2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2015.09.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Utility of immune response-derived biomarkers in the differential diagnosis of inflammatory disorders

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

4
29
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 101 publications
4
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[19] in its head-to-head comparison to classical and other (e.g., HNL) biomarkers and to prediction rules, its detailed analysis of performance across specific pathogens and its estimation of the potential for this new diagnostic tool to reduce antibiotic use in two clinical syndromes that are challenging for the clinician to manage. The biomarkers and prediction rules in this comparative study were selected based either on the breadth of their current clinical use and/or their potential for application in real clinical settings for discriminating between bacterial and viral respiratory infections and fever without source [6,7]. We did not examine nucleic acid panels as, although several research studies support promising performance for differentiating between bacterial and viral infections [16][17][18], currently there are no affordable technologies for measuring multiple RNAs in a quantitative manner in under an hour, restricting application of nucleic acid biomarkers at point-of-care.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…[19] in its head-to-head comparison to classical and other (e.g., HNL) biomarkers and to prediction rules, its detailed analysis of performance across specific pathogens and its estimation of the potential for this new diagnostic tool to reduce antibiotic use in two clinical syndromes that are challenging for the clinician to manage. The biomarkers and prediction rules in this comparative study were selected based either on the breadth of their current clinical use and/or their potential for application in real clinical settings for discriminating between bacterial and viral respiratory infections and fever without source [6,7]. We did not examine nucleic acid panels as, although several research studies support promising performance for differentiating between bacterial and viral infections [16][17][18], currently there are no affordable technologies for measuring multiple RNAs in a quantitative manner in under an hour, restricting application of nucleic acid biomarkers at point-of-care.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Host biomarkers hold great promise as routine diagnostic tools as this approach can overcome many of the previously described challenges [ 6 , 7 ]. Multiple candidates have been documented, including traditional cellular markers (e.g., white blood cell count, WBC [ 2 ] and absolute neutrophil count, ANC [ 8 ]) and soluble host-proteins, both classical (e.g., interleukin-6, IL-6 [ 9 ]; C-reactive protein, CRP [ 2 , 10 12 ]; and procalcitonin, PCT [ 2 , 10 , 12 14 ]) and others (e.g., human neutrophil lipocalin, HNL/NGAL [ 15 ]).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…8,9 Host-based biomarker approaches represent a promising complement to pathogen-based diagnostics. 10 In recent studies, authors examining host-RNA signatures in response to different infections show promising results. 11 -16 However, quantitative and rapid measurement (within minutes) of multiple host RNAs remains a technical challenge, particularly at the point of need.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A major challenge underlying effective management of febrile ED patients is the difficulty in clinically distinguishing between bacterial and viral etiologies highlighted by ten Oever et al 1 This clinical uncertainty drives antibiotic misuse, both underuse and overuse, with detrimental ramifications for the patient, healthcare system and society, including emergence of antibiotic resistance. While routine diagnostic tests for pathogen detection may aid in determining infection etiology, they often are limited by one or more of the following key limitations: (i) lengthy time to result; (ii) inability to diagnose infections that are not readily accessible (e.g., pneumonia); (iii) uncertainty regarding the clinical interpretation of a viral identification, which does not preclude the possibility of a bacterial co-infection; and (iv) false alarms due to the presence ("carriage") of potentially pathogenic microbes that are also part of the natural flora (e.g., Streptococcus pneumoniae).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%