Iron and erythropoietin to heal and recover after intensive care (ITHRIVE): A pilot randomised clinical trial.

Objective: To determine the feasibility of a pivotal randomised clinical trial of intravenous (IV) iron and erythropoietin in adult survivors of critical illness with anaemia requiring treatment in the intensive care unit. Design: An investigator-initiated, parallel group, placebo-controlled, randomised feasibility trial. Setting: A tertiary intensive care unit (ICU) in Perth, Western Australia. Participants: Adults with anaemia (haemoglobin <100 g/L), requiring ICU-level care for more than 48 h, and likely to be ready for ICU discharge within 24 h. Interventions: A single dose of IV ferric carboxymaltose and Epoetin alfa (active group) or an equal volume of 0.9% saline (placebo group). Main outcome measures: Study feasibility was considered met if the pilot achieved a recruitment rate of ≥2 participants per site per month, ≥90% of participants received their allocated study treatment, and≥ 90% of participants were followed up for the proposed pivotal trial primary outcome - days alive and at home to day 90 (DAH90). Results: The 40-participant planned sample size included twenty in each group and was enrolled between 1/9/2021 and 2/3/2022. Participants spent a median of 3.4 days (interquartile range 2.8-5.1) in the ICU prior to enrolment and had a mean baseline haemoglobin of 83.7 g/L (standard deviation 6.7). The recruitment rate was 6.7 participants per month [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.8-9.0], DAH90 follow-up was 100% (95% CI 91.2%-100%), and 39 (97.5%, 95% CI 86.8%-99.9%) participants received the allocated study intervention. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: The iron and erythropoietin to heal and recover after intensive care (ITHRIVE) pilot demonstrated feasibility based on predefined participant recruitment, study drug administration, and follow-up thresholds.

Early and sustained Lactobacillus plantarum probiotic therapy in critical illness: the randomised, placebo-controlled, restoration of gut microflora in critical illness trial (ROCIT).

PURPOSE: In adults requiring treatment in an intensive care unit, probiotic therapy using Lactobacillus plantarum 299v may reduce nosocomial infection. The aim of this study was to determine whether early and sustained L. plantarum 299v therapy administered to adult ICU patients increased days alive and at home. METHODS: A multicentre, parallel group, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial was conducted. Adult patients within 48 h of intensive care admission and expected to require intensive care beyond the day after recruitment were eligible to participate. L plantarum 299v or placebo were administered immediately after enrolment and continued for 60 days. The primary outcome was days alive and out of hospital to Day 60 (DAOH60). Secondary outcomes included nosocomial infections. RESULTS: The median [interquartile range (IQR)] number of DAOH60 in the probiotic (n = 110) and placebo group (n = 108) was 49.5 (IQR 37.0-53.0) and 49.0 (IQR 43.8-53.0) respectively, between-group difference of 0.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) - 6.10 to 7.1, P = 0.55]. Nosocomial infection occurred in 8 (7.3%) and 5 (4.6%) of the probiotic and placebo group participants, respectively, odds ratio 1.62 (95% CI 0.51-5.10), P = 0.57. There were no serious, or probiotic-associated adverse events. CONCLUSION: Early and sustained untargeted administration of probiotic therapy with Lactobacillus plantarum 299v to adult patients admitted to the ICU is safe, but not associated with improved patient outcomes.

Study protocol for the safety and efficacy of probiotic therapy on days alive and out of hospital in adult ICU patients: the multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled Restoration Of gut microflora in Critical Illness Trial (ROCIT).

INTRODUCTION: The effect of early and sustained administration of daily probiotic therapy on patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) remains uncertain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Restoration Of gut microflora in Critical Illness Trial (ROCIT) study is a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, two-sided superiority trial that will enrol 220 patients in five ICUs. Adult patients who are within 48 hours of admission to an ICU and are expected to require intensive care beyond the next calendar day will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive early and sustained Lactobacillus plantarum 299v probiotic therapy in addition to usual care or placebo in addition to usual care. The primary endpoint is days alive and out of hospital to day 60. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: ROCIT has been approved by the South Metropolitan Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (ref: RGS00000004) and the St John of God Health Care Human Research Ethics Committee (ref: 1183). The trial results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR12617000783325); Pre-results.

Internet health information use by surrogate decision makers of patients admitted to the intensive care unit: a multicentre survey.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the use, understanding, trust and influence of the internet and other sources of health information used by the next of kin (NOK) of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN: Multicentre structured survey. SETTING: The ICUs of 13 public and private Australian hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: NOK who self-identified as the primary surrogate decision maker for a patient admitted to the ICU. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The frequency, understanding, trust and influence of online sources of health information, and the quality of health websites visited using the Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode) for medical and health websites. RESULTS: There were 473 survey responses. The median ICU admission days and number of ICU visits by the NOK at the time of completing the survey was 3 (IQR, 2-6 days) and 4 (IQR, 2-7), respectively. The most commonly reported sources of health information used very frequently were the ICU nurse (55.6%), ICU doctor (38.7%), family (23.3%), hospital doctor (21.4%), and the internet (11.3%). Compared with the 243 NOK (51.6%) not using the internet, NOK using the internet were less likely to report complete understanding (odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.88), trust (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.19-0.59), or influence (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38-0.88) associated with the ICU doctor. Overall, the quality of the 40 different reported websites accessed was moderately high. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of ICU NOK report using the internet as a source of health information. Internet use is associated with lower reported understanding, trust and influence of the ICU doctor.

Patients' perceptions of subcutaneous delivery of darbepoetin alfa by autoinjector prefilled pen versus prefilled syringe: a randomized, crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous injection of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for the correction of anemia associated with chronic kidney disease is well recognized. Different delivery devices are available, although their impact on patient-reported outcomes is limited. OBJECTIVES: Subcutaneous delivery of darbepoetin alfa via an autoinjector prefilled pen (PFP) and prefilled syringe (PFS) were compared and assessed according to patient-rated preferences and perceptions. METHODS: In this single-center, randomized, open-label, double-crossover study, patients continued using the PFS for 4 injections or were switched to the PFP for the same number of injections, after which they were switched to the alternative device. Following further 4 injections using the new device, patients were switched back to the initial device. Questionnaires were administered at the end of each series of injections for each device and at the start and end of the study. RESULTS: For overall device preference, the majority (62%) of patients responded with PFP, whereas 32% preferred the PFS mode of delivery. This preference for PFP was driven by a perception of increased convenience and ease of use compared with PFS. No significant differences in pain scores were noted between the 2 devices. Most patients rated both devices as being "easy" or "extremely easy" to use and were either "satisfied" or "extremely satisfied." CONCLUSION: When given the choice, most patients preferred the PFP mode of administration compared with PFS due to convenience and ease of use. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ACTRN12611000839909.