Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Feb 5;16(2):e0246027. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246027

Procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, resistin and the APTT waveform for the early diagnosis of serious bacterial infection and prediction of outcome in critically ill children

Maryke J Nielsen 1,2,3,*, Paul Baines 4,5, Rebecca Jennings 6, Sarah Siner 4, Ruwanthi Kolamunnage-Dona 7, Paul Newland 8, Matthew Peak 6, Christine Chesters 9, Graham Jeffers 7, Colin Downey 10, Caroline Broughton 1, Lynsey McColl 11, Jennifer Preston 7, Anthony McKeever 12, Stephane Paulus 1, Nigel Cunliffe 1,3,13, Enitan D Carrol 1,3,14
Editor: Aleksandar R Zivkovic15
PMCID: PMC7864456  PMID: 33544738

Abstract

Objective

Bacterial Infections remains a leading cause of death in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). In this era of rising antimicrobial resistance, new tools are needed to guide antimicrobial use. The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of procalcitonin (PCT), neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), resistin, activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) waveform and C-reactive protein (CRP) for the diagnosis of serious bacterial infection (SBI) in children on admission to PICU and their use as prognostic indicators.

Setting

A regional PICU in the United Kingdom.

Patients

Consecutive PICU admissions between October 2010 and June 2012.

Measurements

Blood samples were collected daily for biomarker measurement. The primary outcome measure was performance of study biomarkers for diagnosis of SBI on admission to PICU based on clinical, radiological and microbiological criteria. Secondary outcomes included durations of PICU stay and invasive ventilation and 28-day mortality. Patients were followed up to day 28 post-admission.

Main results

A total of 657 patients were included in the study. 92 patients (14%) fulfilled criteria for SBI. 28-day mortality was 2.6% (17/657), but 8.7% (8/92) for patients with SBI. The combination of PCT, resistin, plasma NGAL and CRP resulted in the greatest net reclassification improvement compared to CRP alone (0.69, p<0.005) with 10.5% reduction in correct classification of patients with SBI (p 0.52) but a 78% improvement in correct classification of patients without events (p <0.005). A statistical model of prolonged duration of PICU stay found log-transformed maximum values of biomarkers performed better than first recorded biomarkers. The final model included maximum values of CRP, plasma NGAL, lymphocyte and platelet count (AUC 79%, 95% CI 73.7% to 84.2%). Longitudinal profiles of biomarkers showed PCT levels to decrease most rapidly following admission SBI.

Conclusion

Combinations of biomarkers, including PCT, may improve accurate and timely identification of SBI on admission to PICU.

Introduction

Invasive bacterial infections account for over a quarter of all deaths in PICU [1] whilst up to 31% of paediatric sepsis survivors are affected by disability at discharge [2]. Early recognition of sepsis and prompt anti-microbial therapy reduce mortality and duration of organ dysfunction [35], but indiscriminate antimicrobial use contributes to resistance [6, 7]. Differentiation of infective and non-infective causes of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) is an ongoing challenge for clinicians. A reliable marker, or combination of markers, that change early in bacterial infection, correlate with real-time clinical progression and have a rapid laboratory turn-around time is an urgent unmet clinical need.

Procalcitonin (PCT) has been shown in comparatively small studies to be a better diagnostic marker of bacterial infection in PICU than C-reactive protein (CRP) [8, 9] and to be a prognostic marker in meningococcal disease [10]. The biphasic activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (aPTT) waveform is the optical profile generated from changes in light transmittance during clot formation. It has been found in adults to be a more useful marker of sepsis than CRP alone, correlating with increasing risk of clinical deterioration and disseminated intra-vascular coagulation (DIC) [1113] and to be abnormal in children with meningococcal sepsis [14]. Neutrophil gelatinase- associated lipocalin (NGAL), measured in plasma or urine, is a marker of acute kidney injury but also a promising marker of sepsis and multi-organ dysfunction in adults [15, 16] and neonates [17]. Resistin an adipokine which contributes to inflammation-induced insulin resistance, has been shown to correlate with sepsis severity in adults [18, 19]. The performance of the aPTT waveform, NGAL and resistin in paediatric infection is unknown.

Objectives

The primary aim of this study was to determine the discriminative ability of PCT, aPTT waveform, NGAL and resistin individually, in combination and compared to CRP to diagnose serious bacterial infection (SBI) in children on admission to PICU. The secondary objectives were to investigate which variables, including admission and longitudinal biomarkers, are predictive of duration of ventilation, duration of and prolonged PICU stay, and 28-day mortality.

Methods

Study design and setting

A prospective, observational study was conducted on the PICU at Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, U.K between October 2010 and June 2012.

Participants

All patients from birth to 16 years admitted to the PICU were eligible for inclusion. Pre-term infants < 37 weeks corrected gestation, children predicted not to survive at least 28 days due to a pre-existing condition or with an existing directive to withhold life-sustaining treatment, children with end stage renal disease requiring chronic dialysis, end-stage liver disease, children admitted moribund and not expected to survive more than 24 hours and non-intubated elective admissions with a predicted duration of stay less than 24 hours were excluded.

Some participants in our study were also recruited to a concurrent multicentre randomised control trial, Control of Hyperglycaemia in Children in Paediatric Intensive Care (CHiP) [20].

Ethical approval and sample size calculation

Written informed consent for participation was obtained from parents or guardians. Patients were followed up until day 28 after admission. The study was approved by University of Liverpool research ethics committee (REC reference number: 10/H1014/52).

Prior to study commencement data from the Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network (PICANET) found sepsis in 15% of admissions. The pre-study power calculation was 1640 patients with 246 SBI events to achieve 80% sensitivity and specificity with 15% SBI incidence in an ROC curve analysis at 5% significance level (alpha = 0.05, one-sided).

Data collection and outcomes measured

A case was defined as a child in whom an SBI was present on admission to PICU. SBI was defined in accordance with previous studies as a suspected or proven infection caused by any bacterial pathogen, or a clinical syndrome associated with a high probability of infection which included positive findings on examination, imaging or hospital laboratory tests [21, 22] (S1 Table in S1 File). Cases were discussed at a twice weekly PICU Infection multi-disciplinary team meeting which included the duty Microbiology, PICU and Paediatric Infectious Disease Consultants to determine the presence and timing of SBI. A paediatric infectious disease Consultant or research fellow reviewed cases in which there was disagreement amongst the team. Patients were followed up until day 28 to ensure misclassification had not occurred.

Sepsis and SIRS were defined in accordance with accepted international definitions [22]. New consensus definitions in adults have yet to be adopted in paediatrics [23]. Secondary outcome measures included 28-day mortality, duration of invasive positive pressure ventilation (IPPV), duration of PICU stay and prolonged ICU stay. A participant was defined as having a prolonged ICU stay if their duration of stay was greater than or equal to the median. Paediatric logistic organ dysfunction score (PELOD), a quantitative score of organ dysfunction, was chosen as a surrogate marker for disease severity [24].

Measurement of biomarkers

Four study biomarkers, comprising PCT, plasma NGAL, resistin and aPTT biphasic wave form (slope and light transmittance level at 18s) were measured daily for seven days following PICU admission from blood samples collected at the same time as routine investigations. CRP was measured on an Abbott Architect analyser in the hospital’s clinical chemistry laboratory. Urine NGAL was measured in catheterised patients. Whole blood collected in lithium heparin and sodium citrate (for APTT waveform) microtubes was spun down at 3000 rpm for 10 minutes within 2 hours of collection, and the plasma was stored in aliquots for biomarker determination at the end of the study, when the PCT NGAL, resistin analysis was performed. All samples were stored at -80°C until analysis. CRP is currently the routine sepsis biomarker used in the U.K. and as such results were available to clinicians in real time [25]. All other biomarkers were measured in batches after clinical data collection and follow up had been complete. Results were not available to clinicians. Other than CRP, biomarker results were not used by the research team in SBI categorisation.

PCT was measured using an automated analyser (KRYPTOR-TRACE technology, BRAHMS, Germany). The aPTT biphasic waveform was measured using an MDA-180 analyser (Trinity Biotech, Ireland) [12]. CRP was measured using an immunoturbidimetric assay on an automated Abbott Architect analyser. NGAL (R&D systems, Minneapolis) and resistin (Assaypro, Missouri), were carried out on a random sample of patients and measured using commercially available ELISAs according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated to summarise clinical data available for study participants with and without SBI in terms of baseline patient characteristics, patient outcomes and baseline biomarker measurements. The following univariate tests were applied to identify which variables had a statistically significant association with SBI. For comparing continuous variables with SBI, a t-test was applied if the variable was normally distributed, otherwise a Mann Whitney U test was used. For comparing categorical variables with SBI, a Pearson’s chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test was applied.

The primary analysis compared the performance of the different study biomarkers and combinations of biomarkers for diagnosis of SBI. Receiver operator curves (ROC) analysis was undertaken for individual and combinations of biomarkers using logistic regression including the biomarker as a continuous variable. Participants were only included in the model if biomarker data were available, and values were not imputed for the missing biomarker data. The optimal cut off point at which to diagnose an SBI was calculated for each ROC curve using the Youden Index [26] with the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and positive/negative likelihood ratios reported. In addition, performance of biomarker combinations at various cut points, defined a priori, were calculated and performance calculated using logistic regression.

Net reclassification improvement (NRI) was used to measure the additive value of measuring multiple biomarkers and to quantify improvement in performance over CRP alone which is the most commonly used biomarker in UK paediatric clinical practice [26]. The magnitude of NRI is more important than the statistical significance, therefore we reported NRI with confidence intervals, as well as significance values [26, 27]. To investigate the trend in biomarkers over the first 7 days of PICU admission for children with and without SBI, we fitted linear mixed effect models including an interaction effect for time and SBI status. A quadratic term was included in the model when the biomarker variation over time was nonlinear.

Statistical methods for secondary outcomes measures are provided in the Supporting Statistical Methods. Statistical Analyses were performed using R v3.4.0, with specific packages ROCR and Hmisc to estimate ROC curve and NRI, respectively. Statistical methods for secondary outcomes measures are provided in the Supporting Statistical Methods.

Results

Participants

A total of 2468 children were admitted to the PICU from October 2010 to June 2012; 1339 were not eligible for inclusion and consent could not be obtained in 472 cases, therefore 657 patients were enrolled (Fig 1). The median age of children included was 1.01 years (IQR 0.30–4.99 years). Baseline characteristics of participants are shown in S2 Table in S1 File. Most patients (473/657, 72.0%) were admitted to PICU post-operatively, most frequently after cardiac surgery (368/657, 56.0%).

Fig 1. Patient flow diagram.

Fig 1

*Parents unable to give consent, previously declined to participate, previously enrolled in the study during the same illness episode and now ≥28 days.

Serious bacterial infection on admission

A total of 92 participants (14.0%) fulfilled study criteria for SBI on admission to the PICU. Consensus for presence of SBI according to study criteria was met in the multi-disciplinary PICU infection meeting in 90 cases. Two cases, in whom consensus was not met in the weekly meeting, were retrospectively reviewed in detail by the study experts and classified as meeting SBI criteria. Seventy -seven SBI’s were community acquired and 15 were hospital-acquired. Twenty-one infections represented bacterial-viral coinfections, 65 were confirmed bacterial infection and 6 were presumed bacterial infections. Sterile site bacterial culture results and the clinical SBI diagnosis for these patients are shown in S3 and S4 Tables in S1 File. The six patients with presumed serious bacterial infection included two cases of necrotising enterocolitis, peritonitis post bladder rupture, clinical sepsis secondary to round pneumonia on chest x ray and septic shock secondary to sinusitis which was confirmed on CT. Thirty patients fulfilled consensus definitions [28] for sepsis, 26 for septic shock, 18 for severe sepsis and 13 for infection on admission.

Outcomes of patients with and without SBI on admission are compared in Table 1. Twenty-eight-day mortality (8.70% vs 1.59%, (p<0.001)), median duration of PICU stay (5.4 days vs 2.9 days, p<0.001) and duration of invasive ventilation (3.8 days’ vs 1.7 days, p < 0.001) were greater in the SBI group.

Table 1. Comparison of patient outcome measures for patients with and without SBI on admission.

SBI on Admission Total p-value
No Yes
Patient Outcome N = 565 (86%) N = 92 (14%) N = 657
DIC, n (%)
No 502 86 588 0.246
Yes 63 (11) 6 (7) 69 (11)
MODS, n (%)
No 485 48 533 <0.001
Yes 80 (14) 44 (48) 124 (19)
28 Day Mortality n (%)
Alive 556 84 640 <0.001
Dead 9(2) 8(9) 17(3)
Duration of PICU stay (days)
Mean (SD); range 6.4(10.3);0.3–127.1 8.2 (9.3); 0.4–46.0 6.6 (10.2);0.3–127.1 <0.001
Median (IQR) 2.9 (1.7–6.6) 5.4 (3.1–8.4) 3.3 (2.7)
Renal Replacement Therapy, n (%)
No 524 86 610 0.972
Yes 41 (7.3) 6 (6.5) 47 (7.2)
Maximum PELOD N = 563 N = 91 N = 654
Mean (SD); range 12.2 (6.4); 0.0–43.0 13.0 (5.2); 1.0–32.0 12.1 (6.3); 0.0–43.0 0.439
Median IQR 12.0 (11.0–12.0) 12.0 (11.0–13.0) 12.0 (11.0–12.0)
Maximum temperature in 1st 48 hours N = 538 N = 90 N = 628
Mean (SD); range 37.3 (0.8); 33.7–39.5 37.6 (1.0); 34.0–41.3 37.3 (0.8);33.7–41.3 0.002
Median (IQR) 37.2 (36.8–37.8) 37.5 (37.1–38.0) 37.3 (36.8–37.8)
Duration of IPPV N = 524 N = 77 N = 601
Mean (SD); range 3.7 (5.7); 0.1–66.1 3.8 (5.6); 0.4–35.5 3.9 (5.7); 0.1–66.1 <0.001
Median (IQR) 1.7 (0.5–4.4) 3.8 (2.0–5.9) 1.9 (0.6–5.1)
Number in whom antibiotics given 567 92 639
Duration of antibiotics N = 499 N = 81 N = 580
Mean (SD); range 4.6 (4.3); 1.0–29.0 8.9 (8.8); 1.0–70.0 5.3 (5.4); 1.0–70.0 <0.001
Median (IQR) 3.0 (2.0–6.0) 7.0 (5.0–10.0) 3.0 (2.0–7.0)

Diagnostic performance of biomarker results

There was a significant difference in median baseline biomarker measurement between patients with SBI at admission and those without (S5 Table in S1 File). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV, LR and cut points for individual biomarkers and combinations are show in Table 2.

Table 2. Accuracy and cut points of individual biomarkers and combinations of biomarkers for diagnosis of SBI on admission to PICU.

Individual biomarker or biomarker combinations AUC (95% CI) Cut-point# Sensitivity 95% CIs Specificity 95% CIs PPV 95% CIs NPV 95% CIs LR+ 95% CIs LR- 95% CIs
PCT (ng/ml) * 83.73 (78.11, 89.35) 1.25 0.78 (0.69, 0.88) 0.80 (0.76, 0.84) 0.37 (0.26, 0.48) 0.96 (0.94, 0.98) 3.92 (3.17, 4.85) 0.27 (0.17, 0.42)
Urine NGAL (ng/ml) 56.72 (48.18, 65.25) 95.10 0.47 (0.34, 0.60) 0.67 (0.62, 0.71) 0.17 (0.07, 0.27) 0.90 (0.87, 0.93) 1.41 (1.03, 1.93) 0.79 (0.61, 1.03)
Plasma NGAL (ng/ml) 68.07 (60.09, 76.06) 194.00 0.61 (0.49, 0.73) 0.75 (0.69, 0.81) 0.38 (0.26, 0.50) 0.88 (0.84, 0.93) 2.44 (1.81, 3.30) 0.52 (0.37, 0.72)
Resistin (ng/ml) 80.17 (73.14, 87.20) 96.28 0.64 (0.51, 0.76) 0.85 (0.80, 0.90) 0.51 (0.38, 0.65) 0.90 (0.86, 0.94) 4.20 (2.90, 6.10) 0.43 (0.30, 0.61)
APTT slope 65.90 (58.89, 72.92) -0.03 0.46 (0.35, 0.57) 0.84 (0.81, 0.87) 0.33 (0.23, 0.43) 0.90 (0.87, 0.93) 2.86 (2.09, 3.92) 0.65 (0.53, 0.79)
APTT TR18 (%) 67.23 (60.29, 74.17) 99.40 0.51 (0.40, 0.62) 0.84 (0.81, 0.87) 0.35 (0.25, 0.45) 0.91 (0.88, 0.93) 3.13 (2.32, 4.22) 0.59 (0.47, 0.74)
CRP mg/l 89.76 (85.83, 93.69) 2.09 0.93 (0.87, 0.99) 0.76 (0.72, 0.79) 0.37 (0.25, 0.48) 0.99 (0.98, 1.00) 3.81 (3.21, 4.52) 0.09 (0.04, 0.22)
Model (1) PCT, Resistin, pNGAL, CRP 91.64 (87.58, 95.70) 0.12 0.92 (0.84, 1.00) 0.83 (0.77, 0.89) 0.57 (0.42, 0.73) 0.98 (0.95, 1.00) 5.42 (3.77, 7.79) 0.10 (0.03, 0.28)
Model (2) PCT, Resistin, APTT TR18, CRP 92.52 (88.22, 96.81) 0.08 0.97 (0.92, 1.00) 0.75 (0.67, 0.82) 0.52 (0.35, 0.68) 0.99 (0.97, 1.00) 3.83 (2.82, 5.19) 0.04 (0.01, 0.27)
Model (3) PCT, Resistin, CRP 92.36 (88.54, 96.17) 0.10 0.95 (0.88, 1.00) 0.79 (0.73, 0.86) 0.54 (0.38, 0.69) 0.98 (0.96, 1.00) 4.54 (3.30, 6.23) 0.06 (0.02, 0.25)
Model (4) PCT, CRP 92.66 (88.47, 96.85) 0.06 0.92 (0.85, 0.99) 0.86 (0.83 0.90) 0.50 (0.37, 0.62) 0.99 (0.97, 1.00) 6.67 (5.18, 8.58) 0.10 (0.04, 0.22)

*Pre-test probability is 12.89%.

#Cut-points were determined using the Youden Index, and probability cut-points were given for biomarker combinations from models (1)-(4), see below.

Prediction via logistic regression models:.

Model (1): p=2.68+6.31×103PCT+1.45×103Resistin+0.46×103pNGAL+14.79×103CRP.

Model (2): p=0.85+5.64×103PCT+1.73×103Resistin36.34×103APTT+20.10×103CRP.

Model (3): p=2.60+7.29×103PCT+1.73×103Resistin+15.16×103CRP.

Model (4): p=2.96+27.02×103PCT+18.49×103CRP.

Comparing individual biomarkers using ROC curves, diagnosis of SBI was best with CRP (AUC 89.73, 95% CI 85.83 to 93.69), followed by PCT (AUC 83.73 95% CI 78.11 to 89.35). Combinations of biomarkers were superior to individual biomarkers alone (Fig 2). Performance of combinations of biomarkers based upon specific cut points are shown in S5 Table in S1 File. Maximum specificity (76.1%) was achieved when considering PCT > 1.25 and CRP > 25, whilst maximum sensitivity (97.6%) was found with a six-biomarker combination.

Fig 2. Receiver operating characteristic curve for individual and combinations of biomarkers for detection of SBI on admission to PICU.

Fig 2

Calculating NRI (Table 3) for combinations of biomarkers, all five models significantly increased the proportion of patients correctly classified as not having an SBI. Two combinations, Model 3 (PCT, resistin and CRP) and Model 4 (PCT with CRP) significantly reduced the number of patients correctly classified as having the event. The combination of PCT, resistin, plasma NGAL with CRP resulted in the greatest net gain in classification proportion of 0.69 (p<0.001, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.04) with 10.5% reduction in correct classification of patients with SBI (p = 0.52, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.21) but a 79% improvement in correct classification of patients without events (p<0.001 95% CI 0.63 to 0.95).

Table 3. Net reclassification improvement (NRI) in new prediction models (biomarker combinations) versus current C-reactive protein alone model.

New model Summary NRI (95% CI), p-value NRI for events (95% CI), p-value NRI for non-events (95% CI), p-value
Model (1) ‡ PCT, Resistin, pNGAL, CRP 0.686 (0.330, 1.041), <0.001 -0.105 (-0.423, 0.213), 0.516 0.791 (0.632, 0.949), <0.001
Model (2) ‡ PCT, Resistin, APTT TR18, CRP 0.616 (0.241, 0.990), 0.001 -0.257 (-0.588, 0.074), 0.128 0.873 (0.698, 1.048), <0.001
Model (3) ‡ PCT, Resistin, CRP 0.524 (0.172, 0.876), 0.004 -0.385 (-0.698, -0.071), 0.016 0.908 (0.750, 1.067), <0.001
Model (4) ‡ PCT, CRP 0.610 (0.341, 0.879), <0.001 -0.279 (-0.530, -0.0277), 0.030 0.889 (0.793, 0.985), < 0.001
Model (5) Resistin + CRP 0.715 (0.385, 1.045), <0.001 -0.227 (-0.523, 0.068), 0.132 0.943 (0.794, 1.091), <0.001

Longitudinal biomarker measurements

We plotted longitudinal biomarker profiles for median and mean NGAL, resistin, PCT and CRP. Only PCT and CRP demonstrated clearly distinct profiles between children with SBI and without SBI (Fig 3). Linear mixed effect models were fitted for longitudinally repeated data of the 4 biomarkers. The difference between profiles for those with and without SBI was determined by including an interaction term for time and SBI status. A quadratic term was included in the model for CRP as the variation over time was highly nonlinear. The corresponding p values for the interaction effect were 0.116, 0.000, 0.230 and 0.000 for plasma NGAL, PCT, Resistin and CRP respectively, supporting the observation in Fig 3 that only PCT and CRP demonstrated clearly distinct longitudinal profiles between children with and without SBI.

Fig 3. Longitudinal trends in mean and median biomarkers over first seven days of PICU admission.

Fig 3

a. Plasma NGAL; b. PCT; c. Resistin; d. CRP.

Prognostic performance of biomarkers

28 day mortality

A total of 640 patients (97.41%) were alive at 28 days. Independent variables identified as being individually associated with 28-day mortality (at the 5% significance level) were surgery (none, non-cardiac), unplanned admission, SBI, fever, recent antibiotics, immunosuppression, PCT and admission PELOD. The number of deaths (n = 17) was insufficient to fit a statistical model.

Prolonged ICU stay and duration of ICU stay

The median duration of PICU stay was 3.3 days (IQR 2.0–7.0 days). The independent variables identified as being significantly associated with prolonged ICU stay are shown in S7 Table in S1 File. A stepwise regression model to predict prolonged PICU stay demonstrated an AUC of 80.2%, and included the following variables: type of admission, inotrope score, age, recruitment to the CHIP study, long term antibiotics, antibiotics prior to ward admission, PELOD, platelet count, lactate count. Patients with unplanned admissions, through the emergency department or following surgery, had greater odds of prolonged PICU stay compared to planned admissions, OR 5.6 (95% CI 3.20 to 10.19) and 8.3 (95% CI 2.32 to 34.11) respectively). Long-term antibiotics were associated with increased odds of prolonged PICU stay (4.9 OR, 95% CI 1.66 to 16.98, p = 0.005) whereas antibiotics prior to admission reduced the odds (0.5 OR, 95% CI 0.28–0.99, p = 0.049) (S8 Table and S1 Fig in S1 File).

The independent variables significantly associated with length of ICU stay (at the 5% significance level) are shown in S9 Table in S1 File. Four hundred and forty-seven patients had a full record of observations and so were included in the model. The model of best fit for log (length of PICU) is shown in S10 Table in S1 File. Variables in the model include age, surgery, type of admission, bypass time, admission to CHiP study, inotrope score, long term antibiotics, recent antibiotics, antibiotics prior to ward, general appearance, PCT and PELOD. For example, we find that each 1-year increase in age multiplies the expected value of length of stay by 0.96 (95% CI of 0.94 to 0.98, p <0.01). The R2 value is 25.9% which suggests that the predictive capacity of this model is low.

Duration of IPPV

The median duration of IPPV was 1.9 days (IQR 0.6 to 5.1). A total of 326 out of 657 patients had no missing observations and were included in the model. The independent variables significantly associated with duration of ventilation are shown in S11 Table in S1 File. The model of best fit for log (duration of IPPV) is shown in S12 Table in S1 File. Increased duration of invasive ventilation was associated with decreasing age, increasing bypass time, unplanned admissions, no or non-cardiac surgery, PELOD, BE, lactate and inotrope scores.

To further investigate the prognostic values of the biomarkers, first recorded and maximum blood lymphocyte, neutrophil and platelet count, plasma NGAL, CRP and PCT were analysed as predictors of prolonged PICU stay using a logistic regression model. The model of best fit for the initial values included the independent variables lymphocyte and PCT whilst the model for the maximum values included lymphocyte, CRP, platelet and plasma NGAL (Table 4). For each model, we determined the corresponding ROC curves (S2 & S3 Figs in S1 File) and used these curves to identify the optimal cut-off at which to classify a patient has a prolonged PICU stay. The predictive performance of the model including the maximum biomarker values was higher predictive performance than the first recorded biomarker model (AUC 78.95%, 95% CI 73.73% to 84.16% v AUC 68.05%, 95% CI 63.93% to 72.16%).

Table 4. Final multivariable model of best fit for prolonged PICU stay using the first recorded or maximum values of the blood biomarkers.
First Recorded Values Coefficient Standard Error Odds Ratio OR 95% CI P value
Intercept 0.139 0.114 1.149 0.9198–1.4401 0.224
Log2(lymphocyte) 0.082 0.080 1.085 0.9281–1.2694 0.306
Log2(PCT) 0.213 0.029 1.238 1.1704–1.3128 <0.001
Maximum Value
Intercept -10.461 2.023 0 (0–0.0013) 0
Log2(lymphocytes) 0.750 0.169 2.118 (1.5375–2.9861) 0
Log2(platelet) 0.743 0.209 2.102 (1.4059–3.2015) <0.001
Log2(plasma NGAL) 0.215 0.094 1.240 (1.0323–1.4939) 0.022
Log2(CRP) 0.323 0.140 1.380 (1.051–1.8288) 0.022

Discussion

This is the largest and most comprehensive study to date investigating the performance of multiple biomarkers for the diagnosis of SBI in all children admitted to PICU. We demonstrate improved diagnostic performance using combinations of biomarkers compared to CRP alone.

Fourteen percent of admissions were diagnosed with SBI which is comparable to data from other tertiary PICUs [1, 29, 30]. Overall the prevalence of underlying chronic disease of 86.4% in the cohort may be indicative of the changing epidemiology of critically ill children [31]. Children with SBI on admission had significantly increased 28-day mortality, higher rates of MODS and longer ICU stays compared to those without SBI, highlighting the significant burden of sepsis despite widespread use of bacterial conjugate vaccines.

Individually, CRP was the most sensitive biomarker for diagnosis of SBI on PICU admission whilst resistin was the most specific. In our cohort SBI patients were predominantly referrals from other hospitals, which is representative of the structure of PICU in the U.K. We studied biomarkers on admission to PICU rather than on initial presentation. This may account for the superior performance of CRP compared to PCT which is generally thought to show a slower response to infection than PCT. All combinations of biomarkers, other than PCT and resistin, showed excellent discriminatory ability with AUC > 90%. PCT with CRP was best for ruling in SBI, with a positive likelihood ratio of 6.67 (95% CI 5.18 to 8.38). To rule out SBI, the combination ofPCT, resistin, aPTT TR18 and CRP showed the lowest likelihood ratio at 0.04 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.010). Overall, based upon net reclassification improvement the combination of PCT, resistin, pNGAL and CRP yielded the most improved correct classification of events.

Secondary analysis investigating variables predictive of predictive of duration of ventilation, duration of and prolonged PICU stay did not find biomarkers to be significant predictors of these adverse outcomes. Maximum values for lymphocytes, NGAL, CRP and platelets as opposed to biomarker values on admission, provided a better model to predict the risk of prolonged PICU stay, suggesting that these biomarkers have prognostic value. Risk stratification of patients with suspected sepsis, based on biomarkers and clinical indices, has been recommended as an area for future research [1] (1). Longitudinal profiles for PCT showed the greatest percentage drop in values over the first seven days of therapy in children with SBI, suggesting that PCT might be useful in guiding duration of antimicrobial therapy in children, as has been shown in neonates and adults [32, 33]. Multi-centre randomised controlled trials aiming to determine if the addition of PCT testing to current best practice can safely allow a reduction in duration of antimicrobial therapy in hospitalised children with suspected or confirmed bacterial infection compared to current best practice [34].

Younger age was found to be a predictor of longer duration of PICU stay and IPPV. There was a higher risk of prolonged PICU stay and IPPV associated with unplanned versus planned admissions. Non-cardiac surgical admission was also a risk factor for adverse outcomes. The odds of prolonged PICU stay was almost five times greater for a patient who received long term antibiotics compared with a patient who did not. This may reflect the development of antimicrobial resistance or that patients with more comorbidities maybe more likely to be on long term antibiotics prophylaxis.

Strengths and limitations

The current study included 657 patients with 92 cases (14%) of SBI on admission, and therefore the study is underpowered to achieve 80% sensitivity and specificity for a single biomarker. However, to the best of our knowledge, this is the largest study to prospectively assess the performance of multiple biomarkers of SBI in a heterogeneous cohort of critically ill children and uniquely profiles longitudinal biomarker changes within the cohort. We studied over 600 children and collected comprehensive clinical and laboratory data with follow up to 28 days after admission, which makes our findings generalizable to other tertiary paediatric settings. The enrolment of all consecutive admissions to PICU, as opposed to just those with suspected sepsis or a positive microbiology result, overcomes spectrum bias where a biomarker performs better in those more likely to have the disease. A limitation of the study was that, as this was a pragmatic cohort study, there were large numbers of children admitted postoperatively without infection, which may have underestimated biomarker performance, but we aimed to replicate real-life prediction of events at admission. A significant proportion of included patients were transfers from other hospital; hence timing of biomarker measurement in relation to disease onset was variable in the cohort. The high number of missing values for resistin and pNGAL is a further limitation.

Conclusion

In this study of unselected, critically ill children admitted to PICU, combinations of biomarkers including of PCT and CRP provided excellent discrimination of SBI on admission. SBI on admission was associated with increased 28-day mortality and longer duration PICU stay. Early recognition of sepsis should lead to better outcomes from children admitted to PICU.

Supporting information

S1 File

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the children, young people, parents and carers who participated in the study. We also thank the PICU staff who contributed to the study.

Abbreviations

aPTT

Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time

AUC

Area Under the Curve

CI

Confidence Interval

CRP

C-Reactive Protein

ICU

Intensive Care Unit

IPPV

Invasive positive pressure ventilatio

LR

Likelihood Rati

NGAL

Neutrophil Gelatinase Associated Lipocali

NPV

Negative Predictive Valu

NRI

Net Reclassification Improvemen

OR

Odds Rati

PCT

Procalcitoni

PICU

Paediatric Intensive Care Uni

PELOD

Paediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction Scor

PPV

Positive Predictive Valu

ROC

Receiver Operator Curve

SBI

Serious Bacterial Infectio

SIRS

Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrom

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the University of Liverpool, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences Head of Operations iveshoo@liverpool.ac.uk The data are not publicly available due to restrictions imposed by collection of patient data from a named hospital, and therefore contains information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.

Funding Statement

The study was funded jointly by the NIHR Liverpool Biomedical Research Centre in Microbial Diseases and the Alder Hey Charity awarded to EC. MJN is supported by a Wellcome Trust Research Training Fellowship (award reference 203919/Z/16/Z). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publics, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Schlapbach LJ, Straney L, Alexander J, MacLaren G, Festa M, Schibler A, et al. Mortality related to invasive infections, sepsis, and septic shock in critically ill children in Australia and New Zealand, 2002–13: a multicentre retrospective cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis [Internet]. 2015. January [cited 2018 Sep 25];15(1):46–54. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25471555 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Boeddha NP, Schlapbach LJ, Driessen GJ, Herberg JA, Rivero-calle I. Mortality and morbidity in community- acquired sepsis in European pediatric intensive care units: a prospective cohort study from the European Childhood Life-threatening Infectious Disease Study (EUCLIDS). 2018;1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ferrer R, Martin-Loeches I, Phillips G, Osborn TM, Townsend S, Dellinger RP, et al. Empiric Antibiotic Treatment Reduces Mortality in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock From the First Hour. Crit Care Med [Internet]. 2014. August [cited 2018 Mar 18];42(8):1749–55. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24717459 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, Light B, Parrillo JE, Sharma S, et al. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock*. Crit Care Med [Internet]. 2006. June [cited 2018 Mar 18];34(6):1589–96. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16625125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Weiss SL, Fitzgerald JC, Pappachan J, Wheeler D, Jaramillo-Bustamante JC, Salloo A, et al. Global Epidemiology of Pediatric Severe Sepsis: The Sepsis Prevalence, Outcomes, and Therapies Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med [Internet]. 2015. May 15 [cited 2018 Sep 25];191(10):1147–57. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25734408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Folgori L, Bielicki J, Ruiz B, Turner MA, Bradley JS, Benjamin DK, et al. Harmonisation in study design and outcomes in paediatric antibiotic clinical trials: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis [Internet]. 2016. September [cited 2018 Feb 14];16(9):e178–89. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27375212 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.de Kraker MEA, Wolkewitz M, Davey PG, Koller W, Berger J, Nagler J, et al. Clinical impact of antimicrobial resistance in European hospitals: excess mortality and length of hospital stay related to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother [Internet]. 2011. April 1 [cited 2018 Sep 25];55(4):1598–605. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21220533 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Rey C, Los Arcos M, Concha A, Medina A, Prieto S, Martinez P, et al. Procalcitonin and C-reactive protein as markers of systemic inflammatory response syndrome severity in critically ill children. Intensive Care Med [Internet]. 2007. February 26 [cited 2018 Sep 25];33(3):477–84. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17260130 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Davidson J, Tong S, Hauck A, Lawson DS, da Cruz E, Kaufman J. Kinetics of procalcitonin and C-reactive protein and the relationship to postoperative infection in young infants undergoing cardiovascular surgery. Pediatr Res [Internet]. 2013. October [cited 2018 Sep 25];74(4):413–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23863853 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Carrol ED, Newland P, Thomson APJ, Hart CA. Prognostic value of procalcitonin in children with meningococcal sepsis. Crit Care Med [Internet]. 2005. January [cited 2018 Sep 25];33(1):224–5. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15644674 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Downey C, Kazmi R, Toh CH. Novel and diagnostically applicable information from optical waveform analysis of blood coagulation in disseminated intravascular coagulation. Br J Haematol [Internet]. 1997. July [cited 2018 Sep 25];98(1):68–73. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9233566 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Toh C, Ticknor LO, Downey C, Giles AR, Paton RC, Wenstone R. Early identification of sepsis and mortality risks through simple, rapid clot-waveform analysis. Intensive Care Med [Internet]. 2003. January [cited 2018 Sep 25];29(1):55–61. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12528023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Dempfle C-EH, Lorenz S, Smolinski M, Wurst M, West S, Houdijk WPM, et al. Utility of activated partial thromboplastin time waveform analysis for identification of sepsis and overt disseminated intravascular coagulation in patients admitted to a surgical intensive care unit. Crit Care Med [Internet]. 2004. February [cited 2018 Sep 25];32(2):520–4. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14758173 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Paize F, Carrol E, Downey C, Parry CM, Green G, Diggle P, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of activated partial thromboplastin time waveform and procalcitonin analysis in pediatric meningococcal sepsis. Pediatr Crit Care Med [Internet]. 2011. November [cited 2018 Sep 25];12(6):e322–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21666537 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Shapiro NI, Trzeciak S, Hollander JE, Birkhahn R, Otero R, Osborn TM, et al. A prospective, multicenter derivation of a biomarker panel to assess risk of organ dysfunction, shock, and death in emergency department patients with suspected sepsis. Crit Care Med [Internet]. 2009. January [cited 2018 Sep 25];37(1):96–104. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19050610 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wang B, Chen G, Zhang J, Xue J, Cao Y, Wu Y. Increased Neutrophil Gelatinase–Associated Lipocalin is Associated with Mortality and Multiple Organ Dysfunction Syndrome in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock. Shock [Internet]. 2015. September [cited 2018 Sep 25];44(3):234–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26009825 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Björkqvist M, Källman J, Fjaertoft G, Xu S, Venge P, Schollin J. Human neutrophil lipocalin: normal levels and use as a marker for invasive infection in the newborn. Acta Paediatr [Internet]. 2004. April 1 [cited 2018 Sep 25];93(4):534–9. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1080/08035250410024754 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Sundén-Cullberg J, Nyström T, Lee ML, Mullins GE, Tokics L, Andersson J, et al. Pronounced elevation of resistin correlates with severity of disease in severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med [Internet]. 2007. June [cited 2018 Sep 25];35(6):1536–42. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17452927 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Vassiliadi DA, Tzanela M, Kotanidou A, Orfanos SE, Nikitas N, Armaganidis A. Serial changes in adiponectin and resistin in critically ill patients with sepsis: Associations with sepsis phase, severity, and circulating cytokine levels ☆, ☆☆. J Crit Care [Internet]. 2012;27(4):400–9. Available from: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2012.04.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Macrae D, Grieve R, Allen E, Sadique Z, Morris K, Pappachan J, et al. A Randomized Trial of Hyperglycemic Control in Pediatric Intensive Care. N Engl J Med [Internet]. 2014. January 9 [cited 2018 Sep 25];370(2):107–18. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24401049 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Irwin AD, Grant A, Williams R, Kolamunnage-Dona R, Drew RJ, Paulus S, et al. Predicting Risk of Serious Bacterial Infections in Febrile Children in the Emergency Department. Pediatrics [Internet]. 2017. August [cited 2018 Sep 25];140(2):e20162853 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28679639 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Goldstein B, Giroir B, Randolph A. International pediatric sepsis consensus conference: Definitions for sepsis and organ dysfunction in pediatrics*. [cited 2018 Feb 12]; https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8375/289e03ab8463c027e3d64e6026fb02275382.pdf [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 23.Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA [Internet]. 2016. February 23 [cited 2018 Feb 12];315(8):801 Available from: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?doi=10.1001/jama.2016.0287 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Leteurtre S, Martinot A, Duhamel A, Proulx F, Grandbastien B, Cotting J, et al. Validation of the paediatric logistic organ dysfunction (PELOD) score: prospective, observational, multicentre study. Lancet [Internet]. 2003. July 19 [cited 2018 Sep 25];362(9379):192–7. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12885479 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sepsis: recognition, diagnosis and early management | Guidance and guidelines | NICE. [cited 2018 Sep 25]; https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng51
  • 26.Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB, Steyerberg EW. Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers. Stat Med [Internet]. 2011. January 15 [cited 2018 Sep 25];30(1):11–21. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21204120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Leening MJG, Vedder MM, Witteman JCM, Pencina MJ, Steyerberg EW. Net reclassification improvement: computation, interpretation, and controversies: a literature review and clinician’s guide. Ann Intern Med [Internet]. 2014. January 21 [cited 2018 Sep 25];160(2):122–31. Available from: http://annals.org/article.aspx?doi=10.7326/M13-1522 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Goldstein B, Giroir B, Randolph A, International Consensus Conference on Pediatric Sepsis. International pediatric sepsis consensus conference: Definitions for sepsis and organ dysfunction in pediatrics*. Pediatr Crit Care Med [Internet]. 2005. January [cited 2018 Sep 25];6(1):2–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15636651 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Mathot F, Duke T, Daley AJ, Butcher T. Bacteremia and Pneumonia in a Tertiary PICU. Pediatr Crit Care Med [Internet]. 2015. February [cited 2018 Sep 25];16(2):104–13. Available from: http://content.wkhealth.com/linkback/openurl?sid=WKPTLP:landingpage&an=00130478-201502000-00002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ruth A, McCracken CE, Fortenberry JD, Hall M, Simon HK, Hebbar KB. Pediatric Severe Sepsis. Pediatr Crit Care Med [Internet]. 2014. November [cited 2018 Sep 25];15(9):828–38. Available from: http://content.wkhealth.com/linkback/openurl?sid=WKPTLP:landingpage&an=00130478-201411000-00006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Irwin AD, Drew RJ, Marshall P, Nguyen K, Hoyle E, Macfarlane KA, et al. Etiology of childhood bacteremia and timely antibiotics administration in the emergency department. Pediatrics [Internet]. 2015. April 1 [cited 2018 Sep 25];135(4):635–42. Available from: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2014-2061 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Stocker M, van Herk W, el Helou S, Dutta S, Fontana MS, Schuerman FABA, et al. Procalcitonin-guided decision making for duration of antibiotic therapy in neonates with suspected early-onset sepsis: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (NeoPIns). Lancet. 2017; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.de Jong E, van Oers JA, Beishuizen A, Vos P, Vermeijden WJ, Haas LE, et al. Efficacy and safety of procalcitonin guidance in reducing the duration of antibiotic treatment in critically ill patients: a randomised, controlled, open-label trial. Lancet Infect Dis [Internet]. 2016. July [cited 2018 Sep 25];16(7):819–27. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1473309916000530 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Version R. Biomarker-guided duration of Antibiotic Treatment in Children Hospitalised with confirmed or suspected bacterial infection (BATCH Trial). 2020;0–67. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11369832

Decision Letter 0

José Moreira

26 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-03003

Procalcitonin, C-Reactive Protein, Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin, Resistin and the APTT Waveform for the early diagnosis of serious bacterial infection and prediction of outcome in critically ill children.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nielsen,

Your submission has now been peer reviewed.  I agree that the manuscript would benefit from being revised according to the suggestions following and encourage you to do so.

Editor Comments to the Authors:

Please see the reviewer's comments. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 10 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

José Moreira, MD, MSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

[The study was funded jointly by the NIHR Liverpool Biomedical Research Centre in Microbial Diseases and the Alder Hey Charity awarded to EC.  MJN is supported by a Wellcome Trust Research Training Fellowship (award reference 203919/Z/16/Z).  The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publics, or preparation of the manuscript.  ].   

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Select Statistical Services

  1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The study by Nielsen et al. is a prospective study in the UK evaluating the performance of an array of biomarkers on the diagnosis of SBI upon on admission to the PICU. The models including a combination of PCT, CRP and additional biomarkers indicated an improvement (as compared to CRP alone) in classification of SBI. An array biomarkers to identify SBI in pediatrics are intensely investigated and the literature is considerable in this area. The authors do a nice job on including different biomarkers in their analysis and showing improvement in the discrimination of SBI when using them in combination. Would suggest the following for this article:

1. Can you provide further detail on the diagnosis of SBI by your group specifically the level disagreement within the cases?

2. Are these commonly collected biomarkers for all ICU patients or specific to your study? Further are these POC biomarkers or are they commonly sent out to the laboratory. The external validity may be different if these are biomarkers are not commonly collected or available within real time.

3. I’m unsure whether providing the independent variables associated with prolonged ICU stay and duration of ICU stay is adding much the manuscript. The focus is on specific biomarkers and their combination. Including this analysis looks exploratory at best. Also, it would help the reader if you provide the 95% CIs along with the corresponding ORs, otherwise difficult to assess reliability of your point estimates.

4. It would be of more interest if we start to show the impact on clinical outcomes of these biomarkers and their combination rather than just their performance. Previous studies have evaluated biomarker performance for pediatrics and SBI with similar AUC findings.

Reviewer #2: A prospective observation study was conducted to investigate the accuracy of procalcitonin (PCT), neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), resistin, activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) waveform and C-reactive protein (CRP) for their discriminative ability in diagnosing serious bacterial infections (SBI) in children. The combination of PCT, resistin, plasma NGAL and CRP resulted in the biggest net reclassification improvement compared to CRP alone.

Minor revisions:

1- Line 166: Identify the specific statistical univariate test applied to identify which variable had a statistically significant association with SBI.

2- Line 167: To improve clarity begin the sentence with: “For comparing continuous variables, …”

3- Line 168: To improve clarity begin the sentence with: “For comparing categorical variables, ...”

4- Line 169: Remove “if a count was below 5.” Fisher’s exact tests are appropriate to use when the expected, rather than observed, counts are less than 5.

5- Line 179: Provide a reference for net reclassification improvement.

6- Cite the statistical software used for the analysis.

7- Table 1 and Supplemental Table 5: Note what statistical methods were used to calculate the p-values. Explain that “Difference, (95% CI for location), p-value” pertains to continuous factors only. Possibly only the p-value is necessary.

8- Table 1: Small p-values are expressed as p< 0.001.

9- Line 170: Clarify the following statement. Possibly a more descriptive term can replace “association.” “The primary analysis examined the association between diagnosis of SBI and abnormal biomarkers.”

10- Line 219: Probabilities range from 0 to 1. It’s unclear what a probability of 12.89 represents.

11- P-values never equal zero; express small p-values as < 0.001.

12- Lines 255, 262, etc: Indicate the statistical methods used to identify independent variables.

13- Be sure to fully describe all statistical methods in the statistical methods section of the manuscript.

14- Table 4: Indicate if the models are univariate or multivariate.

15- Line 250: Provide a repeated measures analysis to support the conclusion that only PCT and CRP demonstrated clearly distinct profiles.

16- Supplementary Tables: Indicate the statistical method(s) used to obtain the best fitting models.

17- Add AUC values to the ROC curves.

18- State and justify the study’s target sample size with a pre-study statistical power calculation. The power calculation should include: sample size, alpha level (indicating one or two-sided), and statistical testing method.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Feb 5;16(2):e0246027. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246027.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Dec 2020

Dear Editor

Thank you for the reviewers’ comments on our Manuscript entitled “Procalcitonin, C-Reactive Protein, Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin, Resistin and the APTT Waveform for the early diagnosis of serious bacterial infection and prediction of outcome in critically ill children”. We have considered the reviewers’ comments and have made the following amendments to the manuscript, figures and supporting information.

• Funding Statement: We have amended the funding statement declaring the commercial affiliation of author LMcC and the role of her employer, Select Statistics, in the analysis of the study (Manuscript p2). We can confirm that Select Statistics provided support in the form of salaries for authors [LMcC], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

• Competing Interests Statement: This has been updated on page 21 of the manuscript about author LMcC. “This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials”.

Reviewer 1:

1. Can you provide further detail on the diagnosis of SBI by your group specifically the level disagreement within the cases?

Further details have been provided in relation to classification of patients with and without SBI by the multi-disciplinary PICU infection team meetings (Manuscript p12).

2. Are these commonly collected biomarkers for all ICU patients or specific to your study? Further are these POC biomarkers or are they commonly sent out to the laboratory. The external validity may be different if these are biomarkers are not commonly collected or available within real time.

We can confirm that CRP was measured in the Alder Hey Hospital’s Clinical Chemistry Laboratory with results available to clinicians typically within hours of the sample being taken. As per standard UK clinical practice this was the only biomarker available to clinicians. All other biomarkers were measured in the laboratory after completion of clinical data collection and follow up. This has been clarified on page 8 and 9 of the manuscript.

3. I’m unsure whether providing the independent variables associated with prolonged ICU stay and duration of ICU stay is adding much the manuscript. The focus is on specific biomarkers and their combination. Including this analysis looks exploratory at best. Also, it would help the reader if you provide the 95% CIs along with the corresponding ORs, otherwise difficult to assess reliability of your point estimates.

We have emphasized in the presentation of these results aimed to investigate the roles of the studied biomarkers in comparison to clinical variables as predictors of secondary outcome measures duration of ICU stay, prolonged ICU stay and duration of invasive positive pressure ventilation. 95% CI and significant levels have been added to all ORs specified in the manuscript.

4. It would be of more interest if we start to show the impact on clinical outcomes of these biomarkers and their combination rather than just their performance. Previous studies have evaluated biomarker performance for pediatrics and SBI with similar AUC findings.

We note with thanks this comment strongly agree that it important that research can demonstrate the impact on clinical outcomes of these biomarkers. This project was a diagnostic accuracy study in which only CRP, a routinely used biomarker in the U.K., was available to clinicians and was therefore unable to demonstrate impact upon patient outcomes. This study has contributed to informing a multi-centre randomised control trial aiming to determine is the addition of procalcitonin testing to current best practice can safely allow a reduction in duration of antibiotic therapy in hospitalised children with suspected or confirmed bacterial infection compared to current best practice alone. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11369832?q=&filters=conditionCategory:Infections%20and%20Infestations,ageRange:Child&sort=&offset=7&totalResults=217&page=1&pageSize=10&searchType=basic-search. We have addressed this issue in the discussion (p19).

Reviewer 2:

1. Line 166: Identify the specific statistical univariate test applied to identify which variable had a statistically significant association with SBI – We have clarified the statistical tests used for this analysis (p9).

2. Line 167: To improve clarity begin the sentence with: “For comparing continuous variables, …”. We have rephrased the sentences as per the reviewer’s advice.

3. Line 168: To improve clarity begin the sentence with: “For comparing categorical variables, ...” We have rephrased the sentences as per the reviewer’s advice.

4. Line 169: Remove “if a count was below 5.” Fisher’s exact tests are appropriate to use when the expected, rather than observed, counts are less than 5. We have removed “if a count was below 5” as per the reviewer’s recommendation.

5. Line 179: Provide a reference for net reclassification improvement. Reference has been added (p10)

6. Cite the statistical software used for the analysis. Detailed have been added to statistical methods (p10)

7. Table 1 and Supplemental Table 5: Note what statistical methods were used to calculate the p-values. Explain that “Difference, (95% CI for location), p-value” pertains to continuous factors only. Possibly only the p-value is necessary. We concur with the reviewer’s comments and have removed the differences previously stated in Table 1. We have retained the difference results in Supplementary Table 5 since all variables are continuous variables. Statistical methods used to calculate these values have been added to the supporting statistical methods.

8. Table 1: Small p-values are expressed as p< 0.001.- p values have been amended as recommended.

9. Line 170: Clarify the following statement. Possibly a more descriptive term can replace “association.” “The primary analysis examined the association between diagnosis of SBI and abnormal biomarkers.” - This sentence has been replaced by the following “The primary analysis compared the performance of the different study biomarkers and combinations of biomarkers for diagnosis of SBI”.

10. Line 219: Probabilities range from 0 to 1. It’s unclear what a probability of 12.89 represent - We have added in the previously missing % value to the pre-test probability and thank the reviewers for noting this omission.

11. P-values never equal zero; express small p-values as < 0.001. – This has been amended throughout the manuscript.

12. Lines 255, 262, etc: Indicate the statistical methods used to identify independent variables – This is included in supporting statistical methods.

13. Be sure to fully describe all statistical methods in the statistical methods section of the manuscript – We have reviewed statistical methods in both the manuscript and supporting material and believe all methods are explained.

14. Table 4: Indicate if the models are univariate or multivariate. – This has been added to the title of this table.

15. Line 250: Provide a repeated measures analysis to support the conclusion that only PCT and CRP demonstrated clearly distinct profiles. – Details of this analysis and results are now included in the statistical methods (p10) and results section (p17).

16. Supplementary Tables: Indicate the statistical method(s) used to obtain the best fitting models. - This is described in the supplementary statistical methods.

17. Add AUC values to the ROC curves. - AUC values have been added to all ROC curves.

18. State and justify the study’s target sample size with a pre-study statistical power calculation. The power calculation should include: sample size, alpha level (indicating one or two-sided), and statistical testing method.- We have included details of the apriori sample size calculation in the methods section of the manuscript and referred to this in the discussion.

We thank the reviewers for their helpful comments, which have helped to improve the manuscript. We hope that all the comments have been satisfactorily addressed and that the manuscript will be deemed suitable for publication.

Yours sincerely

Dr Maryke Nielsen

Corresponding Author

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers v 3.docx

Decision Letter 1

Aleksandar R Zivkovic

13 Jan 2021

Procalcitonin, C-Reactive Protein, Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin, Resistin and the APTT Waveform for the early diagnosis of serious bacterial infection and prediction of outcome in critically ill children.

PONE-D-20-03003R1

Dear Dr. Nielsen,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Aleksandar R. Zivkovic

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Aleksandar R Zivkovic

25 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-03003R1

Procalcitonin, C-Reactive Protein, Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin, Resistin and the APTT Waveform for the early diagnosis of serious bacterial infection and prediction of outcome in critically ill children.

Dear Dr. Nielsen:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Aleksandar R. Zivkovic

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers v 3.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the University of Liverpool, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences Head of Operations iveshoo@liverpool.ac.uk The data are not publicly available due to restrictions imposed by collection of patient data from a named hospital, and therefore contains information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES