Retrospective biomarker study compares serum soluble CD40 ligand in acute PE and CAP, suggesting diagnostic potential.
Background/Objectives: Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and hospitalization-requiring community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) may present with overlapping clinical, laboratory, and radiological features. Soluble CD40 ligand (sCD40L) is a platelet-derived thrombo-inflammatory mediator that may be influenced by both thrombotic and inflammatory processes. This study retrospectively compared on-admission serum sCD40L concentrations between selected hospitalized patients with established acute PE and selected patients with hospitalization-requiring CAP. Methods: This single-center retrospective exploratory comparative biomarker study included 82 hospitalized adults: 48 with computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA)-confirmed acute PE and 34 with hospitalization-requiring CAP defined using CURB-65-supported admission criteria. Stored admission serum samples were used for sCD40L measurement. Between-group comparison was the primary analysis; receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed as a secondary exploratory description of the apparent within-sample discriminatory signal. Results: sCD40L was higher in acute PE than in hospitalization-requiring CAP (median 821.3 vs. 629.0 pg/mL; p < 0.001). ROC analysis demonstrated a strong exploratory within-sample discriminatory signal (AUC 0.951, 95% CI 0.905–0.997). After excluding five patients with recorded antiplatelet or rivaroxaban exposure, the apparent signal remained similar (AUC 0.945; bootstrap 95% CI 0.891–0.984), and sCD40L remained associated with PE in a Firth-penalized model adjusted for platelet count and COPD (OR 3.39 per 50 pg/mL, 95% CI 2.00–7.71; p < 0.001). Conclusions: In this retrospective selected two-group comparison, on-admission serum sCD40L concentrations were higher in established acute PE than in hospitalization-requiring CAP. ROC-derived estimates should be interpreted only as apparent within-sample discrimination and not as a replacement for D-dimer, clinical probability assessment, or imaging-based PE diagnosis. Prospective validation in unselected suspected-PE cohorts is required before any diagnostic or clinical use can be considered.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Çelik et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: