Trial reportThe Lancet. Respiratory medicine2026
Procalcitonin testing combined with NEWS2 evaluation compared with usual care based on NEWS2 for identification of sepsis and antibiotic initiation in the emergency department in England and Wales (PRONTO): a multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.
Trial report in The Lancet. Respiratory medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- From early recognition to precision medicine: advances in the diagnosis and management of adult sepsis and septic shock-a narrative review.Infection · 2026Review
- Beyond diagnosis and antibiotic stewardship: a hypothesized additional role for procalcitonin in patients with suspected sepsis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- ADVANCE-ID bacterial and fungal infections review: antimicrobial resistance research updates: Summary of clinical trials and implementation studies, March-April 2026.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
- Clinical phenotypes and imaging evolution of hepatic portal venous gas under conservative management: a single-center case series using albumin and procalcitonin as prognostic stratification anchors.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSepsis is a common and serious condition, defined as a dysregulated host response to infection, that leads to life-threatening organ dysfunction. In emergency department settings, accurate diagnosis can be challenging, as many non-infectious conditions have similar presenting features and there is no gold standard diagnostic test, which can lead to misdirected use of antibiotics. Procalcitonin is a well characterised biomarker that responds rapidly and with high specificity to the presence of bacterial infection. We aimed to investigate whether supplementing current practice with rapid procalcitonin testing would improve recognition of sepsis and allow reduced antibiotic prescribing with at least no change in overall mortality.
methodsA parallel, two-arm, open-label, individually randomised controlled trial was done in 20 hospital emergency departments within 17 National Health Service (NHS) Trusts or Health Boards across England and Wales. Patients aged 16 years and older with suspected sepsis were randomly assigned to either usual care or procalcitonin-guided care in a 1:1 ratio via a centrally controlled web-based randomisation programme. Participants, research staff, those assessing outcomes, and statisticians analysing the data were not masked to group assignment. Participants in the usual care group were assessed according to standard clinical management based on National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2). In the procalcitonin-guided care group, rapid procalcitonin testing was used in combination with NEWS2 assessment by use of a guidance-only algorithm for clinicians. This algorithm for clinical management was used for both usual care and procalcitonin-guided care groups and clinicians were free to use, ignore, or deviate from the algorithm. The co-primary endpoints were intravenous antibiotic initiation at 3 h (superiority) and 28-day mortality (non-inferiority) from triage assessment, assessed in all randomly assigned consenting participants with data for both co-primary outcomes available. Non-inferiority was concluded for 28-day mortality if the upper bound of the 90% CI was below a 2·5% margin on the risk difference scale. All patients who were randomly assigned to one of the two groups and who consented to data collection at baseline were included in adverse event analysis for the period they were included in the study. The study was registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN54006056) and is complete.
findingsBetween Nov 20, 2020, and Nov 1, 2023, a total of 7667 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to the usual care group (n=3836) or the procalcitonin-guided care group (n=3831). 5453 patients (2748 female, 2703 male, 1 non-binary, 1 data for gender missing) were included in the primary analysis population (2715 usual care, 2738 procalcitonin-guided care). The last 28-day follow-up was on Nov 29, 2023. There was no difference in intravenous antibiotic initiation at 3 h from triage assessment between the two groups: 48·4% (1325/2738 participants) in the procalcitonin-guided care group versus 48·2% (1308/2715 participants) in the usual care group (adjusted risk difference -0·08 percentage points, 95% CI -2·58 to 2·42; p=0·95). Mortality at 28 days was lower in the procalcitonin-guided care group: 13·6% (372/2738 participants) in the procalcitonin-guided care group versus 16·6% (450/2715 participants) in the usual care group (adjusted risk difference -3·12 percentage points, 90% CI -4·68 to -1·57; p=0·0009). The upper bound of the 90% CI was below the non-inferiority margin of 2·5 percentage points and the point of no effect, implying both non-inferiority and superiority at the one-sided 5% level. In the primary analysis population, the procalcitonin test result was considered in clinical decision making in 64·7% (1771/2738) of participants in the procalcitonin-guided care group. Improved mortality was not explained by findings of planned subgroup, sensitivity, or secondary analyses. A total of 180 adverse events were recorded, 53·3% (96 events in 57 [1·9%] of 2968 participants) in the usual care group and 46·7% (84 events in 66 [2·2%] of 3042 participants) in the procalcitonin-guided care group. One (<1%) of 2042 participants in the procalcitonin-guided care group reported a serious adverse event probably or definitely attributable to the procalcitonin test.
interpretationMaking a procalcitonin-guided algorithm available to clinicians in emergency departments did not change intravenous antibiotic initiation at 3 h in patients managed as suspected sepsis, but a decrease in 28-day mortality was seen and further research is needed to understand this finding.
fundingNational Institute for Health and Care Research.
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.