Evaluation of a novel host protein-based assay for ruling out bacterial infections in patients with suspected respiratory tract infections at an urban academic hospital
Access to this document is restricted. Some items have been embargoed at the request of the author, but will be made publicly available after the "No Access Until" date.
During the embargo period, you may request access to the item by clicking the link to the restricted file(s) and completing the request form. If we have contact information for a Cornell author, we will contact the author and request permission to provide access. If we do not have contact information for a Cornell author, or the author denies or does not respond to our inquiry, we will not be able to provide access. For more information, review our policies for restricted content.
OBJECTIVE: Distinguishing bacterial from viral respiratory infections is challenging in Emergency Department (ED), driving diagnostic uncertainty and antibiotic overuse. The MeMed BV test measures three host protein markers and combines them into a single numeric score. This study evaluates its analytical and clinical performance and assesses its potential to improve antibiotic stewardship. METHODS: Remnant serum samples were obtained from 176 ED patients presenting with respiratory infection symptoms and/or unexplained fever who had either a positive respiratory pathogens panel, bacterial culture, or elevated procalcitonin (PCT ‚â• 0.25 ng/mL). MeMed BV test was performed. Demographic, clinical information, and laboratory data were obtained via chart review. Infections were adjudicated by an attending ED physician and resident. RESULTS: Analytical validation demonstrated robust linearity and precision, and stability extending beyond the vendor's stated claim. Overall, 107 (60.8 %) patients were adjudicated as having viral/non-bacterial infections, and 69 (39.2 %) as bacterial/co-infections. MeMed BV achieved a sensitivity of 93.8 % (95 %CI: 84.5-98.3 %), specificity of 72.9 % (95 %CI: 63.9-81.2 %), positive predictive value (PPV) 69.8 % (95 %CI: 60.1-79.5 %), and negative predictive value (NPV) 94.6 % (95 %CI: 86.7-98.5 %). It displayed the highest sensitivity and NPV for differentiating bacterial/co-infections, whereas white blood count (WBC) and PCT showed the highest specificity and PPV, respectively. Among 44 viral/non-bacterial cases that received antibiotics, MeMed BV flagged 24 (54.5 %) as viral/non-bacterial infections. CONCLUSION: The MeMed BV test is a rapid, reliable diagnostic tool for differentiating bacterial/co-infections from viral infections, offering a high NPV to rule out bacterial infections. Its implementation in ED could support antibiotic stewardship by reducing unwarranted antibiotic use.