Comparison of two rapid host-response tests for distinguishing bacterial and viral infection in adults with acute respiratory infection - 06/12/24
Summary |
Objectives |
Distinguishing bacterial from viral acute respiratory infection (ARI) is challenging, leading to inappropriate antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance. We evaluated the accuracy of two host-response tests to differentiate bacterial and viral infection.
Methods |
This study used patient blood samples previously collected during a randomised controlled trial of adults hospitalised with ARI. The aetiology for each patient was clinically adjudicated. PAXgene blood RNA samples were tested using the TriVerity test (which measures 29 mRNAs) and serum samples were tested using the MeMed BV test (which measures 3 proteins). Diagnostic accuracy was calculated against adjudicated aetiology.
Results |
169 patients were tested. Median age was 60 (45−74) years and 152 (90%) received antibiotics. 60 (36%) were adjudicated as bacterial, 54 (32%) as viral, 26 (15%) as viral/bacterial co-infection, and 29 (17%) as non-infected. For bacterial (including bacterial/viral co-infection) versus non-bacterial infection, the TriVerity bacterial score had a Positive Percentage Agreement (PPA) of 81% (95%CI 70–89) and a Negative Percentage Agreement (NPA) of 66% (95%CI 55–79) and the MeMed BV score had a PPA of 96% (95%CI 90–99) and NPA of 34% (95%CI 23–47). The AUROC for the two tests was 0.77 (95%CI 0.70–0.84) and 0.81 (95%CI 0.74–0.87) respectively, p = 0.388.
Conclusions |
Both tests demonstrated similar overall accuracy for distinguishing bacterial infection with the Triverity test missing some bacterial infections and MeMed BV misclassifying most viral infections as bacterial. Prospective impact studies evaluating antibiotic use, safety and cost effectiveness are now required.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Highlights |
• | First study comparing transcriptomic and protein-based host-response tests. |
• | TriVerity test had moderate-high accuracy for both bacterial and viral infection. |
• | MeMed BV test had high sensitivity but very low specificity for bacterial infection. |
• | Potential antibiotic reductions were greater with the Triverity test. |
• | Triverity may miss more bacterial infections than MeMed BV. |
• | Prospective impact trials are now needed. |
Keywords : Novel diagnostics, Host response, Acute Respiratory Infection, Viral vs bacterial infection, MRNA transcriptomics
Plan
Vol 89 - N° 6
Article 106360- décembre 2024 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- The effect of pre-COVID and post-COVID vaccination on long COVID: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- Nick King Ngai Chow, Charmaine Yuk Wah Tsang, Yan Hei Chan, Shalina Alisha Telaga, Lok Yan Andes Ng, Chit Ming Chung, Yan Ming Yip, Peter Pak-Hang Cheung
- Efficacy and safety of antistaphylococcal penicillin or cephazolin-based combinations versus monotherapy for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus infective endocarditis: A propensity score analysis of nationwide prospective cohort
- Jorge Calderón-Parra, Sara Grillo, Patricia Muñoz, Marina Machado-Vilchez, Antonia Delgado-Montero, Arístides De Alarcón-González, Manuel Poyato-Borrego, MA Goenaga-Sánchez, M. Carmen Fariñas-Alvarez, José M. Miró, Luis Eduardo López-Cortés, Raquel Rodríguez-García, José A. Oteo, Antonio Martínez-Ramos, on behalf of the Spanish Collaboration on Endocarditis (GAMES)
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?