Evidence Hub

Prior culture-guided prediction of antibiotic susceptibility in recurrent respiratory tract infections: a retrospective cohort analysis

Li S, Zhang W, Ma H, Gao X, Yuan W, He M

Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2025

160 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recurrent respiratory tract infections (RRTIs) are a serious problem in older adults, necessitating appropriate early empiric antibiotic therapy. However, rising antimicrobial resistance complicates empiric treatment selection. Although prior culture results can offer guidance for empiric decisions, little data exist to quantify their predictive value in RRTIs. Therefore, we constructed a respiratory antibiogram and assessed Bayesian metrics of prior gram-negative isolates for predicting subsequent resistance or susceptibility in this population.

METHOD: A retrospective cohort included hospitalized RRTI patients (defined as RTIs occurring ≥2 times in 6 months or ≥3 times in 12 months). Patient-specific antibiograms were constructed. A Bayesian prevalence-calibrated estimation was used to assess the predictive validity of prior respiratory cultures for subsequent antimicrobial susceptibility in paired isolates. Sensitivity (Sen), specificity (Spec), Bayesian positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and resistance prevalence were calculated for 24 antibiotics, with bootstrap 95% confidence intervals. Analyses were restricted to bacterial pathogens.

RESULT: We included 463 visits from 160 unique patients, with a median age of 70. Pathogen distribution revealed Gram-negative bacteria (89.50%) and Gram-positive bacteria (10.50%). Antibiogram results showed that Pseudomonas aeruginosa exhibited >30% resistance to 10 antibiotics, while…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, 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: 160 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