ArticleCritical care (London, England)2025
Cost-effectiveness of procalcitonin-guided antibiotic duration for hospitalized patients with sepsis.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation of procalcitonin-guided antibiotic stopping advice in sepsis: A mixed-methods process evaluation in a clinical trial context.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2026Article
- The Role and Importance of Procalcitonin (PCT) Testing in Rational Antibiotic Prescribing and Antibiotic Stewardship Programs.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProcalcitonin (PCT)-guided antibiotic duration for critically ill adults with sepsis may be clinically effective and safe. However, cost-effectiveness analyses using clinical trial data for this precision medicine approach in critical care are lacking. This economic evaluation investigates the cost-effectiveness of a daily PCT-guided protocol to guide the duration of antibiotic treatment in adult patients with sepsis.
methodsTwo analyses were conducted, the first estimating the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of the ADAPT-Sepsis study, which recruited 2760 patients randomized to a daily PCT-guided protocol, a daily C-reactive protein-guided protocol and standard care. The second analysis used meta-analyzed results from ADAPT-Sepsis and other PCT-guided treatment studies and employed a lifetime horizon. Key outcomes were the incremental costs and QALYs gained from using the daily PCT-guided protocol approach compared with standard care. Other outcome measures included changes in days of antibiotics, days of hospital stay, days of intensive care unit stay, the percentage of deaths and the number of PCT tests performed.
resultsCost-effectiveness results were driven by the assumed impact of PCT testing on mortality although the confidence/credible intervals for ADAPT-Sepsis and the meta-analyzed data both included no effect. Within ADAPT-Sepsis, the use of PCT tests cost €427 more per patient and was associated with a small QALY loss (0.001), which suggests the daily PCT-guided protocol is dominated. Using meta-analyzed data, the daily PCT-guided protocol was assumed to cost €330 more per patient but was associated with 0.139 more QALYs, resulting in a cost per QALY gained of €2384. If only antibiotic use and PCT tests were assumed to differ then PCT testing is estimated to cost no more than €110 per patient with QALYs equal in both arms regardless of whether ADAPT-Sepsis or meta-analyzed data were used.
conclusionsThis economic analysis has shown that a PCT-guided protocol to guide the duration of antibiotic treatment could be cost-effective. Where only differences in antibiotic use and PCT testing are assumed, the increased costs per patient are modest which may be seen as worthwhile to safely improve antibiotic stewardship for critically ill adult patients with sepsis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.