Clinical Symptom Resolution Following PCR-Guided vs. Culture and Susceptibility-Guided Management of Complicated UTI: How Time-To-Antibiotic Start and Antibiotic Appropriateness Mediate the Benefit of Multiplex PCR—An Ad Hoc Analysis of NCT06996301
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Rapid multiplex PCR assays promise faster and broader detection of uropathogens and resistance markers than conventional quantitative urine culture and susceptibility testing (C&S), but trial evidence linking PCR-guided management to patient-centered outcomes and the mechanisms of any benefit is limited. We performed an ad hoc analysis of the randomized, multicenter NCT06996301 trial to evaluate whether PCR-guided diagnostic management improves clinical symptom resolution in complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) and to quantify mediation by time-to-antibiotic start and antibiotic appropriateness. Methods: Paired PCR and C&S were collected for all participants; treating investigators received and acted on randomized results from one diagnostic modality and remained blinded to the comparator. The modified intention-to-treat (Mod-ITT) cohort at end-of-study (EOS) included 362 participants (PCR n = 193; C&S n = 169). The primary outcome was complete clinical cure at EOS (absence of all baseline symptoms). Secondary outcomes included partial cure (≥50% symptom reduction) and per-symptom changes. We used mixed-effects logistic regression (site random intercept) to estimate associations, and causal mediation analysis with nonparametric bootstrap (B = 2000) to decompose PCR’s total effect into indirect effects via time-to-antibiotic (log-transformed) and antibiotic appropriateness (binary, adjudicated at EOS) for complete clinical cure and partial cure. Results: Median time-to-first antibiotic was substantially shorter in the PCR arm (20 h; IQR 12–36) than in the C&S arm (52 h; IQR 30–66; p < 0.001). Antibiotic appropriateness was higher after PCR-guided care (161/193; 83.4%) versus C&S (105/169; 62.1%; p < 0.001). Complete clinical cure occurred in 143/193 (74.1%) PCR versus 106/169 (62.7%) C&S (p = 0.020); partial cure in 161/193 (83.4%) versus 121/169 (71.6%; p = 0.014). In a total-effect mixed model (no mediators), PCR assignment was associated with higher odds of cure (adjusted OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.12–3.39; p = 0.018). In the mechanistic model including mediators, antibiotic appropriateness (OR 2.48; 95% CI 1.45–4.24; p = 0.001), and time-to-antibiotic (per 1 h, OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.926–0.975; p < 0.001) were independently predictive, while the direct arm effect was attenuated (OR 1.10; 95% CI 0.33–3.71). Mediation analysis estimated a statistically significant combined indirect effect (ACME) of 0.0648 (95% CI 0.0343–0.0977), ADE 0.0207 (95% CI −0.0282–0.0784), total effect 0.0796 (95% CI 0.0419–0.1225), and proportion mediated ≈ 74%. Both time-to-antibiotic and appropriateness contributed, with ACME_time ≈ 0.046 and ACME_appropriateness ≈ 0.019. Exploratory analysis using partial cure as the outcome confirmed the robustness and internal validity of the complete-cure findings. Conclusions: In this ad hoc analysis of a randomized trial, PCR-guided management of cUTI improved patient-centered symptom outcomes compared with culture-guided care. Most of the benefit was mediated through faster initiation of antibiotics and, to a lesser extent, increased probability of an appropriate initial antibiotic. These results support stewardship-integrated, rapid molecular diagnostics (used alongside culture) to shorten time-to-effective therapy and improve clinical outcomes in cUTI.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,029 | 0,046 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,012 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».