Dataset Information

Comprehensive Molecular Testing for Respiratory Pathogens in Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The frequent lack of a microbiological diagnosis in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) impairs pathogen-directed antimicrobial therapy. This study assessed the use of comprehensive multibacterial, multiviral molecular testing, including quantification, in adults hospitalized with CAP.

Methods

Clinical and laboratory data were collected for 323 adults with radiologically-confirmed CAP admitted to 2 UK tertiary care hospitals. Sputum (96%) or endotracheal aspirate (4%) specimens were cultured as per routine practice and also tested with fast multiplex real-time polymerase-chain reaction (PCR) assays for 26 respiratory bacteria and viruses. Bacterial loads were also calculated for 8 bacterial pathogens. Appropriate pathogen-directed therapy was retrospectively assessed using national guidelines adapted for local antimicrobial susceptibility patterns.

Results

Comprehensive molecular testing of single lower respiratory tract (LRT) specimens achieved pathogen detection in 87% of CAP patients compared with 39% with culture-based methods. Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae were the main agents detected, along with a wide variety of typical and atypical pathogens. Viruses were present in 30% of cases; 82% of these were codetections with bacteria. Most (85%) patients had received antimicrobials in the 72 hours before admission. Of these, 78% had a bacterial pathogen detected by PCR but only 32% were culture-positive (P < .0001). Molecular testing had the potential to enable de-escalation in number and/or spectrum of antimicrobials in 77% of patients.

Conclusions

Comprehensive molecular testing significantly improves pathogen detection in CAP, particularly in antimicrobial-exposed patients, and requires only a single LRT specimen. It also has the potential to enable early de-escalation from broad-spectrum empirical antimicrobials to pathogen-directed therapy.

SUBMITTER: Gadsby NJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4787606 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionCommunity-acquired pneumonia (CAP) continues to be a major health problem worldwide and is one of the main reasons for prescribing antibiotics. However, the causative agent is often not identified, resulting in antibiotic overtreatment, which is a key driver of antimicrobial resistance and adverse events. We aim to test the hypothesis that comprehensive molecular testing, compared with routine microbiological testing, would be effective in reducing antibiotic use in patients with CAP.Methods and analysisWe will perform a randomised, controlled, open-label clinical trial with two parallel groups (1:1) at two tertiary hospitals between 2020 and 2022. Non-severely immunosuppressed adults hospitalised for CAP will be considered eligible. Patients will be randomly assigned to receive either the experimental diagnosis (comprehensive molecular testing plus routine microbiological testing) or standard diagnosis (only microbiological routine testing). The primary endpoint will be antibiotic consumption measured as days of antibiotic therapy per 1000 patient-days. Secondary endpoints will be de-escalation to narrower antibiotic treatment, time to switch from intravenous to oral antibiotics, days to reaching an aetiological diagnosis, antibiotic-related side effects, length of stay, days to clinical stability, intensive care unit admission, days of mechanical ventilation, hospital readmission up to 30 days after randomisation and death from any cause by 48 hours and 30 days after randomisation. We will need to include 440 subjects to be able to reject the null hypothesis that both groups have equal days of antibiotic therapy per 1000 patient-days with a probability >0.8.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained from the Ethics Committee of Bellvitge Hospital (AC028/19) and from the Spanish Medicines and Medical Devices Agency, and it is valid for all participating centres under existing Spanish legislation. Results will be presented at international meetings and will be made available to patients, their caregivers and funders.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials: NCT04158492. EudraCT: 2018-004880-29.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Empirical antibiotic coverage for atypical pathogens in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) has long been debated, mainly because of a lack of epidemiological data. We aimed to assess both testing for atypical pathogens and their prevalence in hospitalized patients with CAP worldwide, especially in relation with disease severity. METHODS:A secondary analysis of the GLIMP database, an international, multicentre, point-prevalence study of adult patients admitted for CAP in 222 hospitals across 6 continents in 2015, was performed. The study evaluated frequency of testing for atypical pathogens, including L. pneumophila, M. pneumoniae, C. pneumoniae, and their prevalence. Risk factors for testing and prevalence for atypical pathogens were assessed through univariate analysis. RESULTS:Among 3702 CAP patients 1250 (33.8%) underwent at least one test for atypical pathogens. Testing varies greatly among countries and its frequency was higher in Europe than elsewhere (46.0% vs. 12.7%, respectively, p?<?0.0001). Detection of L. pneumophila urinary antigen was the most common test performed worldwide (32.0%). Patients with severe CAP were less likely to be tested for both atypical pathogens considered together (30.5% vs. 35.0%, p?=?0.009) and specifically for legionellosis (28.3% vs. 33.5%, p?=?0.003) than the rest of the population. Similarly, L. pneumophila testing was lower in ICU patients. At least one atypical pathogen was isolated in 62 patients (4.7%), including M. pneumoniae (26/251 patients, 10.3%), L. pneumophila (30/1186 patients, 2.5%), and C. pneumoniae (8/228 patients, 3.5%). Patients with CAP due to atypical pathogens were significantly younger, showed less cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic comorbidities in comparison to adult patients hospitalized due to non-atypical pathogen CAP. CONCLUSIONS:Testing for atypical pathogens in patients admitted for CAP in poorly standardized in real life and does not mirror atypical prevalence in different settings. Further evidence on the impact of atypical pathogens, expecially in the low-income countries, is needed to guidelines implementation.