TY - JOUR
T1 - Validation of a host response test to distinguish bacterial and viral respiratory infection
AU - Lydon, Emily C.
AU - Henao, Ricardo
AU - Burke, Thomas W.
AU - Aydin, Mert
AU - Nicholson, Bradly P.
AU - Glickman, Seth W.
AU - Fowler, Vance G.
AU - Quackenbush, Eugenia B.
AU - Cairns, Charles B.
AU - Kingsmore, Stephen F.
AU - Jaehne, Anja K.
AU - Rivers, Emanuel P.
AU - Langley, Raymond J.
AU - Petzold, Elizabeth
AU - Ko, Emily R.
AU - McClain, Micah T.
AU - Ginsburg, Geoffrey S.
AU - Woods, Christopher W.
AU - Tsalik, Ephraim L.
N1 - Generated from Scopus record by KAUST IRTS on 2023-02-15
PY - 2019/10/1
Y1 - 2019/10/1
N2 - Background: Distinguishing bacterial and viral respiratory infections is challenging. Novel diagnostics based on differential host gene expression patterns are promising but have not been translated to a clinical platform nor extensively tested. Here, we validate a microarray-derived host response signature and explore performance in microbiology-negative and coinfection cases. Methods: Subjects with acute respiratory illness were enrolled in participating emergency departments. Reference standard was an adjudicated diagnosis of bacterial infection, viral infection, both, or neither. An 87-transcript signature for distinguishing bacterial, viral, and noninfectious illness was measured from peripheral blood using RT-PCR. Performance characteristics were evaluated in subjects with confirmed bacterial, viral, or noninfectious illness. Subjects with bacterial-viral coinfection and microbiologically-negative suspected bacterial infection were also evaluated. Performance was compared to procalcitonin. Findings: 151 subjects with microbiologically confirmed, single-etiology illness were tested, yielding AUROCs 0•85–0•89 for bacterial, viral, and noninfectious illness. Accuracy was similar to procalcitonin (88% vs 83%, p = 0•23) for bacterial vs. non-bacterial infection. Whereas procalcitonin cannot distinguish viral from non-infectious illness, the RT-PCR test had 81% accuracy in making this determination. Bacterial-viral coinfection was subdivided. Among 19 subjects with bacterial superinfection, the RT-PCR test identified 95% as bacterial, compared to 68% with procalcitonin (p = 0•13). Among 12 subjects with bacterial infection superimposed on chronic viral infection, the RT-PCR test identified 83% as bacterial, identical to procalcitonin. 39 subjects had suspected bacterial infection; the RT-PCR test identified bacterial infection more frequently than procalcitonin (82% vs 64%, p = 0•02). Interpretation: The RT-PCR test offered similar diagnostic performance to procalcitonin in some subgroups but offered better discrimination in others such as viral vs. non-infectious illness and bacterial/viral coinfection. Gene expression-based tests could impact decision-making for acute respiratory illness as well as a growing number of other infectious and non-infectious diseases.
AB - Background: Distinguishing bacterial and viral respiratory infections is challenging. Novel diagnostics based on differential host gene expression patterns are promising but have not been translated to a clinical platform nor extensively tested. Here, we validate a microarray-derived host response signature and explore performance in microbiology-negative and coinfection cases. Methods: Subjects with acute respiratory illness were enrolled in participating emergency departments. Reference standard was an adjudicated diagnosis of bacterial infection, viral infection, both, or neither. An 87-transcript signature for distinguishing bacterial, viral, and noninfectious illness was measured from peripheral blood using RT-PCR. Performance characteristics were evaluated in subjects with confirmed bacterial, viral, or noninfectious illness. Subjects with bacterial-viral coinfection and microbiologically-negative suspected bacterial infection were also evaluated. Performance was compared to procalcitonin. Findings: 151 subjects with microbiologically confirmed, single-etiology illness were tested, yielding AUROCs 0•85–0•89 for bacterial, viral, and noninfectious illness. Accuracy was similar to procalcitonin (88% vs 83%, p = 0•23) for bacterial vs. non-bacterial infection. Whereas procalcitonin cannot distinguish viral from non-infectious illness, the RT-PCR test had 81% accuracy in making this determination. Bacterial-viral coinfection was subdivided. Among 19 subjects with bacterial superinfection, the RT-PCR test identified 95% as bacterial, compared to 68% with procalcitonin (p = 0•13). Among 12 subjects with bacterial infection superimposed on chronic viral infection, the RT-PCR test identified 83% as bacterial, identical to procalcitonin. 39 subjects had suspected bacterial infection; the RT-PCR test identified bacterial infection more frequently than procalcitonin (82% vs 64%, p = 0•02). Interpretation: The RT-PCR test offered similar diagnostic performance to procalcitonin in some subgroups but offered better discrimination in others such as viral vs. non-infectious illness and bacterial/viral coinfection. Gene expression-based tests could impact decision-making for acute respiratory illness as well as a growing number of other infectious and non-infectious diseases.
UR - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352396419306449
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073811339&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.09.040
DO - 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.09.040
M3 - Article
SN - 2352-3964
VL - 48
SP - 453
EP - 461
JO - EBioMedicine
JF - EBioMedicine
ER -