BACKGROUND: Whether or not to administer antibiotics is a common and challenging clinical decision in patients with suspected infections presenting to the emergency department (ED). We prospectively validate InSep, a 29-mRNA blood-based host response test for the prediction of bacterial and viral infections. METHODS: The PROMPT trial is a prospective, non-interventional, multi-center clinical study that enrolled 397 adult patients presenting to the ED with signs of acute infection and at least one vital sign change. The infection status was adjudicated using chart review (including a syndromic molecular respiratory panel, procalcitonin and C-reactive protein) by three infectious disease physicians blinded to InSep results. InSep (version BVN-2) was performed using PAXgene Blood RNA processed and quantified on NanoString nCounter SPRINT. InSep results (likelihood of bacterial and viral infection) were compared to the adjudicated infection status. RESULTS: Subject mean age was 64 years, comorbidities were significant for diabetes (17.1%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (13.6%), and severe neurological disease (6.8%); 16.9% of subjects were immunocompromised. Infections were adjudicated as bacterial (14.1%), viral (11.3%) and noninfected (0.25%): 74.1% of subjects were adjudicated as indeterminate. InSep distinguished bacterial vs. viral/noninfected patients and viral vs. bacterial/noninfected patients using consensus adjudication with AUROCs of 0.94 (95% CI 0.90-0.99) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.83-0.96), respectively. AUROCs for bacterial vs. viral/noninfected patients were 0.88 (95% CI 0.79-0.96) for PCT, 0.80 (95% CI 0.72-89) for CRP and 0.78 (95% CI 0.69-0.87) for white blood cell counts (of note, the latter biomarkers were provided as part of clinical adjudication). To enable clinical actionability, InSep incorporates score cutoffs to allocate patients into interpretation bands. The Very Likely (rule in) InSep bacterial band showed a specificity of 98% compared to 94% for the corresponding PCT band (> 0.5 µg/L); the Very Unlikely (rule-out) band showed a sensitivity of 95% for InSep compared to 86% for PCT. For the detection of viral infections, InSep demonstrated a specificity of 93% for the Very Likely band (rule in) and a sensitivity of 96% for the Very Unlikely band (rule out). CONCLUSIONS: InSep demonstrated high accuracy for predicting the presence of both bacterial and viral infections in ED patients with suspected acute infections or suspected sepsis. When translated into a rapid, point-of-care test, InSep will provide ED physicians with actionable results supporting early informed treatment decisions to improve patient outcomes while upholding antimicrobial stewardship. Registration number at Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03295825.
BACKGROUND: Whether or not to administer antibiotics is a common and challenging clinical decision in patients with suspected infections presenting to the emergency department (ED). We prospectively validate InSep, a 29-mRNA blood-based host response test for the prediction of bacterial and viral infections. METHODS: The PROMPT trial is a prospective, non-interventional, multi-center clinical study that enrolled 397 adult patients presenting to the ED with signs of acute infection and at least one vital sign change. The infection status was adjudicated using chart review (including a syndromic molecular respiratory panel, procalcitonin and C-reactive protein) by three infectious disease physicians blinded to InSep results. InSep (version BVN-2) was performed using PAXgene Blood RNA processed and quantified on NanoString nCounter SPRINT. InSep results (likelihood of bacterial and viral infection) were compared to the adjudicated infection status. RESULTS: Subject mean age was 64 years, comorbidities were significant for diabetes (17.1%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (13.6%), and severe neurological disease (6.8%); 16.9% of subjects were immunocompromised. Infections were adjudicated as bacterial (14.1%), viral (11.3%) and noninfected (0.25%): 74.1% of subjects were adjudicated as indeterminate. InSep distinguished bacterial vs. viral/noninfected patients and viral vs. bacterial/noninfected patients using consensus adjudication with AUROCs of 0.94 (95% CI 0.90-0.99) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.83-0.96), respectively. AUROCs for bacterial vs. viral/noninfected patients were 0.88 (95% CI 0.79-0.96) for PCT, 0.80 (95% CI 0.72-89) for CRP and 0.78 (95% CI 0.69-0.87) for white blood cell counts (of note, the latter biomarkers were provided as part of clinical adjudication). To enable clinical actionability, InSep incorporates score cutoffs to allocate patients into interpretation bands. The Very Likely (rule in) InSep bacterial band showed a specificity of 98% compared to 94% for the corresponding PCT band (> 0.5 µg/L); the Very Unlikely (rule-out) band showed a sensitivity of 95% for InSep compared to 86% for PCT. For the detection of viral infections, InSep demonstrated a specificity of 93% for the Very Likely band (rule in) and a sensitivity of 96% for the Very Unlikely band (rule out). CONCLUSIONS: InSep demonstrated high accuracy for predicting the presence of both bacterial and viral infections in ED patients with suspected acute infections or suspected sepsis. When translated into a rapid, point-of-care test, InSep will provide ED physicians with actionable results supporting early informed treatment decisions to improve patient outcomes while upholding antimicrobial stewardship. Registration number at Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03295825.
Authors: Bradley J Langford; Nick Daneman; Christina Diong; Alex Marchand-Austin; Kwaku Adomako; Arezou Saedi; Kevin L Schwartz; Jennie Johnstone; Derek R MacFadden; Larissa M Matukas; Samir N Patel; Gary Garber; Kevin A Brown Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2020-10-12 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: Elske Sieswerda; Mark G J de Boer; Marc M J Bonten; Wim G Boersma; René E Jonkers; Roel M Aleva; Bart-Jan Kullberg; Jeroen A Schouten; Ewoudt M W van de Garde; Theo J Verheij; Menno M van der Eerden; Jan M Prins; W Joost Wiersinga Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: Scott C Brakenridge; Uan-I Chen; Tyler Loftus; Ricardo Ungaro; Marvin Dirain; Austin Kerr; Luer Zhong; Rhonda Bacher; Petr Starostik; Gabriella Ghita; Uros Midic; Dijoia Darden; Brittany Fenner; James Wacker; Philip A Efron; Oliver Liesenfeld; Timothy E Sweeney; Lyle L Moldawer Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: Wolfgang Bauer; Sven Gläser; Dorina Thiemig; Katrin Wanner; Alexander Peric; Steffen Behrens; Johanna Bialas; Angelika Behrens; Noa Galtung; Oliver Liesenfeld; Lisa Sun; Larissa May; Sharron Mace; Sebastian Ott; Silvan Vesenbeckh Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 4.423
Authors: Antigone Kostaki; James W Wacker; Asimina Safarika; Nicky Solomonidi; Konstantinos Katsaros; George Giannikopoulos; Ioannis M Koutelidakis; Catherine A Hogan; Florian Uhle; Oliver Liesenfeld; Timothy E Sweeney; Evangelos J Giamarellos-Bourboulis Journal: Shock Date: 2022-08-26 Impact factor: 3.533