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.

Automated summary

The study compared three host response strategies to distinguish bacterial and viral etiologies of acute respiratory illness. The gene expression signature was found to be the most accurate strategy for classifying subjects with bacterial, viral, or non-infectious ARI.