4.5 Article

Validation of diagnostic gene sets to identify critically ill patients with sepsis

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
Volume 49, Issue -, Pages 92-98

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.10.028

Keywords

Sepsis; Critical care; Gene expression; Precision medicine; Validation studies

Funding

  1. Southeastern Ontario Academic Medical Association (SEAMO) Innovation Fund
  2. Lotte & John HechtMemorial Foundation
  3. McLaughlin Center, University of Toronto
  4. Garfield Kelly Fund, Queen's University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Gene expression diagnostics have been proposed to identify critically ill patients with sepsis. Three expression-based scores have been developed, but have not been compared in a prospective validation. We sought to validate these scores using an independent dataset and analysis. Methods: We generated gene expression profiles from 61 critically ill patients. We validated the performance of 3 expression-based sepsis scores including 1) the Sepsis MetaScore (SMS); 2) the SeptiCyte (TM) Lab; and 3) the FAIM3:PLAC8 ratio. Sepsis was identified as the presence of definite. probable, or possible infection in the setting of organ dysfunction (SOFA score >= 2). Results: For all 3 models, scores were significantly different between patients with and without sepsis. Discrimination was highest for the SMS (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [AUROC 0.80 [95% Cl 0.67-0.92]), with greater confidence in the presence of infection resulting in better model performance (max AUROC 0.93 [0.87-1.0]). Conclusions: All three scores distinguished septic from non-septic ICU patients, with the SMS showing the best performance overall in our cohort. Our results suggest that models developed from the co-analysis of multiple cohorts are more generalizable. Further work is needed to identify expression-based biomarkers of response to specific therapies. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available