Evidence mapPaperPMID 33938716Full record

ArticleCritical care medicine2021

Discriminating Bacterial and Viral Infection Using a Rapid Host Gene Expression Test.

Ephraim L Tsalik, Ricardo Henao, Jesse L Montgomery, Jeff W Nawrocki, Mert Aydin, Emily C Lydon, Emily R Ko, Elizabeth Petzold, Bradly P Nicholson, Charles B Cairns and 14 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. The Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group: Scientific Advancements and Future Directions.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

Ephraim L TsalikDurham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC.
Ricardo HenaoCenter for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.
Jesse L MontgomeryBioFire Diagnostics, LLC, Salt Lake City, UT.
Jeff W NawrockiBioFire Diagnostics, LLC, Salt Lake City, UT.
Mert AydinCenter for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.
Emily C LydonCenter for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.
Emily R KoCenter for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.
Elizabeth PetzoldCenter for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.
Bradly P NicholsonInstitute for Medical Research, Durham, NC.
Charles B CairnsUniversity of North Carolina Medical Center, Chapel Hill, NC.
Seth W GlickmanUniversity of North Carolina Medical Center, Chapel Hill, NC.
Eugenia QuackenbushUniversity of North Carolina Medical Center, Chapel Hill, NC.
Stephen F KingsmoreRady Children's Institute for Genomic Medicine, San Diego, CA.
Anja K JaehneHenry Ford Hospital System, Detroit, MI.
Emanuel P RiversHenry Ford Hospital System, Detroit, MI.
Raymond J LangleyUniversity of South Alabama Health University Hospital, Mobile, AL.
Vance G FowlerDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.
Micah T McClainDurham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC.
Robert J CrispBioFire Diagnostics, LLC, Salt Lake City, UT.
Geoffrey S GinsburgCenter for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.
Thomas W BurkeCenter for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.
Andrew C HemmertBioFire Diagnostics, LLC, Salt Lake City, UT.
Christopher W WoodsDurham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC.
Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group
BioFire Diagnostics (United States) · USClinical Research Institute · USChildren’s Institute · USHenry Ford Hospital · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USDrexel University · USDuke Regional Hospital · USDuke University · USInstitute for Medical Research · USUniversity of South Alabama · US

Funding

Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG)UM1AI104681 · NIAID · DUKE UNIVERSITY · 2021 to 2025
$91.8M
Plasma Protein Biomarker-Based Diagnostics Of Outcome InU01AI066569 · NATIONAL CENTER FOR GENOME RESOURCES · 2005 to 2005
$517k
NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI066569NIAID NIH HHS UM1 AI104681
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesHost gene expression signatures discriminate bacterial and viral infection but have not been translated to a clinical test platform. This study enrolled an independent cohort of patients to describe and validate a first-in-class host response bacterial/viral test.

designSubjects were recruited from 2006 to 2016. Enrollment blood samples were collected in an RNA preservative and banked for later testing. The reference standard was an expert panel clinical adjudication, which was blinded to gene expression and procalcitonin results.

settingFour U.S. emergency departments. PATIENTS: Six-hundred twenty-three subjects with acute respiratory illness or suspected sepsis.

interventionsForty-five-transcript signature measured on the BioFire FilmArray System (BioFire Diagnostics, Salt Lake City, UT) in ~45 minutes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsHost response bacterial/viral test performance characteristics were evaluated in 623 participants (mean age 46 yr; 45% male) with bacterial infection, viral infection, coinfection, or noninfectious illness. Performance of the host response bacterial/viral test was compared with procalcitonin. The test provided independent probabilities of bacterial and viral infection in ~45 minutes. In the 213-subject training cohort, the host response bacterial/viral test had an area under the curve for bacterial infection of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.94) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.95) for viral infection. Independent validation in 209 subjects revealed similar performance with an area under the curve of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90) for bacterial infection and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.85-0.94) for viral infection. The test had 80.1% (95% CI, 73.7-85.4%) average weighted accuracy for bacterial infection and 86.8% (95% CI, 81.8-90.8%) for viral infection in this validation cohort. This was significantly better than 68.7% (95% CI, 62.4-75.4%) observed for procalcitonin (p < 0.001). An additional cohort of 201 subjects with indeterminate phenotypes (coinfection or microbiology-negative infections) revealed similar performance.

conclusionsThe host response bacterial/viral measured using the BioFire System rapidly and accurately discriminated bacterial and viral infection better than procalcitonin, which can help support more appropriate antibiotic use.

Indexed as

TranscriptomeAdultBacterial InfectionsBiomarkersClinical Laboratory TechniquesEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedVirus DiseasesBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID33938716
PMCPMC8448917
OpenAlexW3158720939

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.