Search

Sepsis causes significant mortality. However, most patients who die of sepsis do not present with severe infection, hampering efforts to deliver early, aggressive therapy. It is also known that the host gene expression response to infection precedes clinical illness. This study seeks to develop transcriptomic models to predict progression to sepsis or shock within 72 hours of hospitalization and to validate previously identified transcriptomic signatures in the prediction of 28-day mortality.Retrospective differential gene expression analysis and predictive modeling using RNA sequencing data.Two hundred seventy-seven patients enrolled at four large academic medical centers; all with clinically adjudicated infection were considered for inclusion in this study.Sepsis progression was defined as an increase in Sepsis 3 category within 72 hours. Transcriptomic data were generated using RNAseq of whole blood. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator modeling was used to identify predictive signatures for various measures of disease progression. Four previously identified gene signatures were tested for their ability to predict 28-day mortality. There were no significant differentially expressed genes in 136 subjects with worsened Sepsis 3 category compared with 141 nonprogressor controls. There were 1,178 differentially expressed genes identified when sepsis progression was defined as ICU admission or 28-day mortality. A model based on these genes predicted progression with an area under the curve of 0.71. Validation of previously identified gene signatures to predict sepsis mortality revealed area under the receiver operating characteristic values of 0.70-0.75 and no significant difference between signatures.Host gene expression was unable to predict sepsis progression when defined by an increase in Sepsis-3 category, suggesting this definition is not a useful framework for transcriptomic prediction methods. However, there was a differential response when progression was defined as ICU admission or death. Validation of previously described signatures predicted 28-day mortality with insufficient accuracy to offer meaningful clinical utility.

Lower respiratory tract infections are frequently treated with antibiotics, despite a viral cause in many cases. It remains unknown whether low procalcitonin concentrations can identify patients with lower respiratory tract infection who are unlikely to benefit from antibiotics. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of azithromycin versus placebo to treat lower respiratory tract infections in patients with low procalcitonin.We conducted a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority trial at five health centres in the USA. Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically suspected non-pneumonia lower respiratory tract infection and symptom duration from 24 h to 28 days were eligible for enrolment. Participants with a procalcitonin concentration of 0·25 ng/mL or less were randomly assigned (1:1), in blocks of four with stratification by site, to receive over-encapsulated oral azithromycin 250 mg or matching placebo (two capsules on day 1 followed by one capsule daily for 4 days). Participants, non-study clinical providers, investigators, and study coordinators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was efficacy of azithromycin versus placebo in terms of clinical improvement at day 5 in the intention-to-treat population. The non-inferiority margin was -12·5%. Solicited adverse events (abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhoea, allergic reaction, or yeast infections) were recorded as a secondary outcome. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03341273.Between Dec 8, 2017, and March 9, 2020, 691 patients were assessed for eligibility and 499 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive azithromycin (n=249) or placebo (n=250). Clinical improvement at day 5 was observed in 148 (63%, 95% CI 54 to 71) of 238 participants with full data in the placebo group and 155 (69%, 61 to 77) of 227 participants with full data in the azithromycin group in the intention-to-treat analysis (between-group difference -6%, 95% CI -15 to 2). The 95% CI for the difference did not meet the non-inferiority margin. Solicited adverse events and the severity of solicited adverse events were not significantly different between groups at day 5, except for increased abdominal pain associated with azithromycin (47 [23%, 95% CI 18 to 29] of 204 participants) compared with placebo (35 [16%, 12 to 21] of 221; between-group difference -7% [95% CI -15 to 0]; p=0·066).Placebo was not non-inferior to azithromycin in terms of clinical improvement at day 5 in adults with lower respiratory tract infection and a low procalcitonin concentration. After accounting for both the rates of clinical improvement and solicited adverse events at day 5, it is unclear whether antibiotics are indicated for patients with lower respiratory tract infection and a low procalcitonin concentration.National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, bioMérieux.

BackgroundBaricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.MethodsIn this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168.FindingsBetween Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012).InterpretationIn hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered.FundingNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

During pandemics, individuals exhibit differences in risk and clinical outcomes. Here, we developed single-cell high-throughput human

Background Severe COVID-19 infection is characterized by a dysregulated hyperinflammatory state that contributes to morbidity and mortality. Immunomodulatory therapy has been shown to improve outcomes. We investigated if abatacept, CTLA-4-Ig, a selective costimulation modulator, provides additional benefit when added to standard of care. Methods We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating abatacept (given as a single infusion of 10mg/kg, to a maximum of 1000 mg) compared to standard of care (including remdesivir and dexamethasone) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The primary outcome was median time to recovery by day 29. Key secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality. Results A total of 1019 patients received an infusion (509 assigned to abatacept and 510 to placebo), constituting the analyzed modified intention-to-treat cohort. The mean age 54.9 years (SD 14.65), 60.5% were male, 44.2% Hispanic or Latino and 13.7% black. Patients were evenly matched in terms of severity of illness, and comorbidities. Participants randomized to abatacept did not show a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint with a recovery rate ratio of 1.135 (95% CI 0.996-1.294, p=0.057) compared to placebo. The median (IQR) time to recovery was 9 days (8, 10) for both groups. The 28-day mortality in the abatacept arm was 11.0% and in control arm 15.0% (OR 0.62 (95% CI 0.41, 0.94)), with a 37.8% lower odds of dying in patients receiving abatacept. The improvement in mortality was demonstrated for patients requiring low or high flow O2 at baseline but was not seen in patients who required mechanical ventilation or ECMO at time of randomization. Subgroup analysis identified the strongest effect in those with baseline CRP >75mg/L, age >65 and diabetics. Safety data demonstrated slightly lower risk of adverse events. Rates of secondary infections were similar (abatacept 16.1% and placebo 14.3%). Conclusion Although single-dose IV abatacept did not demonstrate statistically significant improvement in time to recovery, it did show a substantial reduction in 28-day mortality compared to standard of care. Disclosures Reynold Panettieri, Jr., MD, AstraZeneca: Advisor/Consultant|AstraZeneca: Grant/Research Support|AstraZeneca: Honoraria|Equillium: Grant/Research Support|Genentech: Advisor/Consultant|Genentech: Grant/Research Support|Janssen: Grant/Research Support|MedImmune: Grant/Research Support|Merck: Honoraria|Novartis: Grant/Research Support|Origo: Grant/Research Support|RIFM: Advisor/Consultant|RIFM: Grant/Research Support|Sanofi: Honoraria|Vault Health: Grant/Research Support Jane A. O'Halloran, MD PhD, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Grant/Research Support Michael A. Maldonado, MD, Bristol Myers Squibb: Employee|Bristol Myers Squibb: Stocks/Bonds William G. Powderly, MD, Merck: Advisor/Consultant.

Background Severe COVID-19 infection is characterized by a dysregulated hyperinflammatory state that contributes to morbidity and mortality. Immunomodulatory therapy has been shown to improve outcomes. We investigated if abatacept, CTLA-4-Ig, a selective costimulation modulator, provides additional benefit when added to standard of care. Methods We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating abatacept (given as a single infusion of 10mg/kg, to a maximum of 1000 mg) compared to standard of care (including remdesivir and dexamethasone) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The primary outcome was median time to recovery by day 29. Key secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality. Results A total of 1019 patients received an infusion (509 assigned to abatacept and 510 to placebo), constituting the analyzed modified intention-to-treat cohort. The mean age 54.9 years (SD 14.65), 60.5% were male, 44.2% Hispanic or Latino and 13.7% black. Patients were evenly matched in terms of severity of illness, and comorbidities. Participants randomized to abatacept did not show a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint with a recovery rate ratio of 1.135 (95% CI 0.996-1.294, p=0.057) compared to placebo. The median (IQR) time to recovery was 9 days (8, 10) for both groups. The 28-day mortality in the abatacept arm was 11.0% and in control arm 15.0% (OR 0.62 (95% CI 0.41, 0.94)), with a 37.8% lower odds of dying in patients receiving abatacept. The improvement in mortality was demonstrated for patients requiring low or high flow O2 at baseline but was not seen in patients who required mechanical ventilation or ECMO at time of randomization. Subgroup analysis identified the strongest effect in those with baseline CRP >75mg/L, age >65 and diabetics. Safety data demonstrated slightly lower risk of adverse events. Rates of secondary infections were similar (abatacept 16.1% and placebo 14.3%). Conclusion Although single-dose IV abatacept did not demonstrate statistically significant improvement in time to recovery, it did show a substantial reduction in 28-day mortality compared to standard of care. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

Background Survival prediction models have largely been derived and validated only in high-resource Western countries or in single center studies. We sought to create a prediction model for 28-day mortality using laboratory and physiologic parameters from 3 international sepsis cohorts and externally validated the model. Methods During 2014 to 2021, adult hospitalized patients with suspected infection were enrolled in Durham, United States (N=180) and those with suspected infection and ≥2 SIRS (Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome) criteria in Takeo, Cambodia (N=200), and Kumasi, Ghana (N=187). Twenty-five clinical laboratory and physiologic parameters were candidate covariates and sepsis screening scores included as comparators. First, bivariate Cox regression models were performed to determine risk of individual parameters. Then, a 10-fold cross-validated forward stepwise model selection technique was used to eliminate nonsignificant variables using a p-value < 0.10 and the cross-validated C-statistic was estimated. Lastly, this model was applied to an external cohort of hospitalized adults with suspected infection and ≥2 SIRS in Fort Portal, Uganda (N=331 with 9.3% 28-day mortality). Results Among 567 participants, overall mortality was 16.4% at 28-days. Mortality rate highest in Ghana (31.0%), followed by Cambodia (11.0%) and the United States (7.2%). Bivariate analyses identified hypernatremia ( >145 mEq/L) being associated with the highest risk of death (hazard ratio: 7.42; 95% CI: 3.65 to 15.10; Figure 1). On multivariable analysis, a 28-day mortality model including mean arterial pressure, Glasgow Coma score, blood sodium, lactate, and blood urea nitrogen (Table 1) resulted in a 10-fold cross-validated C-statistic of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.61 to 0.88). This model predicted mortality accurately in the validation cohort with a C-statistic of 0.74 (95%CI: 0.69 to 0.79). Figure 1.Forest plot for bivariate analyses for one month survival across United States, Cambodia, and Ghana cohorts. Conclusion Hypotension, altered mental status, serum sodium, serum BUN, and plasma lactate accurately identified risk of death by 28-days among those with suspected sepsis in 3 international derivation cohorts and in a validation cohort in Uganda. Our findings emphasize the importance of clinical laboratory results for sepsis risk stratification. Disclosures Ephraim L. Tsalik, MD PhD, Danaher Diagnostics, Predigen, and Biomeme: In the past 3 years, I have had held equity and consulted for Predigen and Biomeme. Currently, I am an employee of Danaher Diagnostics. Christopher W. Woods, MD MPH, Predigen, Inc: Co-founder.

During pandemics, individuals exhibit differences in risk and clinical outcomes. Here, we developed single-cell high-throughput human in vitro susceptibility testing (scHi-HOST), a method for rapidly identifying genetic variants that confer resistance and susceptibility. We applied this method to influenza A virus (IAV), the cause of four pandemics since the start of the 20th century. scHi-HOST leverages single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) to simultaneously assign genetic identity to cells in mixed infections of cell lines of European, African, and Asian origin, reveal associated genetic variants for viral burden, and identify expression quantitative trait loci. Integration of scHi-HOST with human challenge and experimental validation demonstrated that a missense variant in endoplasmic reticulum aminopeptidase 1 (ERAP1; rs27895) increased IAV burden in cells and human volunteers. rs27895 exhibits population differentiation, likely contributing to greater permissivity of cells from African populations to IAV. scHi-HOST is a broadly applicable method and resource for decoding infectious-disease genetics.

BackgroundImmune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in severe Covid-19. Immunomodulators targeting various pathways have improved outcomes. We investigated whether infliximab provides benefit over standard of care.MethodsWe conducted a master protocol investigating immunomodulators for potential benefit in treatment of participants hospitalized with Covid-19 pneumonia. We report results for infliximab (single dose infusion) versus shared placebo both with standard of care. Primary outcome was time to recovery by day 29 (28 days after randomization). Key secondary endpoints included 14-day clinical status and 28-day mortality.ResultsA total of 1033 participants received study drug (517 infliximab, 516 placebo). Mean age was 54.8 years, 60.3% were male, 48.6% Hispanic or Latino, and 14% Black. No statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint was seen with infliximab compared with placebo (recovery rate ratio 1.13, 95% CI 0.99–1.29; p=0.063). Median (IQR) time to recovery was 8 days (7, 9) for infliximab and 9 days (8, 10) for placebo. Participants assigned to infliximab were more likely to have an improved clinical status at day 14 (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.05–1.66). Twenty-eight-day mortality was 10.1% with infliximab versus 14.5% with placebo, with 41% lower odds of dying in those receiving infliximab (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39–0.90). No differences in risk of serious adverse events including secondary infections.ConclusionsInfliximab did not demonstrate statistically significant improvement in time to recovery. It was associated with improved 14-day clinical status and substantial reduction in 28- day mortality compared with standard of care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04593940).

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19.METHODS: In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978.FINDINGS: Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50-72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74-1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67-1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74-1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68-1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91-1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88-1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90.INTERPRETATION: Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Speed.

Bacterial and viral causes of acute respiratory illness (ARI) are difficult to clinically distinguish, resulting in the inappropriate use of antibacterial therapy. The use of a host gene expression-based test that is able to discriminate bacterial from viral infection in less than 1 hour may improve care and antimicrobial stewardship.To validate the host response bacterial/viral (HR-B/V) test and assess its ability to accurately differentiate bacterial from viral infection among patients with ARI.This prospective multicenter diagnostic study enrolled 755 children and adults with febrile ARI of 7 or fewer days' duration from 10 US emergency departments. Participants were enrolled from October 3, 2014, to September 1, 2019, followed by additional enrollment of patients with COVID-19 from March 20 to December 3, 2020. Clinical adjudication of enrolled participants identified 616 individuals as having bacterial or viral infection. The primary analysis cohort included 334 participants with high-confidence reference adjudications (based on adjudicator concordance and the presence of an identified pathogen confirmed by microbiological testing). A secondary analysis of the entire cohort of 616 participants included cases with low-confidence reference adjudications (based on adjudicator discordance or the absence of an identified pathogen in microbiological testing). Thirty-three participants with COVID-19 were included post hoc.The HR-B/V test quantified the expression of 45 host messenger RNAs in approximately 45 minutes to derive a probability of bacterial infection.Performance characteristics for the HR-B/V test compared with clinical adjudication were reported as either bacterial or viral infection or categorized into 4 likelihood groups (viral very likely [probability score0.19], viral likely [probability score of 0.19-0.40], bacterial likely [probability score of 0.41-0.73], and bacterial very likely [probability score0.73]) and compared with procalcitonin measurement.Among 755 enrolled participants, the median age was 26 years (IQR, 16-52 years); 360 participants (47.7%) were female, and 395 (52.3%) were male. A total of 13 participants (1.7%) were American Indian, 13 (1.7%) were Asian, 368 (48.7%) were Black, 131 (17.4%) were Hispanic, 3 (0.4%) were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 297 (39.3%) were White, and 60 (7.9%) were of unspecified race and/or ethnicity. In the primary analysis involving 334 participants, the HR-B/V test had sensitivity of 89.8% (95% CI, 77.8%-96.2%), specificity of 82.1% (95% CI, 77.4%-86.6%), and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.9% (95% CI, 95.3%-99.1%) for bacterial infection. In comparison, the sensitivity of procalcitonin measurement was 28.6% (95% CI, 16.2%-40.9%; P .001), the specificity was 87.0% (95% CI, 82.7%-90.7%; P = .006), and the NPV was 87.6% (95% CI, 85.5%-89.5%; P .001). When stratified into likelihood groups, the HR-B/V test had an NPV of 98.9% (95% CI, 96.1%-100%) for bacterial infection in the viral very likely group and a positive predictive value of 63.4% (95% CI, 47.2%-77.9%) for bacterial infection in the bacterial very likely group. The HR-B/V test correctly identified 30 of 33 participants (90.9%) with acute COVID-19 as having a viral infection.In this study, the HR-B/V test accurately discriminated bacterial from viral infection among patients with febrile ARI and was superior to procalcitonin measurement. The findings suggest that an accurate point-of-need host response test with high NPV may offer an opportunity to improve antibiotic stewardship and patient outcomes.

SummaryDiversity in the human genome is one factor that confers resistance and susceptibility to infectious diseases. This is observed most dramatically during pandemics, where individuals exhibit large differences in risk and clinical outcomes against a pathogen infecting large portions of the world’s populations. Here, we developed scHi-HOST (single cell High-throughput Human in vitrO Susceptibility Testing), a method for rapidly identifying genetic variants that confer resistance and susceptibility to pathogens. scHi-HOST leverages scRNA-seq (single-cell RNA-sequencing) to simultaneously assign genetic identity to individual cells in mixed infections of cell lines of European, African, and Asian origin, reveal associated genetic variants for viral entry and replication, and identify expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs). Applying scHi-HOST to influenza A virus (IAV), we identified eQTLs at baseline and in genes that are induced by IAV infection. Integration of scHi-HOST with a human IAV challenge study (Prometheus) revealed that a missense variant inERAP1(Endoplasmic reticulum aminopeptidase 1;rs27895) was associated with IAV burden in cells and human volunteers. Functional studies using RNA interference, ERAP1 inhibitor, and overexpression of alternative alleles demonstrated that ERAP1 is exploited by IAV to promote infection. Specifically, the nonsynonymous substitution, which results in a glycine to aspartate substitution at ERAP1 residue 348, would disrupt the substrate binding pocket of ERAP1, likely resulting in a significantly altered preference for substrates, poorer catalytic efficiency, or both. Finally, rs27895 exhibits substantial population differentiation, with the higher frequency of the minor T allele in two African populations likely contributing to the greater permissivity of cells from these populations to IAV infection. scHi-HOST is an important resource for understanding susceptibility to influenza and is a broadly applicable method for decoding human genetics of infectious disease.

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 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.

Summary Background Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Methods We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 μg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04492475 . Findings Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs placebo plus remdesivir 0·99 [95% CI 0·87–1·13]; p=0·88). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality at 28 days was 5% (95% CI 3–7%) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 3% (2–6%) in the placebo plus remdesivir group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·69–2·55]; p=0·39). Patients who did not require high-flow oxygen at baseline were more likely to have at least one related adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (33 [7%] of 442 patients) than in the placebo plus remdesivir group (15 [3%] of 435). In patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline, 24 (69%) of 35 had an adverse event and 21 (60%) had a serious adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group compared with 13 (39%) of 33 who had an adverse event and eight (24%) who had a serious adverse event in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Interpretation Interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir was not superior to remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline had worse outcomes after treatment with interferon beta-1a compared with those given placebo. Funding The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA).

OBJECTIVES Host 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. DESIGN Subjects 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. SETTING Four U.S. emergency departments. PATIENTS Six-hundred twenty-three subjects with acute respiratory illness or suspected sepsis. INTERVENTIONS Forty-five-transcript signature measured on the BioFire FilmArray System (BioFire Diagnostics, Salt Lake City, UT) in ~45 minutes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Host 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. CONCLUSIONS The 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.

Background: Distinguishing bacterial and viral respiratory infections is challenging. Novel diagnostics based on differential host gene expression patterns are promising but have not been translated to a clinical platform nor extensively tested. Here, we validate a microarray-derived host response signature and explore performance in microbiology-negative and coinfection cases. Methods: Subjects with acute respiratory illness were enrolled in participating emergency departments. Reference standard was an adjudicated diagnosis of bacterial infection, viral infection, both, or neither. An 87-transcript signature for distinguishing bacterial, viral, and noninfectious illness was measured from peripheral blood using RT-PCR. Performance characteristics were evaluated in subjects with confirmed bacterial, viral, or noninfectious illness. Subjects with bacterial-viral coinfection and microbiologically-negative suspected bacterial infection were also evaluated. Performance was compared to procalcitonin. Findings: 151 subjects with microbiologically confirmed, single-etiology illness were tested, yielding AUROCs 0•85–0•89 for bacterial, viral, and noninfectious illness. Accuracy was similar to procalcitonin (88% vs 83%, p = 0•23) for bacterial vs. non-bacterial infection. Whereas procalcitonin cannot distinguish viral from non-infectious illness, the RT-PCR test had 81% accuracy in making this determination. Bacterial-viral coinfection was subdivided. Among 19 subjects with bacterial superinfection, the RT-PCR test identified 95% as bacterial, compared to 68% with procalcitonin (p = 0•13). Among 12 subjects with bacterial infection superimposed on chronic viral infection, the RT-PCR test identified 83% as bacterial, identical to procalcitonin. 39 subjects had suspected bacterial infection; the RT-PCR test identified bacterial infection more frequently than procalcitonin (82% vs 64%, p = 0•02). Interpretation: The RT-PCR test offered similar diagnostic performance to procalcitonin in some subgroups but offered better discrimination in others such as viral vs. non-infectious illness and bacterial/viral coinfection. Gene expression-based tests could impact decision-making for acute respiratory illness as well as a growing number of other infectious and non-infectious diseases. Keywords: Biomarkers, Gene expression, Respiratory tract infections, Coinfection, Diagnosis, Precision medicine

Background Antibiotic resistance is rising at disturbing rates and contributes to the deaths of millions of people yearly. Antibiotic resistant infections disproportionately affect those with immunocompromising conditions, chronic colonization, and frequent antibiotic use such as transplant patients or those with cystic fibrosis. However, clinicians lack the diagnostic tools to confidently diagnose and treat infections, leading to widespread use of empiric broad spectrum antimicrobials, often for prolonged duration. Case presentation A 22 year-old Caucasian female with cystic fibrosis received a bilateral orthotopic lung transplantation 5 months prior to the index hospitalization. She underwent routine surveillance bronchoscopy and was admitted for post-procedure fever. A clear cause of infection was not identified by routine methods. Imaging and bronchoscopic lung biopsy did not identify an infectious agent or rejection. She was treated with a prolonged course of antimicrobials targeting known colonizing organisms from prior bronchoalveolar lavage cultures (Pseudomonas, Staphylococcus aureus, and Aspergillus). However, we identified Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in two independent whole blood samples using direct-pathogen sequencing, which was not identified by other methods. Conclusions This case represents a common clinical conundrum: identification of infection in a high-risk, complex patient. Here, direct-pathogen sequencing identified a pathogen that would not otherwise have been identified by common techniques. Had results been clinically available, treatment could have been customized, avoiding a prolonged course of broad spectrum antimicrobials that would only exacerbate resistance. Direct-pathogen sequencing is poised to fill a diagnostic gap for pathogen identification, allowing early identification and customization of treatment in a culture-independent, pathogen-agnostic manner.

Background While genome-wide associations studies (GWAS) have successfully elucidated the genetic architecture of complex human traits and diseases, understanding mechanisms that lead from genetic variation to pathophysiology remains an important challenge. Methods are needed to systematically bridge this crucial gap to facilitate experimental testing of hypotheses and translation to clinical utility. Results Here, we leveraged cross-phenotype associations to identify traits with shared genetic architecture, using linkage disequilibrium (LD) information to accurately capture shared SNPs by proxy, and calculate significance of enrichment. This shared genetic architecture was examined across differing biological scales through incorporating data from catalogs of clinical, cellular, and molecular GWAS. We have created an interactive web database (interactive Cross-Phenotype Analysis of GWAS database (iCPAGdb)) to facilitate exploration and allow rapid analysis of user-uploaded GWAS summary statistics. This database revealed well-known relationships among phenotypes, as well as the generation of novel hypotheses to explain the pathophysiology of common diseases. Application of iCPAGdb to a recent GWAS of severe COVID-19 demonstrated unexpected overlap of GWAS signals between COVID-19 and human diseases, including with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis driven by the DPP9 locus. Transcriptomics from peripheral blood of COVID-19 patients demonstrated that DPP9 was induced in SARS-CoV-2 compared to healthy controls or those with bacterial infection. Further investigation of cross-phenotype SNPs associated with both severe COVID-19 and other human traits demonstrated colocalization of the GWAS signal at the ABO locus with plasma protein levels of a reported receptor of SARS-CoV-2, CD209 (DC-SIGN). This finding points to a possible mechanism whereby glycosylation of CD209 by ABO may regulate COVID-19 disease severity. Conclusions Thus, connecting genetically related traits across phenotypic scales links human diseases to molecular and cellular measurements that can reveal mechanisms and lead to novel biomarkers and therapeutic approaches. The iCPAGdb web portal is accessible at http://cpag.oit.duke.edu and the software code at https://github.com/tbalmat/iCPAGdb.

SARS-CoV-2 infection triggers highly variable host responses and causes varying degrees of illness in humans. We sought to harness the peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) response over the course of illness to provide insight into COVID-19 physiology. We analyzed PBMCs from subjects with variable symptom severity at different stages of clinical illness before and after IgG seroconversion to SARS-CoV-2. Prior to seroconversion, PBMC transcriptomes did not distinguish symptom severity. In contrast, changes in chromatin accessibility were associated with symptom severity. Furthermore, single-cell analyses revealed evolution of the chromatin accessibility landscape and transcription factor motif occupancy for individual PBMC cell types. The most extensive remodeling occurred in CD14+ monocytes where sub-populations with distinct chromatin accessibility profiles were associated with disease severity. Our findings indicate that pre-seroconversion chromatin remodeling in certain innate immune populations is associated with divergence in symptom severity, and the identified transcription factors, regulatory elements, and downstream pathways provide potential prognostic markers for COVID-19 subjects.One sentence summaryChromatin accessibility in immune cells from COVID-19 subjects is remodeled prior to seroconversion to reflect disease severity.

Sexual dimorphisms in immune responses contribute to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes, yet the mechanisms governing this disparity remain incompletely understood. We carried out sex-balanced sampling of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from confirmed COVID-19 inpatients and outpatients, uninfected close contacts, and healthy controls for 36-color flow cytometry and single cell RNA-sequencing. Our results revealed a pronounced reduction of circulating mucosal associated invariant T (MAIT) cells in infected females. Integration of published COVID-19 airway tissue datasets implicate that this reduction represented a major wave of MAIT cell extravasation during early infection in females. Moreover, female MAIT cells possessed an immunologically active gene signature, whereas male counterparts were pro-apoptotic. Collectively, our findings uncover a female-specific protective MAIT profile, potentially shedding light on reduced COVID-19 susceptibility in females.

Background Pathogen-based diagnostics for acute respiratory infection (ARI) have limited ability to detect etiology of illness. We previously showed that peripheral blood-based host gene expression classifiers accurately identify bacterial and viral ARI in cohorts of European and African descent. We determined classifier performance in a South Asian cohort. Methods Patients ≥15 years with fever and respiratory symptoms were enrolled in Sri Lanka. Comprehensive pathogen-based testing was performed. Peripheral blood ribonucleic acid was sequenced and previously developed signatures were applied: a pan-viral classifier (viral vs nonviral) and an ARI classifier (bacterial vs viral vs noninfectious). Results Ribonucleic acid sequencing was performed in 79 subjects: 58 viral infections (36 influenza, 22 dengue) and 21 bacterial infections (10 leptospirosis, 11 scrub typhus). The pan-viral classifier had an overall classification accuracy of 95%. The ARI classifier had an overall classification accuracy of 94%, with sensitivity and specificity of 91% and 95%, respectively, for bacterial infection. The sensitivity and specificity of C-reactive protein (>10 mg/L) and procalcitonin (>0.25 ng/mL) for bacterial infection were 100% and 34%, and 100% and 41%, respectively. Conclusions Previously derived gene expression classifiers had high predictive accuracy at distinguishing viral and bacterial infection in South Asian patients with ARI caused by typical and atypical pathogens., Host biomarkers can identify bacterial versus viral acute respiratory infection (ARI). Previously, we derived host gene expression classifiers that accurately identify bacterial versus viral ARI. Here, we show that our classifiers had high predictive accuracy in a South Asian cohort.

Background Sexual dimorphisms in immune responses contribute to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes, but the mechanisms governing this disparity remain incompletely understood. Methods We carried out sex-balanced sampling of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from hospitalized and non-hospitalized individuals with confirmed COVID-19, uninfected close contacts, and healthy control individuals for 36-color flow cytometry and single-cell RNA sequencing. Findings Our results revealed a pronounced reduction of circulating mucosal-associated invariant T (MAIT) cells in infected females. Integration of published COVID-19 airway tissue datasets suggests that this reduction represented a major wave of MAIT cell extravasation during early infection in females. Moreover, MAIT cells from females possessed an immunologically active gene signature, whereas cells from males were pro-apoptotic. Conclusions Our findings uncover a female-specific protective MAIT cell profile, potentially shedding light on reduced COVID-19 susceptibility in females. Funding This work was supported by NIH/NIAID (U01AI066569 and UM1AI104681), the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA; N66001-09-C-2082 and HR0011-17-2-0069), the Veterans Affairs Health System, and Virology Quality Assurance (VQA; 75N93019C00015). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official view of the National Institutes of Health. COVID-19 samples were processed under Biosafety level 2 (BSL-2) with aerosol management enhancement or BSL-3 in the Duke Regional Biocontainment Laboratory, which received partial support for construction from NIH/NIAID (UC6AI058607)., Graphical abstract, Context and significance Why are women twice as less likely than men to experience severe COVID-19? Answering this question may help us more completely understand the immune defenses that counter SARS-CoV-2. This study from researchers at Duke University suggests that a type of white blood cells, mucosal-associated invariant T (MAIT) cells, is superior in women with COVID-19. The potential importance of the finding is that these highly specialized white blood cells have been shown to contribute critically to immune defenses in other viral and bacterial infections. These findings may shed light on the underlying reasons for reduced COVID-19 susceptibility in women and highlights the potential role of MAIT cells in countering SARS-CoV-2., Responses in COVID-19 patients are distinct across sexes. Yu et al. show that, compared with male patients, female COVID-19 patients exhibit evidence of a major recruitment wave of circulating mucosal-associated invariant T (MAIT) cells into the airways and demonstrate that these cells display an immunologically active phenotype.

Patient management relies on diagnostic information to identify appropriate treatment. Standard evaluations of diagnostic tests consist of estimating sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive values, likelihood ratios, and accuracy. Although useful, these metrics do not convey the tests’ clinical value, which is critical to informing decision-making. Full appreciation of the clinical impact of a diagnostic test requires analyses that integrate sensitivity and specificity, account for the disease prevalence within the population of test application, and account for the relative importance of specificity vs sensitivity by considering the clinical implications of false-positive and false-negative results. We developed average weighted accuracy (AWA), representing a pragmatic metric of diagnostic yield or global utility of a diagnostic test. AWA can be used to compare test alternatives, even across different studies. We apply the AWA methodology to evaluate a new diagnostic test developed in the Rapid Diagnostics in Categorizing Acute Lung Infections (RADICAL) study.

RationaleAsthma exacerbations often occur due to infectious triggers, but determining whether infection is present and whether it is bacterial or viral remains clinically challenging. A diagnostic strategy that clarifies these uncertainties could enable personalized asthma treatment and mitigate antibiotic overuse.ObjectivesTo explore the performance of validated peripheral blood gene expression signatures in discriminating bacterial, viral, and noninfectious triggers in subjects with asthma exacerbations.MethodsSubjects with suspected asthma exacerbations of various etiologies were retrospectively selected for peripheral blood gene expression analysis from a pool of subjects previously enrolled in emergency departments with acute respiratory illness. RT-PCR quantified 87 gene targets, selected from microarray-based studies, followed by logistic regression modeling to define bacterial, viral, or noninfectious class. The model-predicted class was compared to clinical adjudication and procalcitonin.ResultsOf 46 subjects enrolled, 7 were clinically adjudicated as bacterial, 18 as viral, and 21 as noninfectious. Model prediction was congruent with clinical adjudication in 15/18 viral and 13/21 noninfectious cases, but only 1/7 bacterial cases. None of the adjudicated bacterial cases had confirmatory microbiology; the precise etiology in this group was uncertain. Procalcitonin classified only one subject in the cohort as bacterial. 47.8% of subjects received antibiotics.ConclusionsOur model classified asthma exacerbations by the underlying bacterial, viral, and noninfectious host response. Compared to clinical adjudication, the majority of discordances occurred in the bacterial group, due to either imperfect adjudication or model misclassification. Bacterial infection was identified infrequently by all classification schemes, but nearly half of subjects were prescribed antibiotics. A gene expression-based approach may offer useful diagnostic information in this population and guide appropriate antibiotic use.

A century of advances in infectious disease diagnosis and treatment changed the face of medicine. However, challenges continue to develop including multi-drug resistance, globalization that increases pandemic risks, and high mortality from severe infections. These challenges can be mitigated through improved diagnostics, and over the past decade, there has been a particular focus on the host response. Since this article was originally published in 2015, there have been significant developments in the field of host response diagnostics, warranting this updated review. Areas Covered: This review begins by discussing developments in single biomarkers and pauci-analyte biomarker panels. It then delves into 'omics, an area where there has been truly exciting progress. Specifically, progress has been made in sepsis diagnosis and prognosis; differentiating viral, bacterial, and fungal pathogen classes; pre-symptomatic diagnosis; and understanding disease-specific diagnostic challenges in tuberculosis, Lyme disease, and Ebola. Expert Commentary: As 'omics have become faster, more precise, and less expensive, the door has been opened for academic, industry, and government efforts to develop host-based infectious disease classifiers. While there are still obstacles to overcome, the chasm separating these scientific advances from the patient's bedside is shrinking.

A century of advances in infectious disease diagnosis and treatment changed the face of medicine. However, challenges continue to develop including multi-drug resistance, globalization that increases pandemic risks and high mortality from severe infections. These challenges can be mitigated through improved diagnostics, focusing on both pathogen discovery and the host response. Here, we review how 'omics' technologies improve sepsis diagnosis, early pathogen identification and personalize therapy. Such host response diagnostics are possible due to the confluence of advanced laboratory techniques (e.g., transcriptomics, metabolomics, proteomics) along with advanced mathematical modeling such as machine learning techniques. The road ahead is promising, but obstacles remain before the impact of such advanced diagnostic modalities is felt at the bedside.

The substrate of the methionine salvage pathway, methylthioadenosine, is a predictor of death in sepsis patients., Sepsis is a deleterious inflammatory response to infection with high mortality. Reliable sepsis biomarkers could improve diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. Integration of human genetics, patient metabolite and cytokine measurements, and testing in a mouse model demonstrate that the methionine salvage pathway is a regulator of sepsis that can accurately predict prognosis in patients. Pathway-based genome-wide association analysis of nontyphoidal Salmonella bacteremia showed a strong enrichment for single-nucleotide polymorphisms near the components of the methionine salvage pathway. Measurement of the pathway’s substrate, methylthioadenosine (MTA), in two cohorts of sepsis patients demonstrated increased plasma MTA in nonsurvivors. Plasma MTA was correlated with levels of inflammatory cytokines, indicating that elevated MTA marks a subset of patients with excessive inflammation. A machine-learning model combining MTA and other variables yielded approximately 80% accuracy (area under the curve) in predicting death. Furthermore, mice infected with Salmonella had prolonged survival when MTA was administered before infection, suggesting that manipulating MTA levels could regulate the severity of the inflammatory response. Our results demonstrate how combining genetic data, biomolecule measurements, and animal models can shape our understanding of disease and lead to new biomarkers for patient stratification and potential therapeutic targeting.

Background Acute febrile illness is a frequent cause of hospitalization in the tropics and often presents with respiratory symptoms, even when caused by nonrespiratory pathogens. Previously, host-based gene expression signatures accurately identified acute respiratory infections as being bacterial or viral in a U.S. cohort. We determined signature performance in a Sri Lankan cohort with acute febrile respiratory illness (AFRI). Methods We enrolled patients with AFRI in Sri Lanka from July 2012 to May 2013 and collected nasopharygeal swabs, acute/ convalescent sera, and blood in PAXgene RNA tubes. Bacterial (Orientia tsutsugamushi, Leptospira spp.) and viral (influenza A/B, dengue) infections were confirmed using polymerase chain reaction, virus isolation, enzyme immunoassay, and/or microscopic agglutination testing. We extracted total RNA and performed host RNA sequencing (Illumina). We aligned reads to hg38 reference genome using Bowtie2, quantified at isoform level using Express version 1.5.1, and normalized using trimmed-mean normalization. The original model estimated three classes and separate signatures predicted bacterial infections, viral infections, and non-infectious illnesses. Regularized regression was used to predict bacterial and viral infections based on prior signatures. Accuracy was estimated using leave-one-out cross-validation. Results Among 43 patients with viral infections (14 dengue, 29 influenza) and 16 patients with bacterial infections (six Leptospira spp., 10 O. tsutsumagushi), median age was 37 years (IQR 23–51) and 49% were male. Of five respiratory symptoms (cough, sore throat, rhinitis/ congestion, shortness of breath, and pain with breathing), median (IQR) number of symptoms was 2 (1–2) for influenza, 2 (1–2) for dengue, 2 (2–3) for Leptospira spp., and 1.5 (1–2) for O. tsutsumagushi. We observed high predictive accuracy in discriminating bacterial and viral infections: AUROC 0.91 for the bacterial and AUROC 0.81 for the viral model. At enrollment, 65% of viral and 50% of bacterial AFRI patients received antibiotics. Conclusion Host gene expression classifiers performed well in a Sri Lankan population with AFRI, even with nonrespiratory pathogens that may not be readily identified. Host-based diagnostics may play a critical role in improving diagnostic ability and antibiotic use globally. Disclosures E. L. Tsalik, Host Response, Inc.: Founder, Equity. G. S. Ginsburg, Host Response Inc.: Board Member, Founder, Scientific Advisor and Shareholder, Stock (currently worth

Acute respiratory infections caused by bacterial or viral pathogens are among the most common reasons for seeking medical care. Despite improvements in pathogen-based diagnostics, most patients receive inappropriate antibiotics. Host response biomarkers offer an alternative diagnostic approach to direct antimicrobial use. This observational, cohort study determined whether host gene expression patterns discriminate non-infectious from infectious illness, and bacterial from viral causes of acute respiratory infection in the acute care setting. Peripheral whole blood gene expression from 273 subjects with community-onset acute respiratory infection (ARI) or non-infectious illness as well as 44 healthy controls was measured using microarrays. Sparse logistic regression was used to develop classifiers for bacterial ARI (71 probes), viral ARI (33 probes), or a non-infectious cause of illness (26 probes). Overall accuracy was 87% (238/273 concordant with clinical adjudication), which was more accurate than procalcitonin (78%, p