Diagnostic performance and antibiotic impact of droplet digital PCR in suspected sepsis: the PROGRESS trial
Rattachement africain : cn. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Currently, tools to dynamically monitor pathogen load and guide antibiotic adjustment in suspected sepsis are limited. In this prospective, multicenter randomized trial (3:1, ddPCR vs standard care), 1,373 patients were followed for 90 days. The primary outcome was diagnostic efficacy; secondary outcomes included mortality and SOFA. ddPCR showed higher detection positivity (54.1% vs 21.6%, p < 2 × 10−16), faster turnaround, and sensitivity of 80.6%. It increased appropriate antimicrobial coverage (12.91% vs 6.1%, p = 0.0039), and sufficient coverage within 0–3 days was associated with improved outcomes (p = 0.026). Baseline pathogen load >3051 copies/mL, day 3 > 404.1 copies/mL, and day 7 > 1348 copies/mL predicted 28-day mortality. Furthermore, ddPCR-guided early, precision-based adjustment of antimicrobial therapy significantly increased the rate of appropriate antimicrobial coverage, thereby translating into a meaningful improvement in survival outcomes among patients with sepsis. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05190861. In a multicenter randomized trial of patients with suspected sepsis, droplet digital PCR identified bloodstream pathogens faster and more often than blood culture and guided earlier, better-targeted antibiotics linked to improved survival.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Diagnostic performance and antibiotic impact of droplet digital PCR in suspected sepsis: the PROGRESS trial
- Date Crossref
- 20/08/2026
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.