Chronic Respiratory ConditionsACCREDIT2NCT07029672
The AcCREDiT 2 Study
An observational study of Chronic Respiratory Conditions and COPD, run by Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust at 1 site in United Kingdom.
Trial summary
The ACCREDIT study - Acute respiratory infections and chronic respiratory disease exacerbations characterisation and personalised treatment platform study 2 (AcCREDiT 2). Patients with respiratory infections (such as pneumonia) or exacerbations of chronic respiratory conditions (such as emphysema) often require… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Chronic Respiratory Conditions, COPD, Pneumonia
- How many people
- 120 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited Kingdom
- Study dates
- 1 Jul 2025to Apr 2026
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: In patients whose symptoms are consistent with an acute respiratory infection or exacerbation, but the prescription of an eligible agent has not yet been confirmed
Who may be able to join
- Age ≥ 18 years
- Clinically suspected acute respiratory infection or exacerbation of chronic respiratory disease
- Availability of respiratory tract sample
- Spontaneously breathing patients are able to produce a sputum sample
- Mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care are due to have an Bronchoalveolar lavage or non-directed bronchial lavage for a clinical indication
- Due to receive either:
Show all 10Show fewer
- an anti-infective agent (e.g. antibiotic, antiviral or antifungal) OR
- a systemic anti-inflammatory agent (e.g. corticosteroid)
- Valid informed consent, assent or enrolment through deferred consent
- Re-enrolment will be allowed if presenting for a separate acute event
Who cannot join
- Alternate respiratory cause of presentation in the opinion of the treating physician (e.g. pulmonary embolism, heart failure, etc.)
- High clinical likelihood of infection with a Hazard Group 3 pathogen (e.g. tuberculosis, anthrax, plague)
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Tim Felton contact
United Kingdom1 site
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
Manchester, M23 9LT
Paula Wasiolek, 0161 291 5757, paula.wasiolek@mft.nhs.uk
Sponsor Respresentative, Research.Sponsor@mft.nhs.uk
About this study
Official title: Acute Respiratory Infections and Chronic Respiratory Disease Exacerbation Characterisation and Personalised Treatment Platform Study 2
The ACCREDIT study - Acute respiratory infections and chronic respiratory disease exacerbations characterisation and personalised treatment platform study 2 (AcCREDiT 2).
Patients with respiratory infections (such as pneumonia) or exacerbations of chronic respiratory conditions (such as emphysema) often require hospital admission. Infections or exacerbation are commonly caused by bacteria, viruses or fungi. In at least a quarter of patients no infectious cause of the exacerbation is found. Depending on the cause of the respiratory infections or exacerbations of chronic respiratory condition patients require prompt treatment with anti-infective drugs (antibiotics, anti-fungal or antiviral drugs) or anti-inflammatory drugs such as corticosteroids.
Read more
Patients with respiratory infection or exacerbations of chronic respiratory conditions develop symptoms such as cough, sometimes with sputum, fever or breathlessness. These symptoms can be similar across several conditions, many of which are not due to infection (for example heart failure or blood clots in the lungs). When assessing patients with respiratory symptoms, clinicians face the challenge of limited information in the early stages of care as it takes three days to identify infectious organisms in the laboratory. Even when an infection is strongly suspected, distinguishing bacterial from viral or fungal infections on clinical grounds alone is difficult. This uncertainty often leads clinicians to prescribe a number of treatments, including antibiotics, before a clear diagnosis is made. Timely treatment is crucial for success and improved patient outcomes, especially for critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). However, antibiotics may cause side effects, such as sickness and diarrhoea, and overuse of antibiotics leads to antibiotic resistance, making antibiotics less effective when they are really needed. Giving antibiotics to patients with an infection or exacerbation and avoiding antibiotics in patients without an infection requires rapid diagnostic tests. Furthermore, giving antibiotics prior to taking samples to diagnose infection can affect the sample being tested making it more likely to not give a useful result. For a diagnostic test for infection to be most useful it needs to be collected before an antibiotic is given - this is true for both clinical tests and those research tests which are clinical tests in development.
Modern technologies allow testing for an infection in hours rather than days. In order to understand how effective these technologies are, samples need to be taken from patients before they start treatment. In routine NHS care samples to test for infection should be taken before treatment has been started. However, in research studies samples are often taken up to a day after treatment has started which affects how effective the test is at finding infection. The forerunner to this study, called AcCREDiT, proposed investigating very rapid ways of identifying individuals with respiratory infection and exacerbation. However, the study team encountered challenges during the informed consent process, particularly with acutely unwell patients. Therefore, the AcCREDiT-2 was designed in collaboration with patients and public contributors to look at the feasibility of a modified informed consent process: verbal consent, assent for individuals with capacity to consent for themselves, and deferred consent.
AcCREDiT-2 will be an observational study, meaning that no treatment will be changed, and no experimental drugs or tests used to influence the clinical care of participants. AcCREDiT-2 will also be a 'feasibility study', which is a smaller study designed to see what works well before embarking on a larger project. During the study the investigators will collect clinical information and samples, such as blood, sputum and stool, from patients who come to hospital with a presumed respiratory infection or exacerbation of their chronic respiratory condition. The investigators will compare new diagnostic tests to traditional laboratory tests to understand their relative advantages and disadvantages for patient care.
This is a 'feasibility' study, a small study ran first to make sure things work properly before expanding to a much larger study.
- Conditions
- Chronic Respiratory Conditions, COPD, Pneumonia, Bacterial Infections, Viral Infections, Respiratory Exacerbation
- Keywords
- ACCREDIT
- Medical subject headings
- Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Pneumonia, Bacterial Infections, Virus Diseases
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Feasibility of timely recruitment, assessment, and retention during follow up
Endpoints: Number of patients recruited within 12 months of study start, recruitment expected at a minimum of 2 patients per week enrolled into the study, feasibility attainment target: 120 patients across different clinical environments and diagnostic categories.
Measured: 12 months
Secondary outcomes (10)
Efficacy of verbal consent
Feasibility of study - Proportion of patients declining consent at verbal consent stage
Measured: 12 months
Efficacy of 'consent to continue' model following verbal consent
Measure of study feasibility - Proportion of patients voluntarily withdrawing from study following verbal consent
Measured: 12 months
Availability of respiratory tract samples and stool samples for analysis
Measure of study feasibility - Proportion of patients in whom sputum and/or stool samples are successfully obtained for analysis
Measured: 12 months
Infectious aetiology of presentation
Measure of study feasibility - Proportion of patients presenting with bacterial infection, viral infection, fungal infection, or no identifiable infective causes
Measured: 12 months
Diagnostic categorisation of patients recruited
Study feasibility assessment - Proportion of patients presenting with prespecified diagnoses (e.g. pneumonia, exacerbation of COPD)
Measured: 12 months
Performance of different diagnostic strategies
Measure of study feasibility - Comparison of results from routine microbiological approaches (service standard) with molecular techniques to identify pathogens.
Measured: 12 months
Impact of delayed sampling on diagnosis and prescribing of antibiotics
Comparison of results from blood and sputum samples taken prior to treatment being commenced with samples collected 3-6 hours after treatment has been commenced.
Measured: 12 months
Hospital length of stay (days)
Number of days from hospital admission to discharge - informing feasibility of study and future study
Measured: 12 months
ICU length of stay, if admitted (days)
Number of days from ICU admission to discharge to inform feasibility of future study and recruitment methods
Measured: 12 months
28-day mortality
Proportion of patients alive at 28 days from enrolment - feasibility of study and recruitment methods
Measured: 12 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted19 Jun 2025
- Study start1 Jul 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completionApr 2026 (estimated)
- Study completionApr 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Chronic Respiratory ConditionsStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 120 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
- Sponsor type
- Other government
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07029672
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- B02407
- Acronym
- ACCREDIT2
- Status last verified
- Jul 2025
- First submitted
- 1 May 2025
- Last updated
- 4 Jul 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 4 Jul 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Acute Respiratory Infections and Chronic Respiratory Disease Exacerbation Characterisation and Personalised Treatment Platform Study 2
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07029672
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ACCREDIT2 / B02407
- Conditions
- Chronic Respiratory Conditions, COPD, Pneumonia, Bacterial Infections, Viral Infections, Respiratory Exacerbation
- Keywords
- ACCREDIT
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 120 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustOther government
- Study start
- 1 Jul 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Apr 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Apr 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 19 Jun 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The ACCREDIT study - Acute respiratory infections and chronic respiratory disease exacerbations characterisation and personalised treatment platform study 2 (AcCREDiT 2).
Patients with respiratory infections (such as pneumonia) or exacerbations of chronic respiratory conditions (such as emphysema) often require hospital admission. Infections or exacerbation are commonly caused by bacteria, viruses or fungi. In at least a quarter of patients no infectious cause of the exacerbation is found. Depending on the cause of the respiratory infections or exacerbations of chronic respiratory condition patients require prompt treatment with anti-infective drugs (antibiotics, anti-fungal or antiviral drugs) or anti-inflammatory drugs such as corticosteroids.
Patients with respiratory infection or exacerbations of chronic respiratory conditions develop symptoms such as cough, sometimes with sputum, fever or breathlessness. These symptoms can be similar across several conditions, many of which are not due to infection (for example heart failure or blood clots in the lungs). When assessing patients with respiratory symptoms, clinicians face the challenge of limited information in the early stages of care as it takes three days to identify infectious organisms in the laboratory. Even when an infection is strongly suspected, distinguishing bacterial from viral or fungal infections on clinical grounds alone is difficult. This uncertainty often leads clinicians to prescribe a number of treatments, including antibiotics, before a clear diagnosis is made. Timely treatment is crucial for success and improved patient outcomes, especially for critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). However, antibiotics may cause side effects, such as sickness and diarrhoea, and overuse of antibiotics leads to antibiotic resistance, making antibiotics less effective when they are really needed. Giving antibiotics to patients with an infection or exacerbation and avoiding antibiotics in patients without an infection requires rapid diagnostic tests. Furthermore, giving antibiotics prior to taking samples to diagnose infection can affect the sample being tested making it more likely to not give a useful result. For a diagnostic test for infection to be most useful it needs to be collected before an antibiotic is given - this is true for both clinical tests and those research tests which are clinical tests in development.
Modern technologies allow testing for an infection in hours rather than days. In order to understand how effective these technologies are, samples need to be taken from patients before they start treatment. In routine NHS care samples to test for infection should be taken before treatment has been started. However, in research studies samples are often taken up to a day after treatment has started which affects how effective the test is at finding infection. The forerunner to this study, called AcCREDiT, proposed investigating very rapid ways of identifying individuals with respiratory infection and exacerbation. However, the study team encountered challenges during the informed consent process, particularly with acutely unwell patients. Therefore, the AcCREDiT-2 was designed in collaboration with patients and public contributors to look at the feasibility of a modified informed consent process: verbal consent, assent for individuals with capacity to consent for themselves, and deferred consent.
AcCREDiT-2 will be an observational study, meaning that no treatment will be changed, and no experimental drugs or tests used to influence the clinical care of participants. AcCREDiT-2 will also be a 'feasibility study', which is a smaller study designed to see what works well before embarking on a larger project. During the study the investigators will collect clinical information and samples, such as blood, sputum and stool, from patients who come to hospital with a presumed respiratory infection or exacerbation of their chronic respiratory condition. The investigators will compare new diagnostic tests to traditional laboratory tests to understand their relative advantages and disadvantages for patient care.
This is a 'feasibility' study, a small study ran first to make sure things work properly before expanding to a much larger study.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- In patients whose symptoms are consistent with an acute respiratory infection or exacerbation, but the prescription of an eligible agent has not yet been confirmed
Key inclusion criteria (10 listed)
- Age ≥ 18 years
- Clinically suspected acute respiratory infection or exacerbation of chronic respiratory disease
- Availability of respiratory tract sample
- Due to receive either:
- Valid informed consent, assent or enrolment through deferred consent
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Alternate respiratory cause of presentation in the opinion of the treating physician (e.g. pulmonary embolism, heart failure, etc.)
- High clinical likelihood of infection with a Hazard Group 3 pathogen (e.g. tuberculosis, anthrax, plague)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Feasibility of timely recruitment, assessment, and retention during follow up
Time frame: 12 months
Endpoints: Number of patients recruited within 12 months of study start, recruitment expected at a minimum of 2 patients per week enrolled into the study, feasibility attainment target: 120 patients across different clinical environments and diagnostic categories.
10 secondary outcomes
Efficacy of verbal consent
Time frame: 12 months
Efficacy of 'consent to continue' model following verbal consent
Time frame: 12 months
Availability of respiratory tract samples and stool samples for analysis
Time frame: 12 months
Infectious aetiology of presentation
Time frame: 12 months
Diagnostic categorisation of patients recruited
Time frame: 12 months
Performance of different diagnostic strategies
Time frame: 12 months
Impact of delayed sampling on diagnosis and prescribing of antibiotics
Time frame: 12 months
Hospital length of stay (days)
Time frame: 12 months
ICU length of stay, if admitted (days)
Time frame: 12 months
28-day mortality
Time frame: 12 months
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 4 Jul 2025.
Related trials for Chronic Respiratory Conditions
Recruiting
Evaluation of the F&P Mask, US, 2026
Chronic Respiratory Conditions, Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA)
Not yet recruiting
Evaluation of F&P Mask, US, 2026
Chronic Respiratory Conditions, Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA)
Not yet recruitingObservational study
The LifeMeds Cohort
Multimorbidity, Cancer
Not yet recruiting
Pulmonary Rehabilitation in African Countries
Chronic Respiratory Conditions
Not yet recruiting
National Institute for Health and Care Research Global Health Research Centre for Multiple Long-Term Conditions
Chronic Conditions, Multiple, Diseases of the Circulatory System
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Tim Felton contact
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Chronic Respiratory Conditions and COPD, run by Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust at 1 site in United Kingdom.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 10 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 4 Jul 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United Kingdom. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Luke Ward (0161 291 5757, luke.ward@mft.nhs.uk), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Feasibility of timely recruitment, assessment, and retention during follow up (time frame: 12 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 4 Jul 2025; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 27 Oct 2026.