Evidence Hub

Procalcitonin for selecting the antibiotic regimen in outpatients with low-risk community-acquired pneumonia using a rapid point-of-care testing: A single-arm clinical trial

M. Masiá, S. Padilla, V. Ortiz-de-la-Tabla, M. González, C. Bas, F. Gutiérrez

PLoS ONE, 2017

253 participants · 16 citations

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to assess the role of procalcitonin (PCT) to guide the initial selection of the antibiotic regimen for low-risk community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).

Methods: A single-arm clinical trial was conducted including outpatients with CAP and Pneumonia Severity Index risk classes I-II. Antimicrobial selection was based on the results of PCT measured with a rapid point-of-care testing. According to serum PCT levels, patients were assigned to two treatment strategies: oral azithromycin if PCT was <0.5 ng/ml, or levofloxacin if levels were ≥0.5 ng/ml. Primary outcome was clinical cure rate. Short-term and long-term outcomes were assessed. Results were compared with those of a historical standard-of-care control-group treated in our centre.

Results: Of 253 subjects included, 216 (85.4%) were assigned to azithromycin. Pneumococcal infection was diagnosed in 26 (12%) and 21 (56.8%) patients allocated to azithromycin and levofloxacin groups, respectively. No patients in the azithromycin group developed bacteraemia. Atypical organisms were more common in patients given azithromycin (18.5% vs 8.1%, respectively). The majority (93%) of patients with atypical pneumonia had low PCT levels. Clinical cure rates were 95.8% in the azithromycin group, 94.6% in the levofloxacin group, and 94.4% in the historical control group. No 30-day mortality or recurrences were observed, and the 3-year rates of recurrence and mortality were very low in both groups. Adverse events occurrence…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 253 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free