Utility, feasibility, and socio-demographic considerations in the diagnosis of bacterial respiratory tract infections by GC-IMS breath analysis

Trenton K. Stewart*, Emma Brodrik, Matthew J. Reed, Andrea M. Collins, Emma Daulton, Emily Adams, Nicholas Feasey, Libbe Ratcliffe, Diane Exley, Stacy Todd, Nadja van Ginneken, Amandip Sahota, Graham Devereux, E.M. Williams, James A. Covington

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Summary Diagnosis of respiratory tract infections, especially in primary care, is typically made on clinical features and in the absence of quick and reliable diagnostic tests. Even in secondary care, where diagnostic microbiology facilities are available, these tests take 24-48 hours to provide an indication of the aetiology. This multicentre study used a portable Gas Chromatography-Ion Mobility Spectrometer for the diagnosis of bacterial RTIs. Breath samples taken from 570 participants with 149 clinically validated bacterial and 421 non-bacterial respiratory tract infections were analysed to distinguish bacterial from non-bacterial RTIs. Through the integration of a sparse logistic regression model, we identified a moderate diagnostic accuracy of 0.73 (95% CI 0·69, 0·77) alongside a sensitivity of 0·85 (95% CI 0·79, 0·91) and a specificity of 0·55 (95% CI 0·50, 0·60). The GC-IMS diagnostic device provides a promising outlook in distinguishing bacterial from non-bacterial respiratory tract infections and was also favourably viewed by participants.
Original languageEnglish
Article number110610
JournaliScience
Early online date30 Jul 2024
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 30 Jul 2024

Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)

  • Breath-testing
  • VOC
  • GC-IMS
  • Bacterial
  • Diagnostic

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Utility, feasibility, and socio-demographic considerations in the diagnosis of bacterial respiratory tract infections by GC-IMS breath analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this