BACKGROUND: Adult, community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and American Thoracic Society (ATS) include indications for urinary antigen tests (UATs) for Streptococcus pneumoniae (SP) and Legionella pneumophila (LP). These recommendations were based on expert opinions and have not been rigorously evaluated. METHODS: We used data from a multicenter, prospective, surveillance study of adults hospitalized with CAP to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the IDSA/ATS UAT indications for identifying patients who test positive. SP and LP UATs were completed on all included patients. Separate analyses were completed for SP and LP, using 2-by-2 contingency tables, comparing the IDSA/ATS indications (UAT recommended vs not recommended) and UAT results (positive vs negative). Additionally, logistic regression was used to evaluate the association of each individual criterion in the IDSA/ATS indications with positive UAT results. RESULTS: Among 1941 patients, UATs were positive for SP in 81 (4.2%) and for LP in 32 (1.6%). IDSA/ATS indications had 61% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI] 49-71%) and 39% specificity (95% CI 37-41%) for SP, and 63% sensitivity (95% CI 44-79%) and 35% specificity (95% CI 33-37%) for LP. No clinical characteristics were strongly associated with positive SP UATs, while features associated with positive LP UATs were hyponatremia, fever, diarrhea, and recent travel. CONCLUSIONS: Recommended indications for SP and LP urinary antigen testing in the IDSA/ATS CAP guidelines have poor sensitivity and specificity for identifying patients with positive tests; future CAP guidelines should consider other strategies for determining which patients should undergo urinary antigen testing.
BACKGROUND: Adult, community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and American Thoracic Society (ATS) include indications for urinary antigen tests (UATs) for Streptococcus pneumoniae (SP) and Legionella pneumophila (LP). These recommendations were based on expert opinions and have not been rigorously evaluated. METHODS: We used data from a multicenter, prospective, surveillance study of adults hospitalized with CAP to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the IDSA/ATS UAT indications for identifying patients who test positive. SP and LP UATs were completed on all included patients. Separate analyses were completed for SP and LP, using 2-by-2 contingency tables, comparing the IDSA/ATS indications (UAT recommended vs not recommended) and UAT results (positive vs negative). Additionally, logistic regression was used to evaluate the association of each individual criterion in the IDSA/ATS indications with positive UAT results. RESULTS: Among 1941 patients, UATs were positive for SP in 81 (4.2%) and for LP in 32 (1.6%). IDSA/ATS indications had 61% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI] 49-71%) and 39% specificity (95% CI 37-41%) for SP, and 63% sensitivity (95% CI 44-79%) and 35% specificity (95% CI 33-37%) for LP. No clinical characteristics were strongly associated with positive SP UATs, while features associated with positive LP UATs were hyponatremia, fever, diarrhea, and recent travel. CONCLUSIONS: Recommended indications for SP and LP urinary antigen testing in the IDSA/ATS CAP guidelines have poor sensitivity and specificity for identifying patients with positive tests; future CAP guidelines should consider other strategies for determining which patients should undergo urinary antigen testing.
Authors: Lionel A Mandell; Richard G Wunderink; Antonio Anzueto; John G Bartlett; G Douglas Campbell; Nathan C Dean; Scott F Dowell; Thomas M File; Daniel M Musher; Michael S Niederman; Antonio Torres; Cynthia G Whitney Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2007-03-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Sebastian Haubitz; Fabienne Hitz; Lena Graedel; Marcus Batschwaroff; Timothy Lee Wiemken; Paula Peyrani; Julio A Ramirez; Christoph Andreas Fux; Beat Mueller; Philipp Schuetz Journal: Am J Med Date: 2014-05-06 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Laurel E Garrison; Jasen M Kunz; Laura A Cooley; Matthew R Moore; Claressa Lucas; Stephanie Schrag; John Sarisky; Cynthia G Whitney Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2016-06-10 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Wesley H Self; Robert A Balk; Carlos G Grijalva; Derek J Williams; Yuwei Zhu; Evan J Anderson; Grant W Waterer; D Mark Courtney; Anna M Bramley; Christopher Trabue; Sherene Fakhran; Anne J Blaschke; Seema Jain; Kathryn M Edwards; Richard G Wunderink Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2017-07-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: F Congestrì; M Morotti; R Vicari; M F Pedna; M Sparacino; A Torri; S Bertini; M Fantini; V Sambri Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Melodi Anahtar; Leslie W Chan; Henry Ko; Aditya Rao; Ava P Soleimany; Purvesh Khatri; Sangeeta N Bhatia Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 12.779
Authors: Jennifer J Schimmel; Sarah Haessler; Peter Imrey; Peter K Lindenauer; Sandra S Richter; Pei-Chun Yu; Michael B Rothberg Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-09-12 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Anna L Królicka; Adrianna Kruczkowska; Magdalena Krajewska; Mariusz A Kusztal Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Elie Azoulay; Lene Russell; Andry Van de Louw; Victoria Metaxa; Philippe Bauer; Pedro Povoa; José Garnacho Montero; Ignacio Martin Loeches; Sangeeta Mehta; Kathryn Puxty; Peter Schellongowski; Jordi Rello; Djamel Mokart; Virginie Lemiale; Adrien Mirouse Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Shruti Puri; Monique Boudreaux-Kelly; Jon D Walker; Cornelius J Clancy; Brooke K Decker Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-01-15 Impact factor: 3.390