Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Procalcitonin-guided care in sepsis shows no difference in early antibiotic initiation but lower 28-day mortalityA simple test in emergency rooms may lower death rates for sepsis patients

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider that procalcitonin-guided care in sepsis may lower 28-day mortality without affecting early antibiotic initiation, but the mechanism is unclear.

This was a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial conducted in 20 hospital emergency departments within 17 National Health Service Trusts or Health Boards across England and Wales. The population consisted of patients aged 16 years and older with suspected sepsis. A total of 7667 patients were randomly assigned, with 3836 to usual care and 3831 to procalcitonin-guided care; the primary analysis included 5453 patients (2715 usual care, 2738 procalcitonin-guided care).

The intervention was procalcitonin-guided care, which involved rapid procalcitonin testing combined with National Early Warning Score 2 assessment using a guidance-only algorithm. The comparator was usual care based on NEWS2. Clinicians were free to use, ignore, or deviate from the algorithm.

The primary outcomes were intravenous antibiotic initiation at 3 hours (tested for superiority) and 28-day mortality (tested for non-inferiority). For antibiotic initiation at 3 hours, there was no difference between groups. The absolute numbers were 1325 of 2738 (48.4%) in the procalcitonin-guided care group versus 1308 of 2715 (48.2%) in the usual care group. The adjusted risk difference was -0.08 percentage points, with a 95% CI of -2.58 to 2.42 and a p-value of 0.95.

For 28-day mortality, the procalcitonin-guided care group had a lower rate. The absolute numbers were 372 of 2738 (13.6%) in the procalcitonin-guided care group versus 450 of 2715 (16.6%) in the usual care group. The adjusted risk difference was -3.12 percentage points, with a 90% CI of -4.68 to -1.57 and a p-value of 0.0009. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 90% CI was below a 2.5% margin on the risk difference scale; non-inferiority and superiority were met at the one-sided 5% level.

Safety findings included 180 adverse events recorded overall. One serious adverse event (<1%) of 2042 participants in the procalcitonin-guided care group was reported as probably or definitely attributable to the procalcitonin test. Discontinuations and overall tolerability were not reported.

These results compare to prior landmark studies in sepsis, which have often focused on antibiotic stewardship using biomarkers. The mortality benefit observed here was not explained by findings of planned subgroup, sensitivity, or secondary analyses, and improved mortality was not attributed to changes in antibiotic use.

Key methodological limitations include the open-label design, with participants, research staff, those assessing outcomes, and statisticians not masked to group assignment. Clinicians were free to deviate from the algorithm, which could introduce bias. The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Clinically, making a procalcitonin-guided algorithm available in emergency departments did not change intravenous antibiotic initiation at 3 hours but was associated with a decrease in 28-day mortality. This suggests potential utility in mortality reduction, but the mechanism is unclear. Practice decisions should consider this finding as hypothesis-generating, pending further research.

Key questions remain unanswered, including why mortality decreased without a change in early antibiotic use, the generalizability to other settings, and the optimal implementation of the algorithm. Further research is needed to understand the finding of decreased mortality.

Sepsis is a life-threatening reaction to an infection that can happen quickly. It strikes people of all ages, but this study focused on adults over 16. When someone arrives at an emergency department with suspected sepsis, doctors must act fast. The goal is to start antibiotics within three hours to save lives. But sometimes, doctors wait because they are not sure if the patient has an infection or just feels very sick. This uncertainty can delay life-saving treatment. This new research offers a different approach to help doctors decide faster.

The study looked at 7,667 patients across 20 hospital emergency departments in England and Wales. Half of the patients received standard care based on how they looked and felt. The other half received care guided by a specific algorithm. This algorithm combined a quick blood test for procalcitonin with a standard health check called NEWS2. Procalcitonin is a protein in the blood that rises when the body is fighting a serious bacterial infection. The test gives results very quickly, often within minutes.

The main question was whether this guided approach would change how fast doctors started antibiotics. The results showed no difference. About 48 percent of patients in the guided group got antibiotics within three hours. About 48 percent of patients in the standard care group also got antibiotics within three hours. The numbers were nearly identical. However, the most important result was about survival. Over 28 days, fewer people in the guided group died compared to the standard care group. The death rate dropped from 16.6 percent to 13.6 percent. This is a real and meaningful difference for families waiting for news about a loved one.

The safety of the new test was also checked. Very few people had serious problems directly caused by the test itself. Less than one percent of participants in the guided group had a serious issue linked to the test. The study was open-label, meaning the doctors knew which patients were in which group. They were also free to use the test results however they wanted. They could ignore the test or use it alongside other clues. This real-world setting makes the results very relevant to actual hospital practice.

It is important not to overstate these findings. This was a single study, and more research is needed to fully understand why fewer people died in the guided group. The drop in death rates was not explained by other planned analyses. While the test did not make doctors start antibiotics faster, it did seem to help them make better decisions about who needed immediate treatment and who could wait. This suggests that using a quick blood test alongside standard checks might help save lives without adding extra risk or cost.

For patients and families, this means there is a new tool available in emergency departments. It does not replace the doctor's judgment but adds another piece of information. If this approach becomes standard, it could mean a better chance of survival for people with sepsis. The study confirms that a simple change in how we use a quick test can lead to better outcomes. Further research will help confirm these results and guide future practice.

What this means for you:
Guided care with a quick blood test lowered death rates for sepsis patients without delaying antibiotics.

Study Details

Study typeRct
Sample sizen = 3,836
EvidenceLevel 2
Follow-up192.0 mo
PublishedMay 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Sepsis 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. METHODS: A 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. FINDINGS: Between 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. INTERPRETATION: Making 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. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.