Evidence Hub

INHALE WP3, a multicentre, open-label, pragmatic randomised controlled trial assessing the impact of rapid, ICU-based, syndromic PCR, versus standard-of-care on antibiotic stewardship and clinical outcomes in hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia

V. Enne, S. Stirling, Julie A. Barber, J. High, Charlotte Russell, David Brealey, Z. Dhesi, A. Colles et al.

Intensive Care Medicine, 2025

554 participants · 43 citations

Abstract

INHALE investigated the impact of seeking pathogens by PCR on antibiotic stewardship and clinical outcomes in hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP and VAP). This pragmatic multicentre, open-label RCT enrolled adults and children with suspected HAP and VAP at 14 ICUs. Patients were randomly allocated to standard of care, or rapid in-ICU syndromic PCR coupled with optional prescribing guidance. Co-primary outcomes were superiority in antibiotic stewardship at 24 h and non-inferiority in clinical cure of pneumonia 14 days post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes included mortality, ICU length of stay and evolution of clinical scores. 554 eligible patients were recruited from 5th July 2019 to 18th August 2021, with a COVID-enforced pause from 16th March 2020 and 9th July 2020. Data were analysed for 453 adults and 92 children (68.4% male; 31.6% female). ITT analysis showed 205/268 (76.5%) reviewable intervention patients receiving antibacterially appropriate and proportionate antibiotics at 24 h, versus 147/263 (55.9%) standard-of-care patients (estimated difference 21%; 95% CI 13–28%). However, only 152/268 (56.7%) intervention patients were deemed cured of pneumonia at 14 days, versus 171/265 (64.5%) standard-of-care patients (estimated difference − 6%, 95% CI − 15 to 2%; predefined non-inferiority margin -13%). Secondary mortality and ΔSOFA outcomes narrowly favoured the control arm, without clear statistical significance. In-ICU PCR for pathogens resulted…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 554 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