Evidence Hub

Identifying subgroup of severe community-acquired pneumonia based on clinical metagenomics, a multicenter retrospective cohort study

Mingqiang Wang, Yue-Ying Jin, Wenxiao Zhang, Ling Ye, Huanzhang Shao

Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, 2025

569 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Objective Severe community-acquired pneumonia (sCAP) is one of the major diseases within the ICU. We hypothesize that subtyping sCAP based on simple inflammatory markers, organ dysfunction, and clinical metagenomics results is feasible. Method In this study, we retrospectively enrolled immunocompetent sCAP patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, who underwent clinical metagenomics from 17 medical centers. We collected data on potentially pathogenic species reported by clinical metagenomics and clinical information for all patients. Latent class analysis (LCA) was applied to routine clinical parameters such as gender, age, white blood cell (WBC), lymphocytes, C-reactive protein (CRP), and Procalcitonin (PCT), identifying two optimally fitting models. Results A total of 569 patients were enrolled. Compared to class B, class A was characterized by a younger age, higher CRP and PCT levels, and a higher incidence of coagulation dysfunction, liver failure, circulatory failure, and renal failure. However, the mortality rates were similar between the two groups. In class A, more cases of Streptococcus spp. and fewer cases of HSV-1 and Candida spp. were detected. Among the patients in the two phenotypes, 48.7% and 57.5% received corticosteroid treatment, respectively. In the class A, corticosteroid treatment was not associated with patient mortality (unadjusted hazard ratio (HR)=0.988; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.634–1.541; p=0.959). In contrast, in the class B group,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, 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: 569 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