Infectious Disease
RCT
● RCT
Rapid Diagnostics Align 65% of ICU Antibiotic Prescriptions with Pathogen Results
Antimicrobial resistance and infection control
Published March 27, 2026
Stewart Sarah-Jane F, Enne Virve I, Pandolfo Alyssa M, Jani Yogini H, Brealey David, Brett Stephen J…
PubMed ↗
DOI ↗
The INHALE randomized controlled trial assessed the impact of the BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel on antibiotic prescribing in ICU patients with suspected hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonias (HAP/VAP) in England. Clinicians completed questionnaires regarding their prescribing decisions for 159 intervention-arm cases, and actual prescribing data was analyzed. The primary endpoint was the consistency of antibiotic prescriptions with Pneumonia Panel results. Overall, 65% of prescriptions were consistent with test results. Specifically, when pathogens were detected, 88% of prescriptions aligned with the results, but only 13% did so when no pathogens were found. Factors influencing adherence included the speed of results, concurrent antibiotic treatment, additional infection evidence, and the belief that patients were unlikely to have non-respiratory infections (all p < .05). These findings suggest that while rapid diagnostics can guide targeted antibiotic use, negative results often lead to cautious prescribing. No safety or adverse events were reported. Clinically, the study emphasizes the need for behaviorally informed implementation strategies to improve the management of negative diagnostic results.
AI Accuracy Review: 8/10
· Auto-published
Imagine being in a hospital, battling pneumonia, and waiting for the right antibiotics to kick in. Quick tests designed to identify the specific germs causing your illness can speed up treatment, but doctors often hesitate to trust these results. In a recent study, it was found that while most doctors followed the test results when they showed a clear infection, they were much less likely to change their treatment when tests came back negative. This caution stems from a fear of missing an infection, leading to unnecessary antibiotic use. For patients, this means longer hospital stays and a higher risk of antibiotic resistance, which can make future infections harder to treat. Moving forward, it’s crucial for healthcare systems to help doctors feel more confident in using these rapid tests effectively. This could lead to better care and faster recoveries for patients. However, we must also acknowledge that changing long-standing habits takes time and effort, and ongoing support is essential.
What this means for you: Doctors need support to trust rapid tests, which could lead to better care and faster recoveries for pneumonia patients.
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Rapid molecular diagnostics such as the BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel (the Pneumonia Panel) can improve antibiotic stewardship by supporting doctors to make more targeted antibiotic prescribing decisions faster compared to routine microbiology. However, factors influencing how these test results translate to individual prescribing decisions are poorly understood. The INHALE randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluated the application of the Pneumonia Panel to manage suspected hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonias (HAP/VAP) in English intensive care unit (ICU) patients. This behavioural study examines clinicians perceived and actual antibiotic prescribing behaviour, within the INHALE RCT.
METHODS: Clinicians treating ICU patients completed brief questionnaires within 24 h of their prescribing decision for intervention-arm cases (N = 159), exploring factors influencing their decision and perceptions about the test results. Actual prescribing behaviour was extracted from the trial database. A 4-block hierarchical logistic regression identified predictors of prescriptions being consistent with Pneumonia Panel results.
RESULTS: 65% (N = 104) of prescribing decisions were consistent with Pneumonia Panel results. The test result itself was a dominant factor: 88% (N = 98) of decisions were consistent when results were positive (pathogens found). However, only 13% (N = 6) of decisions were consistent when no pathogens were detected. Consequently, clinicians were often reluctant to eschew initial antibiotics or de-escalate early where appropriate, 'erring on the side of caution'. Clinicians perceptions, specifically the speed of results, concurrent antibiotic treatment, the patient having additional confirmed evidence of infection, and believing the patient is unlikely to have a non-respiratory infection predicted prescribing decisions being aligned with test results (all p < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Findings have implications for the roll-out of rapid diagnostics in practice, particularly regarding the management of negative results. Implementation strategies need to be behaviourally intelligent, connecting with how clinicians think and behave.
