Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40781331›Full record

Trial reportCritical care (London, England)2025

Cost-effectiveness of rapid, ICU-based, syndromic PCR in hospital-acquired pneumonia: analysis of the INHALE WP3 multi-centre RCT.

Adam P Wagner, Virve I Enne, Vanya Gant, Susan Stirling, Julie A Barber, David M Livermore, David A Turner, INHALE WP3 study group

Erratum issuedAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Challenges and opportunities in the management of severe pneumonia. Key concepts from the Seventh Annual Meeting of Spanish Experts 2025.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Adam P WagnerNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
Virve I EnneCentre for Clinical Microbiology, University College London, London, UK.
Vanya GantDepartment of Microbiology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK.
Susan StirlingNorwich Clinical Trials Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Julie A BarberDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.
David M LivermoreNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
David A TurnerNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK. david.a.turner@uea.ac.uk.
INHALE WP3 study group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP and VAP) are pneumonias arising > 48 h after admission or intubation respectively. Conventionally, HAP/VAP patients are given broad-spectrum empiric antibiotics at clinical diagnosis, refined after 48-72 h, once microbiology results become available. Molecular tests offer swifter results, potentially improving patient care. To investigate whether this potential is realisable, we conducted a pragmatic multi-centre RCT ('INHALE WP3') of rapid, syndromic polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in ICU HAP/VAP compared with standard of care. As the use of molecular tests impact on hospital resources, it is important to consider their potential value-for-money to make fully informed decisions. Consequently, INHALE WP3 included an economic evaluation, presented here. Its aim was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of an in-ICU PCR (bioMérieux BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel) in HAP/VAP, informing whether to implement such technology in routine NHS care.

methodsWe collected data on patient resource use and costs. These data were combined with INHALE WP3's two primary outcome measures: antibiotic stewardship at 24 h and clinical cure at 14 days. Cost-effectiveness analyses were carried out using regression models adjusting for site. Sensitivity analyses explored assumptions and sub-group analyses explored differential impacts.

resultsWe found lower total ICU costs (including PCR costs) in the intervention (PCR-guided therapy) group. Average costs were £40,951 for standard of care compared with £33,149 for the intervention group, a difference of - £7,802 (95% CI: - £15,696, £92). For antibiotic stewardship, the PCR-guided therapy was both less costly and more effective than routine patient management. For clinical cure, we did not find PCR-guided therapy to be cost-effective due to fewer cases being cured in the intervention group.

conclusionsWe found lower average ICU costs with the Pneumonia Panel. The pneumonia panel was cost-effective in terms of antibiotic stewardship, but not clinical cure.

trial registrationRegistered as ISRCTN16483855 on 5th August 2019.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHealthcare-Associated PneumoniaPolymerase Chain ReactionAgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedPneumonia, Ventilator-AssociatedAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic stewardshipCost-effectivenessHospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP)Molecular diagnosticsPoint-of-careRapid PCRSyndromic PCRVentilator-associated pneumonia (VAP)

Identifiers

PMID40781331
PMCPMC12333181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.