Antimicrobial prescribing in adults with acute respiratory infections following rapid six-virus antigen testing: A prospective cohort study in Italian primary care
This prospective cohort study in Italian primary care found that while a positive result from a rapid six-virus antigen test was associated with a modest reduction in antibiotic prescribing and increased antiviral use, the test's low-to-moderate sensitivity limits its utility as a universal rule-out tool, suggesting it is best deployed as a rule-in diagnostic for early presenters and high-risk patients.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Imagine the human body as a bustling city, and the immune system as the local police force. When an invader like a virus or a bacterium breaks in, the police need to know exactly who they are fighting to choose the right weapon. If the intruder is a virus, antibiotics are like using a flamethrower to put out a candle; they don't work on the virus and can actually cause chaos by destroying the city's good bacteria and creating super-bugs that are hard to stop. This is the global problem of "antibiotic overuse." For years, doctors have been stuck in a foggy situation: a patient walks in with a cough and fever, and it's hard to tell if it's a virus or a bacteria without waiting days for lab results. To solve this, scientists have developed "rapid tests" that act like a quick ID check, giving an answer in minutes instead of days. The big question is: if we give doctors these quick ID checks, will they stop using the flamethrowers (antibiotics) when they see it's just a virus?
A team of researchers in Genoa, Italy, decided to find out by watching what happens in real life. They set up a study during the 2025/2026 respiratory season, recruiting 682 adults who came to their local doctors with a sudden cough, sore throat, or fever. Instead of just guessing, the doctors took two swabs from each patient's nose. The first swab went into a "six-in-one" rapid test that could instantly spot six different viruses (like Flu A, Flu B, RSV, SARS-CoV-2, and others). The second swab was sent to a high-tech lab for a "gold standard" test that takes a few days but is extremely accurate. The researchers then watched to see what medicines the doctors prescribed based on the quick test results.
Here is what they discovered, and it's a bit like a detective story with a twist. First, the quick test wasn't perfect. While it was very good at saying "No virus here" when there truly wasn't one (it rarely gave false alarms), it missed a lot of actual viruses. It only caught about 40% of Influenza A cases and roughly half of the RSV cases. In fact, for one common virus called rhinovirus, the test was almost useless, catching only 0.7% of the cases. It was like a metal detector that was great at finding gold bars but terrible at finding small coins.
Despite the test's flaws, the results on how doctors prescribed medicine were interesting. When the rapid test came back positive (saying "Yes, a virus is here!"), the doctors were slightly more likely to skip the antibiotics. About 26% of patients with a positive test got antibiotics, compared to 34% of those with a negative test. This suggests that seeing a positive result gave doctors enough confidence to say, "Okay, it's a virus, let's not use the heavy antibiotics." Furthermore, every single antiviral medication (the drugs that actually fight viruses) was given only to patients who tested positive on the rapid test.
However, the study also ruled out a hopeful idea: that a negative test result would stop doctors from prescribing antibiotics. Even when the rapid test said "No virus found," the doctors still prescribed antibiotics to about 34% of those patients. The researchers found that the doctors seemed to think, "The test might have missed it, or maybe there's a bacteria hiding somewhere, so I'll just prescribe antibiotics to be safe." Because the test missed so many viruses, a negative result didn't feel like a "get out of jail free" card for the doctors; it felt too risky to ignore.
The bottom line of this study is that while these rapid tests are great for confirming a virus early on—especially for patients who show up within three days of feeling sick—they aren't reliable enough to be used as a universal "rule-out" tool. If a doctor uses them on everyone, they might miss too many infections, leading to a false sense of security or, conversely, causing doctors to prescribe antibiotics anyway just to cover their bases. The authors suggest these tests are best used as a "rule-in" tool: if it lights up positive, treat the virus immediately. But if it's negative, the doctor still needs to use their own judgment, because the test might have simply missed the culprit. The study didn't prove that these tests will solve the antibiotic crisis on their own, but it did show that a positive result can nudge doctors toward better choices, while a negative result often leaves them right where they started.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.