Cargando…

Validation of a host response test to distinguish bacterial and viral respiratory infection

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 s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lydon, Emily C., Henao, Ricardo, Burke, Thomas W., Aydin, Mert, Nicholson, Bradly P., Glickman, Seth W., Fowler, Vance G., Quackenbush, Eugenia B., Cairns, Charles B., Kingsmore, Stephen F., Jaehne, Anja K., Rivers, Emanuel P., Langley, Raymond J., Petzold, Elizabeth, Ko, Emily R., McClain, Micah T., Ginsburg, Geoffrey S., Woods, Christopher W., Tsalik, Ephraim L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6838360/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31631046
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.09.040
_version_ 1783467207034929152
author Lydon, Emily C.
Henao, Ricardo
Burke, Thomas W.
Aydin, Mert
Nicholson, Bradly P.
Glickman, Seth W.
Fowler, Vance G.
Quackenbush, Eugenia B.
Cairns, Charles B.
Kingsmore, Stephen F.
Jaehne, Anja K.
Rivers, Emanuel P.
Langley, Raymond J.
Petzold, Elizabeth
Ko, Emily R.
McClain, Micah T.
Ginsburg, Geoffrey S.
Woods, Christopher W.
Tsalik, Ephraim L.
author_facet Lydon, Emily C.
Henao, Ricardo
Burke, Thomas W.
Aydin, Mert
Nicholson, Bradly P.
Glickman, Seth W.
Fowler, Vance G.
Quackenbush, Eugenia B.
Cairns, Charles B.
Kingsmore, Stephen F.
Jaehne, Anja K.
Rivers, Emanuel P.
Langley, Raymond J.
Petzold, Elizabeth
Ko, Emily R.
McClain, Micah T.
Ginsburg, Geoffrey S.
Woods, Christopher W.
Tsalik, Ephraim L.
author_sort Lydon, Emily C.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6838360
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68383602019-11-12 Validation of a host response test to distinguish bacterial and viral respiratory infection Lydon, Emily C. Henao, Ricardo Burke, Thomas W. Aydin, Mert Nicholson, Bradly P. Glickman, Seth W. Fowler, Vance G. Quackenbush, Eugenia B. Cairns, Charles B. Kingsmore, Stephen F. Jaehne, Anja K. Rivers, Emanuel P. Langley, Raymond J. Petzold, Elizabeth Ko, Emily R. McClain, Micah T. Ginsburg, Geoffrey S. Woods, Christopher W. Tsalik, Ephraim L. EBioMedicine Research paper 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. Elsevier 2019-10-17 /pmc/articles/PMC6838360/ /pubmed/31631046 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.09.040 Text en Published by Elsevier B.V. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Research paper
Lydon, Emily C.
Henao, Ricardo
Burke, Thomas W.
Aydin, Mert
Nicholson, Bradly P.
Glickman, Seth W.
Fowler, Vance G.
Quackenbush, Eugenia B.
Cairns, Charles B.
Kingsmore, Stephen F.
Jaehne, Anja K.
Rivers, Emanuel P.
Langley, Raymond J.
Petzold, Elizabeth
Ko, Emily R.
McClain, Micah T.
Ginsburg, Geoffrey S.
Woods, Christopher W.
Tsalik, Ephraim L.
Validation of a host response test to distinguish bacterial and viral respiratory infection
title Validation of a host response test to distinguish bacterial and viral respiratory infection
title_full Validation of a host response test to distinguish bacterial and viral respiratory infection
title_fullStr Validation of a host response test to distinguish bacterial and viral respiratory infection
title_full_unstemmed Validation of a host response test to distinguish bacterial and viral respiratory infection
title_short Validation of a host response test to distinguish bacterial and viral respiratory infection
title_sort validation of a host response test to distinguish bacterial and viral respiratory infection
topic Research paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6838360/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31631046
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.09.040
work_keys_str_mv AT lydonemilyc validationofahostresponsetesttodistinguishbacterialandviralrespiratoryinfection
AT henaoricardo validationofahostresponsetesttodistinguishbacterialandviralrespiratoryinfection
AT burkethomasw validationofahostresponsetesttodistinguishbacterialandviralrespiratoryinfection
AT aydinmert validationofahostresponsetesttodistinguishbacterialandviralrespiratoryinfection
AT nicholsonbradlyp validationofahostresponsetesttodistinguishbacterialandviralrespiratoryinfection
AT glickmansethw validationofahostresponsetesttodistinguishbacterialandviralrespiratoryinfection
AT fowlervanceg validationofahostresponsetesttodistinguishbacterialandviralrespiratoryinfection
AT quackenbusheugeniab validationofahostresponsetesttodistinguishbacterialandviralrespiratoryinfection
AT cairnscharlesb validationofahostresponsetesttodistinguishbacterialandviralrespiratoryinfection
AT kingsmorestephenf validationofahostresponsetesttodistinguishbacterialandviralrespiratoryinfection
AT jaehneanjak validationofahostresponsetesttodistinguishbacterialandviralrespiratoryinfection
AT riversemanuelp validationofahostresponsetesttodistinguishbacterialandviralrespiratoryinfection
AT langleyraymondj validationofahostresponsetesttodistinguishbacterialandviralrespiratoryinfection
AT petzoldelizabeth validationofahostresponsetesttodistinguishbacterialandviralrespiratoryinfection
AT koemilyr validationofahostresponsetesttodistinguishbacterialandviralrespiratoryinfection
AT mcclainmicaht validationofahostresponsetesttodistinguishbacterialandviralrespiratoryinfection
AT ginsburggeoffreys validationofahostresponsetesttodistinguishbacterialandviralrespiratoryinfection
AT woodschristopherw validationofahostresponsetesttodistinguishbacterialandviralrespiratoryinfection
AT tsalikephraiml validationofahostresponsetesttodistinguishbacterialandviralrespiratoryinfection