Abdulaziz Al-Dawood

Background Protein intake is recommended in critically ill patients to mitigate the negative effects of critical illness-induced catabolism and muscle wasting. However, the optimal dose of enteral protein remains unknown. We hypothesize that supplemental enteral protein (1.2 g/kg/day) added to standard enteral nutrition formula to achieve high amount of enteral protein (range 2-2.4 g/kg/day) given from ICU day 5 until ICU discharge or ICU day 90 as compared to no supplemental enteral protein to achieve moderate amount enteral protein (0.8-1.2 g/kg/day) would reduce all-cause 90-day mortality in adult critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. Methods The REPLENISH (Replacing Protein Via Enteral Nutrition in a Stepwise Approach in Critically Ill Patients) trial is an open-label, multicenter randomized clinical trial. Patients will be randomized to the Supplemental protein group or the Control group. Patients in both groups will receive the primary enteral formula as per the treating team, which includes a maximum protein 1.2 g/kg/day. The Supplemental protein group will receive, in addition, supplemental protein at 1.2 g/kg/day starting the fifth ICU day. The Control group will receive the primary formula without supplemental protein. The primary outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality. Other outcomes include functional and quality of life assessments at 90 days. The trial will enroll 2502 patients. Discussion The study has been initiated in September 2021. Interim analysis is planned at one third and two thirds of the target sample size. The study is expected to be completed by the end of 2024 Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04475666. Registered on July 17, 2020 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04475666

The objective of this study was to evaluate leptin, ghrelin, and leptin/ghrelin ratio in critically ill patients and association of leptin/ghrelin ratio with outcomes. This is a sub-study of the PermiT trial (ISRCTN68144998). A subset of 72 patients who were expected to stay >14 days in the Intensive care unit were enrolled. Blood samples were collected on days 1, 3, 5, 7, and 14. Samples were analyzed for leptin and active ghrelin in addition to other hormones. Baseline leptin/ghrelin ratio was calculated, and patients were stratified into low and high leptin/ghrelin ratio based on the median value of 236. There was a considerable variation in baseline leptin level: Median 5.22 ng/mL (Q1, Q3: 1.26, 17.60). Ghrelin level was generally low: 10.61 pg/mL (Q1, Q3: 8.62, 25.36). Patients with high leptin/ghrelin ratio compared to patients with low leptin/ghrelin ratio were older, had higher body mass index and more likely to be diabetic. There were no differences in leptin/ghrelin ratio between patients who received permissive underfeeding and standard feeding. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that age and body mass index were significant independent predictors of high leptin–ghrelin ratio. Leptin–ghrelin ratio was not associated with 90-day mortality or other outcomes. Age and body mass index are predictors of high leptin/ghrelin ratio. Leptin/ghrelin ratio is not affected by permissive underfeeding and is not associated with mortality.

Purpose: This study examined the effect of permissive underfeeding compared to target feeding and intensive insulin therapy (IIT) compared to conventional insulin therapy (CIT) on the inflammatory mediators monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP-1), soluble intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (sICAM-1), and tissue factor (TF) in critically ill patients. Methodology: This was a substudy of a 2 × 2 factorial design randomized controlled trial in which intensive care unit (ICU) patients were randomized into permissive underfeeding compared to target feeding groups and into IIT compared to CIT groups (ISRCTN96294863). In this substudy, we included 91 patients with almost equal numbers across randomization groups. Blood samples were collected at baseline and at days 3, 5, and 7 of an ICU stay. Linear mixed models were used to assess the differences in MCP-1, sICAM-1, and TF across randomization groups over time. Results: Baseline characteristics were balanced across randomization groups. Daily caloric intake was significantly higher in the target feeding than in the permissive underfeeding groups (P-value < 0.01), and the daily insulin dose was significantly higher in the IIT than in the CIT groups (P-value < 0.01). MCP-1, sICAM-1, and TF did not show any significant difference between the randomization groups, while there was a time effect for MCP-1. Baseline sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and platelets had a significant effect on sICAM-1 (P-value < 0.01). For TF, there was a significant association with age (P-value < 0.01). Conclusions: Although it has been previously demonstrated that insulin inhibits MCP-1, sICAM-1 in critically ill patients, and TF in non-critically ill patients, our study demonstrated that IIT in critically ill patients did not affect these inflammatory mediators. Similarly, caloric intake had a negligible effect on the inflammatory mediators studied.

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the clinical and nutritional correlates of high free fatty acids (FFAs) level in critically ill patients and the association with outcomes, and to study the effect of short-term caloric restriction (permissive underfeeding) on FFAs level during critical illness. Patients/Method: In this pre-planned sub-study of the PermiT (Permissive Underfeeding vs. Target Enteral Feeding in Adult Critically Ill Patients) trial, we included critically ill patients who were expected to stay for ≥14 days in the intensive care unit. We measured FFAs level on day 1, 3, 5, 7, and 14 of enrollment. Of 70 enrolled patients, 23 (32.8%) patients had high FFAs level (baseline FFAs level >0.45 mmol/L in females and >0.6 mmol/L in males). Results: Patients with high FFAs level were significantly older and more likely to be females and diabetics and they had lower ratio of partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen, higher creatinine, and higher total cholesterol levels than those with normal FFAs level. During the study period, patients with high FFAs level had higher blood glucose and required more insulin. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, the predictors of high baseline FFAs level were diabetes (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 5.36; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.56, 18.43, p = 0.008) and baseline cholesterol level (aOR, 4.29; 95% CI: 11.64, 11.19, p = 0.003). Serial levels of FFAs did not differ with time between permissive underfeeding and standard feeding groups. FFAs level was not associated with 90-day mortality (aOR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.09, 2.60, p = 0.40). Conclusion: We conclude that high FFAs level in critically ill patients is associated with features of metabolic syndrome and is not affected by short-term permissive underfeeding.

Rationale: The optimal nutritional strategy for critically ill adults at high nutritional risk is unclear. Objectives: To examine the effect of permissive underfeeding with full protein intake compared with standard feeding on 90-day mortality in patients with different baseline nutritional risk. Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of the PermiT (Permissive Underfeeding versus Target Enteral Feeding in Adult Critically Ill Patients) trial. Measurements and Main Results: Nutritional risk was categorized by the modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill score, with high nutritional risk defined as a score of 5–9 and low nutritional risk as a score of 0–4. Additional analyses were performed by categorizing patients by body mass index, prealbumin, transferrin, phosphate, urinary urea nitrogen, and nitrogen balance. Based on the Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill score, 378 of 894 (42.3%) patients were categorized as high nutritional risk and 516 of 894 (57.7%) as low nutritional risk. There was no association between feeding strategy and mortality in the two categories; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56–1.27) for high nutritional risk and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.64–1.61) for low nutritional risk (interaction P = 0.53). Findings were similar in analyses using other definitions, with the exception of prealbumin. The association of permissive underfeeding versus standard feeding and 90-day mortality differed when patients were categorized by baseline prealbumin level (≤0.10 g/L: aOR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.31–1.05]; >0.10 and ≤0.15 g/L: aOR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.42–1.48]; >0.15 g/L: aOR, 1.55 [95% CI, 0.80, 3.01]; interaction P = 0.009). Conclusions: Among patients with high and low nutritional risk, permissive underfeeding with full protein intake was associated with similar outcomes as standard feeding.