BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Prospective Study Open Access
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license. No commercial re-use. See permissions. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Methodol. Sep 20, 2026; 16(3): 115598
Published online Sep 20, 2026. doi: 10.5662/wjm.115598
Stepwise model to differentiate pathogenic from non-pathogenic organisms in lower-respiratory isolates: Effectiveness and feasibility prospective cohort study
Shivnarayan Sahu, Partha Sahu, Department of Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh 249203, India
Balram Ji Omar, Department of Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh 249203, India
Mukesh Bairwa, Division of Internal Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh 249203, India
Prakhar Sharma, Division of Pulmonary, Sleep and Critical Care Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Rishikesh, Rishikesh 249203, India
Prasan Kumar Panda, Internal Medicine (ID Division), All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh 249203, India
ORCID number: Prakhar Sharma (0000-0002-6710-3499); Prasan Kumar Panda (0000-0002-3008-7245).
Author contributions: Sahu S and Sahu P designed, collected data, analysed, wrote, reviewed, and approved the manuscript; Panda PK, Omar BJ, Bairwa M, and Sharma P gave the concept, designed, analysed, critically reviewed, and approved the manuscript.
Institutional review board statement: The study was reviewed and approved by Institutional Ethics Committee of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, India.
Clinical trial registration statement: Considering observational study, it was not registered.
Informed consent statement: All study participants, or their legal guardian, provided informed written consent prior to study enrollment.
Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors report no relevant conflicts of interest for this article.
CONSORT 2010 statement: The authors have read the CONSORT 2010 Statement, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the CONSORT 2010 Statement.
Data sharing statement: All data was shared in the published article; the corresponding authors can be reached for any other clarification.
Corresponding author: Prasan Kumar Panda, MD, MBBS, Professor, Internal Medicine (ID Division), All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room No. 409, College Block, Rishikesh 249203, India. motherprasanna@rediffmail.com
Received: October 21, 2025
Revised: December 11, 2025
Accepted: March 4, 2026
Published online: September 20, 2026
Processing time: 263 Days and 0.2 Hours

Abstract
BACKGROUND

Lower respiratory tract infections remain a major cause of morbidity and mortality among hospitalized patients. However, isolating organisms from respiratory samples often leads to diagnostic uncertainty due to the coexistence of colonizers, commensals, and contaminants. To address this challenge, this study employed a structured, stepwise exploratory model to differentiate true pathogens from non-pathogens in aerobic respiratory cultures and multiplex polymerase chain reaction (Biofire FilmArray) results.

AIM

To determine pathogen vs non-pathogen in lower respiratory tract isolates.

METHODS

This prospective, longitudinal time-bound study was conducted over three months (August 2024 to October 2024) at a tertiary care center in Northern India. Adult patients (≥ 18 years) with positive lower respiratory tract samples were enrolled. Each isolate was independently classified by the treating clinician, microbiologist, and study investigator using a six-step clinical-microbiological algorithm that incorporated clinical signs, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score trends, alternative infection sources, host factors, and outcome data. The final classification was determined by the investigator. Outcomes, including treatment response and mortality at 28 days, were compared across pathogen and non-pathogen groups.

RESULTS

Of the 145 included patients, 131 (90.3%) were classified as pathogens and 14 (9.7%) as non-pathogens. Cohen’s Kappa between investigator and microbiologist classifications was 0.28, indicating fair agreement. Among pathogen cases, 68 (51.9%) responded to treatment. In contrast, 12 of 14 non-pathogen cases (85.7%) were not treated, with favorable outcomes in most, and only one unrelated death (7.1%).

CONCLUSION

The structured clinico-microbiological model strongly correlates with treatment outcomes, making it useful for differentiating infection from colonization. Crucially, microbiological detection alone doesn’t determine pathogenicity. Integrating clinical, laboratory, and outcome data is essential for rational antibiotic use and effective antimicrobial stewardship.

Key Words: Aerobic respiratory culture; Biofire FilmArray; Pathogen classification; Lower respiratory tract infections; Antimicrobial stewardship; Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score

Core Tip: This prospective cohort study developed a structured clinico-microbiological model to distinguish true pathogens from colonizers in lower respiratory tract infections. Among 145 cases, 90% were identified as pathogens, with treatment outcomes aligning closely with the model’s classifications. The findings highlight that microbiological detection alone is insufficient for diagnosing infection - integrating clinical context and outcome data is crucial for rational antibiotic use and effective antimicrobial stewardship.



INTRODUCTION

Lower respiratory tract infections impose a substantial clinical and economic burden on hospitals; however, accurately determining whether a detected organism is causing an active infection remains challenging[1,2]. Respiratory samples often contain commensals, colonizers, and misclassification can result in inappropriate antibiotic use, increased antimicrobial resistance, and unnecessary healthcare costs[3,4].

Numerous studies have highlighted the pitfalls of equating microbial growth with infection, especially in ventilated or critically ill patients. Labelle et al[5] observed that 34% of patients with healthcare-associated pneumonia grew only colonizing flora, yet over 71% still received antibiotics, with no significant difference in mortality between culture-positive and culture-negative groups.

The advent of rapid molecular diagnostics, such as multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (e.g., Biofire FilmArray), has improved organism detection and reduced turnaround time, enabling clinicians to initiate early, targeted therapy. However, their high analytical sensitivity also introduces diagnostic noise by detecting low-level colonizers, residual nucleic acids from non-viable organisms, and organisms of uncertain significance. Without a clinical context, such high-sensitivity tools risk overdiagnosis and the misuse of antibiotics[6,7].

While landmark studies support the use of invasive sampling to guide antibiotic therapy, confirming the pathogenicity of isolated organisms remains a challenge. In patients with prior antibiotic exposure, biofilm formation, or prolonged intubation, culture positivity may reflect colonization rather than true infection, raising concerns about over-reliance on microbiological results alone[8,9].

This study aimed to differentiate true respiratory pathogens from non-pathogens (colonizers, commensals, and contaminants) in hospitalized adults using a stepwise explorative model that incorporates clinical features, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score trends, risk factors for colonization, and outcome data. By correlating pathogen classification with treatment response and 28-day outcomes, this approach aims to improve diagnostic accuracy and antimicrobial stewardship in resource-limited, high-burden settings. To systematically classify organisms isolated from lower respiratory tract samples as pathogenic or non-pathogenic using a structured stepwise clinico-microbiological model, and to evaluate the clinical outcomes, including treatment response and 28-day mortality, associated with these classifications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study design and setting

This prospective observational cohort study was conducted at a 1000-bedded tertiary care teaching hospital in Northern India from August 1, 2024 to October 31, 2024, to classify organisms isolated from lower respiratory samples using a structured stepwise model. Consecutive positive lower respiratory isolates (sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage, and endotracheal/tracheal aspirates) were identified through daily screening rounds performed jointly by the investigator and microbiologist in the microbiology department. Patients’ SOFA scores were collected. Patients were followed until discharge or for a maximum of 28 days to determine the outcomes, including response to treatment and mortality. As the model required integration of clinical evolution, the investigator was not blinded, and final classification of pathogenicity was determined after reviewing the patient’s treatment response and 28-day outcomes. Institutional Ethics Committee approval was obtained prior to the initiation of the study.

Structured stepwise model for organism classification

Whenever a culture or Biofire PCR tested positive and met inclusion criteria, the organism underwent a six-step clinico-microbiological algorithm to determine its pathogenicity by the investigator team (Figure 1). The SOFA score was calculated using standard criteria based on six organ systems: Respiratory, cardiovascular, hepatic, coagulation, renal, and neurological parameters, as per established guidelines.

Figure 1
Figure 1 Structured stepwise model for organism classification (Supplementary Tables 1-6). LRTI: Lower respiratory tract infection; SOFA: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment; RTI: Respiratory tract infection; NP: Non-pathogenic.
Outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was to determine the proportion of pathogens and non-pathogens in aerobic respiratory culture/multiplex PCR in a stepwise model. The secondary outcome measure was to determine the identified organisms as pathogenic colonizers, non-pathogenic contaminants, or non-pathogenic colonizers. Once the pathogenicity of the isolated organism was determined, patients were followed prospectively until discharge or up to 28 days, whichever occurred earlier, to evaluate clinical outcomes. Based on the clinical course and treatment decisions, outcomes were classified into four categories: (1) Improved with treatment, applicable to patients with pathogenic organisms who showed clinical recovery following targeted antimicrobial therapy; (2) No response to treatment, representing pathogenic cases where appropriate therapy failed to produce clinical improvement; (3) Not treated, defined for non-pathogenic isolates where no specific antimicrobial therapy was initiated; and (4) Treatment initiated for non-pathogenic organisms. This categorization allowed objective assessment of the appropriateness of pathogen classification and its correlation with patient outcomes.

Statistical analysis

Data entry was performed using Microsoft Excel, and statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, United States). The collected data were analyzed using a combination of descriptive and inferential statistical techniques. Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SD or median with interquartile range, depending on the distribution assessed. The normality of continuous variables was verified using both visual and statistical methods. Following this, either independent samples t-tests (for normally distributed variables) or Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney U tests (for non-parametric comparisons) were employed to assess group differences. Categorical variables were summarized as n (%), and comparisons between groups were performed using the χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. To assess agreement between categorical variables, particularly in organism classification by microbiologists vs investigators, Cohen’s Kappa statistic was calculated. The strength of the associations was further evaluated using effect size metrics, such as Cramer’s V, Bias-corrected Cramer’s V, and point-biserial correlation, for appropriate pairings. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all tests.

RESULTS

A total of 145 culture-positive or positive multiplex PCR events were included in the study and evaluated using the structured six-step clinico-microbiological algorithm (Figure 1). Each isolate was independently assessed by the microbiologist, treating physician, and the investigator for its pathogenic potential, incorporating clinical indicators, SOFA score dynamics, treatment response, and presence of foreign devices.

Baseline characteristics

The mean age of the participants was 50.4 ± 16.3 years, with 55.9% of participants being male. Most were from Uttar Pradesh (47.6%) or Uttarakhand (46.9%), and nearly half were admitted to the medical intensive care unit (ICU). Aerobic culture was the predominant identification method (90.3%), with endotracheal tube/tracheostomy tube as the most common sample type (66.2%). Acinetobacter baumannii (46.9%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (42.1%) were frequently isolated. A total of 14 organisms were identified by multiplex PCR. The most frequently detected organisms were Acinetobacter baumannii (10, 5.1%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (9, 4.6%), and Klebsiella pneumoniae (6, 3.1%). A majority had monomicrobial infections (75.9%), localized signs (95.2%), and elevated SOFA scores (76.6%) (Table 1). Common comorbidities were hypertension (45.1%) and diabetes (41.8%). Although the cohort comprised 145 samples, a total of 195 organisms were identified across these samples, as several specimens grew multiple organisms. However, the investigator model identified 145 primary organisms for 145 samples, categorizing each as either a pathogen or a non-pathogen.

Table 1 Association of demographic, microbiologic, and clinical variables associated with pathogen vs non-pathogen, n (%).
Category
Parameter
Total (n = 145)
Non-pathogen (n = 14)
Pathogen (n = 131)
P value
Demographic variables, mean ± SDAge (years)5042 ± 16355121 ± 16435034 ± 1640-
GenderMale81 (559)10 (714)71 (542)-
Female64 (441)4 (286)60 (458)
Site of clinical careGeneral medicine ward20 (138)5 (357)15 (115)-
Medicine ICU71 (490)4 (286)67 (511)
Nephrology ward5 (34)0 (00)5 (38)
Pulmonary medicine49 (338)5 (357)44 (336)
Microbiological variables-
SampleAerobic culture131 (903)14 (1000)117 (893)-
Multiplex PCR (Biofire FilmArray)14 (97)0 (00)14 (107)
Sputum24 (166)4 (28.6)20 (15.3)-
ET/TT96 (662)8 (57.1)88 (67.2)-
BAL25 (172)2 (14.3)23 (17.6)-
Organism (n = 195); aerobic culture (n = 158)Acinetobacter baumannii58 (29.7)4 (25)54 (30.2)-
Klebsiella pneumoniae55 (28.2)5 (31.3)50 (27.9)-
Pseudomonas aeruginosa23 (11.8)2 (12.5)21 (11.7)-
Escherichia coli5 (2.6)1 (6.3)4 (2.2)
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia4 (2.1)1 (6.3)3 (1.7)
Others13 (6.6)3 (18.8)10 (5.6)
Multiplex PCR (n = 37)Acinetobacter baumannii; genes - IMP, VIM, NDM10 (5.1)0 (0.0)10 (5.6)-
Pseudomonas aeruginosa; genes - NDM, VIM, IMP9 (4.6)0 (0.0)10 (5.0)
Klebsiella pneumoniae; genes - KPC, OXA - 486 (3.1)0 (0.0)6 (3.4)
Influenza virus4 (2.1)0 (0.0)4 (2.2)
Escherichia coli; genes - VIM, NDM3 (1.5)0 (0.0)3 (1.6)
Others5 (2.5)0 (0.0)5 (2.7)
Number of organisms positive/sample (n = 195)1110 (759)12 (857)98 (748)-
227 (186)2 (143)25 (191)-
33 (21)0 (00)3 (23)-
44 (28)0 (00)4 (31)-
61 (07)0 (00)1 (08)-
Same organism isolated from the local site and blood28 (193)0 (00)28 (214)-
Pathogen1 (71)131 (1000)-
Clinical variablesSigns and symptoms of any localized site of infection138 (95.2)9 (643)129 (985)< 00013
Fever71 (51.4)4 (444)67 (519)-
Cough88 (63.8)7 (778)81 (628)-
Expectoration105 (76.1)4 (444)101 (783)00363
Increasing oxygen requirement107 (77.5)3 (333)104 (806)00043
Tachypnoea97 (70.3)3 (333)94 (729)00203
Tachycardia68 (49.3)2 (222)66 (512)-
Chest pain4 (2.9)1 (111)3 (23)-
Increase in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score ≥ 2 (48 hours)111 (76.6)3 (214)108 (824)< 00013
Risk factors for colonizationInvasive mechanical ventilation103 (71.0)7 (500)96 (733)-
Recent hospitalization or antibiotic use within the past 90 days86 (59.3)8 (571)78 (595)-
Poor oral hygiene due to tobacco chewing, smoking, alcoholism, dry mouth, or chronic bedridden status56 (38.6)5 (357)51 (389)-
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease31 (21.4)4 (286)27 (206)-
Tracheostomy 25 (17.2)1 (71)24 (183)-
Prior isolation of the organism within one year of the incident22 (15.2)0 (00)22 (168)-
History of lower respiratory tract infection10 (6.9)2 (143)8 (61)-
Neuromuscular disorders7 (4.8)0 (00)7 (53)-
Bronchiectasis3 (2.1)1 (71)2 (15)-
ComplicationsMultiple organ dysfunction syndrome71 (49.0)4 (286)67 (511)-
Ventilator-associated pneumonia43 (29.7)2 (143)55 (420)00442
Shock51 (35.2)0 (00)51 (389)00023
Bloodstream infections48 (33.1)2 (143)46 (351)-
Acute kidney injury16 (11.0)1 (71)15 (115)-
Patients on hemodialysis21 (14.5)0 (00)21 (160)-
Arrhythmias, including ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation5 (3.4)0 (00)5 (38)-
Bedsores7 (4.8)0 (00)7 (53)-
ComorbiditiesDiabetes38 (418)3 (429)35 (417)-
Hypertension41 (451)2 (28.6)39 (464)-
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease26 (286)3 (42.9)23 (274)-
Coronary artery disease6 (66)0 (0.0)6 (71)-
Chronic liver disease3 (33)1 (14.3)2 (24)-
Chronic kidney disease20 (220)0 (0.0)20 (238)-
Malignancy5 (55)0 (0.0)5 (60)-
Outcomes

Among 145 respiratory samples, characterization by the investigator classified 131 (90.3%) isolates as pathogens and 14 (9.7%) as non-pathogens. A comparison between the investigator’s and the microbiologist’s classification of organisms as pathogen or non-pathogen revealed a Cohen’s Kappa coefficient of 0.28, indicating fair agreement. The cross-tabulation shows that both parties agreed on 129 samples being pathogens, while agreement on non-pathogens occurred in only 3 cases (Table 2). The discordant note was noted in 13 cases. The majority of disagreements occurred when the microbiologist labelled the isolate as pathogenic (based on culture identification), while the investigator labelled it as non-pathogenic. The investigator’s decision was based on the lack of overt clinical features of infection, which outweighed the observation of a rise in SOFA score that would otherwise have suggested organ dysfunction. The mean age of patients was comparable between groups (P = 0.923). While the gender and state distribution did not differ significantly. Significantly fewer non-pathogen cases had signs of localized infection (64.3% vs 98.5%, P < 0.001), lower respiratory tract localization (57.1% vs 96.9%, P < 0.001), and SOFA ≥ 2 (21.4% vs 82.4%, P < 0.001). The distribution of organisms (e.g., Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii) showed no significant variation between groups.

Table 2 Agreement for pathogen characterization between investigator and microbiologist, n (%).
CharacterizationCharacterization by investigator
Cohen’s Kappa
Non-pathogen
Pathogen
Total
k
P value
Characterization by microbiologistNon-pathogen3 (2.1)2 (1.4)5 (3.4)0.28< 0.001
Pathogen11 (7.6)129 (90.3)140 (96.6)
Total14 (9.7)131 (90.3)145 (100.0)

A significantly greater number of pathogen cases exhibited respiratory symptoms, including expectoration (P = 0.036), increased oxygen requirements (P = 0.004), tachypnea (P = 0.020), and altered mental status (P = 0.011). Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) (P = 0.044) and septic shock (P = 0.011) were significantly more common in pathogen cases (Table 1).

Out of 14 cases classified as non-pathogenic, 12 patients (85.7%) were not treated, and 2 patients (14.3%) were treated but remained clinically stable. None showed improvement attributable to antimicrobial therapy. One patient (7.1%) in this group died without receiving treatment; however, the mortality was attributed to ventricular arrhythmia and was unrelated to sepsis. Among 131 cases classified as pathogenic, 68 patients (51.9%) showed clinical improvement with treatment, while 63 patients (48.1%) showed no response despite therapy. A total of 48 patients (36.6%) in the pathogen group died, all of whom had failed to respond to treatment. Only 1 death (0.8%) occurred among those who improved with therapy secondary to another infection, VAP (Table 3).

Table 3 Comparison of variables across the investigator’s classification of respiratory isolates.
Parameters
Pathogenic commensal (n = 3)
Pathogenic colonizer (n = 103)
Pathogenic direct (n = 25)
Non-pathogenic commensal (n = 1)
Non-pathogenic colonizer (n = 5)
Non-pathogenic contaminants (n = 8)
P value
Age (years), mean ± SD40.00 ± 19.5250.67 ± 16.4650.20 ± 16.1030.00 ± 058.40 ± 5.9049.38 ± 19.400.5591
Gender: Male (%)33.349.576.0100.080.062.50.0952
Gender: Female (%)66.750.524.00.020.037.50.0952
Sample type: Sputum (n = 24)100068.0100037.5< 0.001
Sample type: ET/TT (n = 96)084.54.0080.050.0< 0.001
Sample type: BAL (n = 25)015.528.0020.012.5< 0.001
Fever (%)33.343.688033.350< 0.001
Cough (%)66.756.488066.783.30.0182
Increasing oxygen requirement, n (%)1 (33.3)87 (86.1)16 (64.0)0 (0)1 (33.3)2 (33.3)< 0.0012
Increase in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score ≥ 2 (%)66.785.472.00037.5< 0.001
Shock (%)043.724.00000.009
Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (%)055.340.0040.025.00.122
VAP (%)048.520.0020.012.50.011
Risk factors
Mechanical ventilation (%)093.200100.025.0< 0.001
Recent hospitalizations/antibiotics (%)66.769.916.00100.037.5< 0.001
Poor oral hygiene (%)66.745.68.0060.025.00.001
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (%)33.324.34.0060.012.50.030
Bronchiectasis (%)66.700020.00< 0.001
Tracheostomy (%)023.30020.000.030
Response to treatment< 0.001
Improved10043.7080.00---
No response056.3020.00---
Not treated---100.0080.0087.50
Stable (non-pathogen) with treatment020.0012.50
Outcome: Mortality (%)050.616.00014.30.001

Among 145 respiratory isolates, pathogenic colonizers were most frequent (n = 103, 71.0%), followed by pathogenic direct pathogens (n = 25, 17.2%) and pathogenic commensals (n = 3, 2.1%), while non-pathogenic isolates comprised commensals (n = 1, 0.7%), colonizers (n = 5, 3.4%), and contaminants (n = 8, 5.5%). The mean age and gender distribution were comparable across groups. However, sample type distribution differed significantly (P < 0.001), with sputum predominant among direct pathogens and endotracheal aspirates among colonizers. Fever, cough, and increasing oxygen requirement were significantly more common in pathogenic isolates (P < 0.001). Pathogenic colonizers exhibited the highest proportion of patients with SOFA score ≥ 2 (85.4%), shock (43.7%), and VAP (48.5%). Risk factors such as mechanical ventilation (93.2%) and recent antibiotic exposure (69.9%) were strongly associated with colonizers (P < 0.001). Treatment response was best among pathogenic commensals (100%) and direct pathogens (80%), while most non-pathogenic isolates were either untreated or clinically stable. Mortality was highest among pathogenic colonizers (50.6%) compared with direct pathogens (16%) and non-pathogenic groups (0%) (P = 0.001) (Table 3).

DISCUSSION

This study addresses a critical diagnostic challenge in respiratory medicine: Differentiating true infection from colonization or contamination in lower respiratory tract samples. By utilizing a structured, stepwise clinico-microbiological model, our research bridges the gap between microbiological identification and clinical relevance, particularly in high-burden, resource-constrained ICUs. Among the 145 samples evaluated, the majority (90.3%) were classified as pathogenic by the investigator. While this may reflect the predominance of serious infections in ICU patients, our analysis showed that a proportion of organisms (9.7%) did not meet criteria for pathogenicity despite being isolated from clinically ill individuals.

The fair agreement (κ = 0.28) between microbiologists and investigators underscores a persistent issue in practice: Microbiological positivity does not equate to clinical infection. Data from the VAPrapid2 trial further support this, highlighting that only 30% of patients were microbiologically confirmed to have VAP despite clinical suspicion, reinforcing the importance of integrating microbiological, clinical, and SOFA score parameters[10]. Labelle et al[5] reported that among patients with healthcare-associated pneumonia (n = 870), approximately 34% had growth of non-pathogenic flora; yet, a substantial proportion still received antibiotics, highlighting a mismatch between microbiological findings and clinical decision-making. Our study provides additional empirical evidence that reinforces the necessity of integrating host and clinical parameters into diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making, rather than relying solely on microbial isolation.

The strength of our study lies in correlating organism classification with clinical outcomes. Non-pathogen cases were largely untreated, yet 85.7% recovered uneventfully, and only one unrelated death was observed. This suggests that refraining from antibiotic escalation when non-pathogenic status is appropriately identified is both safe and cost-effective. Conversely, among those classified as pathogens, 68 (51.9%) showed clinical improvement with treatment, while 63 (48.1%) did not respond, of whom 48 (76.2%) died. This strong association between investigator classification and treatment response (P < 0.001) supports the validity of the algorithm.

Our findings also reaffirm the clinical value of integrating the SOFA score, symptomatology, and radiologic correlation. Patients with pathogenic organisms were significantly more likely to exhibit features such as expectoration, tachypnea, oxygen requirement, and altered mentation (P < 0.05 for all), in line with classical presentations of lower respiratory tract infections. Additionally, a rise in SOFA score of ≥ 2 within 48 hours was found in 82.4% of pathogen cases vs 21.4% in non-pathogens (P < 0.001), highlighting its utility as a discriminator. These findings are consistent with the 2016 Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society guidelines for healthcare-associated pneumonia - hospital-acquired pneumonia/VAP, which emphasize the diagnostic value of clinical features such as new or worsening cough, purulent secretions, leukocytosis, and hypoxia[3,11,12].

The multiplex PCR, which offers rapid and broad-spectrum pathogen detection -including viruses, atypical bacteria, and other pathogens - was selectively used in patients with suspected respiratory infections, often in critically ill or diagnostically challenging cases. In our study, multiplex PCR accounted for 9.7% (n = 14) of the total positive samples and was able to detect a total of 37 organisms, comprising 28 bacteria and 9 viruses, along with clinically relevant antimicrobial resistance genes. Notably, all multiplex PCR-positive samples were ultimately classified as pathogenic by the stepwise model, likely reflecting the high pre-test probability of infection in these cases. However, the high sensitivity of multiplex PCR poses a diagnostic dilemma, as it may detect nucleic acids from non-viable organisms or colonizers, particularly in patients undergoing recent or ongoing antibiotic therapy[7,13].

Núñez et al[14] found that each 1-point increase in SOFA score was associated with a 30% increased hazard of 30-day mortality (hazard ratio = 1.30; 95% confidence interval: 1.12-1.52; P < 0.001), Raveendra et al[15] reported significantly higher SOFA scores in non-survivors at VAP diagnosis (P = 0.005), and Kumar et al[16] highlighted the survival benefit of early combination antibiotic therapy in septic shock, reinforcing the role of early clinical-based decisions. The most frequently isolated organisms were Acinetobacter baumannii (46.9%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (42.1%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (22.1%), mirroring patterns reported in national ICU surveillance data (ICMR-AMRSN, 2021) with 30.4%, 25.3%, and 19.7% respiratory pathogens respectively[17]. Their predominance among pathogen-classified cases highlights the model’s strength in identifying clinically relevant, multidrug-resistant organisms.

Colonization factors, such as invasive mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy, while more prevalent in pathogen cases, did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.116 and 0.465, respectively). Established literature has linked several host-related and environmental factors to increased risk of airway colonization, including recent hospitalization or antibiotic use, poor oral hygiene due to tobacco use or chronic bedridden status, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, prior lower respiratory tract infections, bronchiectasis, and neuromuscular disorders[18-23]. Intubation with mechanical ventilation increases the risk of bacterial pneumonia by 6-20-fold due to disruption of natural host defenses, biofilm formation in endotracheal tubes, and promotion of airway colonization. Opportunistic organisms such as Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus can initially colonize the endotracheal tube and subsequently progress to VAP[2,24,25]. Candida colonization of the respiratory tract is a well-recognized phenomenon in ICU patients. In a multicenter study, Timsit et al[26] reported that in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for more than 4 days, bronchial colonization with Candida species was not independently associated with the development of VAP (adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio = 0.98; 95% confidence interval: 0.59-1.65; P = 0.95). However, Azoulay et al[27] found that Candida colonization of the respiratory tract did not correlate with increased mortality; however, it did increase the risk of VAP with Pseudomonas.

Such objective evidence supports the rationale for employing integrative clinico-microbiological approaches like our model to guide targeted antimicrobial use. Preventive strategies - including chlorhexidine oral care, semi-recumbent positioning, and subglottic suctioning - have also been shown to reduce the risk of VAP by limiting the colonization and aspiration of oropharyngeal secretions[28,29]. Such objective evidence supports the rationale for employing integrative clinico-microbiological approaches like our model to guide targeted antimicrobial use. The study’s structured framework demonstrated alignment with clinical response and mortality patterns, reinforcing its utility in antimicrobial stewardship. Importantly, the model enabled withholding antibiotics in non-pathogen cases without adverse effects - a key stewardship goal. Given the global crisis of antimicrobial resistance, such structured, evidence-based approaches are increasingly essential.

Our study has several limitations. First, it was conducted at a single center over a limited 3-month period, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Second, although clinical features and SOFA scores were systematically assessed using a structured checklist, there remains the potential for interobserver variability in classification. Third, we did not perform economic or cost analyses, and laboratory inflammatory markers, such as C-reactive protein and procalcitonin, were not analyzed, which could have further strengthened pathogen differentiation and prognostic assessment. Therefore, conclusions regarding resource utilization must be interpreted cautiously. Fourth, the follow-up period was limited to 28 days, and long-term outcomes such as readmissions or recurrent infections were not assessed. Fifth, a few cases had multiple organism growth in a single sample, which was not analyzed or correlated.

CONCLUSION

This prospective study evaluated 145 lower respiratory tract isolates using a structured six-step clinico-microbiological algorithm, classifying 90.3% as pathogens and 9.7% as non-pathogens. The model showed a strong association between classification and clinical outcomes: 85.7% of non-pathogen cases were safely managed without antibiotics, while among pathogen-classified cases, 51.9% improved with treatment and 36.6% succumbed despite therapy. Key predictors of pathogenicity included localized respiratory symptoms, a SOFA score of 2 or higher, and radiologic features. Cohen’s Kappa between the investigator and microbiologist classification was 0.28, indicating fair agreement. This model effectively differentiated between infection and colonization, allowing for rational antibiotic use without compromising patient safety, and reinforcing its potential utility in guiding antimicrobial stewardship efforts in high-burden clinical settings.

References
1.  Averin A, Sato R, Begier E, Yacisin K, Houde L, Lonshteyn A, Weycker D. Short-term and Long-term Mortality Following Hospitalized and Ambulatory Lower Respiratory Tract Illnesses Among US Adults. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2025;12:ofaf186.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in RCA: 1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
2.  Kalil AC, Metersky ML, Klompas M, Muscedere J, Sweeney DA, Palmer LB, Napolitano LM, O'Grady NP, Bartlett JG, Carratalà J, El Solh AA, Ewig S, Fey PD, File TM Jr, Restrepo MI, Roberts JA, Waterer GW, Cruse P, Knight SL, Brozek JL. Management of Adults With Hospital-acquired and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63:e61-e111.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 2156]  [Cited by in RCA: 2476]  [Article Influence: 247.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (1)]
3.  Motallebirad T, Mohammadi MR, Jadidi A, Safarabadi M, Kerami A, Azadi D, Hussein ES. Tracheal tube infections in critical care: A narrative review of influencing factors, microbial agents, and mitigation strategies in intensive care unit settings. SAGE Open Med. 2024;12:20503121241306951.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Full Text (PDF)]  [Cited by in RCA: 6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
4.  Fabre V, Davis A, Diekema DJ, Granwehr B, Hayden MK, Lowe CF, Pfeiffer CD, Sick-Samuels AC, Sullivan KV, Van Schooneveld TC, Morgan DJ. Principles of diagnostic stewardship: A practical guide from the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Diagnostic Stewardship Task Force. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2023;44:178-185.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in RCA: 119]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
5.  Labelle AJ, Arnold H, Reichley RM, Micek ST, Kollef MH. A comparison of culture-positive and culture-negative health-care-associated pneumonia. Chest. 2010;137:1130-1137.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 80]  [Cited by in RCA: 75]  [Article Influence: 4.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
6.  Dung TTN, Phat VV, Vinh C, Lan NPH, Phuong NLN, Ngan LTQ, Thwaites G, Thwaites L, Rabaa M, Nguyen ATK, Duy PT. Development and validation of multiplex real-time PCR for simultaneous detection of six bacterial pathogens causing lower respiratory tract infections and antimicrobial resistance genes. BMC Infect Dis. 2024;24:164.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Full Text (PDF)]  [Cited by in Crossref: 14]  [Cited by in RCA: 24]  [Article Influence: 12.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
7.  Calderaro A, Buttrini M, Farina B, Montecchini S, De Conto F, Chezzi C. Respiratory Tract Infections and Laboratory Diagnostic Methods: A Review with A Focus on Syndromic Panel-Based Assays. Microorganisms. 2022;10:1856.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Full Text (PDF)]  [Cited by in RCA: 81]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
8.  Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. A randomized trial of diagnostic techniques for ventilator-associated pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2619-2630.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 369]  [Cited by in RCA: 310]  [Article Influence: 15.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
9.  Solé Violán J, Fernández JA, Benítez AB, Cardeñosa Cendrero JA, Rodríguez de Castro F. Impact of quantitative invasive diagnostic techniques in the management and outcome of mechanically ventilated patients with suspected pneumonia. Crit Care Med. 2000;28:2737-2741.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 139]  [Cited by in RCA: 118]  [Article Influence: 4.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
10.  Hellyer TP, McAuley DF, Walsh TS, Anderson N, Conway Morris A, Singh S, Dark P, Roy AI, Perkins GD, McMullan R, Emerson LM, Blackwood B, Wright SE, Kefala K, O'Kane CM, Baudouin SV, Paterson RL, Rostron AJ, Agus A, Bannard-Smith J, Robin NM, Welters ID, Bassford C, Yates B, Spencer C, Laha SK, Hulme J, Bonner S, Linnett V, Sonksen J, Van Den Broeck T, Boschman G, Keenan DJ, Scott J, Allen AJ, Phair G, Parker J, Bowett SA, Simpson AJ. Biomarker-guided antibiotic stewardship in suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAPrapid2): a randomised controlled trial and process evaluation. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8:182-191.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 92]  [Cited by in RCA: 84]  [Article Influence: 14.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
11.  Loscalzo J, Fauci AS, Kasper DL, Hauser S, Longo D, Jameson JL.   Harrison’s principles of internal medicine. 21st ed. New Delhi: Mc Graw Hill, 2022: 1009-1020.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
12.  Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, Willatts S, De Mendonça A, Bruining H, Reinhart CK, Suter PM, Thijs LG. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22:707-710.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 9063]  [Cited by in RCA: 8092]  [Article Influence: 269.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (3)]
13.  Miller JM, Binnicker MJ, Campbell S, Carroll KC, Chapin KC, Gonzalez MD, Harrington A, Jerris RC, Kehl SC, Leal SM Jr, Patel R, Pritt BS, Richter SS, Robinson-Dunn B, Snyder JW, Telford S 3rd, Theel ES, Thomson RB Jr, Weinstein MP, Yao JD. Guide to Utilization of the Microbiology Laboratory for Diagnosis of Infectious Diseases: 2024 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the American Society for Microbiology (ASM). Clin Infect Dis. 2024;ciae104.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in RCA: 188]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
14.  Núñez SA, Roveda G, Zárate MS, Emmerich M, Verón MT. Ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients on prolonged mechanical ventilation: description, risk factors for mortality, and performance of the SOFA score. J Bras Pneumol. 2021;47:e20200569.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Full Text (PDF)]  [Cited by in Crossref: 1]  [Cited by in RCA: 23]  [Article Influence: 4.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
15.  Raveendra KR, Devamsh GN, Nandan K, Chirag LU, Vinay K. Comparison of clinical parameters with APACHE-II, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score scores in predicting treatment outcome of patients with ventilator associated pneumonia. Int J Adv Med. 2020;7:527-523.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]
16.  Kumar A, Zarychanski R, Light B, Parrillo J, Maki D, Simon D, Laporta D, Lapinsky S, Ellis P, Mirzanejad Y, Martinka G, Keenan S, Wood G, Arabi Y, Feinstein D, Kumar A, Dodek P, Kravetsky L, Doucette S; Cooperative Antimicrobial Therapy of Septic Shock (CATSS) Database Research Group. Early combination antibiotic therapy yields improved survival compared with monotherapy in septic shock: a propensity-matched analysis. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:1773-1785.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 305]  [Cited by in RCA: 300]  [Article Influence: 18.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
17.  ICMR  India's Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance & Research Initiative. 2021. [cited 3 August 2025]. Available from: https://iamrsn.icmr.org.in/index.php/resources/amr-icmr-data.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
18.  Lusuardi M, Capelli A, Cerutti CG, Gnemmi I, Zaccaria S, Donner CF. Influence of clinical history on airways bacterial colonization in subjects with chronic tracheostomy. Respir Med. 2000;94:436-440.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 8]  [Cited by in RCA: 10]  [Article Influence: 0.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
19.  Harlid R, Andersson G, Frostell CG, Jörbeck HJ, Ortqvist AB. Respiratory tract colonization and infection in patients with chronic tracheostomy. A one-year study in patients living at home. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996;154:124-129.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 60]  [Cited by in RCA: 54]  [Article Influence: 1.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
20.  Cabello H, Torres A, Celis R, El-Ebiary M, Puig de la Bellacasa J, Xaubet A, González J, Agustí C, Soler N. Bacterial colonization of distal airways in healthy subjects and chronic lung disease: a bronchoscopic study. Eur Respir J. 1997;10:1137-1144.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 168]  [Cited by in RCA: 177]  [Article Influence: 6.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
21.  Lepainteur M, Ogna A, Clair B, Dinh A, Tarragon C, Prigent H, Davido B, Barbot F, Vaugier I, Afif M, Roux AL, Rottman M, Orlikowski D, Herrmann JL, Annane D, Lawrence C. Risk factors for respiratory tract bacterial colonization in adults with neuromuscular or neurological disorders and chronic tracheostomy. Respir Med. 2019;152:32-36.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 11]  [Cited by in RCA: 13]  [Article Influence: 1.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
22.  Scannapieco FA, Papandonatos GD, Dunford RG. Associations between oral conditions and respiratory disease in a national sample survey population. Ann Periodontol. 1998;3:251-256.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 179]  [Cited by in RCA: 167]  [Article Influence: 6.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
23.  Bonten MJ, Bergmans DC, Ambergen AW, de Leeuw PW, van der Geest S, Stobberingh EE, Gaillard CA. Risk factors for pneumonia, and colonization of respiratory tract and stomach in mechanically ventilated ICU patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996;154:1339-1346.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 106]  [Cited by in RCA: 112]  [Article Influence: 3.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
24.  Craven DE, Hjalmarson KI. Ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis and pneumonia: thinking outside the box. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51 Suppl 1:S59-S66.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 82]  [Cited by in RCA: 84]  [Article Influence: 5.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
25.  Robinson J. Colonization and infection of the respiratory tract: What do we know? Paediatr Child Health. 2004;9:21-24.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Full Text (PDF)]  [Cited by in Crossref: 37]  [Cited by in RCA: 59]  [Article Influence: 3.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
26.  Timsit JF, Schwebel C, Styfalova L, Cornet M, Poirier P, Forrestier C, Ruckly S, Jacob MC, Souweine B. Impact of bronchial colonization with Candida spp. on the risk of bacterial ventilator-associated pneumonia in the ICU: the FUNGIBACT prospective cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2019;45:834-843.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 32]  [Cited by in RCA: 37]  [Article Influence: 5.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
27.  Azoulay E, Timsit JF, Tafflet M, de Lassence A, Darmon M, Zahar JR, Adrie C, Garrouste-Orgeas M, Cohen Y, Mourvillier B, Schlemmer B; Outcomerea Study Group. Candida colonization of the respiratory tract and subsequent pseudomonas ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest. 2006;129:110-117.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 170]  [Cited by in RCA: 194]  [Article Influence: 9.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
28.  Safdar N, Crnich CJ, Maki DG. The pathogenesis of ventilator-associated pneumonia: its relevance to developing effective strategies for prevention. Respir Care. 2005;50:725-739; discussion 739.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
29.  Klompas M, Branson R, Eichenwald EC, Greene LR, Howell MD, Lee G, Magill SS, Maragakis LL, Priebe GP, Speck K, Yokoe DS, Berenholtz SM; Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). Strategies to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35:915-936.  [RCA]  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Full Text]  [Cited by in Crossref: 243]  [Cited by in RCA: 187]  [Article Influence: 15.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Footnotes

Peer review: Externally peer reviewed.

Peer-review model: Single blind

Specialty type: Medical laboratory technology

Country of origin: India

Peer-review report’s classification

Scientific quality: Grade A, Grade B, Grade B

Novelty: Grade A, Grade A, Grade B

Creativity or innovation: Grade A, Grade A, Grade B

Scientific significance: Grade A, Grade B, Grade B

P-Reviewer: Barakat KM, PhD, Professor, Egypt; Corvino A, MD, PhD, Professor, Italy S-Editor: Hu XY L-Editor: A P-Editor: Zhao S

Write to the Help Desk