneumonia, soft tissue infections, intra-abdominal infections, urinary tract infections, and sepsis. In conclusion, PSP appears to be a useful point-of-care biomarker for the ED and ICU due to its ability to recognize bacterial infections and sepsis early. Further studies are required to examine PSP's kinetics and utility in specific populations and conditions.

Presepsin in the diagnosis of sepsis.

OBJECTIVES: Sepsis is a life-threatening condition characterized by organ dysfunction. It occurs due to the host's dysregulated response to an infection. Clinicians use inflammatory biomarkers to evaluate patients at risk of sepsis in various settings. METHODS: We included studies focusing on the diagnostic accuracy of presepsin in patients under suspicion of sepsis. The bivariate model of Reitsma was used for the quantitative synthesis, and summary estimates were calculated. The Zhou-Dendukuri approach was followed to assess heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were performed based on settings and diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: The summary sensitivity for diagnosing sepsis was 0.805 (95 % CI: 0.759-0.844), while the false positive rate (FPR) was 0.174 (95 % CI: 0.124-0.239). The area under the curve (AUC) for the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was 0.875, with a slightly lower partial AUC of 0.833. The analysis using the Zhou-Dendukuri approach revealed low heterogeneity (I2 = 15.9 %). Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in SROC curves and summary estimates between the ED and ICU settings, although the ED subgroup exhibited higher heterogeneity (I2 = 52.7 % vs. 20.2 %). The comparison between the diagnostic criteria, Sepsis 1 and Sepsis 3, demonstrated similar summary estimates and SROC curves. The examination of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool revealed a high risk of bias regarding the participants and their applicability. Also, there was an increased risk of bias in all the studies concerning the index test. CONCLUSION: Based on our research, presepsin is a promising biomarker for triage and early diagnosis of sepsis.

Evaluation of Reliability and Validity of the RALE and BRIXIA Chest-X Ray Scores in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 Pneumonia.

INTRODUCTION: Chest X-rays are commonly used to assess the severity in patients that present in the emergency department with suspected COVID-19 pneumonia, but in clinical practice quantitative scales are rarely employed. AIMS: To evaluate the reliability and validity of two semi-quantitative radiological scales in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia (BRIXIA score and RALE score). METHODS: Patients hospitalized between October 2021 and March 2022 with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia diagnosis were eligible for inclusion. All included patients had a chest X-ray taken in the ED before admission. Three raters that participated in the treatment and management of patients with COVID-19 during the pandemic independently assessed chest X-rays. RESULTS: Intraclass coefficients for BRIXΙA and RALES was 0.781 (0.729-0.826) and 0.825 (0.781-0.862) respectively, showing good to excellent reliability overall. Pairwise analysis was performed using quadratic weighted kappa showing significant variability in the inter-rater agreement. The prognostic accuracy of the two scores for in-hospital mortality for all raters was between 0.753 and 0.763 for BRIXIA and 0.737 and 0.790 for RALES, demonstrating good to excellent prognostic value. Both radiological scores were significantly associated with inhospital mortality after adjustment for 4C Mortality score. We found a consistent upwards trend with significant differences between severity groups in both radiological scores. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that BRIXIA and RALES are reliable and can be used to assess the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalization. However, the inherent subjectivity of radiological scores might make it difficult to set a cut-off value suitable for all assessors.

Tocilizumab versus baricitinib in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19: an open label, randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials comparing tocilizumab and baricitinib in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. This was an open-label, randomized controlled trial aiming to address this unmet need. METHODS: To determine whether baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab, we assessed whether the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) did not exceed 1.50. The primary outcome was mechanical ventilation or death by day 28. Secondary outcomes included time to hospital discharge by day 28 and change in WHO progression scale at day 10. RESULTS: We assigned 251 patients with COVID-19 and a PaO2/FiO2 ratio of <200 to receive either tocilizumab (n = 126) or baricitinib (n = 125) plus standard of care. Baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab for the primary composite outcome of mechanical ventilation or death by day 28 (mechanical ventilation or death for patients who received baricitinib, 39.2% [n = 49/125]; mechanical ventilation or death for patients who received tocilizumab, 44.4% [n = 56/126]; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.56-1.21; p 0.001 for non-inferiority). Baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab for the time to hospital discharge within 28 days (patients who received baricitinib- discharged alive: 58.4% [n = 73/125] vs. patients who received tocilizumab- discharged alive: 52.4% [n = 66/126]; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.61-1.18; p < 0.001 for non-inferiority). There was no significant difference between the baricitinib and tocilizumab arms in the change in WHO scale at day 10 (0.0 [95% CI, 0.0-0.0] vs. 0.0 [95% CI, 0.0-1.0]; p 0.83). DISCUSSION: In the setting of this trial, baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab with regards to the composite outcome of mechanical ventilation or death by day 28 and the time to discharge by day 28 in patients with severe COVID-19.

External validation of the 4C Mortality Score and PRIEST COVID-19 Clinical Severity Score in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia in Greece.

Background: Prognostic scores can be used to facilitate better management of patients suffering from life-threatening diseases, provided that they have been tested in the population of interest. Aim: To perform external validation of the 4C Mortality Score and PRIEST COVID-19 Clinical Severity Score. Study Design: Prospective observational Study. Methods: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia in a tertiary hospital in Greece were enrolled in the study. The prognostic scores were calculated based on hospital admission data and ROC curve analysis was performed. We assessed a composite outcome of either in-hospital death or need for invasive ventilation. Results: Both 4C and PRIEST scores showed good discriminative ability with an AUC value of 0.826 (CI 95%: 0.765-0.887) and 0.852 (CI 95%: 0.793-0.910) respectively. Based on the Youden Index the optimal cut-off for the 4C score was 11 (Sensitivity 75%, Specificity 75.5%) and 10 for the PRIEST score (Sensitivity 83% and Specificity 69.4%). Calibration was adequate for both scores, except for the low and very high risk groups in the PRIEST score. Conclusion: The 4C Mortality Score and PRIEST COVID-19 Clinical Severity Score can be used for early identification of patients with poor prognosis in a Greek population cohort hospitalized with COVID-19.