Evidence Hub

Multiplex real-time PCR in non-invasive respiratory samples to reduce antibiotic use in community-acquired pneumonia: a randomised trial

Abelenda-Alonso G, Calatayud L, Rombauts A, Meije Y, Oriol I, Sopena N, Padullés A, Niubó J et al.

Nature communications, 2024

77 participants · 22 citations

Abstract

We assessed whether multiplex real-time PCR plus conventional microbiological testing is safe and more effective than conventional microbiological testing alone for reducing antibiotic use in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). In this randomised trial, we recruited adults hospitalised with CAP at four Spanish hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo either multiplex real-time PCR in non-invasive respiratory samples plus conventional microbiological testing or conventional microbiological testing alone. The primary endpoint was antibiotic use measured by days of antibiotic therapy (DOT). Between February 20, 2020, and April 24, 2023, 242 patients were enrolled; 119 were randomly assigned to multiplex real-time PCR plus conventional microbiological testing and 123 to conventional microbiological testing alone. All but one of the patients allocated to multiplex real-time PCR plus conventional microbiological testing underwent PCR, which was performed in sputum samples in 77 patients (65.2%) and in nasopharyngeal swabs in 41 (34.7%). The median DOT was 10.04 (IQR 7.98, 12.94) in the multiplex PCR plus conventional microbiological testing group and 11.33 (IQR 8.15, 16.16) in the conventional microbiological testing alone group (difference -1.04; 95% CI, -2.42 to 0.17; p = 0.093). No differences were observed in adverse events and 30-day mortality. Our findings do not support the routine implementation of multiplex real-time PCR in the initial microbiological…

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: 77 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