Abstract
Objective To determine accuracy of cerebro-spinal fluid (CSF) procalcitonin (PCT) to diagnose neonatal bacterial meningitis (NBM) among septic neonates and compare with other index tests.
Design Prospective, cross-sectional, single-gate study
Setting Level-3 neonatal unit
Patients Neonates with suspected sepsis undergoing lumbar puncture
Index tests CSF PCT, leukocyte count and biochemistry; plasma PCT and CSF:plasma PCT ratio
Reference standards “Definite meningitis” defined by positive CSF culture and/or gram stain and/or broad-based primer 16S rDNA polymerase chain reaction. “Definite or probable meningitis” defined by definite meningitis or probable meningitis (based on cytochemistry cut-offs).
Results Of 216 eligible neonates, 18 had “definite meningitis” and 37 “definite or probable meningitis”. Median (Q1, Q3) CSF PCT level was higher in “definite meningitis” compared to “no definite meningitis” [0.429 (0.123, 1.300) vs. 0.181 (0.119, 0.286) ng/ml respectively, p=0.028]. Likewise, it was higher in “definite or probable meningitis” compared to no meningitis [0.245 (0.136, 0.675) vs. 0.170 (0.116, 0.28), p=0.01]. The area under ROC curve (AUC) of CSF PCT level for definite meningitis was 0.656 and for “definite or probable meningitis” 0.635. Paired comparisons of AUC of CSF PCT with other index tests were not significant. Based on a priori cut-off of 0.2 ng/ml, CSF PCT level had a sensitivity (95% CI) of 67% (50, 80), specificity 58% (54, 61), LR+ 1.6 (1.1, 2.0) and LR- 0.6 (0.3, 0.9).
Conclusions Higher values of CSF PCT are associated with NBM. CSF PCT cannot reliably discriminate between meningitis and no meningitis and is not superior to other CSF tests.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
The study was not registered as it was a diagnostic test study
Funding Statement
The study was funded by an extramural grant sanctioned by the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India, vide sanction order BT/PR 13462/MED/29/957/2015 dated 5/9/16. The funding agency had no role in the design and conduct of the study, in the data analysis or decision to publish.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Institute Ethics Committee of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research approved the protocol (PGI/IEC/2015/891 dated 10-2-15).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflicts of interest and source of funding: None of the authors has any conflict of interest to declare. The study was funded by an extramural grant sanctioned by the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India, vide sanction order BT/PR 13462/MED/29/957/2015 dated 5/9/16. The funding agency had no role in the design and conduct of the study, in the data analysis or decision to publish.
Data Availability
Data will be made available on written request
