for the Prevention of Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (PROSPECT) Investigators and the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group IMPORTANCE Growing interest in microbial dysbiosis during critical illness has raised questions about the therapeutic potential of microbiome modification with probiotics. Prior randomized trials in this population suggest that probiotics reduce infection, particularly ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), although probiotic-associated infections have also been reported.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG on preventing VAP, additional infections, and other clinically important outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized placebo-controlled trial in 44 ICUs in Canada, the United States, and Saudi Arabia enrolling adults predicted to require mechanical ventilation for at least 72 hours. A total of 2653 patients were enrolled from October 2013 to March 2019 (final follow-up, October 2020). INTERVENTIONS Enteral L rhamnosus GG (1 × 10 10 colony-forming units) (n = 1321) or placebo (n = 1332) twice daily in the ICU. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was VAP determined by duplicate blinded central adjudication. Secondary outcomes were other ICU-acquired infections including Clostridioides difficile infection, diarrhea, antimicrobial use, ICU and hospital length of stay, and mortality. RESULTS Among 2653 randomized patients (mean age, 59.8 years [SD], 16.5 years), 2650 (99.9%) completed the trial (mean age, 59.8 years [SD], 16.5 years; 1063 women [40.1%.]with a mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 22.0 (SD, 7.8) and received the study product for a median of 9 days (IQR, 5-15 days). VAP developed among 289 of 1318 patients (21.9%) receiving probiotics vs 284 of 1332 controls (21.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.03 (95% CI, 0.87-1.22; P = .73, absolute difference, 0.6%, 95% CI, -2.5% to 3.7%). None of the 20 prespecified secondary outcomes, including other ICU-acquired infections, diarrhea, antimicrobial use, mortality, or length of stay showed a significant difference. Fifteen patients (1.1%) receiving probiotics vs 1 (0.1%) in the control group experienced the adverse event of L rhamnosus in a sterile site or the sole or predominant organism in a nonsterile site (odds ratio, 14.02; 95% CI, 1.79-109.58; P < .001).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation, administration of the probiotic L rhamnosus GG compared with placebo, resulted in no significant difference in the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia. These findings do not support the use of L rhamnosus GG in critically ill patients.
Whey protein is a supplemental protein source often used by athletes, particularly those aiming to gain muscle mass; however, direct evidence for its efficacy in stimulating muscle protein synthesis (MPS) is lacking. We aimed to determine the impact of consuming whey protein on skeletal muscle protein turnover in the post-exercise period. Eight healthy resistance-trained young men (age=21+/-1 .0 years; BMI=26.8+/-0.9 kg/m2 (means+/-SE)) participated in a double-blind randomized crossover trial in which they performed a unilateral leg resistance exercise workout (EX: 4 sets of knee extensions and 4 sets of leg press; 8-10 repetitions/set; 80% of maximal), such that one leg was not exercised and acted as a rested (RE) comparator. After exercise, subjects consumed either an isoenergetic whey protein plus carbohydrate beverage (WHEY: 10 g protein and 21 g fructose) or a carbohydrate-only beverage (CHO: 21 g fructose and 10 g maltodextran). Subjects received pulse-tracer injections of L-[ring-2H5]phenylalanine and L-[15N]phenylalanine to measure MPS. Exercise stimulated a rise in MPS in the WHEY-EX and CHO-EX legs, which were greater than MPS in the WHEY-RE leg and the CHO-RE leg (all p<0.05), respectively. The rate of MPS in the WHEY-EX leg was greater than in the CHO-EX leg (p<0.001). We conclude that a small dose (10 g) of whey protein with carbohydrate (21 g) can stimulate a rise in MPS after resistance exercise in trained young men that would be supportive of a positive net protein balance, which, over time, would lead to hypertrophy.
The aim of this study was to investigate the ergogenic potential of arginine on NO synthesis, muscle blood flow, and skeletal muscle protein synthesis (MPS). Eight healthy young men (22.1 ± 2.6 y, 1.79 ± 0.06 m, 76.6 ± 6.2 kg; mean ± SD) participated in 2 trials where they performed a bout of unilateral leg resistance exercise and ingested a drink containing either 10 g essential amino acids with 10 g l-arginine (ARG) or an isonitrogenous control (CON). Femoral artery blood flow of both the nonexercised and exercised leg was measured continuously using pulsed-wave Doppler ultrasound, while rates of mixed and myofibrillar MPS were determined using a primed continuous infusion of L-[ring-(13)C(6)] or L-[ring-(2)H(5)]phenylalanine. The plasma arginine concentration increased 300% during the ARG trial but not during the CON trial (P < 0.001). Plasma nitrate, nitrite, and endothelin-1, all markers of NO synthesis, did not change during either the ARG or CON trial. Plasma growth hormone increased to a greater degree after exercise in the ARG trial than CON trial (P < 0.05). Femoral artery blood flow increased 270% above basal in the exercised leg (P < 0.001) but not in the nonexercised leg, with no differences between the ARG and CON trials. Mixed and myofibrillar MPS were both greater in the exercised leg compared with the nonexercised leg (P < 0.001), but did not differ between the ARG and CON treatments. We conclude that an oral bolus (10 g) of arginine does not increase NO synthesis or muscle blood flow. Furthermore, arginine does not enhance mixed or myofibrillar MPS either at rest or after resistance exercise beyond that achieved by feeding alone.
OBJECTIVES:Clinical research in Canada is conducted primarily in "academic" hospitals, whereas most clinical care is provided in "community" hospitals. The objective of this nested observational study was to compare patient characteristics, outcomes, process-of-care variables, and trial metrics for patients enrolled in a large randomized controlled trial who were admitted to academic and community hospitals in Canada. DESIGN:We conducted a preplanned observational study nested within the Probiotics: Prevention of Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (PROSPECT, a randomized controlled trial comparing probiotics to placebo in mechanically ventilated patients) Research Program. SETTING: ICUs.PATIENTS: Mechanically ventilated patients. MEASUREMENTS:We compared patient characteristics, interventions, outcomes, and trial metrics between patients enrolled in PROSPECT from academic and community hospitals. MAIN RESULTS:Participating centers included 34 (82.9%) academic and seven (17.1%) community hospitals, which enrolled 2,203 (86.2%) and 352 (13.8%) patients, respectively. Compared with academic hospitals, patients enrolled in community hospitals were older (mean [sd] 62.7 yr [14.9 yr] vs 59.5 yr [16.4 yr]; p = 0.044), had longer ICU stays (median [interquartile range {IQR}], 13 d [8-23 d] vs 11 d [7-8 d]; p = 0.012) and higher mortality (percentage, [95% CI] in the ICU,.4%]vs 20.5% [18.9-11.3%]; p = 0.002) and hospital (40.6% [35.6-45.8%] vs 26.1% [24.3-27.9%]; p < 0.001). Trial metrics, including informed consent rate (85.9% vs 76.3%; p = 0.149), mean (sd) monthly enrolment rate (2.1 [1.4] vs 1.1 [0.7]; p = 0.119), and protocol adherence (90.6% vs 91.6%; p = 0.207), were similar between community and academic ICUs. CONCLUSIONS:Community hospitals can conduct high-quality research, with similar trial metrics to academic hospitals. Patient characteristics differed between community and academic hospitals, highlighting the need for broader engagement of community hospitals in clinical research to ensure generalizability of study results.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.