A comparison of host response strategies to distinguish bacterial and viral infection.

OBJECTIVES: Compare three host response strategies to distinguish bacterial and viral etiologies of acute respiratory illness (ARI). METHODS: In this observational cohort study, procalcitonin, a 3-protein panel (CRP, IP-10, TRAIL), and a host gene expression mRNA panel were measured in 286 subjects with ARI from four emergency departments. Multinomial logistic regression and leave-one-out cross validation were used to evaluate the protein and mRNA tests. RESULTS: The mRNA panel performed better than alternative strategies to identify bacterial infection: AUC 0.93 vs. 0.83 for the protein panel and 0.84 for procalcitonin (P<0.02 for each comparison). This corresponded to a sensitivity and specificity of 92% and 83% for the mRNA panel, 81% and 73% for the protein panel, and 68% and 87% for procalcitonin, respectively. A model utilizing all three strategies was the same as mRNA alone. For the diagnosis of viral infection, the AUC was 0.93 for mRNA and 0.84 for the protein panel (p<0.05). This corresponded to a sensitivity and specificity of 89% and 82% for the mRNA panel, and 85% and 62% for the protein panel, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A gene expression signature was the most accurate host response strategy for classifying subjects with bacterial, viral, or non-infectious ARI.

Duke Scholars

Author Emily Ray Ko Medicine, General Internal Medicine

Author Ricardo Henao Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Division of Translational Bi ...

Author Micah Thomas McClain Medicine, Infectious Diseases

Author Geoffrey Steven Ginsburg Medicine, Cardiology

Author Christopher Wildrick Woods Medicine, Infectious Diseases

Author Ephraim Tsalik Medicine, Infectious Diseases