The primary purpose of this study is to support the development of a host response test for acute respiratory illness to identify bacterial, viral or NB/NV etiologies as compared to a clinical adjudication reference standard. Secondary objectives include: 1. Evaluate the effect of age on the performance of the HR-ARI test 2. Evaluate the effect of race/ethnicity on the performance of the HR-ARI test 3. Evaluate the effect of geography on the performance of the HR-ARI test
The primary purpose of this study is to support the development of a host response test for acute respiratory illness to identify bacterial, viral or NB/NV etiologies as compared to a clinical adjudication reference standard. Secondary objectives include: 1. Evaluate the effect of age on the performance of the HR-ARI test 2. Evaluate the effect of race/ethnicity on the performance of the HR-ARI test 3. Evaluate the effect of geography on the performance of the HR-ARI test Subjects will be identified in the Emergency Department of participating hospitals. Samples including nasopharyngeal swab, throat swab, blood, and urine will be obtained. A case report form for each subject will be completed to include information regarding clinical characteristics, signs and symptoms of infection, presence of complications, and patient outcome. Baseline characteristics including preexisting conditions. Survival data will also be collected for each subject. Samples collected will be used to characterize the patient's illness as either infectious or not, and if infectious, either bacterial or viral. Samples will also be used to measure changes in gene expression, referred to as the Host Response-Acute Respiratory Illness (HR-ARI) test. The result of this test will be made in comparison to a retrospective review of the subject's clinical information. Results will not be used for any interventions and will not be released to subjects or their providers. Because the study procedure includes only sample and data collection, the risks will be minimal and no different than encountered during routine clinical care. The study was re-assessed in 2020 and applicable updates were made to the record.
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment
783
comparison to retrospective clinical adjudication
The University of California- Davis
Davis, California, United States
Brigham and Women's Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Newton-Wellesley Hospital
Newton, Massachusetts, United States
Positive predictive value with reference standard (PPV)
Number of assay positives that agree with the reference standard / \[Number of assay positives that agree with the reference standard + Number of assay positives that disagree with the reference standard\]
Time frame: Day 1
Negative predictive value with the reference standard (NPV)
Number of assay negatives that agree with the reference standard / \[number of assay negatives that agree with the reference standard + number of assay negatives that disagree with the reference standard\]
Time frame: Day 1
Overall agreement with the reference standard (OA)
Number of samples that agree with the reference standard / all samples tested
Time frame: Day 1
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Henry Ford Hospital
Detroit, Michigan, United States
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States
Duke University Medical Center
Durham, North Carolina, United States
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Rhode Island/Lifespan
Providence, Rhode Island, United States
The University of Texas- Houston
Houston, Texas, United States
University of Utah Medical Center
Salt Lake City, Utah, United States