Evidence Hub

Cystic Fibrosis Microbiome-directed Antibiotic Therapy Trial in Exacerbations Results Stratified (CFMATTERS): results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Plant BJ, Einarsson GG, Deasy KF, Dahly D, Singh PK, Barry PJ, Goss CH, Fajac I et al.

The European respiratory journal, 2025

223 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

Background: This study explores the effectiveness and safety of microbiome-directed antimicrobial therapy versus usual antimicrobial therapy in adult cystic fibrosis pulmonary exacerbations.

Methods: A multicentre two-arm parallel randomised control trial conducted across Europe/North-America enrolled 223 participants (January 2015 to August 2017). All participants were chronically colonised with Pseudomonas aeruginosa and were randomised 1:1 into two study arms. The "usual therapy" group received 2 weeks of intravenous ceftazidime 3 g thrice daily (for allergies: aztreonam 2 g thrice daily) and tobramycin 5-10 mg·kg-1 once daily. The "microbiome-directed" group received the same usual therapy plus an additional antibiotic with greatest presumed activity against the second, third and fourth most abundant genera present in the sputum microbiome, selected by a consensus expert treatment panel. The primary outcome was change in percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (ppFEV1) at 14 days post initiation of antibiotics. Secondary outcomes examined ppFEV1 at 7 days, 28 days and 3 months; time to next exacerbation; symptom burden at 7 days; health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at 28 days; and number of exacerbations and i.v. antibiotic days at 12 months.

Results: 149 participants had an eligible exacerbation (usual therapy n=83, microbiome-directed therapy n=66). There was no difference between the groups for ppFEV1 at day 14 (-1.1%, 95% CI -3.9-1.7%; p=0.46), or…

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: 223 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