ClinicalTrials.gg
Not yet recruitingNCT07077096PRISMUpdated Jul 22, 2025

Diagnostic Utility of Pleural Infection-specific Multiplex PCR Panel

An observational study in Pleural Infection, sponsored by Chinese University of Hong Kong. Not yet recruiting at 1 site in Hong Kong. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-07-22.

Sponsored by Chinese University of Hong Kong · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
800
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Pleural effusion is a common cause of hospitalization. Pleural infection ranked third among the pleural effusions requiring hospitalization in the United States. Pleural infection, including complicated parapneumonic effusion and empyema, is associated with a 30-day mortality of 10%. Approximately 20-57% of patients with pneumonia have an associated pleural effusion at presentation, of which 5-7% progress to pleural infection. Analyses of several nation-wide healthcare databases in the United States, France and the United Kingdom have showed an increasing incidence of pleural infection in the past decade.

Adequate antibiotic coverage and fluid drainage are the two pillars of treatment for pleural infection. The empirical use of antibiotics should be based on the local spectrum of causative microorganisms and the source of infection. Subsequent targeted antibiotic regimen can be guided by the culture results and sensitivity pattern of the cultured microorganisms. The use of blood culture bottles as the transfer medium can improve the culture positivity from 30-40% to 60%. An explorative study of culturing pleural tissue can increase the microbiological yield from 20% to 45%. Despite these methods, the culture positivity rates are far from 100% although clinical evidence of pleural infection. Peripheral blood cultures may occasionally be the only positive source of culture (12%). Occasionally, complicated malignant pleural effusion (MPE) can mimic pleural infection, by sharing similar biochemical features of high neutrophil counts and lactate dehydrogenase in the pleural fluid. This would subject the patients with MPE to unnecessary prolonged course of antibiotic and delay of chemotherapy. Prolonged course of broad-spectrum antibiotics (BSA) is commonly required for culture-negative pleural infection or MPE with complicated features, but it could lead to various antibiotic-related adverse events, including kidney and liver injuries, opportunistic infections (e.g. Clostridioides difficile colitis). These are clinical unmet needs of identifying causative microorganisms in pleural infection.

The application of multiplex bacterial polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panel has transformed the care of patients with respiratory infection. Incorporating multiplex bacterial PCR test of bronchoalveolar lavage in hospitalized patients with pneumonia at risk of Gram-negative bacterial infection can significantly shorten the duration of inappropriate antibiotic therapy. For patients with suspected lower respiratory tract infection, this platform allows early antibiotic adjustment (faster antibiotic escalations for Gram-negative or Gram-positive bacteria, and faster antibiotic de-escalations directed at Gram-positive bacteria). The use of multiplex PCR panel designed for pneumonia has been applied to patients with parapneumonic effusion with successful identification of non-culturable microorganism. However, the use of pneumonia multiplex PCR panels has not been fully validated in the clinical management of pleural infection. More importantly, these panels only detect common microorganisms included on their panels specifically designed for pneumonia. Therefore, a dedicated pleural infection-specific multiplex (PRISM) PCR panel is required to enhance the identification for microorganisms in patients presenting with pleural infection.

A syndromic real-time PCR panel for diagnosing community-acquired pleural infection has been established by a Norway group, with its components constructed based on the next-generation sequencing results using prior pleural infection samples. Their panel showed a higher diagnostic sensitivity than that of conventional culture-based methods. For bacterial species included in the PCR panel, it had a sensitivity of 99.5%. However, it lacks clinical performance data and may not be applicable in the South-East Asian region as the microbiological spectrum of pleural infection differs geographically, with pneumococci and viridans streptococci the most commonly reported isolates from tropical and temperate regions, respectively. Therefore, a PRISM PCR panel dedicated for South-East Asian population is highly warranted. The investigators has developed a PRISM PCR panel dedicated for local population. The investigators hypothesize that this new PRISM PCR panel has higher diagnostic sensitivity than conventional culture-based methods in identifying causative microorganisms in prospectively collected real-world pleural fluid specimens.

02

Conditions studied

  • Pleural Infection

Keywords

  • Parapneumonic effusion
  • Pleural effusion
  • Empyema
03

In context

Pleural Effusion

241 studies on the registry are indexed under Pleural Effusion; 50 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 800 is above the median of 140 across 93 observational studies indexed under Pleural Effusion.

Browse Pleural Effusion studies →

Lead sponsor

Chinese University of Hong Kong is the lead sponsor of 1,454 studies on the registry; 474 are open to participants now.

Of its 6 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 0 (0%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

Patients with pleural infection will be recruited as positive control. Patients without pleural infection will be recruited as negative control.

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients hospitalized for new-onset pleural effusion requiring thoracentesis
  • Aged 18 years old or above

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • History of tuberculous pleuritis and bacterial pleural infection in the ipsilateral pleural space
  • History of intrapleural therapy (including talc and fibrinolytic) in the ipsilateral pleural space
  • History of surgical decortication or pleurodesis in the ipsilateral pleural space
  • Eczematous or infected cutaneous conditions at the site of planned pleural procedure that may increase the risk of contamination during the procedure
  • Failed to obtain due to the patient's refusal or cognitive impairment
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
800 participants (estimated)
Patient registry
No
Biospecimen retention
Samples with dna

Groups and cohorts

  • Pleural infection

    Patients with pleural infection

    Diagnostic Test: PRISM PCR panel · Diagnostic Test: Conventional bacterial culture

  • Non-pleural infection

    Patients without pleural infection

    Diagnostic Test: PRISM PCR panel · Diagnostic Test: Conventional bacterial culture

Interventions

  • Diagnostic testPRISM PCR panel

    Comparing the diagnostic accuracy between conventional bacterial culture and multiplex PCR on diagnosing pleural infection

  • Diagnostic testConventional bacterial culture

    Comparing the diagnostic accuracy between conventional bacterial culture and multiplex PCR on diagnosing pleural infection

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the PRISM PCR panel

    The diagnostic performance (sensitivity and specificity ) of the PRISM PCR panel and conventional bacterial culture in diagnosing pleural infection

    Time frame: 24 months

Secondary outcomes

  1. the effect of antibiotic on the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of PRISM PCR panel

    Evaluation of the effect of time difference between intiation of antibiotic and pleural fluid aspiration on the diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of PRISM PCR panel in diagnosing pleural infection

    Time frame: 24 months

  2. the effect of pleural fluid pH on the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of PRISM PCR panel

    Evaluation of the effect of pleural fluid pH on the diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of PRISM PCR panel in diagnosing pleural infection

    Time frame: 24 months

07

Study locations

1 site
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Start is estimated for Jan 2026; primary completion for Dec 2027, 23 months later.

Of 35 observational studies under Pleural Effusion, half reached primary completion within 26 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 15 and three quarters within 48. This study's planned 23 months is below that.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Jul 3, 2025
First posted
Jul 22, 2025
StartEst.
Jan 1, 2026
Primary completionEst.
Dec 31, 2027
CompletionEst.
Jun 30, 2028
Last update
Jul 22, 2025
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jul 22, 2025, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07077096
Responsible party
Ka Pang Chan (Assistant Professor, Chinese University of Hong Kong) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jul 22, 2025
Start date
Jan 1, 2026 (estimated)
Primary completion
Dec 31, 2027 (estimated)
Completion
Jun 30, 2028 (estimated)
Last update
Jul 22, 2025

Study contacts

Ka Pang Chan, MBChB
Contact
chankapang@cuhk.edu.hk
35052211

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Jul 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion