Evidence Hub

Rapid molecular detection of respiratory pathogens in patients admitted with suspected community-acquired pneumonia: secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

M. Cartuliares, H. Skjøt-Arkil, C. Mogensen, S. L. Andersen, F. Rosenvinge

Microbiology spectrum, 2025

145 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT In a randomized trial, we demonstrated that implementing point-of-care (POC) PCR detection of respiratory pathogens in an emergency department (ED) setting did not change overall antibiotic use but led to more targeted treatment and a clinically relevant, albeit non-significant, reduction in length of stay. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic impact of POC-PCR testing in patients with suspected community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in the ED. This study is a secondary analysis of a Danish multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) that included patients aged ≥18 years admitted to the ED between March 2021 and February 2022. In the primary trial, patients were randomly assigned to one of two parallel groups: (i) intervention group: POC-PCR in addition to standard care, or (ii) control group: standard care only (SCO). The present secondary analysis focuses exclusively on patients in the intervention group, where both POC-PCR and standard culture-based diagnostics were performed. The diagnosis of CAP was determined by an expert panel. In the intervention group, 145 patients had a lower respiratory tract (LRT) specimens analyzed using both POC-PCR and culture. POC-PCR identified notably more microorganisms compared with culture (187 vs 34). The agreement between positive results obtained by POC-PCR and culture was 6 of 19 (31.6%) for Streptococcus pneumoniae and 16 of 61 (26%) for Haemophilus influenzae. Concentrations of ≥107 copies/mL detected by POC-PCR for S.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, 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: 145 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