Background: The optimal protein dose in critical illness is unknown. We aim to conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effect of higher versus lower protein delivery (with similar energy delivery between groups) on clinical and patient-centered outcomes in critically ill patients. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL from database inception through April 1, 2021.We included RCTs of (1) adult (age ≥ 18) critically ill patients that (2) compared higher vs lower protein with (3) similar energy intake between groups, and (4) reported clinical and/or patient-centered outcomes. We excluded studies on immunonutrition. Two authors screened and conducted quality assessment independently and in duplicate. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the pooled risk ratio (dichotomized outcomes) or mean difference (continuous outcomes). Results: Nineteen RCTs were included (n = 1731). Sixteen studies used primarily the enteral route to deliver protein. Intervention was started within 72 h of ICU admission in sixteen studies. The intervention lasted between 3 and 28 days. In 11 studies that reported weight-based nutrition delivery, the pooled mean protein and energy received in higher and lower protein groups were 1.31 ± 0.48 vs 0.90 ± 0.30 g/kg and 19.9 ± 6.9 versus 20.1 ± 7.1 kcal/kg, respectively. Higher vs lower protein did not significantly affect overall mortality [risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75–1.10, p = 0.34] or other clinical or patient-centered outcomes. In 5 small studies, higher protein significantly attenuated muscle loss (MD −3.44% per week, 95% CI −4.99 to −1.90; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: In critically ill patients, a higher daily protein delivery was not associated with any improvement in clinical or patient-centered outcomes. Larger, and more definitive RCTs are needed to confirm the effect of muscle loss attenuation associated with higher protein delivery. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021237530

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.

In 1747, an important milestone in the history of clinical research was set, as the Scottish surgeon James Lind conducted the first randomized controlled trial. Lind was interested in scurvy, a severe vitamin C deficiency which caused the death of thousands of British seamen. He found that a dietary intervention with oranges and lemons, which are rich in vitamin C by nature, was effective to recover from scurvy. Because of its antioxidative properties and involvement in many biochemical processes, the essential micronutrient vitamin C plays a key role in the human biology. Moreover, the use of vitamin C in critical illness—a condition also resulting in death of thousands in the 21st century—has gained increasing interest, as it may restore vascular responsiveness to vasoactive agents, ameliorate microcirculatory blood flow, preserve endothelial barriers, augment bacterial defense, and prevent apoptosis. Because of its redox potential and powerful antioxidant capacity, vitamin C represents an inexpensive and safe antioxidant, with the potential to modify the inflammatory cascade and improve clinical outcomes of critically ill patients. This narrative review aims to update and provide an overview on the role of vitamin C in the human biology and in critically ill patients, and to summarize current evidence on the use of vitamin C in diverse populations of critically ill patients, in specific focusing on patients with sepsis and coronavirus disease 2019.