A Randomized Trial of Enteral Glutamine for Treatment of Burn Injuries.

BACKGROUND: Glutamine is thought to have beneficial effects on the metabolic and stress response to severe injury. Clinical trials involving patients with burns and other critically ill patients have shown conflicting results regarding the benefits and risks of glutamine supplementation. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients with deep second- or third-degree burns (affecting ≥10% to ≥20% of total body-surface area, depending on age) within 72 hours after hospital admission to receive 0.5 g per kilogram of body weight per day of enterally delivered glutamine or placebo. Trial agents were given every 4 hours through a feeding tube or three or four times a day by mouth until 7 days after the last skin grafting procedure, discharge from the acute care unit, or 3 months after admission, whichever came first. The primary outcome was the time to discharge alive from the hospital, with data censored at 90 days. We calculated subdistribution hazard ratios for discharge alive, which took into account death as a competing risk. RESULTS: A total of 1209 patients with severe burns (mean burn size, 33% of total body-surface area) underwent randomization, and 1200 were included in the analysis (596 patients in the glutamine group and 604 in the placebo group). The median time to discharge alive from the hospital was 40 days (interquartile range, 24 to 87) in the glutamine group and 38 days (interquartile range, 22 to 75) in the placebo group (subdistribution hazard ratio for discharge alive, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.04; P = 0.17). Mortality at 6 months was 17.2% in the glutamine group and 16.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.41). No substantial between-group differences in serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe burns, supplemental glutamine did not reduce the time to discharge alive from the hospital. (Funded by the U.S. Department of Defense and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; RE-ENERGIZE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00985205.).

Intravenous Vitamin C in Adults with Sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Studies that have evaluated the use of intravenous vitamin C in adults with sepsis who were receiving vasopressor therapy in the intensive care unit (ICU) have shown mixed results with respect to the risk of death and organ dysfunction. METHODS: In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned adults who had been in the ICU for no longer than 24 hours, who had proven or suspected infection as the main diagnosis, and who were receiving a vasopressor to receive an infusion of either vitamin C (at a dose of 50 mg per kilogram of body weight) or matched placebo administered every 6 hours for up to 96 hours. The primary outcome was a composite of death or persistent organ dysfunction (defined by the use of vasopressors, invasive mechanical ventilation, or new renal-replacement therapy) on day 28. RESULTS: A total of 872 patients underwent randomization (435 to the vitamin C group and 437 to the control group). The primary outcome occurred in 191 of 429 patients (44.5%) in the vitamin C group and in 167 of 434 patients (38.5%) in the control group (risk ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 1.40; P = 0.01). At 28 days, death had occurred in 152 of 429 patients (35.4%) in the vitamin C group and in 137 of 434 patients (31.6%) in the placebo group (risk ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.40) and persistent organ dysfunction in 39 of 429 patients (9.1%) and 30 of 434 patients (6.9%), respectively (risk ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.83 to 2.05). Findings were similar in the two groups regarding organ-dysfunction scores, biomarkers, 6-month survival, health-related quality of life, stage 3 acute kidney injury, and hypoglycemic episodes. In the vitamin C group, one patient had a severe hypoglycemic episode and another had a serious anaphylaxis event. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with sepsis receiving vasopressor therapy in the ICU, those who received intravenous vitamin C had a higher risk of death or persistent organ dysfunction at 28 days than those who received placebo. (Funded by the Lotte and John Hecht Memorial Foundation; LOVIT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03680274.).

The effect of higher protein dosing in critically ill patients with high nutritional risk (EFFORT Protein): an international, multicentre, pragmatic, registry-based randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: On the basis of low-quality evidence, international critical care nutrition guidelines recommend a wide range of protein doses. The effect of delivering high-dose protein during critical illness is unknown. We aimed to test the hypothesis that a higher dose of protein provided to critically ill patients would improve their clinical outcomes. METHODS: This international, investigator-initiated, pragmatic, registry-based, single-blinded, randomised trial was undertaken in 85 intensive care units (ICUs) across 16 countries. We enrolled nutritionally high-risk adults (≥18 years) undergoing mechanical ventilation to compare prescribing high-dose protein (≥2·2 g/kg per day) with usual dose protein (≤1·2 g/kg per day) started within 96 h of ICU admission and continued for up to 28 days or death or transition to oral feeding. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to high-dose protein or usual dose protein, stratified by site. As site personnel were involved in both prescribing and delivering protein dose, it was not possible to blind clinicians, but patients were not made aware of the treatment assignment. The primary efficacy outcome was time-to-discharge-alive from hospital up to 60 days after ICU admission and the secondary outcome was 60-day morality. Patients were analysed in the group to which they were randomly assigned regardless of study compliance, although patients who dropped out of the study before receiving the study intervention were excluded. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03160547. FINDINGS: Between Jan 17, 2018, and Dec 3, 2021, 1329 patients were randomised and 1301 (97·9%) were included in the analysis (645 in the high-dose protein group and 656 in usual dose group). By 60 days after randomisation, the cumulative incidence of alive hospital discharge was 46·1% (95 CI 42·0%-50·1%) in the high-dose compared with 50·2% (46·0%-54·3%) in the usual dose protein group (hazard ratio 0·91, 95% CI 0·77-1·07; p=0·27). The 60-day mortality rate was 34·6% (222 of 642) in the high dose protein group compared with 32·1% (208 of 648) in the usual dose protein group (relative risk 1·08, 95% CI 0·92-1·26). There appeared to be a subgroup effect with higher protein provision being particularly harmful in patients with acute kidney injury and higher organ failure scores at baseline. INTERPRETATION: Delivery of higher doses of protein to mechanically ventilated critically ill patients did not improve the time-to-discharge-alive from hospital and might have worsened outcomes for patients with acute kidney injury and high organ failure scores. FUNDING: None.

A Comparison of High and Usual Protein Dosing in Critically Ill Patients With Obesity: A Post Hoc Analysis of an International, Pragmatic, Single-Blinded, Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Across guidelines, protein dosing for critically ill patients with obesity varies considerably. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate whether this population would benefit from higher doses of protein. DESIGN: A post hoc subgroup analysis of the effect of higher protein dosing in critically ill patients with high nutritional risk (EFFORT Protein): an international, multicenter, pragmatic, registry-based randomized trial. SETTING: Eighty-five adult ICUs across 16 countries. PATIENTS: Patients with obesity defined as a body mass index (BMI) greater than or equal to 30 kg/m 2 ( n = 425). INTERVENTIONS: In the primary study, patients were randomized into a high-dose (≥ 2.2 g/kg/d) or usual-dose protein group (≤ 1.2 g/kg/d). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Protein intake was monitored for up to 28 days, and outcomes (time to discharge alive [TTDA], 60-d mortality, days of mechanical ventilation [MV], hospital, and ICU length of stay [LOS]) were recorded until 60 days post-randomization. Of the 1301 patients in the primary study, 425 had a BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m 2 . After adjusting for sites and covariates, we observed a nonsignificant slower rate of TTDA with higher protein that ruled out a clinically important benefit (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58-1.05; p = 0.10). We found no evidence of difference in TTDA between protein groups when subgroups with different classes of obesity or patients with and without various nutritional and frailty risk variables were examined, even after the removal of patients with baseline acute kidney injury. Overall, 60-day mortality rates were 31.5% and 28.2% in the high protein and usual protein groups, respectively (risk difference, 3.3%; 95% CI, -5.4 to 12.1; p = 0.46). Duration of MV and LOS in hospital and ICU were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with obesity, higher protein doses did not improve clinical outcomes, including those with higher nutritional and frailty risk.

Association between urea trajectory and protein dose in critically ill adults: a secondary exploratory analysis of the effort protein trial (RE-EFFORT).

BACKGROUND: Delivering higher doses of protein to mechanically ventilated critically ill patients did not improve patient outcomes and may have caused harm. Longitudinal urea measurements could provide additional information about the treatment effect of higher protein doses. We hypothesised that higher urea values over time could explain the potential harmful treatment effects of higher doses of protein. METHODS: We conducted a reanalysis of a randomised controlled trial of higher protein doses in critical illness (EFFORT Protein). We applied Bayesian joint models to estimate the strength of association of urea with 30-day survival and understand the treatment effect of higher protein doses. RESULTS: Of the 1301 patients included in EFFORT Protein, 1277 were included in this analysis. There were 344 deaths at 30 days post-randomisation. By day 6, median urea was 2.1 mmol/L higher in the high protein group (95% CI 1.1-3.2), increasing to 3.0 mmol/L (95% CI 1.3-4.7) by day 12. A twofold rise in urea was associated with an increased risk of death at 30 days (hazard ratio 1.34, 95% credible interval 1.21-1.48), following adjustment of baseline characteristics including age, illness severity, renal replacement therapy, and presence of AKI. This association persisted over the duration of 30-day follow-up and in models adjusting for evolution of organ failure over time. CONCLUSIONS: The increased risk of death in patients randomised to a higher protein dose in the EFFORT Protein trial was estimated to be mediated by increased urea cycle activity, of which serum urea is a biological signature. Serum urea should be taken into consideration when initiating and continuing protein delivery in critically ill patients. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT03160547 (2017-05-17).

Enhanced exclusive enteral nutrition delivery during the first 7 days is associated with decreased 28-day mortality in critically ill patients with normal lactate level: a post hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Exclusive enteral nutrition (EN) is often observed during the first week of ICU admission because of the extra costs and safety considerations for early parenteral nutrition. This study aimed to assess the association between nutrition intake and 28-day mortality in critically ill patients receiving exclusive EN. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a cluster-randomized clinical trial that assesses the effect of implementing a feeding protocol on mortality in critically ill patients. Patients who stayed in the ICUs for at least 7 days and received exclusive EN were included in this analysis. Multivariable Cox hazard regression models and restricted cubic spline models were used to assess the relationship between the different doses of EN delivery and 28-day mortality. Subgroups with varying lactate levels at enrollment were additionally analyzed to address the potential confounding effect brought in by the presence of shock-related hypoperfusion. RESULTS: Overall, 1322 patients were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) daily energy and protein delivery during the first week of enrollment were 14.6 (10.3-19.6) kcal/kg and 0.6 (0.4-0.8) g/kg, respectively. An increase of 5 kcal/kg energy delivery was associated with a significant reduction (approximately 14%) in 28-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.865, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.768-0.974, P = 0.016). For protein intake, a 0.2 g/kg increase was associated with a similar mortality reduction with an adjusted HR of 0.868 (95% CI 0.770-0.979). However, the benefits associated with enhanced nutrition delivery could be observed in patients with lactate concentration ≤ 2 mmol/L (adjusted HR = 0.804 (95% CI 0.674-0.960) for energy delivery and adjusted HR = 0.804 (95% CI 0.672-0.962) for protein delivery, respectively), but not in those > 2 mmol/L. CONCLUSIONS: During the first week of critical illness, enhanced nutrition delivery is associated with reduced mortality in critically ill patients receiving exclusive EN, only for those with lactate concentration ≤ 2 mmol/L. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12233792, registered on November 24, 2017.

The effects of higher versus lower protein delivery in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: A recent large multicentre trial found no difference in clinical outcomes but identified a possibility of increased mortality rates in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) receiving higher protein. These alarming findings highlighted the urgent need to conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to inform clinical practice. METHODS: From personal files, citation searching, and three databases searched up to 29-5-2023, we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult critically ill patients that compared higher vs lower protein delivery with similar energy delivery between groups and reported clinical and/or patient-centred outcomes. We conducted random-effect meta-analyses and subsequently trial sequential analyses (TSA) to control for type-1 and type-2 errors. The main subgroup analysis investigated studies with and without combined early physical rehabilitation intervention. A subgroup analysis of AKI vs no/not known AKI was also conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs (n = 3303) with protein delivery of 1.49 ± 0.48 vs 0.92 ± 0.30 g/kg/d were included. Higher protein delivery was not associated with overall mortality (risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.11; I2 = 0%; 21 studies; low certainty) and other clinical outcomes. In 2 small studies, higher protein combined with early physical rehabilitation showed a trend towards improved self-reported quality-of-life physical function measurements at day-90 (standardized mean difference 0.40, 95% CI - 0.04 to 0.84; I2 = 30%). In the AKI subgroup, higher protein delivery significantly increased mortality (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.11-1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies; confirmed by TSA with high certainty, and the number needed to harm is 7). Higher protein delivery also significantly increased serum urea (mean difference 2.31 mmol/L, 95% CI 1.64-2.97; I2 = 0%; 7 studies). CONCLUSION: Higher, compared with lower protein delivery, does not appear to affect clinical outcomes in general critically ill patients but may increase mortality rates in patients with AKI. Further investigation of the combined early physical rehabilitation intervention in non-AKI patients is warranted. PROSPERO ID: CRD42023441059.

The long-term intercorrelation between post-burn pain, anxiety, and depression: a post hoc analysis of the "RE-ENERGIZE" double-blind, randomized, multicenter placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing prevalence of burn survivors, a gap persists in our understanding of the correlation between acute burn trauma and the long-term impact on psychosocial health. This study set out to investigate the prevalence of long-term pain and symptoms of anxiety and depression in survivors of extensive burns, comparing this to the general population, and identify injury and demographic-related factors predisposing individuals to psychosocial compromise. METHODS: RE-ENERGIZE was an international, double-blinded, randomized-controlled trial that enrolled 1200 patients with partial- or full-thickness burns that required surgical treatment. For the post hoc analysis, we excluded participants who did not complete the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire. Normative data were taken from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey dataset. Propensity score matching was performed using the nearest-neighbor 1-to-1 method, and the two cohorts were compared in terms of chronic pain, and symptoms of anxiety and depression. A multivariable analysis was performed on the burns cohort to identify factors predicting post-discharge pain and symptoms of anxiety and depression. RESULTS: A total of 600 burn patients and 26,666 general population adults were included in this study. Following propensity score matching, both groups comprised 478 participants each, who were predominately male, white, overweight and between 20 and 60 years old. Compared to the general population, burn patients were significantly more likely to report the presence of moderate and a lot of pain (p = 0.002). Symptoms of anxiety were significantly higher in the burn population in two of four levels (most of the time; some of the time; p < 0.0001 for both). Responders in the burn population were significantly less likely to report the absence of depressive symptoms (p < 0.0001). Burn patients were also significantly more likely to report that their mental health affects their social life. TBSA, history of depression, and female sex were identified as independently associated factors for pain, anxiety, and depressive symptoms. The presence of chronic pain and anxiety symptoms independently predicted for symptoms of depression. CONCLUSIONS: Analyzing the largest multicenter cohort of patients with extensive burns, we find that burn injury is associated with chronic pain, and symptoms of anxiety and depression. In addition, TBSA-burned and history of depression directly correlate with the prevalence of chronic pain, and symptoms of anxiety and depression. Finally, pain, and symptoms of anxiety and depression are interrelated and may have interactive effects on the process of recovery following burn injury. Burn patients would, therefore, benefit from a multidisciplinary team approach with early mobilization of pain and mental health experts, in order to promptly prevent the development of psychosocial challenges and their consequences.

Newspaper coverage of advance care planning during the COVID-19 pandemic: Content analysis.

COVID-19 may cause sudden serious illness, and relatives having to act on patients' behalf, emphasizing the relevance of advance care planning (ACP). We explored how ACP was portrayed in newspapers during year one of the pandemic. In 'LexisNexis Uni', we identified English-language newspaper articles about ACP and COVID-19, published January-November 2020. We applied content analysis; unitizing, sampling, recording or coding, reducing, inferring, and narrating the data. We identified 131 articles, published in UK (n = 59), Canada (n = 32), US (n = 15), Australia (n = 14), Ireland (n = 6), and one each from Israel, Uganda, India, New-Zealand, and France. Forty articles (31%) included definitions of ACP. Most mentioned exploring (93%), discussing (71%), and recording (72%) treatment preferences; 28% described exploration of values/goals, 66% encouraged engaging in ACP. No false or sensationalist information about ACP was provided. ACP was often not fully described. Public campaigns about ACP might improve the full picture of ACP to the public.

The Efficacy of Glutamine Supplementation in Severe Adult Burn Patients: A Systematic Review With Trial Sequential Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence supporting glutamine supplementation in severe adult burn patients has created a state of uncertainty due to the variability in the treatment effect reported across small and large randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to systematically review the effect of glutamine supplementation on mortality in severe adult burn patients. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception to February 10, 2023. STUDY SELECTION: RCTs evaluating the effect of enteral or IV glutamine supplementation alone in severe adult burn patients were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics, burn injury characteristics, description of the intervention between groups, adverse events, and clinical outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate the pooled risk ratio (RR). Trial sequential analyses (TSA) for mortality and infectious complications were performed. Ten RCTs (1,577 patients) were included. We observed no significant effect of glutamine supplementation on overall mortality (RR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.33-1.28; p = 0.21), infectious complications (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.63-1.09; p = 0.18), or other secondary outcomes. In subgroup analyses, we observed no significant effects based on administration route or burn severity. We did observe a significant subgroup effect between single and multicenter RCTs in which glutamine significantly reduced mortality and infectious complications in singe-center RCTs but not in multicenter RCTs. However, TSA showed that the pooled results of single-center RCTs were type 1 errors and further trials would be futile. CONCLUSIONS: Glutamine supplementation, regardless of administration, does not appear to improve clinical outcomes in severely adult burned patients.

Nutrition after severe burn injury.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Severe burn injury causes significant metabolic changes and demands that make nutritional support particularly important. Feeding the severe burn patient is a real challenge in regard to the specific needs and the clinical constraints. This review aims to challenge the existing recommendations in the light of the few recently published data on nutritional support in burn patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Some key macro- and micro-nutrients have been recently studied in severe burn patients. Repletion, complementation or supplementation of omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin C, vitamin D, antioxidant micronutrients may be promising from a physiologic perspective, but evidence of benefits on hard outcomes is still weak due to the studies' design. On the contrary, the anticipated positive effects of glutamine on the time to discharge, mortality and bacteremias have been disproved in the largest randomized controlled trial investigating glutamine supplementation in burns. An individualized approach in term of nutrients quantity and quality may proof highly valuable and needs to be validated in adequate trials. The combination of nutrition and physical exercises is another studied strategy that could improve muscle outcomes. SUMMARY: Due to the low number of clinical trials focused on severe burn injury, most often including limited number of patients, developing new evidence-based guidelines is challenging. More high-quality trials are needed to improve the existing recommendations in the very next future.

Inhibit progression of coronary artery calcification with vitamin K in hemodialysis patients (the iPACK-HD study): a randomized, placebo-controlled multi-center, pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin K activates matrix Gla protein (MGP), a key inhibitor of vascular calcification. There is a high prevalence of sub-clinical vitamin K deficiency in patients with end-stage kidney disease. METHODS: A parallel randomized placebo-controlled pilot trial was designed to determine whether 10 mg of phylloquinone thrice weekly versus placebo modifies coronary artery calcification progression over 12 months in patients requiring hemodialysis with a coronary artery calcium score (CAC) ≥30 Agatston Units (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01528800). The primary outcome was feasibility (recruitment rate, compliance with study medication, study completion and adherence overall to study protocol). CAC score was used to assess calcification at baseline and 12 months. Secondary objectives were to explore the impact of phylloquinone on vitamin K-related biomarkers (phylloquinone, dephospho-uncarboxylated MGP and the Gla-osteocalcin to Glu-osteocalcin ratio) and events of clinical interest. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients with a CAC score ≥30 Agatston Units were randomized to either 10 mg of phylloquinone or a matching placebo three times per week. In all, 69 participants (80%) completed the trial. Recruitment rate (4.4 participants/month) and medication compliance (96%) met pre-defined feasibility criteria of ≥4.17 and ≥90%, respectively. Patients randomized to phylloquinone for 12 months had significantly reduced levels of dephospho-uncarboxylated MGP (86% reduction) and increased levels of phylloquinone and Gla-osteocalcin to Glu-osteocalcin ratio compared with placebo. There was no difference in the absolute or relative progression of coronary artery calcification between groups. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that phylloquinone treatment improves vitamin K status and that a fully powered randomized trial may be feasible.

The impact of higher protein dosing on outcomes in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: a post hoc analysis of the EFFORT protein trial.

BACKGROUND: Based on low-quality evidence, current nutrition guidelines recommend the delivery of high-dose protein in critically ill patients. The EFFORT Protein trial showed that higher protein dose is not associated with improved outcomes, whereas the effects in critically ill patients who developed acute kidney injury (AKI) need further evaluation. The overall aim is to evaluate the effects of high-dose protein in critically ill patients who developed different stages of AKI. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of the EFFORT Protein trial, we investigated the effect of high versus usual protein dose (≥ 2.2 vs. ≤ 1.2 g/kg body weight/day) on time-to-discharge alive from the hospital (TTDA) and 60-day mortality and in different subgroups in critically ill patients with AKI as defined by the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria within 7 days of ICU admission. The associations of protein dose with incidence and duration of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) were also investigated. RESULTS: Of the 1329 randomized patients, 312 developed AKI and were included in this analysis (163 in the high and 149 in the usual protein dose group). High protein was associated with a slower time-to-discharge alive from the hospital (TTDA) (hazard ratio 0.5, 95% CI 0.4-0.8) and higher 60-day mortality (relative risk 1.4 (95% CI 1.1-1.8). Effect modification was not statistically significant for any subgroup, and no subgroups suggested a beneficial effect of higher protein, although the harmful effect of higher protein target appeared to disappear in patients who received kidney replacement therapy (KRT). Protein dose was not significantly associated with the incidence of AKI and KRT or duration of KRT. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with AKI, high protein may be associated with worse outcomes in all AKI stages. Recommendation of higher protein dosing in AKI patients should be carefully re-evaluated to avoid potential harmful effects especially in patients who were not treated with KRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03160547) on May 17th 2017.

Patient-mediated interventions in hospital: A systematic review.

AIMS: To describe the characteristics of hospital-based, patient-mediated interventions and their impact on patient, clinician and organization outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Health literature databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE) were searched in August 2021. Backward and forward citation searching was conducted. REVIEW METHODS: Studies investigating patient-mediated interventions, targeted at adult hospitalized patients were eligible. Data were extracted related to study and intervention characteristics. Narrative synthesis was used to understand intervention impact on patient, clinician and organization outcomes (as per a framework). Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies, reporting 18 interventions, were included. Twelve interventions prompted patients to report health information about their own health/needs/concerns and six interventions encouraged patients to provide feedback about clinical practice. Across all interventions, there was evidence that patients used patient-mediated interventions and that they may improve patient communication. Healthcare professional outcomes were mixed for actual/intended use, acceptability and usefulness of interventions; yet there was some evidence of healthcare professional behaviour change. Interventions that encouraged patients to report health information about their own health/needs/concerns appeared more successful than other types of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that hospital-based patient-mediated interventions may influence patient communication and healthcare professional behaviour. Patient-mediated interventions that encourage patients to report patient data before a clinical encounter may be more impactful than interventions that encourage patient feedback during or post-encounter. IMPACT: To date, most patient-mediated intervention research has been conducted in primary care settings; we uncovered the types of patient-mediated interventions that have been trialled in hospitals. We found that patient communication and healthcare professional behaviour may be influenced by these patient-mediated interventions. Future researchers could explore the suitability and effectiveness of a wider range of hospital-based patient-mediated interventions. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: There was no funding to remunerate a patient/member of the public for this review.

A randomised controlled trial of a nutrition and a decision support intervention to enable partnerships with families of critically ill patients.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of supporting family members to partner with health professionals on nutrition intakes and decision-making and to evaluate intervention and study feasibility. BACKGROUND: Family partnerships can improve outcomes for critically ill patients and family members. Interventions that support families to engage with health professionals require evaluation. DESIGN: A multi-centre, randomised, parallel group superiority Phase II randomised controlled trial. METHODS: In nine intensive care units (ICUs) across three countries, critically ill patients ≥60 years, or those 55-59 years with advanced chronic diseases and expected ICU length of stay >72 h and their family member were enrolled between 9 May 2017 and 31 March 2020. Participants were randomised (1:1:1) to either a decision support or nutrition optimisation family-centred intervention, or usual care. Primary outcomes included protein and energy intake during ICU and hospital stay (nutrition intervention) and family satisfaction (decision support). Study feasibility was assessed as a composite of consent rate, intervention adherence, contamination and physician awareness of intervention assignment. RESULTS: We randomised 135 patients/family members (consent rate 51.7%). The average rate of randomisation was 0.5 (0.13-1.53) per month. Unavailability (staff/family) was the major contributor to families not being approached for consent. Declined consent was attributed to families feeling overwhelmed (58/126, 46%). Pandemic visitor restrictions contributed to early study cessation. Intervention adherence for the decision support intervention was 76.9%-100.0% and for the nutrition intervention was 44.8%-100.0%. Nutritional adequacy, decisional conflict, satisfaction with decision-making and overall family satisfaction with ICU were similar for all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Active partnerships between family members and health professionals are important but can be challenging to achieve in critical care contexts. We were unable to demonstrate the efficacy of either intervention. Feasibility outcomes suggest further refinement of interventions and study protocol may be warranted. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Interventions to promote family partnerships in critical illness are needed but require a greater understanding of the extent to which families want and are able to engage and the activities in which they have most impact. REPORTING METHOD: This study has been reported following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and caregivers were engaged in and contributed to the development and subsequent iterations of the two family-centred interventions use in this study. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial registration. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, ID: NCT02920086. Registered on 30 September 2016. First patient enrolled on 9 May 2017 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT02920086&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=.

Intravenous Vitamin C for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: Two Harmonized Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: The efficacy of vitamin C for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether vitamin C improves outcomes for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two prospectively harmonized randomized clinical trials enrolled critically ill patients receiving organ support in intensive care units (90 sites) and patients who were not critically ill (40 sites) between July 23, 2020, and July 15, 2022, on 4 continents. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive vitamin C administered intravenously or control (placebo or no vitamin C) every 6 hours for 96 hours (maximum of 16 doses). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of organ support-free days defined as days alive and free of respiratory and cardiovascular organ support in the intensive care unit up to day 21 and survival to hospital discharge. Values ranged from -1 organ support-free days for patients experiencing in-hospital death to 22 organ support-free days for those who survived without needing organ support. The primary analysis used a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented efficacy (improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both), an OR less than 1 represented harm, and an OR less than 1.2 represented futility. Results: Enrollment was terminated after statistical triggers for harm and futility were met. The trials had primary outcome data for 1568 critically ill patients (1037 in the vitamin C group and 531 in the control group; median age, 60 years [IQR, 50-70 years]; 35.9% were female) and 1022 patients who were not critically ill (456 in the vitamin C group and 566 in the control group; median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-72 years]; 39.6% were female). Among critically ill patients, the median number of organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the vitamin C group vs 10 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.88 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.73 to 1.06]) and the posterior probabilities were 8.6% (efficacy), 91.4% (harm), and 99.9% (futility). Among patients who were not critically ill, the median number of organ support-free days was 22 (IQR, 18 to 22 days) for the vitamin C group vs 22 (IQR, 21 to 22 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.80 [95% CrI, 0.60 to 1.01]) and the posterior probabilities were 2.9% (efficacy), 97.1% (harm), and greater than 99.9% (futility). Among critically ill patients, survival to hospital discharge was 61.9% (642/1037) for the vitamin C group vs 64.6% (343/531) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.92 [95% CrI, 0.73 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 24.0% for efficacy. Among patients who were not critically ill, survival to hospital discharge was 85.1% (388/456) for the vitamin C group vs 86.6% (490/566) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.61 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 17.8% for efficacy. Conclusions and Relevance: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, vitamin C had low probability of improving the primary composite outcome of organ support-free days and hospital survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04401150 (LOVIT-COVID) and NCT02735707 (REMAP-CAP).

Predictors of acute muscle loss in the intensive care unit: A secondary analysis of an in-bed cycling trial for critically ill patients.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assist clinicians to identify critically ill patients at greatest risk of acute muscle loss and to analyse the associations between protein intake and exercise on acute muscle loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Secondary analysis of a single-centre randomised clinical trial of in-bed cycling using a mixed effects model was undertaken to examine the association between key variables and rectus femoris cross-sectional area (RFCSA). Groups were combined, and key variables for the cohort were modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill (mNUTRIC) scores within the first days following intensive care unit admission, longitudinal RFCSA measurements, percent of daily recommended protein intake, and group allocation (usual care, in-bed cycling). RFCSA ultrasound measurements were taken at baseline and days 3, 7, and 10 to quantify acute muscle loss. All patients received usual care nutritional intake while in the intensive care unit. Patients allocated to the cycling group commenced in-bed cycling once safety criteria were met. RESULTS: Analysis included all 72 participants, of which 69% were male, with a mean (standard deviation) age of 56 (17) years. Patients received a mean (standard deviation) of 59% (26%) of the minimum protein dose recommended for critically ill patients. Mixed-effects model results indicated that patients with higher mNUTRIC scores experienced greater RFCSA loss (estimate = -0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.59 to -0.23). RFCSA did not share a statistically significant association with cycling group allocation (estimate = -0.59, 95% CI = -1.53 to 0.34), the percentage of protein requirements received (estimate = -0.48; 95% CI = -1.16 to 0.19), or a combination of cycling group allocation and higher protein intake (estimate = 0.33, 95% CI = -0.76 to 1.43). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We found that a higher mNUTRIC score was associated with greater muscle loss, but we did not observe a relationship between combined protein delivery and in-bed cycling and muscle loss. The low protein doses achieved may have impacted the potential for exercise or nutrition strategies to reduce acute muscle loss. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 12616000948493).

Critical Appraisal of a Systematic Review: A Concise Review.

OBJECTIVES: Concise definitive review of how to read and critically appraise a systematic review. DATA SOURCES: None. STUDY SELECTION: Current literature describing the conduct, reporting, and appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. DATA EXTRACTION: Best practices for conducting, reporting, and appraising systematic review were summarized. DATA SYNTHESIS: A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant original research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Critical appraisal methods address both the credibility (quality of conduct) and rate the confidence in the quality of summarized evidence from a systematic review. The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 tool is a widely used practical tool to appraise the conduct of a systematic review. Confidence in estimates of effect is determined by assessing for risk of bias, inconsistency of results, imprecision, indirectness of evidence, and publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews are transparent and reproducible summaries of research and conclusions drawn from them are only as credible and reliable as their development process and the studies which form the systematic review. Applying evidence from a systematic review to patient care considers whether the results can be directly applied, whether all important outcomes have been considered, and if the benefits are worth potential harms and costs.

IV Vitamin C in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of IV vitamin C on outcomes in critically ill patients. DATA SOURCES: Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials testing IV vitamin C in critically ill patients. DATA ABSTRACTION: Two independent reviewers abstracted patient characteristics, treatment details, and clinical outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifteen studies involving 2,490 patients were identified. Compared with placebo, IV vitamin C administration is associated with a trend toward reduced overall mortality (relative risk, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-1.00; p = 0.06; test for heterogeneity I2 = 6%). High-dose IV vitamin C was associated with a significant reduction in overall mortality (relative risk, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.96; p = 0.03), whereas low-dose IV vitamin C had no effect (relative risk, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.07; p = 0.46; test for subgroup differences, p = 0.14). IV vitamin C monotherapy was associated with a significant reduction in overall mortality (relative risk, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.83; p = 0.006), whereas there was no effect with IV vitamin C combined therapy. No trial reported an increase in adverse events related to IV vitamin C. CONCLUSIONS: IV vitamin C administration appears safe and may be associated with a trend toward reduction in overall mortality. High-dose IV vitamin C monotherapy may be associated with improved overall mortality, and further randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Catabolism in Critical Illness: A Reanalysis of the REducing Deaths due to OXidative Stress (REDOXS) Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Ongoing risk of death and poor functional outcomes are important consequences of prolonged critical illness. Characterizing the catabolic phenotype of prolonged critical illness could illuminate biological processes and inform strategies to attenuate catabolism. We aimed to examine if urea-to-creatinine ratio, a catabolic signature of prolonged critical illness, was associated with mortality after the first week of ICU stay. DESIGN: Reanalysis of multicenter randomized trial of glutamine supplementation in critical illness (REducing Deaths due to OXidative Stress [REDOXS]). SETTING: Multiple adult ICUs. PATIENTS: Adult patients admitted to ICU with two or more organ failures related to their acute illness and surviving to day 7. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The association between time-varying urea-to-creatinine ratio and 30-day mortality was tested using Bayesian joint models adjusted for prespecified-covariates (age, kidney replacement therapy, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, dietary protein [g/kg/d], kidney dysfunction, and glutamine-randomization). From 1,021 patients surviving to day 7, 166 (16.3%) died by day 30. After adjustment in a joint model, a higher time-varying urea-to-creatinine ratio was associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; 95% credible interval, 1.66-2.82, for a two-fold greater urea-to-creatinine ratio). This association persisted throughout the 30-day follow-up. Mediation analysis was performed to explore urea-to-creatinine ratio as a mediator-variable for the increased risk of death reported in REDOXS when randomized to glutamine, an exogenous nitrogen load. Urea-to-creatinine ratio closest to day 7 was estimated to mediate the risk of death associated with randomization to glutamine supplementation (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.38; p = 0.014), with no evidence of a direct effect of glutamine (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.62-1.30; p = 0.566). CONCLUSIONS: The catabolic phenotype measured by increased urea-to-creatinine ratio is associated with increased risk of death during prolonged ICU stay and signals the deleterious effects of glutamine administration in the REDOXS study. Urea-to-creatinine ratio is a promising catabolic signature and potential interventional target.