Journal Article
Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Pros and cons of using biomarkers versus clinical decisions in start and stop decisions for antibiotics in the critical care setting.

INTRODUCTION: Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) frequently receive prolonged or even unnecessary antibiotic therapy, which selects for antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Over the last decade there has been great interest in biomarkers, particularly procalcitonin, to reduce antibiotic exposure.

METHODS: In this narrative review, we discuss the value of biomarkers and provide additional information beyond clinical evaluation in order to be clinically useful and review the literature on sepsis biomarkers outside the neonatal period. Both benefits and limitations of biomarkers for clinical decision-making are reviewed.

RESULTS: Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown the safety and efficacy of procalcitonin to discontinue antibiotic therapy in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. In contrast, there is limited utility of procalcitonin for treatment initiation or withholding therapy initially. In addition, an algorithm using procalcitonin for treatment escalation has been ineffective and is probably associated with poorer outcomes. Little data from interventional studies are available for other biomarkers for antibiotic stewardship, except for C-reactive protein (CRP), which was recently found to be similarly effective and safe as procalcitonin in a randomized controlled trial. We finally briefly discuss biomarker-unrelated approaches to reduce antibiotic duration in the ICU, which have shown that even without biomarker guidance, most patients with sepsis can be treated with relatively short antibiotic courses of approximately 7 days.

CONCLUSIONS: In summary, there is an ongoing unmet need for biomarkers which can reliably and early on identify patients who require antibiotic therapy, distinguish between responders and non-responders and help to optimize antibiotic treatment decisions among critically ill patients. Available evidence needs to be better incorporated in clinical decision-making.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app