Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinician Judgment to a Novel Host Response Diagnostic for Acute Respiratory Illness.

dc.contributor.author

Jaffe, Ian S

dc.contributor.author

Jaehne, Anja K

dc.contributor.author

Quackenbush, Eugenia

dc.contributor.author

Ko, Emily R

dc.contributor.author

Rivers, Emanuel P

dc.contributor.author

McClain, Micah T

dc.contributor.author

Ginsburg, Geoffrey S

dc.contributor.author

Woods, Christopher W

dc.contributor.author

Tsalik, Ephraim L

dc.date.accessioned

2022-02-01T14:46:42Z

dc.date.available

2022-02-01T14:46:42Z

dc.date.issued

2021-12

dc.date.updated

2022-02-01T14:46:41Z

dc.description.abstract

Background

Difficulty discriminating bacterial from viral infections drives antibacterial misuse. Host gene expression tests discriminate bacterial and viral etiologies, but their clinical utility has not been evaluated.

Methods

Host gene expression and procalcitonin levels were measured in 582 emergency department participants with suspected infection. We also recorded clinician diagnosis and clinician-recommended treatment. These 4 diagnostic strategies were compared with clinical adjudication as the reference. To estimate the clinical impact of host gene expression, we calculated the change in overall Net Benefit (∆NB; the difference in Net Benefit comparing 1 diagnostic strategy with a reference) across a range of prevalence estimates while factoring in the clinical significance of false-positive and -negative errors.

Results

Gene expression correctly classified bacterial, viral, or noninfectious illness in 74.1% of subjects, similar to the other strategies. Clinical diagnosis and clinician-recommended treatment revealed a bias toward overdiagnosis of bacterial infection resulting in high sensitivity (92.6% and 94.5%, respectively) but poor specificity (67.2% and 58.8%, respectively), resulting in a 33.3% rate of inappropriate antibacterial use. Gene expression offered a more balanced sensitivity (79.0%) and specificity (80.7%), which corresponded to a statistically significant improvement in average weighted accuracy (79.9% vs 71.5% for procalcitonin and 76.3% for clinician-recommended treatment; P<.0001 for both). Consequently, host gene expression had greater Net Benefit in diagnosing bacterial infection than clinician-recommended treatment (∆NB=6.4%) and procalcitonin (∆NB=17.4%).

Conclusions

Host gene expression-based tests to distinguish bacterial and viral infection can facilitate appropriate treatment, improving patient outcomes and mitigating the antibacterial resistance crisis.
dc.identifier

ofab564

dc.identifier.issn

2328-8957

dc.identifier.issn

2328-8957

dc.identifier.uri

https://hdl.handle.net/10161/24291

dc.language

eng

dc.publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

dc.relation.ispartof

Open forum infectious diseases

dc.relation.isversionof

10.1093/ofid/ofab564

dc.subject

bacterial infection

dc.subject

clinical decision-making

dc.subject

diagnostic test

dc.subject

gene expression

dc.subject

procalcitonin

dc.title

Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinician Judgment to a Novel Host Response Diagnostic for Acute Respiratory Illness.

dc.type

Journal article

duke.contributor.orcid

Ginsburg, Geoffrey S|0000-0003-4739-9808

duke.contributor.orcid

Woods, Christopher W|0000-0001-7240-2453

duke.contributor.orcid

Tsalik, Ephraim L|0000-0002-6417-2042

pubs.begin-page

ofab564

pubs.issue

12

pubs.organisational-group

Duke

pubs.organisational-group

School of Medicine

pubs.organisational-group

School of Nursing

pubs.organisational-group

Nursing

pubs.organisational-group

Basic Science Departments

pubs.organisational-group

Clinical Science Departments

pubs.organisational-group

Institutes and Centers

pubs.organisational-group

Biostatistics & Bioinformatics

pubs.organisational-group

Molecular Genetics and Microbiology

pubs.organisational-group

Medicine

pubs.organisational-group

Pathology

pubs.organisational-group

Medicine, Cardiology

pubs.organisational-group

Medicine, Infectious Diseases

pubs.organisational-group

Duke Cancer Institute

pubs.organisational-group

Institutes and Provost's Academic Units

pubs.organisational-group

University Institutes and Centers

pubs.organisational-group

Duke Global Health Institute

pubs.publication-status

Published

pubs.volume

8

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
NRI for HR-BV, OFID 2021.pdf
Size:
358.66 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version