Dataset Information

Diagnostic Accuracy of FebriDx: A Rapid Test to Detect Immune Responses to Viral and Bacterial Upper Respiratory Infections.

ABSTRACT: C-reactive protein (CRP) and myxovirus resistance protein A (MxA) are associated with bacterial and viral infections, respectively. We conducted a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study of adults and children with febrile upper respiratory tract infections (URIs) to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a rapid CRP/MxA immunoassay to identify clinically significant bacterial infection with host response and acute pathogenic viral infection. The reference standard for classifying URI etiology was an algorithm that included throat bacterial culture, upper respiratory PCR for viral and atypical pathogens, procalcitonin, white blood cell count, and bandemia. The algorithm also allowed for physician override. Among 205 patients, 25 (12.2%) were classified as bacterial, 53 (25.9%) as viral, and 127 (62.0%) negative by the reference standard. For bacterial detection, agreement between FebriDx and the reference standard was 91.7%, with FebriDx having a sensitivity of 80% (95% CI: 59-93%), specificity of 93% (89-97%), positive predictive value (PPV) of 63% (45-79%), and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97% (94-99%). For viral detection, agreement was 84%, with a sensitivity of 87% (75-95%), specificity of 83% (76-89%), PPV of 64% (63-75%), and NPV of 95% (90-98%). FebriDx may help to identify clinically significant immune responses associated with bacterial and viral URIs that are more likely to require clinical management or therapeutic intervention, and has potential to assist with antibiotic stewardship.

SUBMITTER: Self WH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5664009 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Shared Molecules

Only show the datasets with similarity scores above: 0.5

Threshold

0.5

Similar Datasets

Project description:The only licensed dengue vaccine, Dengvaxia®, increases risk of severe dengue when given to individuals without prior dengue virus (DENV) infection but is protective against future disease in those with prior DENV immunity. The World Health Organization has recommended using rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) to determine history of prior DENV infection and suitability for vaccination. Dengue experts recommend that these assays be highly specific (≥98%) to avoid erroneously vaccinating individuals without prior DENV infection, as well as be sensitive enough (≥95%) to detect individuals with a single prior DENV infection. We evaluated one existing and two newly developed anti-flavivirus RDTs using samples collected >6 months post-infection from individuals in non-endemic and DENV and ZIKV endemic areas. We first evaluated the IgG component of the SD BIOLINE Dengue IgG/IgM RDT, which was developed to assist in confirming acute/recent DENV infections (n=93 samples). When evaluated following the manufacturer's instructions, the SD BIOLINE Dengue RDT had 100% specificity for both non-endemic and endemic samples but low sensitivity for detecting DENV seropositivity (0% non-endemic, 41% endemic). Sensitivity increased (53% non-endemic, 98% endemic) when tests were allowed to run beyond manufacturer recommendations (0.5 up to 3 hours), but specificity decreased in endemic samples (36%). When tests were evaluated using a quantitative reader, optimal specificity could be achieved (≥98%) while still retaining sensitivity at earlier timepoints in non-endemic (44-88%) and endemic samples (31-55%). We next evaluated novel dengue and Zika RDTs developed by Excivion to detect prior DENV or ZIKV infections and reduce cross-flavivirus reactivity (n=207 samples). When evaluated visually, the Excivion Dengue RDT had sensitivity and specificity values of 79%, but when evaluated with a quantitative reader, optimal specificity could be achieved (≥98%) while still maintaining moderate sensitivity (48-75%). The Excivion Zika RDT had high specificity (>98%) and sensitivity (>93%) when evaluated quantitatively, suggesting it may be used alongside dengue RDTs to minimize misclassification due to cross-reactivity. Our findings demonstrate the potential of RDTs to be used for dengue pre-vaccination screening to reduce vaccine-induced priming for severe dengue and show how assay design adaptations as well quantitative evaluation can further improve RDTs for this purpose.

Project description:ImportanceBacterial and viral causes of acute respiratory illness (ARI) are difficult to clinically distinguish, resulting in the inappropriate use of antibacterial therapy. The use of a host gene expression-based test that is able to discriminate bacterial from viral infection in less than 1 hour may improve care and antimicrobial stewardship.ObjectiveTo validate the host response bacterial/viral (HR-B/V) test and assess its ability to accurately differentiate bacterial from viral infection among patients with ARI.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective multicenter diagnostic study enrolled 755 children and adults with febrile ARI of 7 or fewer days' duration from 10 US emergency departments. Participants were enrolled from October 3, 2014, to September 1, 2019, followed by additional enrollment of patients with COVID-19 from March 20 to December 3, 2020. Clinical adjudication of enrolled participants identified 616 individuals as having bacterial or viral infection. The primary analysis cohort included 334 participants with high-confidence reference adjudications (based on adjudicator concordance and the presence of an identified pathogen confirmed by microbiological testing). A secondary analysis of the entire cohort of 616 participants included cases with low-confidence reference adjudications (based on adjudicator discordance or the absence of an identified pathogen in microbiological testing). Thirty-three participants with COVID-19 were included post hoc.InterventionsThe HR-B/V test quantified the expression of 45 host messenger RNAs in approximately 45 minutes to derive a probability of bacterial infection.Main outcomes and measuresPerformance characteristics for the HR-B/V test compared with clinical adjudication were reported as either bacterial or viral infection or categorized into 4 likelihood groups (viral very likely [probability score <0.19], viral likely [probability score of 0.19-0.40], bacterial likely [probability score of 0.41-0.73], and bacterial very likely [probability score >0.73]) and compared with procalcitonin measurement.ResultsAmong 755 enrolled participants, the median age was 26 years (IQR, 16-52 years); 360 participants (47.7%) were female, and 395 (52.3%) were male. A total of 13 participants (1.7%) were American Indian, 13 (1.7%) were Asian, 368 (48.7%) were Black, 131 (17.4%) were Hispanic, 3 (0.4%) were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 297 (39.3%) were White, and 60 (7.9%) were of unspecified race and/or ethnicity. In the primary analysis involving 334 participants, the HR-B/V test had sensitivity of 89.8% (95% CI, 77.8%-96.2%), specificity of 82.1% (95% CI, 77.4%-86.6%), and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.9% (95% CI, 95.3%-99.1%) for bacterial infection. In comparison, the sensitivity of procalcitonin measurement was 28.6% (95% CI, 16.2%-40.9%; P < .001), the specificity was 87.0% (95% CI, 82.7%-90.7%; P = .006), and the NPV was 87.6% (95% CI, 85.5%-89.5%; P < .001). When stratified into likelihood groups, the HR-B/V test had an NPV of 98.9% (95% CI, 96.1%-100%) for bacterial infection in the viral very likely group and a positive predictive value of 63.4% (95% CI, 47.2%-77.9%) for bacterial infection in the bacterial very likely group. The HR-B/V test correctly identified 30 of 33 participants (90.9%) with acute COVID-19 as having a viral infection.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, the HR-B/V test accurately discriminated bacterial from viral infection among patients with febrile ARI and was superior to procalcitonin measurement. The findings suggest that an accurate point-of-need host response test with high NPV may offer an opportunity to improve antibiotic stewardship and patient outcomes.

Project description:Early diagnosis is important for the clinical management of diseases caused by dengue virus (DENV) infections. We investigated the performance of three commercially available DENV nonstructural protein 1 (NS1) rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) using 173 acute-phase sera collected from dengue fever-suspected patients during the 2012-2013 DENV outbreak in Taiwan. The results of the NS1 RDTs were compared with those of qRT-PCR to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of the NS1 RDTs. The anti-DENV IgM and IgG RDT results were included to increase the probability of detecting acute DENV infection. The anti-DENV IgM/IgG RDT results were also compared with those of IgM/IgG captured ELISA. The sera from DENV qRT-PCR-positive patients were subjected to NS1 RDTs, as well as IgM/IgG captured ELISA. These results suggested that there was no significant difference in the sensitivities of the three commercially available DNEV NS1 RDTs; the SD NS1 RDT results showed the highest agreement with the qRT-PCR reference results, followed in order by the Bio-Rad and CTK NS1 RDT results when the specificity was considered. Inclusion of the IgM or IgG RDT results increased the likelihood of diagnosing either a primary or secondary DENV infection. NS1 RDTs were more sensitive for the detection of primary infections than secondary infections, related to DENV viremia levels determined by qRT-PCR. These results suggested that anti-DENV antibodies reduced the sensitivity of NS1 rapid tests. We also analyzed the sensitivity for the detection of different DENV serotypes, and the results suggested that the NS1 RDTs used in this study were valuable for rapid screening of acute DENV infection with DENV-1, DENV-2 and DENV-3. Our results suggest that the NS1 RDT is a good alternative to qRT-PCR analysis for timely dengue disease management and prevention in dengue-endemic regions where medical resources are lacking or during large dengue outbreaks. However, the relatively low sensitivity for DENV-4 might miss the detection of DENV-4-infected cases.

Project description:ImportanceBecause clinical features do not reliably distinguish bacterial from viral infection, many children worldwide receive unnecessary antibiotic treatment, while bacterial infection is missed in others.ObjectiveTo identify a blood RNA expression signature that distinguishes bacterial from viral infection in febrile children.Design, setting, and participantsFebrile children presenting to participating hospitals in the United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, and the United States between 2009-2013 were prospectively recruited, comprising a discovery group and validation group. Each group was classified after microbiological investigation as having definite bacterial infection, definite viral infection, or indeterminate infection. RNA expression signatures distinguishing definite bacterial from viral infection were identified in the discovery group and diagnostic performance assessed in the validation group. Additional validation was undertaken in separate studies of children with meningococcal disease (n = 24) and inflammatory diseases (n = 48) and on published gene expression datasets.ExposuresA 2-transcript RNA expression signature distinguishing bacterial infection from viral infection was evaluated against clinical and microbiological diagnosis.Main outcomes and measuresDefinite bacterial and viral infection was confirmed by culture or molecular detection of the pathogens. Performance of the RNA signature was evaluated in the definite bacterial and viral group and in the indeterminate infection group.ResultsThe discovery group of 240 children (median age, 19 months; 62% male) included 52 with definite bacterial infection, of whom 36 (69%) required intensive care, and 92 with definite viral infection, of whom 32 (35%) required intensive care. Ninety-six children had indeterminate infection. Analysis of RNA expression data identified a 38-transcript signature distinguishing bacterial from viral infection. A smaller (2-transcript) signature (FAM89A and IFI44L) was identified by removing highly correlated transcripts. When this 2-transcript signature was implemented as a disease risk score in the validation group (130 children, with 23 definite bacterial, 28 definite viral, and 79 indeterminate infections; median age, 17 months; 57% male), all 23 patients with microbiologically confirmed definite bacterial infection were classified as bacterial (sensitivity, 100% [95% CI, 100%-100%]) and 27 of 28 patients with definite viral infection were classified as viral (specificity, 96.4% [95% CI, 89.3%-100%]). When applied to additional validation datasets from patients with meningococcal and inflammatory diseases, bacterial infection was identified with a sensitivity of 91.7% (95% CI, 79.2%-100%) and 90.0% (95% CI, 70.0%-100%), respectively, and with specificity of 96.0% (95% CI, 88.0%-100%) and 95.8% (95% CI, 89.6%-100%). Of the children in the indeterminate groups, 46.3% (63/136) were classified as having bacterial infection, although 94.9% (129/136) received antibiotic treatment.Conclusions and relevanceThis study provides preliminary data regarding test accuracy of a 2-transcript host RNA signature discriminating bacterial from viral infection in febrile children. Further studies are needed in diverse groups of patients to assess accuracy and clinical utility of this test in different clinical settings.

Project description:BackgroundEgypt was among the first 10 countries in Africa that experienced COVID-19 cases. The sudden surge in the number of cases is overwhelming the capacity of the national healthcare system, particularly in developing countries. Central to the containment of the ongoing pandemic is the availability of rapid and accurate diagnostic tests that could pinpoint patients at early disease stages. In the current study, we aimed to (1) Evaluate the diagnostic performance of the rapid antigen test (RAT) "Standard™ Q COVID-19 Ag" against reverse transcriptase quantitative real-time PCR (RT-qPCR) in eighty-three swabs collected from COVID-19 suspected individuals showing various demographic features, clinical and radiological findings. (2) Test whether measuring laboratory parameters in participant's blood would enhance the predictive accuracy of RAT. (3) Identify the most important features that determine the results of both RAT and RT-qPCR.MethodsDiagnostic measurements (e.g. sensitivity, specificity, etc.) and receiver operating characteristic curve were used to assess the clinical performance of "Standard™ Q COVID-19 Ag". We used the support vector machine (SVM) model to investigate whether measuring laboratory indices would enhance the accuracy of RAT. Moreover, a random forest classification model was used to determine the most important determinants of the results of RAT and RT-qPCR for COVID-19 diagnosis.ResultsThe sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of RAT were 78.2, 64.2, and 75.9%, respectively. Samples with high viral load and those that were collected within one-week post-symptoms showed the highest sensitivity and accuracy. The SVM modeling showed that measuring laboratory indices did not enhance the predictive accuracy of RAT.Conclusion"Standard™ Q COVID-19 Ag" should not be used alone for COVID-19 diagnosis due to its low diagnostic performance relative to the RT-qPCR. RAT is best used at the early disease stage and in patients with high viral load.