Self, Wesley H.

Abstract Many patients in the emergency department present with signs and symptoms that arouse concern for sepsis; however, other explanations are also possible. There are currently no rapid tests used in clinical practice that reliably distinguish the presence of a bacterial or viral infection vs. a non-infectious etiology and can predict a patient’s likelihood to decompensate. The diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty in “gray zone” patients complicates the decision to begin therapy as clinicians need to balance the risk of withholding therapy vs. the risk of the therapy itself (e.g., overtreatment with antibiotics and hospitalization, which is costly, potentially harmful, and contributes to antibiotic resistance). The TriVerity™ Test uses isothermal amplification and machine-learning algorithms to quantify and interpret mRNA expression levels to determine both likelihood of bacterial infection, viral infection, or no infection, and whether the patient will likely require one or more critical interventions within 7 days. The three scores each fall into one of five interpretation bands ranging from Very high to Very low. Testing takes approximately 30 minutes using the proprietary Myrna™ Instrument with an operator hands-on-time of under one minute. We enrolled 1,222 patients from 22 emergency departments (ED) to validate the performance of the TriVerity Test. Patients were treated as per local standard of care and were followed for 28 days. Bacterial and viral TriVerity results were validated against clinically adjudicated infection status; the illness severity TriVerity result was validated against the need for at least one critical interventions within 7 days. The bacterial TriVerity result had high AUROC for the diagnosis of bacterial infection (0.83; 80% CI 0.81–0.85) and divided bacterial infection likelihood scores into five interpretation bands with increasing likelihood ratios of infection ranging from Very low (LR- 0.08, 80% CI 0.06–0.11) to Very high (LR + 8.04, 80% CI 5.72–11.78). The AUROC for the bacterial TriVerity result was significantly higher compared to AUROCs for C-reactive protein, procalcitonin or white blood cell count. Similarly, the viral TriVerity score showed high AUROC for the diagnosis of viral infection (0.91; 80% CI 0.90–0.93) and likelihood ratios from Very low (LR- 0.09, 80% CI 0.05–0.14) to Very high (LR + 40.93; 80% CI 29.11–79.23). The TriVerity Illness Severity score showed a high AUROC for the prediction of illness severity (0.77; 80% CI 0.77–0.81) with scores divided into five interpretation bands with increasing likelihood ratios ranging from Very low (LR- 0.22; 80% CI 0.14–0.33) to Very high (LR + 11.33; 80% CI 7.31–17.00). TriVerity illness severity results allowed marked re-classification of the risk for “ICU-level care” as compared to clinical assessment (qSOFA scores) alone. In conclusion, TriVerity provides rapid, highly accurate and actionable results for the diagnosis and prognosis of patients with suspected acute infection and/or sepsis, supporting a major unmet medical need. TriVerity may improve personalized management of patients with suspected acute infections and suspected sepsis for improved overall healthcare outcomes.

Abstract Diagnostic testing is an integral component of patient evaluation in the emergency department ( ED ). Emergency clinicians frequently use diagnostic testing to more confidently exclude “worst‐case” diagnoses rather than to determine the most likely etiology for a presenting complaint. Increased utilization of diagnostic testing has not been associated with reductions in disease‐related mortality but has led to increased overall healthcare costs and other unintended consequences (e.g., incidental findings requiring further workup, unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation or potentially nephrotoxic contrast). Shared decision making ( SDM ) presents an opportunity for clinicians to discuss the benefits and harms associated with diagnostic testing with patients to more closely tailor testing to patient risk. This article introduces the challenges and opportunities associated with incorporating SDM into emergency care by summarizing the conclusions of the diagnostic testing group at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on SDM . Three primary domains emerged: 1) characteristics of a condition or test appropriate for SDM , 2) critical elements of and potential barriers to SDM discussions on diagnostic testing, and 3) financial aspects of SDM applied to diagnostic testing. The most critical research questions to improve engagement of patients in their acute care diagnostic decisions were determined by consensus.