Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41881047›Full record

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.

Stacy Todd, Joanne Euden, Jennifer Condie, Stephen Aston, Gavin Barlow, Lucy Brookes-Howell, Julie Carman, Enitan D Carrol, Stephanie Gilbert, Philip Howard and 16 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter StudyClinical Trial, Phase III
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors.

Stacy ToddTropical and Infectious Disease Unit, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK. Electronic address: stacy.todd@liverpoolft.nhs.uk.
Joanne EudenCentre for Trials Research, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Jennifer CondieCentre for Trials Research, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Stephen AstonTropical and Infectious Disease Unit, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK; Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Gavin BarlowHull York Medical School, University of York, UK; Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, UK.
Lucy Brookes-HowellCentre for Trials Research, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Julie CarmanUK Sepsis Trust, Walsall, UK.
Enitan D CarrolInstitute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Stephanie GilbertCentre for Trials Research, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Philip HowardNHS England and NHS Improvement North-East and Yorkshire, Leeds, UK.
Kerenza HoodCollege of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Matthew Inada-KimHampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK; University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Martin J LlewelynUniversity Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton, UK; Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
Wakunyambo MabosheCentre for Trials Research, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Fiona McGillLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Sarah MilosevicCentre for Trials Research, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Emmanuel NsutebuSheikh Shakhbout Medical City, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Paul SchmidtPortsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK.
Andrew TabnerUniversity Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK; School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.
David Taylor-RobinsonDepartment of Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Abin ThomasCentre for Trials Research, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Emma Thomas-JonesCentre for Trials Research, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Ingeborg D WeltersInstitute for Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Philip PallmannCentre for Trials Research, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Neil FrenchTropical and Infectious Disease Unit, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK; Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
PRONTO Trial Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Anti-Bacterial AgentsProcalcitoninSepsisAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkersEmergency Service, HospitalEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedWalesAnti-Bacterial AgentsBiomarkersProcalcitonin

Identifiers

PMID41881047
PMCPMC13125698

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.