The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Comparison of two rapid host-response tests for distinguishing bacterial and viral infection in adults with acute respiratory infection

Comparison of two rapid host-response tests for distinguishing bacterial and viral infection in adults with acute respiratory infection
Comparison of two rapid host-response tests for distinguishing bacterial and viral infection in adults with acute respiratory infection
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.
Acute Respiratory Infection, Host response, MRNA transcriptomics, Novel diagnostics, Viral vs bacterial infection
0163-4453
Dedeoglu, Bilge Eylem
3623f0c2-798e-4d4c-af74-5ea0ed816a75
Tanner, Alexander
d46707fe-e6b9-4f89-95a5-07b2e68bd3b3
Brendish, Nathan James
d07b588f-4919-456d-8604-04efde7711fd
Moyses, Helen
56434d9c-870f-4539-a66a-c791add44f67
Clark, Tristan
712ec18e-613c-45df-a013-c8a22834e14f
Dedeoglu, Bilge Eylem
3623f0c2-798e-4d4c-af74-5ea0ed816a75
Tanner, Alexander
d46707fe-e6b9-4f89-95a5-07b2e68bd3b3
Brendish, Nathan James
d07b588f-4919-456d-8604-04efde7711fd
Moyses, Helen
56434d9c-870f-4539-a66a-c791add44f67
Clark, Tristan
712ec18e-613c-45df-a013-c8a22834e14f

Dedeoglu, Bilge Eylem, Tanner, Alexander, Brendish, Nathan James, Moyses, Helen and Clark, Tristan (2024) Comparison of two rapid host-response tests for distinguishing bacterial and viral infection in adults with acute respiratory infection. Journal of Infection, 89 (6), [106360]. (doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2024.106360).

Record type: Article

Abstract

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.

Text
JoI HR 2024 - Accepted Manuscript
Restricted to Repository staff only
Request a copy
Text
PIIS0163445324002950 - Version of Record
Available under License Other.
Download (3MB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 18 November 2024
e-pub ahead of print date: 21 November 2024
Published date: 1 December 2024
Additional Information: Publisher Copyright: © 2024 The Author(s)
Keywords: Acute Respiratory Infection, Host response, MRNA transcriptomics, Novel diagnostics, Viral vs bacterial infection

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 496543
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/496543
ISSN: 0163-4453
PURE UUID: 278a7a83-1cff-4978-a626-82e940a0e686
ORCID for Nathan James Brendish: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-9589-4937
ORCID for Tristan Clark: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-6026-5295

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 17 Dec 2024 17:56
Last modified: 18 Dec 2024 02:46

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Bilge Eylem Dedeoglu
Author: Alexander Tanner
Author: Nathan James Brendish ORCID iD
Author: Helen Moyses
Author: Tristan Clark ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×