key: cord-0941586-2vo3i5b3
authors: Sagasti, Fernando Martínez; Romero, María Calle; Gómez, Montserrat Rodríguez; Martínez, Patricia Alonso; GarcíaPerrote, Sandra Catalina
title: Urgent need for a rapid microbiological diagnosis in critically ill pneumonia
date: 2022-04-22
journal: Rev Esp Quimioter
DOI: 10.37201/req/s01.02.2022
sha: 3cd03bb19f42a5e2048b4c1ff79ddbe90f870e89
doc_id: 941586
cord_uid: 2vo3i5b3

Severe lower respiratory tract infection is a common issue in Intensive Care Units that causes significant morbidity and mortality. The traditional diagnostic-therapeutic approach has been grounded on taking respiratory samples and/or blood cultures as soon as possible and starting empirical antibiotic therapy addressed to cover most likely pathogens based on the presence of the patient’s risk factors for certain microorganisms, while waiting for the culture results in the following 48-72 hours to adequate the antibiotic treatment to the sensitivity profile of the isolated pathogen. Unfortunately, this strategy leads to use broad-spectrum antibiotics more times than necessary and does not prevent possible therapeutic failures. The recent development of rapid molecular diagnostic techniques, based on real time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), makes it possible to determine the causative agent and its main resistance pattern between 1 and 5 hours after sampling (depending on each technique), with high precision, some of them reaching a negative predictive value greater than 98%, facilitating the very early withdrawal of unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics. Its high sensitivity can also detect unsuspected pathogens based on risk factors, allowing adequate treatment in the first hours of stay. This short review discusses the potential usefulness of these techniques in critically ill patients with lower respiratory tract infection and advocates their immediate implementation in clinical practice.

Both community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), remain one of the leading causes of intensive care admissions or prolonged hospital stay and are related with substantial mortality.

Classically, when CAP/HAP/VAP are suspected, particularly in severe cases, promptly initiation of empirical antibiotics (very often two or more), based on the most likely involved pathogens, is recommended followed by de-escalation to a narrower spectrum pathogen-directed antibiotic once the causative agent has been isolated in microbiological culture [1] [2] [3] . However, this classical approach does not guarantee giving each patient the best antibiotic from the start, while many patients result overtreated and very few times a real early de-escalating strategy is implemented because the standard cultures are very frequently negative [4] . Over the last few years different rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) based on real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have emerged allowing to identify, in around 60 minutes, the etiologic agent and/or its main mechanism of resistance in a respiratory sample [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] .

SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has highlighted the importance of implementing RDT capable of detecting the virus in a nasal-pharyngeal or respiratory sample [10] , avoiding unnecessary antibiotics in many cases and this will be even more important when the pandemic ends as sporadic cases will come up. In fact, the use of multiplex RDT in respiratory samples reveals a significant number of viruses as etiological agents in CAP and these RDT detect 23.6% more pathogens than traditional culture techniques [11] .

The potential utility of this new technology is enormous, particularly in severe cases of HAP/VAP, where it could allow not only giving the most appropriate antibiotic from the beginning, but also withdraw unnecessary drugs, preventing late resistance and adverse events. Implementing a new strategy [16] . Regarding MRSA, a multicenter, prospective surveillance study of 2.259 adults hospitalized with CAP, identified 1% with MSSA and 0.7% with MRSA. Chronic hemodialysis was more common among patients with MRSA (20%) than pneumococcal (2.6%) CAP. Nevertheless, clinical features at admission were similar, including concurrent influenza infection, hemoptysis, multi-lobar infiltrates, and prehospital antibiotics. Patients with MRSA had higher mortality (13.3% vs 4.4%) [17] . The Global initiative for MRSA pneumonia (GLIMP) study found a prevalence of confirmed MRSA in CAP patients of up to 3%, and MRSA was isolated mainly from patients with a prior MRSA infection or colonization, recurrent skin infections, or those with severe pneumonia [18] .

However, the prevalence and risk factors for CAP related to MRSA may vary widely among regions. A study performed in the Pays de la Loire region in France [19] to determine the demographic characteristics of MRSA carriers in the community and to assess their risks factors and possible past hospitalization history, found 15% incidence rate of MRSA carriers. The isolates were most frequently recovered from skin and soft tissue infections (41.2%), urine (38.3%), genital samples (8.3%) and sputum (1.9%). Other pathological samples represented 10.3%, mainly from the ear-nose-throat sphere. Among the 313 patients who answered a questionnaire, 36 (11.5%) had none of the risk factors included in the questionnaire, such as home care, hospitalization during the preceding 12 months, and the presence of chronic cutaneous lesions.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of Asia-Pacific region [20] the ranges of prevalence and characteristics associated with CAP-MRSA carriage varied from India (16.5%-23.5%), followed by Vietnam (7.9%) and Taiwan (3.5%-3.8%).

Because of the difficulties to predict the etiologic agent in severe CAP, some scores have been proposed to guide the empiric treatment, such as the PES score [15] (Table 1) .

The decision to empirically treat these pathogens should be reserved for patients at high risk (i.e., PES score ≥5 points).

of rapid testing would be the first step for a real antimicrobial stewardship program defined as "coordinated interventions designed to improve and measure the appropriate use of antimicrobials by promoting the selection of optimal antimicrobial drug regimen, dose, duration of therapy, and route of administration".

It is worth noting the importance of knowing very well the limitations of the particular RDT that is being used because those microorganisms not included in the panel, obviously cannot be ruled out. From this perspective, RDT should be considered as a complementary tool in adjunction to standard culture and clinical judgment to allow for an earlier pathogen-directed therapy.

Because some of these RDT have been developed to identify the most frequent CAP pathogens (viruses and bacteria), while others have been designed to detect microorganisms and bacterial resistance genes more commonly involved in HAP/ VAP, this brief review will discuss how the implementation of these RDT could improve the correct daily use of antibiotics, saving unnecessary drugs, and potentially the outcome of severe CAP and HAP/VAP separately.

Among European adults, CAP has an annual incidence of 1.07-1.2 per 1000 person-years, rising to 14 per 1000 person-years in those older than 65 years [12] . In USA, CAP is estimated to cause ~1.5 million hospitalizations and ~100,000 deaths each year [13] . CAP-related mortality in those patients admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICU) was approximately 30% before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic but it has gone up to 35-50% in COVID-19 patients who require invasive mechanical ventilation [3] .

Although there is increased recognition of the role of viral pathogens in CAP, currently, the empiric antibiotic therapy for severe cases, is based on international guidelines [1] which recommend using a macrolide or a respiratory fluoroquinolone in combination with a β-lactam to cover the most frequent pathogens such as Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA), Legionella spp., Chlamydophyla pneumoniae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. The coverage for PES pathogens (Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacteriaceae with extended-spectrum β-lactamases -ESBL-, and methicillin-resistant S. aureus -MRSA-) should only be initiated if "risk factors" are present because of the low prevalence of these pathogens, but this decision is not always easy because failing with the initial empiric treatment has been associated to worst outcome [14] . A Spanish retrospective study [15] nificantly more H. influenzae, S. pneumoniae, M. catarrhalis, S. aureus, E. coli, and K. pneumoniae than standard culture-based methods. Molecular testing results were not released to the attending physician, but they could have had the potential to lead to de-escalation in number and/or spectrum of initial empirical antibiotic agents in 247 (77.2%) patients and to escalate in number and/or spectrum of antibiotic in 19 (5.9%) patients. The majority of the potential de-escalation events were related to switching from amoxicillin-clavulanate to narrower-spectrum agents such as amoxicillin and doxycycline in cases where S. pneumoniae or H. influenzae were detected by PCR and to withdraw clarithromycin in cases where atypical bacteria were not identified by PCR.

Quite similar results were found by Monard C et al [22] . They retrospectively studied 150 pneumonia episodes (54 CAP, 68 HAP, 37 VAP). In 37 out of 54 (69%) CAP episodes an expert committee considered the empirical treatment could change, mainly to deescalate to a narrower spectrum drug or stopping a companion antibiotic (37%) but also to escalate in 15% of the time.

Clinical metagenomics uses next generation sequencing of total nucleic acid from clinical samples to detect all the microbes simultaneously. The routinely application of this technology is still being validated but nanopore sequencing platform (Nanopore, Oxford, UK) has proven its ability to rapid LRTI pathogen detection [23] . Mu S et al [24] evaluated the clinical performance of rapid nanopore-sequencing based metagenomics test for diagnosis of bacterial pathogens in LRTIs. Among six different presentations of LRTIs, 171 bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) and 121 sputum samples were collected from 292 hospitalized patients. The turnaround time (from sample registration to result) for the rapid metagenomics test was 6.4 ± 1.4 hours, compared to 94.8 ± 34.9 hours for routine culture. Compared with culture and real-time PCR validation tests, rapid metagenomics achieved 96.6% sensitivity and 88% specificity and identified pathogens in 63 out of 161 (39.1%) culture-negative samples. Among those most common pathogens (S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, and M. catarrhalis), rapid metagenomics detected 37 cases while traditional methods identified only 13 cases. Interestingly, rapid metagenomics detected 38 anaerobic bacterial species in 49% samples while none of them were identified by culture techniques. Although these results must be cautiously interpreted because some of the anaerobic bacteria may be contaminants from the upper respiratory tract, correlation between enriched anaerobes and lung abscess was observed by Gene Set Enrichment Analysis. If the results of the metagenomics test had been used to guide therapy, 33 patients might have had their empiric therapy de-escalated compared to 1 using standard culture. This new technology can be very helpful in cases of aspiration pneumonia and lung abscesses, in addition to critical patients with unexplained respiratory failure or those immunocompromised patients who are infected by uncommon pathogens not covered by conventional methods.

The study published by Qian Y et al [25] tested, with the FilmArray Respiratory Panel, respiratory samples from 112 hos-However, the clinician's fear of failing in the initial treatment of severe CAP, particularly in those patients in shock, leads to overuse broad-spectrum antibiotics such as antipseudomonal ß-lactams, vancomycin or linezolid. In the aforementioned study of 2,259 hospitalized adults with CAP [17] , besides the very low prevalence of MRSA (0.7%), almost a third of the patients received anti-MRSA antibiotics. Therefore, there is an urgent need to improve this strategy.

Implementing RDT in the initial approach of severe CAP could contribute to save broad spectrum antibiotics, ruling out MRSA even in those patients with high PES score where S. pneumoniae is a frequent causative microorganism. Conversely, a few patients in shock and multiorgan failure with low PES score might benefit from a RDT because, although very unlikely, the impact of not treating a potential MRSA within the first hours would be detrimental. This may be particularly useful in regions with high prevalence of community MRSA carriers.

Very interestingly, a study performed in 212 hospitalized adult patients with CAP in Taiwan, showed a greater number of etiological agents identified when RDT were used. Bacterial pathogens were detected in 106 (50%) patients, viruses in 77 (36.3%), and fungal pathogens in 1 patient (0.5%). The overall detection rate (culture and molecular testing method) was 70.7%. Traditional microbial culture yielded positive results only in 36.7% while molecular testing in 61.3%. The most common pathogens were influenza (16.1%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (14.1%), P. aeruginosa (13.6%), human rhinovirus (11.8%), and S. pneumoniae (9.9%). Multiple pathogen co-infections accounted for 28.7%, of which co-infection with K. pneumoniae and human rhinovirus comprised the largest proportion [11] .

Several studies performed in patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) consistently find that microbiological documentation is almost twice as high using RDT compared to the standard method due to the higher sensitivity of the RDT. This is an advantage for patients treated with antibiotics prior to sampling but it also needs a cautious interpretation because RDT might detect nucleic acids from dead pathogens not involved in the current pneumonia episode leading to an overtreatment of non-viable microorganisms. Bearing these limitations in mind, different studies, most of them observational/retrospective, show that empirical treatment when RDT are used in LRTIs might be modified more than 50% of the time, mainly to de-escalate, although there are too few studies in CAP, particularly in severe cases, to draw robust conclusions about the impact of routinely RDT use on outcome (Table 2) .

Gadsby NJ et al [21] studied respiratory samples from 323 adults with radiologically confirmed CAP. Specimens were cultured as per routine practice and also tested with fast multiplex real-time PCR assays for 26 respiratory bacteria and viruses. H. influenzae and S. pneumoniae were the most frequently agents detected. Viruses were present in 30% of cases; 82% of these were codetections with bacteria. Most (85%) patients had received antimicrobials in the 72 hours before admission. Of these, 78% had a bacterial pathogen identified by PCR but only 32% were culture-positive (P <.0001). PCR detected sig-2014 and March 2016, using the same inclusion criteria. The interventional group received significantly more antiviral treatment (oseltamivir and acyclovir) and the adjustment of antibiotics was recorded more frequently (69. 6% assist in clinical decision making, reducing unnecessary antibiotic usage in the treatment of pneumonia and starting earlier specific treatment in some cases.

Finally, special mention deserves COVID-19 pandemic where an accurate use of the antibiotic treatment, particularly in critically ill patients, is challenging. In this clinical setting, RDT can help improve antibiotic stewardship programs.

A French study [26] tested 112 respiratory samples from 67 COVID-19 ICU patients suspected of having bacterial coinfections with the BioFire® FilmArray® Pneumonia plus Panel. Among the 8 suspicions of CAP, for which all patients were treated, the positive RDT result led to a de-escalation and the 7 negatives to 3 antibiotic withdrawals and 4 continuations. Regarding the 104 suspected episodes of HAP/VAP, 36 RDT results were positive and 68 were negative. Among positives, in 36% (13/36) antibiotic treatment was initiated, in 8% (3/36) antibiotic therapy was modified, and in 4 (11%) was de-escalated. In one episode, neither the pre nor the post RDT, antibiotic treatment was adequate because of the presence of an unexpected Stenotrophomonas maltophilia not identified by the panel. Among negatives, 24% (16/68) remained antibiotic-free and 13 (19%) led to antibiotic withdrawal. Although in 57% (39/68) episodes, antibiotics were maintained due to severe sepsis (n = 20), infection from another site (n = 9), continuation of previous treatment (n = 7), or severely immunocompromised patients (n = 3), RDT produced antibiotic changes in 38/112 (34%) episodes.

Other interesting study performed in 32 COVID-19 ICU patients identified 13 (40.6%) cases with a bacterial co-infection [27] . The most frequently identified bacteria with significant genome copies were S aureus (one of them MRSA), H. influenza, and M. catarrhalis. None of the 32 RDT identified atypical bacteria neither other respiratory viruses. Direct communication of RDT led to speeded-up antibiotic modifications in 15/32 (46.9%) patients. Once again, the use of RDT reveals to be a key element of the antimicrobial stewardship strategy in COVID-19 severe disease.

Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) such as HAP/ VAP are associated with a significant increase in morbidity and mortality, even higher when effective antibiotic treatment is delayed [30] . Choosing the adequate empiric antibiotic for HAP/VAP is more challenging than for CAP because of the increased number of MRSA and potential difficult to treat antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative pathogens.

International guidelines advocate the empirical use of broad-spectrum antibiotics including carbapenems, when the patient has risk factors for MDR pathogens, such as previous colonization by MDR pathogens, has previously received antibiotics, or VAP develops after 5 days on mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, in those patients in ICUs where >10% of gram-negative isolates are resistant to an agent being consid-ered for monotherapy, patients in an ICU where local antimicrobial susceptibility rates are not available, patients who are in septic shock at time of VAP, suffered ARDS preceding VAP, or they were receiving acute renal replacement therapy prior to VAP onset, should be empirically receiving 2 antipseudomonal antibiotics from different classes and anti-MRSA coverage [2] . Unfortunately, these risk factors are very common among critically ill patients and this strategy leads to overtreatment without ensuring full adequacy due to the potential MDR carbapenemase-producing pathogens.

Implementing a new strategy based on RDT might reduce the uncertainty of the empirical treatment, optimizing the antimicrobials stewardship programs in this setting (Table 3) .

Interestingly, based on the high negative predictive value (NPV) of MRSA nasal colonization for developing MRSA pneumonia, some hospitals have implemented a protocol, as part of the antimicrobial stewardship program, to inform the staff about the usefulness of testing some patients for nasal MRSA before prescribing anti-MRSA in cases of pneumonia and to consider withdrawal of MRSA coverage when the RDT result is negative. In a normal basis, the RDT result is displayed in the patient´s electronic medical record and then the attending physician can consider stopping anti-MRSA antimicrobials following the protocol, unless other indication to keep them exits. Furthermore, the clinical pharmacist can order MRSA nasal PCR testing without a direct physician order when a patient receives a prescription of vancomycin or linezolid for suspicion of pneumonia. Once this protocol was implemented, a retrospective study was designed to evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-initiated MRSA nasal PCR protocol (PCR group) on pneumonia therapy compared with a routine schedule (Pre-PCR group). In the Pre-PCR group, 138 patients met the inclusion criteria, while 72 patients were included in the PCR group. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups except for higher ICU admission in the Pre-PCR group and more cases of HAP in the PCR group. There were no VAP cases in either study group. All patients eligible for study received vancomycin. Compared with the Pre-PCR group, the mean duration of IV vancomycin in the PCR group was 1.1 days shorter (2.5 ± 1.3 days vs 1.4 ± 1.2 days, P < .001). Among the 72 patients in the PCR group, 45 (62.5%) MRSA nasal PCR orders were placed by a clinical pharmacist while the remainder were ordered by an attending physician. There were 63 (87.5%) patients with a negative MRSA nasal PCR result, and 56 (88.9%) patients had their vancomycin order discontinued within 24 hours of the negative result. The mean total LOS was similar between groups. No differences were observed in clinical outcomes and adverse events between groups [31] .

Other retrospective study aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of the MRSA/SA SSTI assay for rapid detection of MRSA in LRT specimens and its potential role in antimicrobial stewardship [32] . They prospectively analyzed in 100 respiratory specimens, from patients with VAP, the performance of the test. Xpert MRSA/SA identified MRSA in 5 of 6 specimens positive by standard-of-care culture, (sensitivity 83.3%). The false negative was a BAL specimen. Interestingly, Xpert MRSA/SA de- teria were detected by this RDT with a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 99%. The sensitivity was better for Gram-negative bacteria (90%) than for Gram-positive cocci (62%). There were 14 bacteria detected by this RDT that were not found in conventional cultures and 5/8 ESBL (CTX-M gene) and 4/4 carbapenemases genes (3 NDM, one oxa-48) were also identified. This RDT could have led to the earlier initiation of an effective antibiotic in 20/95 patients (21%) and to early de-escalation in 37 patients (39%) but could also have led to one (1%) inadequate antimicrobial therapy. Among 17 empiric antibiotic treatments with carbapenems, 10 could have been de-escalated in the following hours according to the RDT results. This RDT also identified 2 unexpected cases of severe legionellosis confirmed by culture methods. This study is another example of how RDT could make an impact in a better adequacy of antimicrobials. This very RDT was used in another retrospective study on 659 hospitalized patients for microbiological diagnosis of suspected pneumonia [35] . Similar results to the previous study were found with an overall sensitivity of 85.7%, specificity of 98.4% and a NPV of 97.9%. According with the RDT result only 12.4% of cases did not need a change in prescribed antibiotics. Reassured by the excellent NPV of this RDT panel, the authors determined that if MRSA or P. aeruginosa were not detected by the panel, then anti-MRSA and/or anti-pseudomonal therapies were not indicated. Accordingly, antibiotic de-escalation was recommended in 65.9% (405/615) of patients, of whom 278/405 (69%) had unnecessary MRSA coverage and 259/405 (64%) had unnecessary P. aeruginosa coverage.

Finally, it is worth mentioning a prospective study performed in 150 COVID-19 patients mechanically ventilated with the Film Array Pneumonia Plus panel. A total of 212 samples were processed for standard culture and tested with the RDT from 150 patients suspected of bacterial pneumonia. The RDT results were immediately accessible to ICU clinicians for antimicrobial therapy management. Etiologically, 120 samples were positive and 90 were negative by both methods. RDT detected no culture-growing organisms (mostly S. aureus or P. aeruginosa) in 19 of 120 samples or antimicrobial resistance genes in two culture-negative samples for S. aureus. Fifty-nine (27.8%) of 212 samples were from empirically treated patients. Antibiotics were discontinued in 5 (33.3%) of 15 patients with RDT negative samples and were escalated/deescalated in 39 (88.6%) of 44 patients with RDT positive samples. Overall, antibiotics were initiated in 87 (72.5%) of 120 pneumonia episodes and were not administered in 80 (87.0%) of 92 no-pneumonia episodes. Antimicrobial-resistant organisms caused 78 (60.0%) of 120 episodes. Authors concluded that RDT in LRT samples may become indispensable for the clinical and therapeutic management of VAP or non-VAP episodes in ICU patients with COVID-19.

In agreement with the public policy document that the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) published a few years ago, declaring that, in order for tests to have a positive tected MRSA in five specimens where MRSA was not recovered by routine culture: specificity 94.7%, PPV 50%, and NPV 98.9%. In order to study the potential impact of this findings on the antibiotic use, the clinical data of the patients were obtained from clinical data repository, including microbiological culture results as well as antimicrobials consumption. They found that 96 patients received vancomycin and/or linezolid. Those four subjects who did not receive these agents were negative for MRSA based on both Xpert MRSA/SA and culture. If the anti-MRSA agent had been discontinued one calendar day after a negative RDT result in patients without any additional culture or PCR results positive for MRSA (including surveillance swabs), the vancomycin total antibiotic-days would have decreased by 68.4% (512 days) to a mean duration of 2.7 days, and linezolid by 83% (253 days) to a mean duration of 1.9 days.

In the aforementioned retrospective study of 150 pneumonia episodes (54 CAP, 68 HAP and 37 VAP) an expert committee considered that in HAP cases antibiotics should have been de-escalated 37% and escalated 27% of the times, while in VAP even 49% might have been de-escalated and 24% should have been escalated according to the RDT results [22] . Of course, it is a retrospective study and the clinical impact of having prescribed the antibiotic according with the RDT results is unknown but is shows that it could be a very useful complementary tool for saving antibiotics.

The potential impact of the BioFire® FilmArray® Pneumonia Panel Test on antibiotic utilization has also been studied in 259 BAL samples from patients with HAP/VAP [33] . This RDT showed 96.2% positive agreement and 98.1% negative agreement for the qualitative identification of 15 bacterial targets compared to standard bacterial culture. Viral targets were identified by this RDT in 17.7% of specimens tested, of which 39.1% were detected in conjunction with a bacterial target. A review of patient medical records, including clinically prescribed antibiotics, revealed the potential for antibiotic adjustment in 70.7% of patients based on the RDT result, including discontinuation or de-escalation in 48.2% of patients, producing an average saving of 6.2 antibiotic days/ patient. It is worth noting that molecular tests for viral pathogens were clinically ordered for only 93/259 (35.9%) BAL samples submitted for bacterial culture and included primarily multiplexed respiratory panel tests. At least one viral target was detected by the RDT in 46/259 (17.7%) BAL specimens, either alone or in addition to bacterial targets. Only 11/46 (23.9%) specimens with a positive viral detection by the RDT had a clinician-ordered molecular test for viral pathogens. Although the role of viral pathogens is not well stablished in HAP/VAP, there were 7 BAL specimens positive for influenza A/B virus. Early identification of these agents might have led to prescribe specific antivirals that could have shortened the duration or severity of the episode.

Another study tested the usefulness of the Unyvero Hospitalized Pneumonia (HPN, Curetis) platform for potential optimization of broad-spectrum antibiotics in 95 clinical samples from 85 ventilated HAP or VAP patients [34] . This panel is another RDT able to detect 21 bacteria and 19 resistance genes on respiratory samples within 5 hours. A total of 90/112 bac-impact on patient care, new tests need to provide information about the causative organism, including antimicrobial susceptibility/resistance information, if possible, and must have rapid results, ideally within 1 h [37] , we have seen how these RDT are now a real useful tool, complementary to clinical judgment in the treatment of LRTI. In the difficult decision-making process of treating a critical patient with CAP/HAP/VAP accurately and promptly, the classic strategy based on risk factors is no longer justified because it leads to the excessive use of broad-spectrum antibiotics while potential pathogens are undetected. A great educational effort must be made among intensivists and microbiologists to implement these new rapid diagnostic tests into clinical practice because the positive impact on patient care can only be achieved if physicians act quickly upon the results and start adequate or stop inadequate antibiotics in these critically ill patients with little room to fail.

It is highly important to know very well the limitations of the particular RDT that is being used because those microorganisms or mechanisms of resistance not included in the RDT cannot be ruled out.

al. Multicenter evaluation of a syndromic rapid multiplex PCR test for early adaptation of antimicrobial therapy in adult patients with pneumonia. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):434.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Adults with Community-acquired Pneumonia. An Official Clinical Practice Guideline of the

Management of Adults With Hospital-acquired and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the

Updates on community acquired pneumonia management in the ICU

Community-Acquired Pneumonia Requiring Hospitalization among U.S. Adults

Are we ready for novel detection methods to treat respiratory pathogens in hospital-acquired pneumonia?

Development of two real-time multiplex PCR assays for the detection and quantification of eight key bacterial pathogens in lower respiratory tract infections

Fast, economic and simultaneous identification of clinically relevant Gram-negative species with multiplex real-time PCR

Rapid detection of Staphylococcus aureus in lower respiratory tract secretions from patients with suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia: evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert MRSA/SA SSTI assay

Emerging technologies for the clinical microbiology laboratory

Diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A comprehensive review of the FDA-EUA COVID-19 testing landscape

Molecular detection of respiratory pathogens in community-acquired pneumonia involving adults

Risk factors for community-acquired pneumonia in adults in Europe: a literature review

Adults Hospitalized With Pneumonia in the United States: Incidence, Epidemiology, and Mortality

Late admission to the ICU in patients with community-acquired pneumonia is associated with higher mortality

Risk factors associated with potentially antibiotic-resistant pathogens in community-acquired pneumonia

Risk factors and outcome of community-acquired pneumonia due to Gram-negative bacilli

Staphylococcus aureus Community-acquired Pneumonia: Prevalence, Clinical Characteristics, and Outcomes

International prevalence and risk factors evaluation for drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae pneumonia

Who are the carriers of MRSA in the community? A prospective study in the Pays de la Loire region of France

Prevalence and risk factors of community-associated methicillin-resistant

Comprehensive Molecular Testing for Respiratory Pathogens in Community-Acquired Pneumonia

Nanopore metagenomics enables rapid clinical diagnosis of bacterial lower respiratory infection

Prospective Evaluation of a Rapid Clinical Metagenomics Test for Bacterial Pneumonia

Rapid detection of respiratory organisms with FilmArray respiratory panel and its impact on clinical decisions in

Impact of rapid multiplex PCR on management of antibiotic therapy in COVID-19-positive patients hospitalized in intensive care unit

Co-infections in COVID-19 critically ill and antibiotic management: a prospective cohort analysis

Evaluation of a molecular point-of-care testing for viral and atypical pathogens on intravenous antibiotic duration in hospitalized adults with lower respiratory tract infection: a randomized clinical trial

Potential clinical impact of a semi-quantitative multiplex molecular assay for the identification of bacteria, viruses, and fungi in lower respiratory specimens

Ventilator-associated pneumonia

Impact of a Pharmacist-Driven MRSA Nasal PCR Protocol on Pneumonia Therapy

Burnham CD. Rapid MRSA PCR on respiratory specimens from ventilated patients with suspected pneumonia: a tool to facilitate antimicrobial stewardship

Practical Comparison of the BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel to Routine Diagnostic Methods and Potential Impact on Antimicrobial Stewardship in Adult Hospitalized Patients with Lower Respiratory Tract Infections

Performance and impact of a multiplex PCR in ICU patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia or ventilated hospital-acquired pneumonia

A multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay for antibiotic stewardship in suspected pneumonia

Diagnosis and Treatment of Bacterial Pneumonia in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 Using a Multiplex PCR Assay: A Large Italian Hospital's Five-Month Experience

Better tests, better care: improved diagnostics for infectious diseases

Authors declare no conflicts of interest