Open Innovation and Partnerships (OI&P), bioMérieux S.A., Marcy l'Etoile, France.
Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Edouard Herriot Hospital, Lyon, France.
Crit Care. 2024 Jul 13;28(1):238. doi: 10.1186/s13054-024-05032-9.
Implementation of biomarkers in sepsis and septic shock in emergency situations, remains highly challenging. This viewpoint arose from a public-private 3-day workshop aiming to facilitate the transition of sepsis biomarkers into clinical practice. The authors consist of international academic researchers and clinician-scientists and industry experts who gathered (i) to identify current obstacles impeding biomarker research in sepsis, (ii) to outline the important milestones of the critical path of biomarker development and (iii) to discuss novel avenues in biomarker discovery and implementation. To define more appropriately the potential place of biomarkers in sepsis, a better understanding of sepsis pathophysiology is mandatory, in particular the sepsis patient's trajectory from the early inflammatory onset to the late persisting immunosuppression phase. This time-varying host response urges to develop time-resolved test to characterize persistence of immunological dysfunctions. Furthermore, age-related difference has to be considered between adult and paediatric septic patients. In this context, numerous barriers to biomarker adoption in practice, such as lack of consensus about diagnostic performances, the absence of strict recommendations for sepsis biomarker development, cost and resources implications, methodological validation challenges or limited awareness and education have been identified. Biomarker-guided interventions for sepsis to identify patients that would benefit more from therapy, such as sTREM-1-guided Nangibotide treatment or Adrenomedullin-guided Enibarcimab treatment, appear promising but require further evaluation. Artificial intelligence also has great potential in the sepsis biomarker discovery field through capability to analyse high volume complex data and identify complex multiparametric patient endotypes or trajectories. To conclude, biomarker development in sepsis requires (i) a comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach employing the most advanced analytical tools, (ii) the creation of a platform that collaboratively merges scientific and commercial needs and (iii) the support of an expedited regulatory approval process.
在紧急情况下,将生物标志物应用于脓毒症和脓毒性休克仍然极具挑战性。这一看法源于为期三天的公私合作研讨会,旨在促进脓毒症生物标志物向临床实践的转化。作者由国际学术研究人员、临床医生-科学家和行业专家组成,他们聚集在一起:(i) 确定当前阻碍脓毒症生物标志物研究的障碍;(ii) 概述生物标志物开发关键路径的重要里程碑;(iii) 讨论生物标志物发现和实施的新途径。为了更恰当地定义生物标志物在脓毒症中的潜在作用,有必要更好地了解脓毒症的病理生理学,特别是脓毒症患者从早期炎症发作到晚期持续免疫抑制阶段的轨迹。这种随时间变化的宿主反应促使开发时间分辨测试来描述免疫功能障碍的持续时间。此外,还必须考虑成年和儿科脓毒症患者之间的年龄相关差异。在这种情况下,已经确定了在实践中采用生物标志物的诸多障碍,例如缺乏对诊断性能的共识、缺乏对脓毒症生物标志物开发的严格建议、成本和资源影响、方法学验证挑战或有限的认识和教育。生物标志物指导的脓毒症干预措施旨在识别那些更能从治疗中受益的患者,例如 sTREM-1 指导的 Nangibotide 治疗或 Adrenomedullin 指导的 Enibarcimab 治疗,这些方法似乎很有前景,但需要进一步评估。人工智能在脓毒症生物标志物发现领域也具有巨大潜力,它能够分析大量复杂数据,并识别复杂的多参数患者内型或轨迹。总之,脓毒症生物标志物的开发需要:(i) 采用最先进的分析工具,进行全面的多学科方法;(ii) 创建一个协作平台,将科学和商业需求融合在一起;(iii) 支持加速监管审批过程。