Cargando…

1226. Performance of a Host Response Test for Bacterial/Viral Discrimination in Immunocompromised Patients

BACKGROUND: Difficulty distinguishing bacterial and viral infections contributes to excess antibiotic use. A host response strategy overcomes many limitations of pathogen-based tests, but depends on a functional immune system. This approach may therefore be limited in immunocompromised (IC) hosts. H...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mahle, Rachael E, Suchindran, Sunil, Henao, Ricardo, Steinbrink, Julie M, Burke, Thomas W, McClain, Micah T, Ginsburg, Geoffrey S, Woods, Christopher W, Tsalik, Ephraim L
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7777137/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1411
_version_ 1783630834328141824
author Mahle, Rachael E
Suchindran, Sunil
Henao, Ricardo
Steinbrink, Julie M
Burke, Thomas W
McClain, Micah T
Ginsburg, Geoffrey S
Woods, Christopher W
Tsalik, Ephraim L
author_facet Mahle, Rachael E
Suchindran, Sunil
Henao, Ricardo
Steinbrink, Julie M
Burke, Thomas W
McClain, Micah T
Ginsburg, Geoffrey S
Woods, Christopher W
Tsalik, Ephraim L
author_sort Mahle, Rachael E
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Difficulty distinguishing bacterial and viral infections contributes to excess antibiotic use. A host response strategy overcomes many limitations of pathogen-based tests, but depends on a functional immune system. This approach may therefore be limited in immunocompromised (IC) hosts. Here, we evaluated a host response test in IC subjects, which has not been extensively studied in this manner. METHODS: An 81-gene signature was measured using qRT-PCR in previously enrolled IC subjects (chemotherapy, solid organ transplant, immunomodulatory agents, AIDS) with confirmed bacterial infection, viral infection, or non-infectious illness (NI). A regularized logistic regression model estimated the likelihood of bacterial, viral, and noninfectious classes. Clinical adjudication was the reference standard. RESULTS: A host gene expression model trained in a cohort of 136 immunocompetent subjects (43 bacterial, 41 viral, and 52 NI) had an overall accuracy of 84.6% for the diagnosis of bacterial vs. non-bacterial infection and 80.8% for viral vs. non-viral infection. The model was validated in an independent cohort of 134 IC subjects (64 bacterial, 28 viral, 42 NI). The overall accuracy was 73.9% for bacterial infection (p=0.03 vs. training cohort) and 75.4% for viral infection (p=0.27). Test utility could be improved by reporting probability ranges. For example, results divided into probability quartiles would allow the highest quartile to be used to rule in infection and the lowest to rule out infection. For IC subjects in the lowest quartile, the test had 90.1% and 96.4% sensitivity for bacterial and viral infection, respectively. For the highest quartile, the test had 91.4% and 84.0% specificity for bacterial and viral infection, respectively. The type or number of immunocompromising conditions did not impact performance. Illness Etiology Probabilities [Image: see text] CONCLUSION: A host gene expression test discriminated bacterial, viral, and non-infectious etiologies at a lower overall accuracy in IC patients compared to immunocompetent patients, though this difference was only significant for bacterial vs non-bacterial disease. With modified interpretive criteria, a host response strategy may offer clinically useful and complementary diagnostic information for IC patients. DISCLOSURES: Thomas W. Burke, PhD, Predigen, Inc (Consultant) Geoffrey S. Ginsburg, MD PhD, Predigen, Inc (Shareholder, Other Financial or Material Support) Christopher W. Woods, MD, MPH, FIDSA, Predigen, Inc (Shareholder, Other Financial or Material Support) Ephraim L. Tsalik, MD, MHS, PhD, FIDSA, Predigen, Inc (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Shareholder, Other Financial or Material Support)
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7777137
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77771372021-01-07 1226. Performance of a Host Response Test for Bacterial/Viral Discrimination in Immunocompromised Patients Mahle, Rachael E Suchindran, Sunil Henao, Ricardo Steinbrink, Julie M Burke, Thomas W McClain, Micah T Ginsburg, Geoffrey S Woods, Christopher W Tsalik, Ephraim L Open Forum Infect Dis Poster Abstracts BACKGROUND: Difficulty distinguishing bacterial and viral infections contributes to excess antibiotic use. A host response strategy overcomes many limitations of pathogen-based tests, but depends on a functional immune system. This approach may therefore be limited in immunocompromised (IC) hosts. Here, we evaluated a host response test in IC subjects, which has not been extensively studied in this manner. METHODS: An 81-gene signature was measured using qRT-PCR in previously enrolled IC subjects (chemotherapy, solid organ transplant, immunomodulatory agents, AIDS) with confirmed bacterial infection, viral infection, or non-infectious illness (NI). A regularized logistic regression model estimated the likelihood of bacterial, viral, and noninfectious classes. Clinical adjudication was the reference standard. RESULTS: A host gene expression model trained in a cohort of 136 immunocompetent subjects (43 bacterial, 41 viral, and 52 NI) had an overall accuracy of 84.6% for the diagnosis of bacterial vs. non-bacterial infection and 80.8% for viral vs. non-viral infection. The model was validated in an independent cohort of 134 IC subjects (64 bacterial, 28 viral, 42 NI). The overall accuracy was 73.9% for bacterial infection (p=0.03 vs. training cohort) and 75.4% for viral infection (p=0.27). Test utility could be improved by reporting probability ranges. For example, results divided into probability quartiles would allow the highest quartile to be used to rule in infection and the lowest to rule out infection. For IC subjects in the lowest quartile, the test had 90.1% and 96.4% sensitivity for bacterial and viral infection, respectively. For the highest quartile, the test had 91.4% and 84.0% specificity for bacterial and viral infection, respectively. The type or number of immunocompromising conditions did not impact performance. Illness Etiology Probabilities [Image: see text] CONCLUSION: A host gene expression test discriminated bacterial, viral, and non-infectious etiologies at a lower overall accuracy in IC patients compared to immunocompetent patients, though this difference was only significant for bacterial vs non-bacterial disease. With modified interpretive criteria, a host response strategy may offer clinically useful and complementary diagnostic information for IC patients. DISCLOSURES: Thomas W. Burke, PhD, Predigen, Inc (Consultant) Geoffrey S. Ginsburg, MD PhD, Predigen, Inc (Shareholder, Other Financial or Material Support) Christopher W. Woods, MD, MPH, FIDSA, Predigen, Inc (Shareholder, Other Financial or Material Support) Ephraim L. Tsalik, MD, MHS, PhD, FIDSA, Predigen, Inc (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Shareholder, Other Financial or Material Support) Oxford University Press 2020-12-31 /pmc/articles/PMC7777137/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1411 Text en © The Author 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Poster Abstracts
Mahle, Rachael E
Suchindran, Sunil
Henao, Ricardo
Steinbrink, Julie M
Burke, Thomas W
McClain, Micah T
Ginsburg, Geoffrey S
Woods, Christopher W
Tsalik, Ephraim L
1226. Performance of a Host Response Test for Bacterial/Viral Discrimination in Immunocompromised Patients
title 1226. Performance of a Host Response Test for Bacterial/Viral Discrimination in Immunocompromised Patients
title_full 1226. Performance of a Host Response Test for Bacterial/Viral Discrimination in Immunocompromised Patients
title_fullStr 1226. Performance of a Host Response Test for Bacterial/Viral Discrimination in Immunocompromised Patients
title_full_unstemmed 1226. Performance of a Host Response Test for Bacterial/Viral Discrimination in Immunocompromised Patients
title_short 1226. Performance of a Host Response Test for Bacterial/Viral Discrimination in Immunocompromised Patients
title_sort 1226. performance of a host response test for bacterial/viral discrimination in immunocompromised patients
topic Poster Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7777137/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1411
work_keys_str_mv AT mahlerachaele 1226performanceofahostresponsetestforbacterialviraldiscriminationinimmunocompromisedpatients
AT suchindransunil 1226performanceofahostresponsetestforbacterialviraldiscriminationinimmunocompromisedpatients
AT henaoricardo 1226performanceofahostresponsetestforbacterialviraldiscriminationinimmunocompromisedpatients
AT steinbrinkjuliem 1226performanceofahostresponsetestforbacterialviraldiscriminationinimmunocompromisedpatients
AT burkethomasw 1226performanceofahostresponsetestforbacterialviraldiscriminationinimmunocompromisedpatients
AT mcclainmicaht 1226performanceofahostresponsetestforbacterialviraldiscriminationinimmunocompromisedpatients
AT ginsburggeoffreys 1226performanceofahostresponsetestforbacterialviraldiscriminationinimmunocompromisedpatients
AT woodschristopherw 1226performanceofahostresponsetestforbacterialviraldiscriminationinimmunocompromisedpatients
AT tsalikephraiml 1226performanceofahostresponsetestforbacterialviraldiscriminationinimmunocompromisedpatients