Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Design and rationale of the Procalcitonin Antibiotic Consensus Trial (ProACT), a multicenter randomized trial of procalcitonin antibiotic guidance in lower respiratory tract infection

  • David T. Huang1, 2, 3, 4Email author,
  • Derek C. Angus1, 2, 4,
  • Chung-Chou H. Chang1, 5,
  • Yohei Doi6,
  • Michael J. Fine5, 7,
  • John A. Kellum1, 2,
  • Octavia M. Peck-Palmer1, 8,
  • Francis Pike9,
  • Lisa A. Weissfeld10,
  • Jonathan Yabes5,
  • Donald M. Yealy3, 4 and
  • on behalf of the ProACT Investigators
BMC Emergency MedicineBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:25

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-017-0138-1

Received: 21 July 2017

Accepted: 9 August 2017

Published: 29 August 2017

Abstract

Background

Overuse of antibiotics is a major public health problem, contributing to growing antibiotic resistance. Procalcitonin has been reported to be commonly elevated in bacterial, but not viral infection. Multiple European trials found procalcitonin-guided care reduced antibiotic use in lower respiratory tract infection, with no apparent harm. However, applicability to US practice is limited due to trial design features impractical in the US, between-country differences, and residual safety concerns.

Methods

The Procalcitonin Antibiotic Consensus Trial (ProACT) is a multicenter randomized trial to determine the impact of a procalcitonin antibiotic prescribing guideline, implemented with basic reproducible strategies, in US patients with lower respiratory tract infection.

Discussion

We describe the trial methods using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) framework, and the rationale for key design decisions, including choice of eligibility criteria, choice of control arm, and approach to guideline implementation.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02130986. Registered May 1, 2014.

Keywords

Procalcitonin Biomarkers Respiratory tract infections Clinical trial Anti-bacterial agents Methods (MeSH)

Background

Whether or not to administer antibiotics is a common and challenging clinical decision. Clinical presentations for infectious and non-infectious conditions overlap, and current diagnostic tests are inadequate. Given fears of untreated bacterial illness, clinicians often default to a decision to prescribe antibiotics. This pattern drives antibiotic overuse [1, 2] and resistance [3, 4], despite considerable efforts to change behavior [57]. Lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) is arguably the most important example of this pattern. It is extremely common, but presentation is non-specific, making it difficult for clinicians to distinguish a bacterial from viral etiology or to distinguish LRTI from non-infectious conditions with similar signs and symptoms [8].

Host response to bacterial infection includes broad expression of procalcitonin from both immune and parenchymal cells, resulting in elevated serum concentration [9]. Viral infection does not appear to induce the same response [10]. The magnitude of elevation correlates with the severity of bacterial infection and decreasing concentrations over time correlate with resolution of infection [1114]. Consequently, Mueller and colleagues tested whether the use of procalcitonin, folded into a treatment recommendation guideline, could help clinicians curb antibiotic use. Multiple European trials reported procalcitonin-guided care reduced antibiotic use in LRTI, with no apparent harm [1518].

However, applicability to US practice is limited due to trial design features impractical in the US, between-country differences, and residual safety concerns [19]. For example, in the largest trial, the treating physicians enrolled patients in the emergency department (ED) and were only allowed to overrule procalcitonin guidance after consulting with the study center [15, 20]. In the US, ED volume and acuity are high and increasing [21, 22], and physicians highly value autonomy and resist protocolization [23]. Control group antibiotic duration and hospital length of stay were also twice that of current guideline recommendations [24] and US practice [25], and there is a growing trend towards short antibiotic courses [26]. In the only US trial, published in 2015, there was no significant difference in antibiotic use in a single center study of hospitalized LRTI patients randomized to standard care versus procalcitonin-guided care [27]. The incremental value of procalcitonin beyond best practice promotion of current guidelines [28, 29], and in clinically obvious cases [30], has therefore been questioned.

Current guidelines for procalcitonin guided LRTI care vary from low to moderately strong recommendation [31] to recommendation against routine adoption [32], reflecting indeterminate evidence. In February 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration approved procalcitonin to help determine if antibiotic treatment should be started or stopped in LRTI, based on a meta-analysis by the requesting sponsor (bioMérieux, Marcy-l’Étoile, France), while noting the primary limitation of the meta-analysis was a lack of US clinical trial sites [33].

In November 2014, ProACT (Procalcitonin Antibiotic Consensus Trial, NCT02130986) began enrollment in the United States. ProACT seeks to determine the effect of a procalcitonin guideline on antibiotic exposure and adverse outcomes in clinically diagnosed LRTI, using a study design generalizable to US healthcare. This manuscript provides the trial methodology using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) framework [3436], and discusses key design challenges and their resolution.

Methods

Trial methodology and rationale

ProACT is a patient-level, 1:1 randomized, parallel group, 14-center US trial comparing a procalcitonin-guided antibiotic prescribing guideline (implemented with basic reproducible strategies, including education, embedment into the electronic health record, and reminders) to usual care. We chose to test this guideline in a usual care environment where best practice exists and is promoted, in patient encounters with clinical uncertainty regarding antibiotic prescription, and with a design that embraces clinician autonomy. We summarize trial methods in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The following CONSORT-Methods sections provide additional details and context.
Table 1

Eligibility criteria

CONSORT

ProACT

Inclusion criteria

≥ 18 years of age

A primary clinical diagnosis in the ED of acute LRTI (< 28 days duration) a

Clinician willing to consider procalcitonin in antibiotic decision making

Exclusion criteria

Conditions where physicians are unlikely to withhold antibiotics

 Systemic antibiotics before ED presentation

  a. All prophylactic antibiotic regimens, or

  b. Received >1 dose within 72 h prior to ED presentation

 Current vasopressor use

 Mechanical ventilation (via endotracheal tube)

 Known severe immunosuppression b

 Accompanying non-respiratory infections

 Known lung abscess or empyema

Conditions where PCT can be >0.25 μg/L without infection

 Chronic dialysis

 Metastatic cancer

 Surgery in the past 7 days (excluding minor surgery such as skin biopsy)

Conditions rendering follow-up difficult

 Incarcerated or homeless

 Enrolled in ProACT in the past 30 days

ED emergency department, LRTI lower respiratory tract infection

apost-enrollment, LRTI is classified into the following categories (i) community acquired pneumonia, (ii) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation, (iii) acute asthma exacerbation, (iv) acute bronchitis, (v) other LRTI

bknown CD4 < 200/mm3, transplant patient on immunosuppressive medications, absolute neutrophil count <500 mm3

Table 2

Interventions

CONSORT

ProACT

Study arms

 Usual care

All care and decisions by existing care providers

National LRTI guidelines disseminated

No procalcitonin provided

 Intervention

All care and decisions by existing care providers

National LRTI guidelines disseminated

Procalcitonin provided in ED, and if hospitalized, 6–24 h later, and on Days 3, 5, 7. a

Standardization

Standardized teaching material at start-up and refresher meetings, frequently asked questions, access to coordinating center and principal investigator 24/7

Study website, center visits and newsletters

Center monitoring

Adherence

Regular adherence reports of procalcitonin sample time collection, time to clinician notification, procalcitonin guideline adherence, and feedback to individual centers

ED emergency department, LRTI lower respiratory tract infection

aserial blood draws only occur in hospitalized patients on antibiotics

Table 3

Outcomes

CONSORT

ProACT

Outcomes

 Primary

Total antibiotic exposure, defined as the total number of antibiotic-days by Day 30 a

A combined endpoint of adverse outcomes that could be attributable to withholding antibiotics in LRTI, that occur by study Day 30 b:

 i. death

 ii. septic shock (vasopressor use for >1 h)

 iii. Mechanical ventilation (via endotracheal tube)

 iv. renal failure (KDIGO, stage 3) [50]

 v. lung abscess/empyema

 vi. development of pneumonia in non-pneumonia LRTI

 vii. Subsequent hospitalization

 Secondary

Antibiotic initiation by the initial ED clinician

Hospital length of stay

90d and 1 year mortality

Intensive care unit admission

Subsequent ED visits

Quality of life (Airway Questionnaire 20) [57]

 Data quality methods

Standardized data collection and recording

Web-based DCF with built-in logic checks, automatic data queries, and streamlined user interface

Periodic DCF checks to monitor data irregularities and protocol compliance

Study coordinator DCF training and periodic conference calls

Center monitoring visits and review of source documents

LRTI lower respiratory tract infection, KDIGO Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes, ED emergency department, DCF data collection form

aWe define an antibiotic-day as each day a participant receives any oral or intravenous antibiotics, excluding antibiotics given for non-infectious indications (e.g. rifaximin for hepatic encephalopathy) and antivirals

bprimary safety outcome

Table 4

Sample size determination and interim analyses

CONSORT

ProACT

Sample size

1664

 Determination

 H1o: Procalcitonin guideline implementation does not reduce antibiotic exposure by Day 30. (superiority)

 H2o: Procalcitonin guideline implementation increases the proportion of subjects who experience a composite endpoint of adverse outcomes by Day 30, by ≥4.5%. (non-inferiority)

  ▪ Sample size is driven by H2o

  ▪ 4.5% non-inferiority margin

  ▪ ≥ 80% power, 1-sided alpha of 0.05

  ▪ Lost to follow up and composite endpoint rates at 2nd interim data safety monitoring board meeting at ~2/3 accrual (April 2017)

 Interim analyses and stopping rules

 Two interim analyses and one final analysis, approximately evenly spaced

 O-Brien and Fleming stopping boundaries

Table 5

Randomization, blinding, and statistical methods

CONSORT

ProACT

Randomization

 Sequence generation

Patient-level, permuted block design

Stratified by center, race, age

Randomized equally to each study arm

 Allocation concealment

Central Web-based randomization, accessible 24 h/day

 Implementation

Local center staff enroll patients via Web-based randomization system

Web-based system then assigns patients to trial arm, based on computer generated allocation sequence

Blinding

Statistical analysis and post-discharge outcome assessment staff are blinded to study arm

By arm outcome data restricted to unblinded statistician and data safety monitoring board

Statistical methods

Intention-to-treat, as per pre-established analysis plan (primary analysis)

Per-protocol analysis, where procalcitonin guideline is followed

Participants (patients)

Inclusion criteria

Study staff enroll adult ED patients with a primary clinical diagnosis of acute LRTI, where the treating clinician is willing to consider procalcitonin in antibiotic decision making (Table 1). By targeting encounters where the clinician has not already decided to give or withhold antibiotics, we seek to enroll LRTI cases where clinical uncertainty exists.

Exclusion criteria

We exclude patients with conditions where (1) physicians are unlikely to withhold antibiotics (e.g., patients receiving endotracheal ventilation), (2) procalcitonin can be elevated without bacterial infection (e.g., recent surgery), and (3) follow-up would be difficult (e.g., prisoners, homeless) (Table 1).

Participants (centers)

We chose centers with evidence of commitment to LRTI quality care. All centers had achieved >96% compliance with all Joint Commission pneumonia core measures. We chose centers and center principal investigators based on clinical research experience, clinical expertise in LRTI management, ED volume, projected recruitment, ability to execute study procedures both in ED and in hospital, absence of routine procalcitonin use, and geographic diversity (Appendix 1). Each center has clinical, laboratory, and health records systems that allow prompt notification of procalcitonin results. Centers are mostly urban academic hospitals.

Interventions

Study arms

In both arms (Table 2) the bedside clinicians retain complete autonomy for all patient care decisions, and we disseminate national LRTI guidelines.

We incorporate LRTI guideline recommendations in all study lectures, posters, and promotion tools. We provide relevant excerpts from the following guidelines: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [37]; asthma – National Asthma Education and Prevention Program’s Expert Panel Report 3 [38], Global Initiative for Asthma [39]; acute bronchitis – Center for Disease Control/American College of Physicians guidelines [40]; community-acquired pneumonia – Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society guidelines [24] (Fig. 1, left panel).
Fig. 1

ProACT guidelines. The ProACT Coordinating Center provided posters of this Figure to all centers. Other study education, in-service training, and promotion materials contain the same content

Intervention

The intervention consists of reporting the procalcitonin results and guideline (Fig. 1, right panel) to clinicians. The same procalcitonin guideline is provided with both the initial and serial procalcitonin measurements - withhold or cease antibiotics if low, administer or continue if high. Participants have blood drawn for a procalcitonin level in the ED, and if hospitalized, 6–24 h after the initial ED blood draw, and on Days 3, 5, and 7 if still in hospital and on antibiotics.

We used several implementation strategies, centered around a primary message of “Please look at the procalcitonin value and guideline recommendation, but the final antibiotic decision is entirely yours.” With coordinating center support and tools, each site conducted background education and in-service training prior to study launch, and during the trial. All clinicians involved in antibiotic prescription for LRTI, including residents, hospitalists, primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants were targeted for in-service training. To promote easy reminders we embedded the procalcitonin information into the electronic health record of each site where feasible (Appendix 2). This approach mimics how clinicians often receive laboratory test data with range-based interpretation, such as with troponin and d-dimer. Lastly, coordinators are trained to identify the key clinician with primary responsibility for antibiotic decision making, inform the clinician the procalcitonin information is available, and not otherwise influence care. In the ED, coordinators ensure clinicians quickly (< 1 h goal) receive the procalcitonin information. For patients admitted to hospital, coordinators inform hospital clinicians of the ED procalcitonin information and when serial procalcitonin results are available. Our intent is to mimic how a hospital might typically deploy quality improvement staff when introducing a new intervention. The final decision to order antibiotics is at the discretion of the treating clinician.

Usual care

Study personnel solely collect data and biologic specimens in usual care arm participants. We also sought to minimize contamination (procalcitonin use in usual care). At study launch, no center routinely used procalcitonin, only 2 centers had procalcitonin clinically available, and no LRTI guidelines recommended routine clinical use of procalcitonin.

Standardization

To standardize study procedures, we provide standardized training and materials plus continuous coordinating center support. We conducted a group investigator and coordinator training meeting at study launch, and individual sessions for two centers that were added subsequently. Training materials are available on the study website. Regular center visits, newsletters, around-the-clock coordinating center access, center monitoring, protocol delivery and procalcitonin guideline adherence reports and feedback were used to further enhance standardization.

To standardize procalcitonin measurement, bioMérieux provided the procalcitonin assay equipment, installation, and in-service training. We provided centers with a packet that outlined test result reporting procedures, troubleshooting procedures, frequently asked questions, and study contact information. Each center’s Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) certified laboratory measured procalcitonin from plasma [41] or serum [42] samples, using a 1-step enzyme immunoassay sandwich method on bioMérieux VIDAS or mini-VIDAS immunoanalyzers with an analytic range of 0.05–200 ng/ml [43]. To ensure accurate testing, each center performed standard instrument calibration procedures, analyzed two levels of quality control materials with each sample run, and at minimum biannually assessed assay linearity [44, 45]. Additionally, twelve centers annually participated in a College of American Pathologists (CAP) proficiency testing program for procalcitonin, the American Proficiency Institute program, or conducted external peer (inter-laboratory) testing [44, 46]. Procalcitonin levels remain stable under multiple freeze/thaw, storage, and temperature conditions [41, 43, 47].

Adherence

Our overall adherence approach is similar to many quality improvement programs. This design balances enforcement strategies not reproducible in routine care with a completely hands-off strategy that risks trial failure due to study unawareness [48, 49].

For each study procalcitonin blood draw, we track the times for sample collection, and times from sample collection to clinician notification of procalcitonin information. We promote adherence to the study intervention with regular feedback to each center, and identify solutions for rectifying non-adherence.

We track clinician adherence to the procalcitonin antibiotic guideline. If antibiotics are prescribed or continued when procalcitonin is low, coordinators query the clinician and record the reasons for non-adherence. We promote adherence to the procalcitonin guideline with regular feedback and discussion with each center. To increase study awareness and guideline adherence, centers in-service trained all clinician groups with primary responsibility for antibiotic prescription for LRTI. Upon discharge from ED or hospital, participants receive a packet that includes a letter to their primary care physician with a study synopsis, their last procalcitonin result, and the procalcitonin guideline.

Outcomes

Primary

Our primary outcome is total antibiotic exposure, defined as the total number of antibiotic days by Day 30 (Table 3). We define an antibiotic day as each day a subject receives any oral or intravenous antibiotic, excluding antibiotics given for non-infectious indications (e.g. rifaximin for hepatic encephalopathy) and antiviral agents.

Our primary safety outcome is a combined endpoint of adverse outcomes that could be attributable to withholding antibiotics in LRTI. The individual outcomes are death, septic shock (vasopressor use), mechanical ventilation via endotracheal tube, renal failure (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes stage 3 – new renal replacement therapy, tripling of baseline creatinine, or serum creatinine ≥4.0 mg/dL [50]), lung abscess/empyema, development of pneumonia in non-pneumonia LRTI, and hospital readmission, by day 30. Occurrence of one or more of these outcomes by day 30 will count as reaching the primary safety outcome. We will also examine each outcome individually. Although these outcomes are of different gravity, if any one of them were to occur, clinicians and patients would likely believe the procalcitonin guideline failed, and that antibiotics should have been provided. We therefore use a combined endpoint to capture each such adverse outcome.

Secondary

Secondary outcomes include antibiotic initiation by the initial ED clinician, hospital length of stay, 90 day and 1 year mortality, ICU admission and subsequent ED visits by Day 30, and quality of life at day 15 and day 30 (Table 3).

Data quality methods

We monitor data quality using web-based data collection, automated queries, and center monitoring visits, and provide structured data collection training to centers prior to study initiation. Coordinating center staff blinded to study arm conduct follow-up calls to determine post-discharge outcomes, using a structured interview process. To facilitate participant recall and retention, we conduct calls at both day 15 and day 30, provide an antibiotic diary at discharge, and obtain multiple contact phone numbers at enrollment. In 2016, we added text messaging, email, and postal mail follow-up methods.

Sample size

Determination

ProACT will test the following two null hypotheses.
  • H1o: Procalcitonin guideline implementation does not reduce or increase antibiotic exposure by Day 30.

  • H2o: Procalcitonin guideline implementation increases the proportion of subjects who experience a composite endpoint of adverse outcomes by Day 30, by ≥4.5%.

We computed our original sample size of 1514 participants based on the difference in proportions of the composite adverse outcomes endpoint between the two arms in H2o. Our power calculations accounted for two interim analyses at approximately 1/3 and 2/3 enrollment with stopping boundaries calculated using the O’Brien and Fleming method, ≥ 80% power to reject H2o, significance at the 0.05 level, a predefined 4.5% non-inferiority margin, and assuming an 11% adverse outcomes by Day 30 event rate in the usual care arm [51, 52], and ~10% loss to follow up rate. We thus calculated sample size under assumptions of event and lost to follow up rates, and also prospectively monitored both rates with an intent to recalculate and adjust sample size as necessary. In April 2017, the data and safety monitoring board held the second interim analysis meeting, and approved an increase of sample size to 1664 participants (Table 4).

The CONSORT extension for noninferiority trials notes that an overly large non-inferiority margin risks accepting a truly inferior treatment as noninferior, while a very small margin may produce inconclusive results, requiring an extremely large trial to achieve adequate power [36]. We chose the smallest non-inferiority margin feasible within our funding structure, approximately half that of the margins recommended by the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommendation for non-inferiority trials assessing antibiotic treatment for community-acquired pneumonia, and the margins used in two large trials of procalcitonin antibiotic guidance [15, 53].

Interim analyses and stopping rules

We submit data to an independent, multidisciplinary data safety and monitoring board for interim analyses on a predefined schedule and with a priori stopping rules. Before trial completion, only the board and designated study statistician see per-arm outcome data; the board may recommend stopping enrollment for any reason including efficacy, harm, or futility.

Pre-established statistical plans and oversight committee charters mitigate concerns of spurious early cessation [54].

Randomization

Sequence generation

ProACT randomizes at the patient level, with 1:1 study arm allocation using a computer generated, permuted block design, stratified by center, race, and age (Table 5).

Allocation concealment

We assure concealment via an automated centralized assignment system. Only after enrollment does the system assign a study arm.

Implementation

All participants who give consent for participation, fulfill inclusion criteria, and have no exclusion criteria are randomized. Coordinators enter participant information into the web-based data collection form and receive from the randomization system a study ID number and treatment assignment. There is no influence on randomization by the principal investigator, center study team, or the ProACT coordinating center.

Blinding

Due to the nature of the intervention, neither the treating clinician nor the study staff can be blinded to allocation. Statistical analysis and post-discharge outcome assessment staff are blinded to allocation. We restrict access to unblinded data to a designated study statistician and data safety and monitoring board.

Statistical methods

An independent statistician blinded to treatment allocation will conduct analyses using a pre-established statistical plan. The primary analysis is an intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, for both hypotheses. ITT can bias towards no difference, which may lead to a false rejection of H2o, which uses a non-inferiority design. We therefore will also perform per-protocol analyses where the procalcitonin guideline was followed, as per CONSORT recommendations [36]. We will summarize baseline characteristics by study arm, and will test the primary hypotheses for significance at the 0.05 level.

For H1o, we will compare the mean number of total antibiotic-days by Day 30 using two-sample t-test, or a nonparametric counterpart if data distribution is not normal, and report two-sided p-values for significance. In the U.S., antibiotic use for LRTI is high, and our design excludes common conditions where procalcitonin can be high without infection. Given these two conditions, we believed procalcitonin would not increase antibiotic use over an already high baseline, and initially chose one-sided significance testing. To be conservative and allow for the possibility of increased antibiotic use in the intervention arm, we will conduct and report two-sided p-values. As sample size is driven by the larger requirements of noninferiority testing for H2o, we are well powered to test H1o.

For H2o, we will compare the difference in proportions of the composite adverse outcomes endpoint, relative to a 4.5% non-inferiority margin, and construct a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions. We will declare non-inferiority if the upper limit of the confidence interval is below 4.5%. Non-inferiority hypothesis testing is one-sided. We will report results in accordance with the CONSORT statements.

Discussion

ProACT is the first multicenter U.S. randomized trial of procalcitonin. In designing the trial, we considered three key issues – choice of eligibility criteria, choice of control arm, and approach to guideline implementation.

Tests should only be obtained if results may change management [55]. We therefore designed eligibility criteria to select patients whose care could reasonably be impacted by procalcitonin guidance. In particular, we targeted those patients for whom clinicians were willing to consider procalcitonin in their antibiotic decision making. In other words, patient encounters where a degree of clinical indecision exists, and thus an additional diagnostic might assist decision making, rather than only add cost.

Trials should test novel interventions on a background of “best care”. We chose centers with evidence of commitment to LRTI quality care, and disseminated national LRTI guidelines to promote best practice. This approach balances the control arm extremes of “wild type” usual care, versus an “active control” arm with interventional enforcement, consistent with the NIH conference on Considering Usual Medical Care in Clinical Trial Design recommendations [56].

We chose a guideline implementation approach generalizable to U.S. clinical practice. A key difference between ProACT and the largest European LRTI trial is that the guideline recommendation is not deployed using coordinating center “enforcement methods” [15, 20]. Instead, to facilitate implementation into routine care, we provide background education and in-service training, embed the procalcitonin results and guideline into the electronic health records and clinical laboratories of study centers, and use coordinator reminders to ensure information receipt. This approach more closely reflects how procalcitonin guidance would be received and used by clinicians in U.S. practice.

Conclusion

ProACT will provide generalizable evidence on the impact of a procalcitonin guideline, implemented with basic reproducible strategies, on antibiotic exposure and safety in U.S. patients with lower respiratory tract infection.

Abbreviations

CAP: 

College of American Pathologists

CLIA: 

Clinical Laboratory improvement amendments

CONSORT: 

Consolidated standards of reporting trials

ED: 

Emergency department

ITT: 

intent-to-treat

LRTI: 

Lower respiratory tract infection

ProACT: 

Procalcitonin antibiotic consensus trial

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank the following University of Pittsburgh staff who contributed to the logistics and design of ProACT:

CRISMA Center: Elizabeth Gimbel*, Kourtney Wofford*, Tammy Eaton* (Clinical Epidemiology), Melinda Carter and Vanessa Jackson (Molecular Lab Core), Caroline Pidro (Long Term Follow-Up Core), Edvin Music (Biostatistical and Data Management Core).

MACRO Center: Ashley Ryman*, Denise Scholl, Barbara J. Early

*ProACT Coordinating Center

Dedicated to Linda Foa.

The complete list of ProACT Investigators is provided in Appendix 1.

Funding

This investigation was supported by the National Institute of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences grants 1R34GM102696–01, 1R01GM101197-01A1. Procalcitonin assays were provided by bioMérieux (Marcy-l’Étoile, France).

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

DTH, DCA, and DMY conceived and designed the study protocol. MJF and YD provided consultative guidance for the protocol. JAK and OMP provided laboratory expertise. CHC, FP, LAW, and JY provided statistical expertise. All authors contributed to the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board approved the ProACT trial.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

David T. Huang receives grant funding from ThermoFisher for a study examining the microbiome in lower respiratory tract infection.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
The CRISMA (Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness) Center
(2)
Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh
(3)
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh
(4)
The MACRO (Multidisciplinary Acute Care Research Organization) Center
(5)
Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh
(6)
Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Pittsburgh
(7)
Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System
(8)
Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh
(9)
Eli Lilly and Company
(10)
Statistics Collaborative, Inc.

References

  1. Magill SS, Edwards JR, Beldavs ZG, Dumyati G, Janelle SJ, Kainer MA, Lynfield R, Nadle J, Neuhauser MM, Ray SM, et al. Prevalence of antimicrobial use in US acute care hospitals, May-September 2011. JAMA. 2014;312:1438–46.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Shapiro DJ, Hicks LA, Pavia AT, Hersh AL. Antibiotic prescribing for adults in ambulatory care in the USA, 2007-09. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69:234–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Nathan C, Cars O. Antibiotic resistance--problems, progress, and prospects. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1761–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Marston HD, Dixon DM, Knisely JM, Palmore TN, Fauci AS. Antimicrobial Resistance. JAMA. 2016;316:1193–204.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Metlay JP, Camargo CA Jr, MacKenzie T, McCulloch C, Maselli J, Levin SK, Kersey A, Gonzales R. Cluster-randomized trial to improve antibiotic use for adults with acute respiratory infections treated in emergency departments. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;50:221–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Little P, Rumsby K, Kelly J, Watson L, Moore M, Warner G, Fahey T, Williamson I. Information leaflet and antibiotic prescribing strategies for acute lower respiratory tract infection: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005;293:3029–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ranji SR, Steinman MA, Shojania KG, Sundaram V, Lewis R, Arnold S, Gonzales R. Closing the Quality Gap: A Critical Analysis of Quality Improvement Strategies (Vol. 4: Antibiotic Prescribing Behavior). (2006).Google Scholar
  8. Fleming-Dutra KE, Hersh AL, Shapiro DJ, Bartoces M, Enns EA, File TM Jr, Finkelstein JA, Gerber JS, Hyun DY, Linder JA, et al. Prevalence of inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions among US ambulatory care visits, 2010-2011. JAMA. 2016;315:1864–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Muller B, White JC, Nylen ES, Snider RH, Becker KL, Habener JF. Ubiquitous expression of the calcitonin-i gene in multiple tissues in response to sepsis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2001;86:396–404.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Assicot M, Gendrel D, Carsin H, Raymond J, Guilbaud J, Bohuon C. High serum procalcitonin concentrations in patients with sepsis and infection. Lancet. 1993;341:515–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Simon L, Gauvin F, Amre DK, Saint-Louis P, Lacroix J. Serum procalcitonin and C-reactive protein levels as markers of bacterial infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39:206–17.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Muller B, Harbarth S, Stolz D, Bingisser R, Mueller C, Leuppi J, Nusbaumer C, Tamm M, Christ-Crain M. Diagnostic and prognostic accuracy of clinical and laboratory parameters in community-acquired pneumonia. BMC Infect Dis. 2007;7:10.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Huang DT, Weissfeld LA, Kellum JA, Yealy DM, Kong L, Martino M, Angus DC, GenIMS Investigators. Risk prediction with procalcitonin and clinical rules in community-acquired pneumonia. Ann Emerg Med. 2008;52(1):48–58.e2. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.01.003. Epub 2008 Mar 17.
  14. Luyt CE, Guerin V, Combes A, Trouillet JL, Ayed SB, Bernard M, Gibert C, Chastre J. Procalcitonin kinetics as a prognostic marker of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am.J Respir. Crit Care Med. 2005;171:48–53.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Schuetz P, Christ-Crain M, Thomann R, Falconnier C, Wolbers M, Widmer I, Neidert S, Fricker T, Blum C, Schild U, et al. Effect of procalcitonin-based guidelines vs standard guidelines on antibiotic use in lower respiratory tract infections: the ProHOSP randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;302:1059–66.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Christ-Crain M, Stolz D, Bingisser R, Muller C, Miedinger D, Huber PR, Zimmerli W, Harbarth S, Tamm M, Muller B. Procalcitonin-guidance of antibiotic therapy in community-acquired pneumonia - A randomized trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;174(1):84–93. Epub 2006 Apr 7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16603606.
  17. Christ-Crain M, Jaccard-Stolz D, Bingisser R, Gencay MM, Huber PR, Tamm M, Muller B. Effect of procalcitonin-guided treatment on antibiotic use and outcome in lower respiratory tract infections: cluster-randomised, single-blinded intervention trial. Lancet. 2004;363:600–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Stolz D, Christ-Crain M, Bingisser R, Leuppi J, Miedinger D, Muller C, Huber P, Muller B, Tamm M. Antibiotic treatment of exacerbations of COPD: a randomized, controlled trial comparing procalcitonin-guidance with standard therapy. Chest. 2007;131:9–19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Yealy DM, Fine MJ. Measurement of serum procalcitonin: a step closer to tailored care for respiratory infections? JAMA. 2009;302:1115–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Schuetz P, Christ-Crain M, Wolbers M, Schild U, Thomann R, Falconnier C, Widmer I, Neidert S, Blum CA, Schonenberger R, et al. Procalcitonin guided antibiotic therapy and hospitalization in patients with lower respiratory tract infections: a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:102.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Pitts SR, Pines JM, Handrigan MT, Kellermann AL. National trends in emergency department occupancy, 2001 to 2008: effect of inpatient admissions versus emergency department practice intensity. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60:679–86.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Armour, S. U.S. Emergency-room visits keep climbing. Wall Street J. 2015. 1-24-2017. Ref Type: Magazine Article.Google Scholar
  23. Emanuel EJ, Pearson SD. Physician autonomy and health care reform. JAMA. 2012;307:367–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Mandell LA, Wunderink RG, Anzueto A, Bartlett JG, Campbell GD, Dean NC, Dowell SF, File TM Jr, Musher DM, Niederman MS, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society consensus guidelines on the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44(Suppl 2):S27–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Number and rate of discharges from short-stay hospitals and of days of care, with average length of stay and standard error, by selected first-listed diagnostic categories: United States, 2010. 2012. Ref Type: Online Source.Google Scholar
  26. Spellberg B. The new antibiotic mantra-“Shorter Is Better”. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:1254–5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Branche AR, Walsh EE, Vargas R, Hulbert B, Formica MA, Baran A, Peterson DR, Falsey AR. Serum procalcitonin measurement and viral testing to guide antibiotic use for respiratory infections in hospitalized adults: a randomized controlled trial. J Infect Dis. 2015;212:1692–700.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Kollef MH. Will procalcitonin reduce antibiotic use in intensive care? Lancet. 2010;375:435–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Talan DA. Procalcitonin of questionable value. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60:536–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. van Dissel JT. Procalcitonin and other markers of infection. What should be their role in clinical practice? Clin Microbiol Infect. 2002;8:70–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. McDonagh M, Peterson K, Winthrop K, Cantor A, Holzhammer B, Buckley DI. Improving antibiotic prescribing for uncomplicated acute respiratory tract infections. 2016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK344270/.
  32. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Assessment of community-acquired pneumonia. Last updated 12/23/2016. 2016. 3–2-2017. Ref Type: Electronic Citation.Google Scholar
  33. U.S.Food and Drug Administration. FDA clears test to help manage antibiotic treatment for lower respiratory tract infections and sepsis. 2017. 3–2-2017. Ref Type: Online Source.Google Scholar
  34. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:295–309.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000251.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ, Altman DG. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. JAMA. 2012;308:2594–604.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Global Initiative For Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease. http://goldcopd.org/. 2017. 1–24-2017. Ref Type: Electronic Citation.
  38. 2007. Expert Panel Report 3 (EPR-3): Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma-summary report 38. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 120:S94–138.Google Scholar
  39. Global Initiative For Asthma. http://ginasthma.org/. 2017. 1–24-2017. Ref Type: Electronic Citation.
  40. Harris AM, Hicks LA, Qaseem A. Appropriate antibiotic use for acute respiratory tract infection in adults: advice for high-value care from the American College of Physicians and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:425–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Meisner M, Tschaikowsky K, Schnabel S, Schmidt J, Katalinic A, Schuttler J. Procalcitonin--influence of temperature, storage, anticoagulation and arterial or venous asservation of blood samples on procalcitonin concentrations. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem. 1997;35:597–601.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Riedel S, Melendez JH, An AT, Rosenbaum JE, Zenilman JM. Procalcitonin as a marker for the detection of bacteremia and sepsis in the emergency department. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;135:182–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Schuetz, P., M. Christ-Crain, A. R. Huber, and B. Muller. 2009. Long-term stability of procalcitonin in frozen samples and comparison of Kryptor(R) and VIDAS(R) automated immunoassays. Clin.Biochem. Google Scholar
  44. College of American Pathologists. 2016 Surveys and Anatomic Pathology Education Programs. http://www.cap.org/ShowProperty?nodePath=/UCMCon/Contribution%20Folders/WebContent/pdf/2016-surveys-catalog.pdf. Ref Type: Electronic Citation.
  45. Linearity FD Procalcitonin bioMerieux VIDAS and miniVIDAS package insert. 2017. Carlsbad; Audit Micro Controls Inc. Ref Type: Generic. http://www.auditmicro.com/linearity-fd-procalcitonin-biomerieux-vidas-and-minividas.html.
  46. American Proficiency Institute Catalog of Programs. https://www.api-pt.com/catalog.aspx. Ref Type: Electronic Citation. Accessed 12 Aug 2017.
  47. Hedelius R, Daheshia M, Seda G. Thermal stability evaluation of procalcitonin, A biomarker and mediator of bacterial infection. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;187:A5984. Ref Type: Abstract.Google Scholar
  48. Yealy DM, Auble TE, Stone RA, Lave JR, Meehan TP, Graff LG, Fine JM, Obrosky DS, Edick SM, Hough LJ, et al. The emergency department community-acquired pneumonia trial: Methodology of a quality improvement intervention. Ann Emerg Med. 2004;43:770–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Yealy DM, Auble TE, Stone RA, Lave JR, Meehan TP, Graff LG, Fine JM, Obrosky DS, Mor MK, Whittle J, et al. Effect of increasing the intensity of implementing pneumonia guidelines: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143:881–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Khwaja A. KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury. Nephron Clin Pract. 2012;120:c179–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Huang, D. T., L. A. Weissfeld, J. A. Kellum, D. M. Yealy, L. Kong, M. Martino, and D. C. Angus. 2008. Risk prediction with procalcitonin and clinical rules in community-acquired pneumonia. Ann. Emerg. Med.Google Scholar
  52. Lindenauer PK, Pekow PS, Lahti MC, Lee Y, Benjamin EM, Rothberg MB. Association of corticosteroid dose and route of administration with risk of treatment failure in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. JAMA. 2010;303:2359–67.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Bouadma L, Luyt CE, Tubach F, Cracco C, Alvarez A, Schwebel C, Schortgen F, Lasocki S, Veber B, Dehoux M, et al. Use of procalcitonin to reduce patients’ exposure to antibiotics in intensive care units (PRORATA trial): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375:463–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Adhikari NK, Burns KE, Eggert CH, Briel M, Lacchetti C, Leung TW, Darling E, Bryant DM, et al. Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005;294:2203–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Cassel CK, Guest JA. Choosing wisely: helping physicians and patients make smart decisions about their care. JAMA. 2012;307:1801–2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Dawson L, Zarin DA, Emanuel EJ, Friedman LM, Chaudhari B, Goodman SN. Considering usual medical care in clinical trial design. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000111.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Barley EA, Quirk FH, Jones PW. Asthma health status measurement in clinical practice: validity of a new short and simple instrument. Respir Med. 1998;92:1207–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Lin CY, Farrell MH, Lave JR, Angus DC, Barnato AE. Organizational determinants of hospital end-of-life treatment intensity. Med Care. 2009;47:524–30.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement