Evidence Hub

Pneumonia surveillance with culture-independent metatranscriptomics in HIV-positive adults in Uganda: a cross-sectional study

N. Spottiswoode, Joshua D Bloomstein, S. Caldera, A. Sessolo, K. McCauley, P. Byanyima, J. Zawedde, K. Kalantar et al.

The Lancet Microbe, 2022

217 participants · 12 citations

Abstract

Summary Background Pneumonia is a leading cause of death worldwide and is a major health-care challenge in people living with HIV. Despite this, the causes of pneumonia in this population remain poorly understood. We aimed to assess the feasibility of metatranscriptomics for epidemiological surveillance of pneumonia in patients with HIV in Uganda. Methods We performed a retrospective observational study in patients with HIV who were admitted to Mulago Hospital, Kampala, Uganda between Oct 1, 2009, and Dec 31, 2011. Inclusion criteria were age 18 years or older, HIV-positivity, and clinically diagnosed pneumonia. Exclusion criteria were contraindication to bronchoscopy or an existing diagnosis of tuberculosis. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid was collected within 72 h of admission and a combination of RNA sequencing and Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture plus PCR were performed. The primary outcome was detection of an established or possible respiratory pathogen in the total study population. Findings We consecutively enrolled 217 patients during the study period. A potential microbial cause for pneumonia was identified in 211 (97%) patients. At least one microorganism of established respiratory pathogenicity was identified in 113 (52%) patients, and a microbe of possible pathogenicity was identified in an additional 98 (45%). M tuberculosis was the most commonly identified established pathogen (35 [16%] patients; in whom bacterial or viral co-infections were identified in 13…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 217 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