Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Oct 5;15(10):e0240045. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240045

Whole-body protein kinetics in critically ill patients during 50 or 100% energy provision by enteral nutrition: A randomized cross-over study

Martin Sundström Rehal 1,2,*, Felix Liebau 1,2, Jan Wernerman 2, Olav Rooyackers 1,2
Editor: Juan J Loor3
PMCID: PMC7535026  PMID: 33017434

Abstract

Background

Enteral nutrition (EN) is a ubiquitous intervention in ICU patients but there is uncertainty regarding the optimal dose, timing and importance for patient-centered outcomes during critical illness. Our research group has previously found an improved protein balance during normocaloric versus hypocaloric parenteral nutrition in neurosurgical ICU patients. We now wanted to investigate if this could be demonstrated in a general ICU population with established enteral feeding, including patients on renal replacement therapy.

Methods

Patients with EN >80% of energy target as determined by indirect calorimetry were randomized to or 50% or 100% of current EN rate. After 24 hours, whole-body protein kinetics were determined by enteral and parenteral stable isotope tracer infusions. Treatment allocation was then switched, and tracer investigations repeated 24 hours later in a crossover design with patients serving as their own controls.

Results

Six patients completed the full protocol. During feeding with 100% EN all patients received >1.2 g/kg/day of protein. Mean whole-body protein balance increased from -6.07 to 2.93 µmol phenylalanine/kg/h during 100% EN as compared to 50% (p = 0.044). The oxidation rate of phenylalanine was unaltered (p = 0.78).

Conclusions

It is possible to assess whole-body protein turnover using a stable isotope technique in critically ill patients during enteral feeding and renal replacement therapy. Our results also suggest a better whole-body protein balance during full dose as compared to half dose EN. As the sample size was smaller than anticipated, this finding should be confirmed in larger studies.

Introduction

The role of energy and protein delivery during critical illness remains unclear. In recent years several large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have failed to demonstrate a reduction in mortality from increased energy delivery during critical illness [13]. However, the effects of nutritional interventions on lean body mass preservation and functional recovery have not been investigated to the same extent. Results from several small RCTs have been conflicting [48] and currently there is insufficient data to conclude if energy and protein delivery within recommendations from clinical guidelines can ameliorate muscle loss in critically ill patients [911].

It is plausible to think that a nutritional intervention should have a positive effect on protein balance to be able to protect muscle mass. Our research group previously demonstrated that an increase in energy and protein delivery by total parenteral nutrition (TPN) from 50 to 100% of measured energy expenditure improves whole-body protein balance in neurosurgical ICU patients [12]. Two factors limit the generalization of this finding: the patients studied suffer from a specific pathophysiology different from the majority of ICU patients, and the use of TPN is relatively rare in current clinical practice [13]. Although enteral nutrition (EN) is the predominant route of feeding during critical illness, variable uptake from the gastrointestinal tract, splanchnic sequestration of nutrients and the hormonal response to enteral feeding impedes extrapolation of results from studies performed with exclusively parenteral nutrition. We therefore wanted to investigate the effects of 50% versus 100% delivery of energy targets by EN on whole-body protein balance (primary outcome measure) and plasma amino acid profile (secondary outcome measure) in a general ICU population.

Methods

Trial registration

This study was prospectively registered on 2014-05-08 at the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, registration number ACTRN12614000476639, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=366000&isReview=true.

Ethics statement

This study was approved by the regional ethical committee in Stockholm county (DNR: 2016/76-31/4). Informed consent was obtained from all patients or the closest relative if the patient could not communicate his or her intentions. Information was provided both orally and in writing, clearly stating that the patient could withdraw from the study at any time.

Patients

This study was conducted in a mixed medical-surgical ICU of a tertiary referral hospital (Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden). The unit does not manage cardiothoracic/neurosurgical patients or patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Patients admitted to the ICU during the study period were screened for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were:

  1. Invasive mechanical ventilation with an FiO2 of ≤0.6.

  2. ≥18 years of age.

  3. ≥80% of target calories by enteral route as determined by indirect calorimetry.

Patients were excluded if:

  1. Informed consent could not be provided by the patient or next-of-kin.

  2. Extubation, withdrawal of life support, termination of enteral tube feeding or transfer to another hospital/ward was anticipated during the study period.

  3. No central venous or arterial catheters were available for blood sampling.

  4. Volume resuscitation or blood transfusions were administered during the measurement periods.

Inclusion/exclusion (1,3/2,3) criteria listed above have been modified compared to the original study protocol in order to facilitate screening and recruitment of patients. Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) was not an exclusion criterion if blood flow, dialysate flow and ultrafiltration rate remained constant during the sampling period and 2 hours prior. The routine CRRT modality in the unit is continuous veno-venous hemodialysis (CVVHD) with citrate anticoagulation. As the filtration rate of citrate was not measured within the context of this study, energy delivery from systemic uptake and metabolism was estimated from previous publications [14]. According to standard operating procedures at our unit, patients treated with CRRT during the study period also received an intravenous glutamine and alanine infusion (Dipeptiven, Fresenius Kabi) at a rate corresponding to 20 g/day during 50% EN and 40 g/day during 100% EN to compensate for loss of glutamine across the hemofilter. All aspects of care beyond the study protocol were determined by the attending physician and care team.

Patient recruitment and follow-up was conducted between 2016-12-14 and 2018-03-05 (Fig 1). 12 patients were enrolled in the study, but the rate of protocol violations was higher than expected (N = 6). In five cases the protocol was interrupted by clinical circumstances and in one case the nutrition protocol was violated due to unexpected feeding intolerance.

Fig 1. CONSORT recruitment flowchart.

Fig 1

EN: Enteral nutrition; IC: Indirect calorimetry; ICU: Intensive care unit; RRT: Renal replacement therapy; TPN: Total parenteral nutrition.

Protocol

The study design was an experimental, cross-over randomized trial with patients serving as their own controls. After inclusion, patients were randomized to continuous enteral feeding at either 50% or 100% rate of ongoing EN. Treatment allocation was assigned by drawing numbers (1 = 100%, 2 = 50%) from sealed opaque envelopes arranged in random order by a computer-generated sequence (https://www.randomizer.org). Block randomization was not performed as this was not communicated to research staff. The individuals responsible for allocating treatment order did not take part in preparing the randomization process. Prior to starting the protocol, indirect calorimetry (Quark RMR, Cosmed, Rome, Italy) was performed to determine energy expenditure (EE) at baseline and ascertain that the current energy target was ≥80% of EE. At time (T)1 = 0 EN rate was set to the initial level determined by treatment allocation. At T2 = 19 hours, an enteral infusion of 1-13C-phenylalanine was added in parallel to the ongoing EN at a rate determined to provide a 30% enrichment (i.e. fraction of isotopically labeled compound) of total enteral phenylalanine. At T3 = 21 hours, primed intravenous infusions of ring-D5-phenylalanine (prime 2.94 µmol/kg, infusion 2.94 µmol/kg/h), 3,3-D2-tyrosine (prime 1.64 µmol/kg, infusion 1.64 µmol/kg/h) and an intravenous bolus of ring-D4-tyrosine (0.81 µmol/kg) were administered. At T4 = 23.45 hours, four blood samples were drawn at five-minute intervals. A 15 minute sampling period was chosen over a 30 minute period specified in the original protocol as this had successfully been used in similar studies and reduced the interruption in patient care [15]. If the patient was receiving CRRT at the time, the effluent bag was emptied prior to the sampling period, the volume of effluent collected during sampling was measured and a sample of effluent was drawn to quantify filtration rate of amino acids across the hemofilter. Both the enteral and intravenous tracer infusions were then stopped, and a new indirect calorimetry was performed if possible. At T5 = 24 hours, the rate of EN was changed to either 50% or 100% of baseline, depending on initial treatment allocation. At T6 = 43 hours, the stable isotope infusions and sampling procedure was repeated at identical intervals to day one. If possible, a final determination of EE by indirect calorimetry was performed at the end of the protocol, and clinical data from the study period extracted from the patient data management system and electronic records. The protocol is illustrated in Fig 2.

Fig 2. Schematic illustration of study protocol (not to scale).

Fig 2

EN: Enteral nutrition; IV: intravenous; Phe: Phenylalanine; T: Time; Tyr: Tyrosine.

Blood samples were collected in EDTA tubes, centrifuged to obtain plasma and frozen to -80 oC. Molar percent excess (MPE) of the tracers was determined from average values in the four blood samples drawn at the end the tracer protocol and measured by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (Agilent N5973; Agilent, Kista, Sweden) as described in detail previously [16]. The last sample from each measurement period was also analyzed for serum urea (Urea kit on Indiko analyser, Thermo Fisher Scientific) and plasma free amino acid concentrations with high performance liquid chromatography (Alliance; Waters Corporation, Milford, MA, USA). Amino acid concentration is given as the sum of all measured amino acids. In addition, phenylalanine concentration was measured in the CRRT effluent.

Calculations

Phenylalanine (Phe) rate of appearance (RaPhe) into the central compartment is calculated as:

RaPhe=i*(Ei/EA)i

Where i: infusion rate of tracer (µmol/kg/h); Ei: Enrichment of infusate (molar percentage excess, MPE); EA: Arterial enrichment (MPE). During a physiological steady state situation, Ra equals rate of disappearance (Rd).

Whole-body protein breakdown is estimated from RaPhe minus exogenous (parenteral and enteral) Phe delivery. Enteral Phe is adjusted for splanchnic extraction by comparing appearance rates of the enteral (13C-Phe) and parenteral (D5-Phe) tracers in plasma:

Splanchnicextractionfraction=1((EA13CPhe/i13CPhe)/(EAD5Phe/iD5Phe))

Whole-body protein synthesis is estimated from RdPhe minus oxidation of Phe and the loss of Phe over the hemofilter. OxidationPhe is estimated from the whole-body conversion of phenylalanine to tyrosine:

OxidationPhe=RaTyr*((EAD4Tyr)/(EAD5Phe))*(RaPhe/(iD5Phe+RaPhe))

Whole-body protein balance is calculated by the difference between protein synthesis and protein breakdown. The kinetic calculations and analytical methods used have been extensively described in previous publications [1618].

Statistics

Sample size calculations were based on data from a previous investigation by our research group with a similar study design [12]. The original power calculation for the study protocol was based on the number of subjects required to observe a change in the primary outcome corresponding to 75% of an anticipated standard deviation of 12.7 µmol Phe/kg/h, assuming a mean balance of -11.5 µmol Phe/kg/h. As a change to net neutral balance was considered more meaningful this was subsequently modified to detect a mean change in whole-body protein balance from -11.5 µmol Phe/kg/h to zero with α = 0.05 and β = 0.2, requiring 10 patients with complete data for the primary outcome. To provide margin for protocol violations due to unexpected circumstances the recruitment target was set to twelve patients. Significance testing was performed using a two-tailed Student’s t-test for paired samples. Amino acid kinetics were assumed to be normally distributed from prior observations [12, 15, 19]. Descriptive data and results corrected for body weight (BW) are adjusted using the same formula as applied in local clinical practice (BWcalc = [Height (cm) - 100] + [Admission BW (kg)–[Height (cm)– 100]]*0.33). All calculations and graphical presentations of data were performed in Prism 8.3 (GraphPad Software Inc, San Diego, USA).

Results

The six patients (5 men, 1 woman) who completed the full protocol are characterized in Table 1. Information on anthropometric variables and nutritional therapy are provided in Tables 2 and 3. One patient received a 5% dextrose infusion on both study days, but no other parenteral nutrition was provided. Three patients received CVVHD with citrate anticoagulation and supplementary amino acids during the study period. Patients were primarily sedated with clonidine and morphine. 4/6 patients had 50% EN as their initial treatment allocation.

Table 1. General patient characteristics.

Admission diagnosis Age SAPS III SOFA day 1 SOFA day 2 SOFA day 3 ICU LoS study day 1
Patient 1 Septic shock 54 108 10 10 10 5
Patient 2 Respiratory failure 73 106 8 8 10 21
Patient 3 Septic shock 56 70 3 1 1 28
Patient 4 Endocarditis 28 45 8 8 7 30
Patient 5 Septic shock 72 95 5 4 2 9
Patient 6 ARDS 59 67 4 4 4 7

ARDS: Acute respiratory distress syndrome; ICU: Intensive care unit; LoS: Length of stay; SOFA: Sequential organ failure assessment; SAPS: Simplified acute physiology score.

Table 2. Anthropometric, nutritional and metabolic patient characteristics.

Baseline 50% EN 100% EN
BMI (kg/m2) 27.1 (19.5–40.7)
Energy intake (kcal/kg/day) 16.3 (12.2–22.3) 32.2 (24.5–44.5)
Protein intake (g/kg/day) 0.89 (0.6–1.38) 1.77 (1.20–2.77)
REE (kcal/kg/day) 33.0 (26.3–44.6) 32.5 (22.4–46.8) 36.1 (33.2–38.5)*
Energy intake/REE (%) 54 (42–64) 91 (73–106)**
Respiratory quotient 0.83 (0.70–0.88) 0.76 (0.70–0.81) 0.78 (0.72–0.83)
Energy deficit (Intake–REE, kcal/kg/day) -16.2 (-24.5 - -10.2) -5.1 (-9.2–2.1)**
Insulin dose (IU/h) 1.58 (0–3.4) 1.67 (0–3.0)

All data presented as mean (range). BMI: Body mass index; REE: Resting energy expenditure; EN: Enteral nutrition.

*Two missing values where indirect calorimetry could not be performed due to extubation on day 2.

**Missing REE values (n = 2) imputed from baseline measurement.

Table 3. Individual patient nutritional and metabolic characteristics.

EE* baseline EE* 50% EN EE* 100% EN Enteral formula CRRT Dipeptiven Kcal 50% Kcal 100% Protein** 50% Protein** 100%
Patient 1 27.8 22.4 Missing value Fresubin HP Energy Day 1&2 Yes 14.0 26.4 0.80 1.60
Patient 2 29.3 29.3 33.2 Fresubin 2 kcal HP Day 1&2 Yes 15.6 29.3 0.89 1.78
Patient 3 40.8 31.3 37.8 Fresubin 2 kcal HP No No 19.9 39.9 1.00 1.99
Patient 4 44.6 46.8 Missing value Fresubin 2 kcal HP Day 1 Yes 24.9 44.5 1.38 2.77
Patient 5 26.3 30.5 34.7 Fresubin 2 kcal HP No No 12.8 25.5 0.64 1.28
Patient 6 29.2 34.5 38.5 Fresubin 2kcal HP No No 17.1 31.2 0.60 1.20

CRRT: Continuous renal replacement therapy; EE: Energy expenditure; EN: Enteral nutrition.

*Kcal/kg/day.

**g/kg/day.

During 100% feeding all patients received ≥1.2 g/kg/day of protein. Mean whole-body protein balance increased from -6.1 μmol Phe/kg/h during 50% EN to +2.9 at 100% (p = 0.044). No statistically significant changes in any other kinetic parameters were observed (Table 4). The mean and individual values of kinetics during 50 and 100% EN are illustrated in Fig 3. Plasma free amino acids increased during 100% EN (p = 0.011) but there was no change in serum urea (p = 0.28). Plasma free amino acids did not differ between patients with/without CRRT and Dipeptiven supplementation (Fig 4). Complete plasma aminograms during 50 and 100% EN for individual patients are presented in Table 5. In the three patients with CRRT, loss of phenylalanine across the hemofilter was between 1.9–4.8 μmol/kg/h.

Table 4. Whole-body phenylalanine kinetics.

50% EN* 100% EN* Mean difference** p-value
Balance (µmol Phe/kg/h) -6.1 ±1.5 2.9 ±2.0 9.0 (0.4–17.7) 0.044
Synthesis (µmol Phe/kg/h) 56.6 ±7.9 65.6 ±7.3 9.00 (-14.2–32.2) 0.36
Breakdown (µmol Phe/kg/h) 62.6 ±8.6 62.6 ±6.6 0.0 (-26.0–26.0) 1.0
Oxidation (µmol Phe/kg/h) 12.6 ±2.5 13.7 ±2.2 1.10 (-8.3–10.5) 0.78
Splanchnic extraction fraction 0.22 ±0.13 0.09 ±0.11 -0.13 (-0.61–0.35) 0.53
Rate of appearance (µmol Phe/kg/h) 70.6 ±10.0 80.7 ±8.7 10.1 (-20.1–40.2) 0.43
Plasma free amino acids (µmol/L) 2173 ±161 2632 ±165 459 (157–762) 0.011
Serum urea (mmol/L) 14.2 ±2.3 13.4 ±2.0 -0.76 (-2.4–0.9) 0.28

EN: Enteral nutrition; Phe: Phenylalanine.

* mean ± standard error.

** mean (95% confidence interval).

All p-values calculated with two-tailed Student’s T-test for paired samples.

Fig 3. Whole-body phenylalanine kinetics.

Fig 3

Black lines: individual patients; Red lines: mean. EN: Enteral nutrition. All p-values calculated with two-tailed Student’s T-test for paired samples.

Fig 4. Plasma free amino acid concentrations.

Fig 4

Black lines with full circles: Individual patients. Black lines with hollow circles: Individual patients with continuous renal replacement therapy and amino acid supplementation. EN: Enteral nutrition.

Table 5. Plasma amino acid profiles of individual patients.

%EN 3-MH Ala Arg Asn Cit Gln Glu Gly His Ile Leu Lys Met Orn Phe Ser Tau Thr Trp Tyr Val EAA BCAA SUM
Patient 1 50 8.1 138.9 55.3 36.5 21.7 308.8 73.7 121.1 58.8 46.6 83.7 130.9 17.5 61.0 61.4 56.2 33.2 69.7 27.5 62.1 140.2 636.3 270.5 1612.8
Patient 2 50 7.2 256.4 50.6 47.0 52.3 644.8 93.4 216.3 64.6 79.8 132.0 129.5 18.0 114.1 108.5 75.7 37.5 84.5 33.1 75.1 229.9 879.9 441.8 2550.4
Patient 3 50 5.3 168.9 65.7 40.0 34.3 602.7 157.2 156.8 41.4 60.4 105.9 142.3 16.6 154.0 86.3 72.3 183.6 88.3 22.7 73.9 248.9 812.8 415.2 2527.5
Patient 4 50 4.1 215.0 28.1 25.2 1.4 379.7 148.0 85.6 37.5 51.6 115.1 56.5 8.3 63.3 124.4 41.2 97.3 30.3 22.0 48.3 207.5 653.1 374.3 1790.4
Patient 5 50 27.5 187.8 78.2 46.7 50.1 533.5 58.1 210.2 50.3 56.5 96.9 157.8 26.6 75.3 238.1 56.0 46.3 111.7 29.1 71.4 193.2 960.2 346.5 2401.1
Patient 6 50 6.7 161.0 54.5 42.3 41.0 539.6 23.3 191.3 48.7 54.8 113.5 173.9 26.3 69.9 96.0 70.2 33.2 116.0 17.2 60.4 214.8 861.1 383.0 2154.3
%EN 3-MH Ala Arg Asn Cit Gln Glu Gly His Ile Leu Lys Met Orn Phe Ser Tau Thr Trp Tyr Val EAA BCAA SUM
Patient 1 100 7.1 181.8 72.1 46.4 27.6 509.1 86.8 147.1 74.3 69.0 132.0 183.4 22.2 79.6 90.2 81.1 32.7 110.2 34.4 102.1 228.2 943.9 429.3 2317.1
Patient 2 100 6.0 445.6 59.6 59.3 50.7 790.9 81.4 239.5 76.6 74.7 139.2 148.9 24.9 127.7 138.5 81.1 80.3 114.2 34.0 110.6 265.7 1016.8 479.5 3149.4
Patient 3 100 5.3 200.9 80.9 47.4 37.7 632.0 160.0 166.2 47.3 76.0 146.8 201.0 24.3 159.3 120.8 78.8 182.5 134.2 27.7 105.1 331.7 1109.7 554.5 2966.1
Patient 4 100 5.8 331.0 33.4 38.2 36.9 608.8 155.7 122.9 45.3 95.4 159.8 84.7 15.3 84.1 144.9 52.9 38.7 48.6 28.4 74.8 279.6 902.2 534.8 2485.1
Patient 5 100 24.9 240.5 74.4 55.5 52.1 613.6 77.1 239.6 59.0 68.9 119.7 150.5 31.2 97.9 264.9 56.2 39.4 123.1 39.2 85.0 272.1 1128.6 460.7 2784.8
Patient 6 100 7.1 133.4 46.6 42.9 32.8 539.4 27.0 183.6 54.0 46.7 96.8 175.3 22.7 64.5 92.9 63.7 44.7 137.7 15.3 55.3 208.6 850.0 352.1 2090.9

Plasma amino acid concentrations are given as µmol/L. Individual amino acids are presented with standard abbreviations. BCAA: Branched chain amino acids; EAA: Essential amino acids; EN: Enteral nutrition; SUM: Sum of all measured amino acids.

Discussion

The results from this randomized cross-over study suggest that 100% delivery of energy and protein targets by EN improves whole-body protein balance compared to 50%. Although the change in the primary outcome reached statistical significance, the number of patients who completed the full protocol was smaller than the target sample size due to clinical interruptions during the study period. Caution must therefore be taken in interpreting the validity of these results, and they should ideally be reproduced in a larger sample of ICU patients.

Our findings are similar to those from a previous study by our research group in neurosurgical ICU patients with 50 or 100% TPN by Berg et al [12]. While both studies are similar in design, it is important to underscore the differences between the interventions and populations studied: 1. The primary pathology of Neuro ICU patients is more homogenous which could have implications for the metabolic response to critical illness. However, the relatively high SOFA scores (mean 8) in Berg’s study indicates the presence of multiorgan failure. Patients in the current study were generally later in the course of ICU stay and received limited or no sedation compared to the high dose sedation used in the Neuro ICU patients to control intracranial pressure. 2. The systemic availability of substrates from EN is more uncertain than during delivery by TPN. As successful enteral feeding was a prerequisite for inclusion in the current study, uptake by the gastrointestinal tract was most likely adequate. 3. Energy provision at full enteral feeding was not strictly “isocaloric” (caloric intake = EE), but equal to 80–100% of measured EE. Also, protein intake was higher compared to Berg et al. (median 1.7 and 1.1 g/kg/day respectively) due to the composition of the enteral formulations used and amino acid supplementation during CRRT.

The main strength of our study is the state-of-the-art methodology used with regard to this patient population. The cross-over design allows patients to serve as their own controls, reducing the number of subjects required to observe a change in protein balance as variation in protein turnover is large between the individual critically ill patients. Previous work demonstrating improvements in protein kinetics from increased energy- or protein supplementation has primarily focused on shorter interventions in patients with total parenteral nutrition [12, 20, 21]. Here we repeat these findings in a general ICU setting during enteral feeding. Both enteral and parenteral tracers were used to allow correction for splanchnic extraction of enteral amino acids. Renal replacement therapy is a common treatment in patients with high illness severity and to our knowledge this is the first study on whole-body protein kinetics also including patients with CRRT. In these patients the loss of amino acids through the hemofilter was relatively low in comparison to whole-body turnover (<8% of total phenylalanine turnover). Furthermore, the requirement of full enteral feeding resulted in that patients were studied on days 5–30 of ICU stay. The majority were probably beyond the acute phase where mobilization of endogenous substrates may result in overfeeding if exogenous caloric support is provided to match measured EE. All together this approach allows us to perform pragmatic studies on protein turnover during critical illness without excessive constraints on inclusion criteria that may limit external validity. Although the heterogenous characteristics of patients limits inference from small samples, it is also a strength of the technique as heterogeneity is a central trait of patients in a general ICU setting. A limitation to our method is the long time required for adaptation to changes in nutritional therapy when using a cross-over design. The high number of dropouts due to protocol violations illustrates the difficulty in performing physiological investigations requiring longer periods of stable conditions in a modern ICU setting.

Our results indicate that critically ill patients can utilize enteral proteins to improve whole-body protein balance and that the extra proteins given during 100% compared to 50% EN are not oxidized to a larger extent. The results are also in agreement with several previous studies of amino acid kinetics critically ill patients, all demonstrating improvements in protein balance from increased energy- and/or protein supplementation [12, 15, 2022]. However, the clinical relevance of our findings is unclear. As stated in the introduction, the available evidence from clinical trials of ICU nutrition does not support a causal link between “optimal” nutrition (as recommended in clinical practice guidelines [10, 11]) and improvements in mortality, morbidity, functional status or lean body mass. The patients enrolled in our trial illustrate two important aspects to consider in future trials of nutritional interventions; timing and individual physiologic consideration. The majority of survivors from critical illness will spend less than two weeks in the ICU [2, 23]. Nutrition does not appear to be a major determinant of short term survival, and it is unlikely that any non-vital intervention delivered for a brief period of time will have a long-term effect on physical performance status or lean body mass [24]. In our study, half of the patients had been in the ICU over three weeks, and out of those two patients exhibited a metabolic rate (measured EE at baseline) of >40 kcal/kg/day. These two patients also demonstrated the greatest increase in protein balance during full feeding (Fig 5, patient 3 and 4). Although speculative, it is physiologically plausible that patients who fail to recover become depleted in endogenous reserves and therefore are especially vulnerable to energy or protein malnutrition. This is potentially compounded by unrecognized hypermetabolism in the absence of indirect calorimetry. As this subgroup only represent a small fraction of patients included in major RCTs, very limited inference can be drawn from available evidence. It is imperative for future research to better define the role of individualized nutritional therapy in ICU patients who suffer from the nebulous condition of chronic critical illness. Measurements of protein kinetics provide unique information on treatment response and can be used in conjunction with other modalities that measure change in lean body mass or functional status [25].

Fig 5. Whole-body phenylalanine balance in relation to protein intake.

Fig 5

Black dots: individual patients with assigned numbers. Solid black line: Simple linear regression of data points. Dotted lines: 95% confidence interval of regression line.

Our study has several weaknesses, mainly a smaller-than-planned per protocol sample size that limits the strength of our findings. Second, the heterogeneity of our sample with regards to age, sex, disease state and time spent in the ICU limits interpretations of our results to hypothesis-generating conclusions. Third, the protein-to-calorie ratio of administered nutritional formulas was kept constant throughout the study. We are therefore unable to discern whether the effects on protein kinetics are due to increased energy provision, exogenous protein supply or both. Fourth, whole-body protein balance does not give any indication as to which organ systems experience a nitrogen sparing effect or if these changes are relevant to recovery. Fifth, we cannot determine if the observed changes are attenuated by adaptation over time beyond the frame of the current study [26].

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that a stable isotope tracer technique applied in a cross-over design allows the evaluation of how nutrition affects protein metabolism in critically ill patients during enteral feeding and CRRT. Our results suggest that 100% of prescribed EN improves whole-body protein balance compared to 50% of EN in a group of patients with known energy expenditure and established enteral feeding, but the validity of this finding needs to be confirmed in a larger investigation. Future studies using a similar methodology in a larger sample could provide relevant information to guide nutritional therapy during long-term critical illness.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. CONSORT 2010 checklist.

(DOCX)

S1 File. Ethical application and study protocol (original language).

(PDF)

S2 File. Study protocol from ethical application (English translation).

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

Our most heartfelt thanks to our invaluable co-workers: Kristina Kilsand, Sara Rydén and Janelle Cederlund for performing the clinical studies, Eva Nejman, Towe Jakobsson and Christina Hebert for performing the laboratory analyses and Daniel Olsson for statistical advice.

List of abbreviations

ARDS

Acute respiratory distress syndrome

BW

Body weight

CVVHD

Continuous veno-venous hemodialysis

CRRT

Continuous renal replacement therapy

EE

Energy expenditure

EN

Enteral nutrition

FiO2

Fraction of inspired oxygen

ICU

Intensive care unit

MPE

Molar percentage excess

Neuro ICU

Neurosurgical ICU

Phe

Phenylalanine

Ra

Rate of appearance

Rd

Rate of disappearance

RCT

Randomized controlled trial

SAPS

Simplified acute physiology score

SOFA

Sequential organ failure assessment

TPN

Total parenteral nutrition

Data Availability

A comprehensive report of individual patient characteristics has been omitted from the database to avoid potential identification of research subjects. All other data constituting the minimal dataset for replicating the results presented in the manuscript are available from the Swedish National Data Service database (https://doi.org/10.5878/b1e8-fg58).

Funding Statement

This study was funded by grants to JW from Stockholm City Council (https://www.sll.se/), grant #563170, and the Swedish Research Council (https://www.vr.se/english.html), grant #04210. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Al-Dorzi HM, Albarrak A, Ferwana M, Murad MH, Arabi YM. Lower versus higher dose of enteral caloric intake in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Critical care. 2016;20(1):358 10.1186/s13054-016-1539-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Target Investigators ftACTG, Chapman M, Peake SL, Bellomo R, Davies A, Deane A, et al. Energy-Dense versus Routine Enteral Nutrition in the Critically Ill. The New England journal of medicine. 2018;379(19):1823–34. 10.1056/NEJMoa1811687 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Casaer MP, Mesotten D, Hermans G, Wouters PJ, Schetz M, Meyfroidt G, et al. Early versus late parenteral nutrition in critically ill adults. The New England journal of medicine. 2011;365(6):506–17. 10.1056/NEJMoa1102662 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wischmeyer PE, Hasselmann M, Kummerlen C, Kozar R, Kutsogiannis DJ, Karvellas CJ, et al. A randomized trial of supplemental parenteral nutrition in underweight and overweight critically ill patients: the TOP-UP pilot trial. Critical care. 2017;21(1):142 10.1186/s13054-017-1736-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ridley EJ, Davies AR, Parke R, Bailey M, McArthur C, Gillanders L, et al. Supplemental parenteral nutrition versus usual care in critically ill adults: a pilot randomized controlled study. Critical care. 2018;22(1):12 10.1186/s13054-018-1939-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Allingstrup MJ, Kondrup J, Wiis J, Claudius C, Pedersen UG, Hein-Rasmussen R, et al. Early goal-directed nutrition versus standard of care in adult intensive care patients: the single-centre, randomised, outcome assessor-blinded EAT-ICU trial. Intensive care medicine. 2017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Fetterplace K, Deane AM, Tierney A, Beach LJ, Knight LD, Presneill J, et al. Targeted Full Energy and Protein Delivery in Critically Ill Patients: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial (FEED Trial). JPEN Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition. 2018;42(8):1252–62. 10.1002/jpen.1166 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ferrie S, Allman-Farinelli M, Daley M, Smith K. Protein Requirements in the Critically Ill: A Randomized Controlled Trial Using Parenteral Nutrition. JPEN Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition. 2016;40(6):795–805. 10.1177/0148607115618449 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lambell KJ, King SJ, Forsyth AK, Tierney AC. Association of Energy and Protein Delivery on Skeletal Muscle Mass Changes in Critically Ill Adults: A Systematic Review. JPEN Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition. 2018;42(7):1112–22. 10.1002/jpen.1151 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Singer P, Blaser AR, Berger MM, Alhazzani W, Calder PC, Casaer MP, et al. ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit. Clinical nutrition. 2019;38(1):48–79. 10.1016/j.clnu.2018.08.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.McClave SA, Taylor BE, Martindale RG, Warren MM, Johnson DR, Braunschweig C, et al. Guidelines for the Provision and Assessment of Nutrition Support Therapy in the Adult Critically Ill Patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.). JPEN Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition. 2016;40(2):159–211. 10.1177/0148607115621863 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Berg A, Rooyackers O, Bellander BM, Wernerman J. Whole body protein kinetics during hypocaloric and normocaloric feeding in critically ill patients. Critical care. 2013;17(4):R158 10.1186/cc12837 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Cahill NE, Dhaliwal R, Day AG, Jiang X, Heyland DK. Nutrition therapy in the critical care setting: what is "best achievable" practice? An international multicenter observational study. Critical care medicine. 2010;38(2):395–401. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181c0263d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Oudemans-van Straaten HM, Ostermann M. Bench-to-bedside review: Citrate for continuous renal replacement therapy, from science to practice. Critical care. 2012;16(6):249 10.1186/cc11645 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sundstrom Rehal M, Liebau F, Tjader I, Norberg A, Rooyackers O, Wernerman J. A supplemental intravenous amino acid infusion sustains a positive protein balance for 24 hours in critically ill patients. Critical care. 2017;21(1):298 10.1186/s13054-017-1892-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Rooyackers O, Kouchek-Zadeh R, Tjader I, Norberg A, Klaude M, Wernerman J. Whole body protein turnover in critically ill patients with multiple organ failure. Clinical nutrition. 2015;34(1):95–100. 10.1016/j.clnu.2014.01.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Thompson GN, Pacy PJ, Merritt H, Ford GC, Read MA, Cheng KN, et al. Rapid measurement of whole body and forearm protein turnover using a [2H5]phenylalanine model. The American journal of physiology. 1989;256(5 Pt 1):E631–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Liebau F, Jensen MD, Nair KS, Rooyackers O. Upper-body obese women are resistant to postprandial stimulation of protein synthesis. Clinical nutrition. 2014;33(5):802–7. 10.1016/j.clnu.2013.11.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Liebau F, Sundstrom M, van Loon LJ, Wernerman J, Rooyackers O. Short-term amino acid infusion improves protein balance in critically ill patients. Critical care. 2015;19:106 10.1186/s13054-015-0844-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Shaw JH, Wildbore M, Wolfe RR. Whole body protein kinetics in severely septic patients. The response to glucose infusion and total parenteral nutrition. Ann Surg. 1987;205(3):288–94. 10.1097/00000658-198703000-00012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wolfe RR, Goodenough RD, Burke JF, Wolfe MH. Response of protein and urea kinetics in burn patients to different levels of protein intake. Ann Surg. 1983;197(2):163–71. 10.1097/00000658-198302000-00007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Liebau F, Wernerman J, van Loon LJ, Rooyackers O. Effect of initiating enteral protein feeding on whole-body protein turnover in critically ill patients. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2015;101(3):549–57. 10.3945/ajcn.114.091934 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Arabi YM, Aldawood AS, Haddad SH, Al-Dorzi HM, Tamim HM, Jones G, et al. Permissive Underfeeding or Standard Enteral Feeding in Critically Ill Adults. The New England journal of medicine. 2015;372(25):2398–408. 10.1056/NEJMoa1502826 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bear DE, Griffith D, Puthucheary ZA. Emerging outcome measures for nutrition trials in the critically ill. Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care. 2018;21(6):417–22. 10.1097/MCO.0000000000000507 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sundstrom-Rehal M, Tardif N, Rooyackers O. Can exercise and nutrition stimulate muscle protein gain in the ICU patient? Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care. 2019;22(2):146–51. 10.1097/MCO.0000000000000548 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Larsson J, Lennmarken C, Martensson J, Sandstedt S, Vinnars E. Nitrogen requirements in severely injured patients. Br J Surg. 1990;77(4):413–6. 10.1002/bjs.1800770418 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Juan J Loor

4 May 2020

PONE-D-20-06211

Whole body protein kinetics in critically ill patients during 50 or 100% energy provision by enteral nutrition: A pilot randomized cross-over study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Sundström Rehal,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 18 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Juan J Loor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following

competing interests: JW and OR have given paid lectures about nutrition in the ICU for

Nestlé, Nutricia and Fresenius Kabi. OR is a consultant for Fresenius-Kabi. FL has

received a speaking fee from Baxter. MSR has no competing interests to declare."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Overall the study appears to have been well conducted and the limitations are clearly stated. the writing is clear and concise. I only have a few minor comments.

1) The ages of the participants should be included in table 1

2) the trial registration states that Splanchnic extraction is a secondary outcome however these data are not included in the paper, instead the they appear to be used to correct protein balance data. Why is Splanchnic extraction not reported?

3) The secondary outcome listed in the introduction is "plasma amino acid profile" however the only related result reported is the total concentration of all amino acids summed together. it is not clear how these samples were analyzed and why concentrations of each AA are not reported to generate a profile

4) the laboratory analytic methods (mass spec, ect) not reported in sufficient detail to be replicated. No references are provided which show how blood samples (serum, plasma, EDTA, heparin?) were processed what what instruments they were analyzed on.

5) the timeline figure is very hard to follow. I suggest a timeline running along the center of the figure with rectangles to represent the infusion periods

6) please indicate statistical significance directly on figures where appropriate

7) the raw data on which the paper is based should be uploaded as a supplemental file

Reviewer #2: The workers targeted a high-risk study population, and their efforts to help improve the clinical outcomes of ICU patients is certainly commendable. However, there are some concerns about the small and heterogenous sample population, confounding and inconsistent inclusion of CRRT, and overall practicality of outcomes application in the clinical setting lead to some reservations on the validity of this research in its current state. I recognize this is pilot work, but perhaps the messaging would be more useful if the authors continued to recruit patients to achieve a full data set for the a priori determined sample size and make efforts to reduce patient variability (e.g., CRRT, disease severity, length of stay, etc) before deducing clinical procedures from their results.

Major Comments

• Why include CRRT? The impact of dialysis/renal failure (even if acute) on protein metabolism and amino acid availability are highly confounding to include this pathology and treatment with non-CRRT patients. Further, it is also noted that one of the CRRT patients only received CRRT on 1 out of 2 of the experimental crossover days (Table 3). This precludes the ability of that patient to serve as their own control.

• Final full-data set subject count (n=6) is well below a priori power calculation (n=10). Even then, of the 6, some variables have missing data from participants. While p<0.05 was observed in protein balance and plasma amino acids, the other variables remain highly variable.

• For patients on CRRT during the infusion, the authors only mention accounting for amino acid concentrations. However, what about tracer removal, and subsequent impact on blood enrichment? Was this accounted for in calculations. Please articulate.

• It is indicated that IV tracer infusion was stopped to perform IC in between experimental conditions. Was the stop unanimous between patients? How does this influence tracer kinetics thus calculations?

• Trial 2 isotopic infusion initiates only 19 h after stopping previous IV infusion. How does presence of isotope from previous infusion influence trial 2 outcomes? Specifically, 13C-Phe within continuous EN feed from previous experiment impacting the 2nd experiment (no stop of 13C-Phe enriched EN). Also, the bolus of D4-Tyr: is enrichment of the previous bolus still detectable? How does this influence calculation of current turnover kinetics?

• There is considerable variation in SAPS II, SOFA and LoS between patients. These variables certainly influence protein metabolism, thus homogeneity of sample population for outcome measures.

• All tables/figures are not stand alone. These should be inclusive for descriptive statistics and statistical comparisons.

• It would be interesting to note how many potential participants were excluded due to not meeting inclusion of >= 80% EE needs by IC. These data will provide insight on how practical the current effort is for clinical application. Furthermore, 1 out 6 feeding intolerance was noted. Even if protein balance may be improved based on these results from a heterogenous and insufficient sample size, how achievable is 100% goal rate to achieve >80% EEN in the ICU setting?

Minor Comments

• Line 83-84 indicates revised inclusion/exclusion criteria. It is unclear if the previously mentioned criteria were the original or updated. This should be better articulated

• Study protocol figure is confusing and not clear.

• Line 119: The ring-D4-Tyr bolus is not clarified as within EN or IV.

• What is the justification for performing IC so frequently (baseline inclusion, between crossover, and end of trial 2)? Is this really necessary? Especially considering IC is not widely available or used in the clinical setting.

• Inconsistency in units for infusion rate within the manuscript: Lines 118-119: mg/kg/h versus Line 146: umol/kg/min.

• Similarly, inconsistent units for outcome between power calculation (Line 162: mg Phe/kg/h) versus Table 4 results (umol Phe/kg/h).

• Table 4: What is the calculation for serum/plasma variables? Is this weighted average? Area under the curve? Please specifiy.

• Table 4: Multiple blood samples were collected, but only mean cumulative values are reported. Response curves and appropriate statistical tests may provide valuable information.

• Unclear why expressing isotopic enrichments as MPE? TTR is more appropriate. Graphs showing the isotopic enrichments would be helpful to interpret your results and modeling.

Reviewer #3: The authors report a small (n=6) trial investigating 50% vs. 100% energy provision via enteric nutrition in ICU patients for the effect on protein balance, as measured by the kinetics of phenylalanine. My decision to recommend rejection of this manuscript is based on the fact that while the title of the study suggests that it is a feasibility study, there is nothing in the study report which shows that the authors were investigating the feasibility of investigating this intervention in a full trial. None of the usual outcomes of a feasibility/pilot trial (e.g. a timeframe for recruiting and randomising a certain number of patients which would demonstrate feasibility to scale up to a full trial) are even mentioned, and it is impossible to determine how the authors arrive at the conclusion that: "It is feasible to assess whole body protein turnover using a stable isotope technique in critically ill patients during enteral feeding and renal replacement therapy".

The manuscript is presented as if this was a full trial. If judged on this criterion, the study is way too small to reasonable assess the role of chance in the observed differences. The small size leaves the authors no scope to consider balancing the sample for baseline characteristics that could influence the outcome. Indeed there's no exploration at all of such an important issue. The size of the study is poorly justified, not reported in a standard format, and the calculation is not reproducible.

I would recommend that the authors offer clarity on whether this was in fact a feasibility study, and if so focus the reporting on demonstrating feasibility to scale it up to a full trial, with the outcomes reported here considered secondary in such a report, or whether this was really it - a small trial - and if so to report it and present all the caveats that would be necessary in the interpretation of such a study.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Oct 5;15(10):e0240045. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240045.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


7 Jul 2020

The authors would like to thank the academic editor and all reviewers for providing a very thorough and thoughtful review of our manuscript. Many important points have been raised which we have attempted to address below. In the instances where revisions have been made to the manuscript the line numbers refer to the marked-up copy.

Response to comments from the editorial office

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We agree that this is sound practice. Many of our laboratory protocols are written in Swedish and due to the extra workload from the COVID-19 pandemic the authors have not been able to translate these documents within the time frame for review of this manuscript. We will however attempt to achieve this for future purposes.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

We have gone over the manuscript again, editing tables and file names in accordance with PLOS ONE’s requirements. This should be in order.

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly.

The majority of all data collected for the study is openly available at the Swedish National Data Service database (https://doi.org/10.5878/b1e8-fg58). The only restrictions we have indicated concern open access to patient characteristics, as the small number of patients in this study and time frame for data collection provided may facilitate unintentional de-identification of patients. The ethical permit for our study is only valid under conditions of preserved patient anonymity.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following

competing interests: JW and OR have given paid lectures about nutrition in the ICU for

Nestlé, Nutricia and Fresenius Kabi. OR is a consultant for Fresenius-Kabi. FL has

received a speaking fee from Baxter. MSR has no competing interests to declare."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

The competing interests section has been updated accordingly.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Captions for the supporting information files have been included at the end of the manuscript.

Response to comments from reviewers

Reviewer #1: Overall the study appears to have been well conducted and the limitations are clearly stated. the writing is clear and concise. I only have a few minor comments.

1) The ages of the participants should be included in table 1

We agree that this is relevant information. Due to the small number of patients included, this was omitted from the manuscript to avoid unintentional identification of patients. After careful consideration we have included this information to Table 1. as the admission diagnosis and age alone cannot be connected to a specific patient i.d. by a third party with any degree of certainty.

2) the trial registration states that Splanchnic extraction is a secondary outcome however these data are not included in the paper, instead the they appear to be used to correct protein balance data. Why is Splanchnic extraction not reported?

This was an oversight. Although not of interest as an outcome measure on its own, estimating the splanchnic extraction ratio of enteral phenylalanine is a necessary intermediate step in the calculation of whole-body protein balance. Splanchnic extraction fraction is now reported in Table 4. and the section “Calculations” (Line 143) has been expanded to clarify how the full balance calculations were performed. Some numbers are negative, which would imply that the splanchnic organs are a net contributor of phenylalanine beyond exogenous amino acid uptake. From our data we cannot deduce if this is an accurate physiological observation or if these numbers only represent variability around net zero.

3) The secondary outcome listed in the introduction is "plasma amino acid profile" however the only related result reported is the total concentration of all amino acids summed together. it is not clear how these samples were analyzed and why concentrations of each AA are not reported to generate a profile

We agree that this information should be reported and have added amino acid profiles for individual patients in Table 5. Information about analytical methods for the quantification of plasma amino acid concentrations have been added to the “Methods” section (line 143-144).

4) the laboratory analytic methods (mass spec, ect) not reported in sufficient detail to be replicated. No references are provided which show how blood samples (serum, plasma, EDTA, heparin?) were processed what what instruments they were analyzed on.

We have expanded the reporting of this information, provided under “Methods/Protocol” (line 137-145).

5) the timeline figure is very hard to follow. I suggest a timeline running along the center of the figure with rectangles to represent the infusion periods

We agree that Figure 2. needs be clarified and have attempted to incorporate your suggestions in a revised figure.

6) please indicate statistical significance directly on figures where appropriate

Table 4, Figure 3 and Figure 5 have been updated according to this suggestion.

7) the raw data on which the paper is based should be uploaded as a supplemental file

In accordance with PLOS ONEs editorial policy we have uploaded the raw data in an open repository (https://doi.org/10.5878/b1e8-fg58)

Reviewer #2: The workers targeted a high-risk study population, and their efforts to help improve the clinical outcomes of ICU patients is certainly commendable. However, there are some concerns about the small and heterogenous sample population, confounding and inconsistent inclusion of CRRT, and overall practicality of outcomes application in the clinical setting lead to some reservations on the validity of this research in its current state. I recognize this is pilot work, but perhaps the messaging would be more useful if the authors continued to recruit patients to achieve a full data set for the a priori determined sample size and make efforts to reduce patient variability (e.g., CRRT, disease severity, length of stay, etc) before deducing clinical procedures from their results.

We fully understand the concerns about the small number of patients included and problems with heterogeneity in this study. Hopefully we can provide better context regarding sample size and patient variability through the answers below:

1. We agree that the preferable course of action would have been to continue recruitment until completing inclusion of the intended number of patients with data for the primary outcome. Our ability to proceed in this direction was restricted by unfortunate external events. Due to a restructuring of the regional pharmaceutical organization in Stockholm County, we lost our supplier of tracer preparations licensed for clinical use. As we did not see a solution to this issue in the foreseeable future, we decided to submit our work in its current form as we believe the method described is unique and may be of value to future research. It definitely limits the ability to draw inference regarding the primary outcome (protein balance). Our intention was to reflect this in the “Discussion” and “Conclusions” section of the manuscript. These have been revised to further clarify the limitations/scope of our study.

2. The inclusion/exclusion criteria of this study (established full enteral nutrition, FiO2 <0.6, no imminent extubation/patient transfer during the study period) tend to “favor” patients who are in a stable, prolonged state of their ICU course and therefore diverge in clinical characteristics. Despite conducting recruitment over 15 months with dedicated research nurses screening for potential subjects, only 12 patients were included. Narrowing our inclusion criteria to reduce heterogeneity would have made recruitment even more difficult. Although heterogeneity and small sample size limits the external validity of our results, we consider the successful application of our method in a heterogenous ICU population a strength of our study. Also, we believe that the cross-over design reduces the effects of heterogeneity in interpreting changes in the primary outcome.

3. We want to be very clear that we are not deducing any clinical procedures from our results. We believe that our data shows a signal towards an improved whole body protein balance from full enteral feeding. Interpretations are limited by the small sample size, and we do not consider changes in protein balance a patient-centered outcome on which to base clinical recommendations. However, we believe that our results and the methods used have merits to understanding the physiology of metabolism in ICU patients, and that they are important primarily for future research.

Major Comments

• Why include CRRT? The impact of dialysis/renal failure (even if acute) on protein metabolism and amino acid availability are highly confounding to include this pathology and treatment with non-CRRT patients. Further, it is also noted that one of the CRRT patients only received CRRT on 1 out of 2 of the experimental crossover days (Table 3). This precludes the ability of that patient to serve as their own control.

The authors respectfully disagree with the reviewer in this case. Patients with acute kidney injury represent a subset of ICU patients with higher illness severity & risk of death, longer durations of ICU stay and increased risk of muscle loss and long-term functional disability. Developing research methods to better understand the metabolic alterations in these patients is of particular importance. It is our opinion that the inclusion of patients with CRRT is a strength & novelty of our study. We believe the method applied is robust and useful for future research. The “Calculations” section under “Methods” has been revised to provide more detail how protein balance is corrected for loss of amino acids over the hemofilter.

Regarding the patient who only received CRRT during one of the study periods, this does not preclude that the patient can serve as its own control as the change in protein balance is corrected for a known loss (phenylalanine concentration in the effluent). In this study phenylalanine loss via CRRT only had a minor effect (<8%) on the calculation of whole-body protein balance. Other factors (variable splanchnic extraction or uptake of enteral amino acids, protein oxidation etc) are potentially more significant sources of variability between study periods, which the method also attempts to correct for.

• Final full-data set subject count (n=6) is well below a priori power calculation (n=10). Even then, of the 6, some variables have missing data from participants. While p<0.05 was observed in protein balance and plasma amino acids, the other variables remain highly variable.

We agree that the final number of subjects is lower than our original intentions, for reasons described above. P-values and interpretations of our results should therefore be interpreted with caution. The “Discussions” section of the manuscript has been revised to state this with further emphasis.

• For patients on CRRT during the infusion, the authors only mention accounting for amino acid concentrations. However, what about tracer removal, and subsequent impact on blood enrichment? Was this accounted for in calculations. Please articulate.

The method assumes that, at steady state, Phenylalanine and D5-Phenylalanine are removed from the central compartment at an equal rate. As the rate of appearance (Ra) is calculated from the dilution of tracer at the enrichment plateau, loss of tracer over the hemofilter will not affect Ra as it is not part of any calculation. Quantifying the rate of tracee (phenylalanine) loss to dialysis is important to distinguish this from synthesis and oxidation as a contribution to rate of disappearance (Rd).

• It is indicated that IV tracer infusion was stopped to perform IC in between experimental conditions. Was the stop unanimous between patients? How does this influence tracer kinetics thus calculations?

Enteral and parenteral tracers are only infused during the last five hours of the 24 hour intervention/control period. After the first period is complete (after blood sampling), no further tracers are administered until the end (final 5 hours) of the next 24 hour period. Figure 2. has been revised for greater clarity.

• Trial 2 isotopic infusion initiates only 19 h after stopping previous IV infusion. How does presence of isotope from previous infusion influence trial 2 outcomes? Specifically, 13C-Phe within continuous EN feed from previous experiment impacting the 2nd experiment (no stop of 13C-Phe enriched EN). Also, the bolus of D4-Tyr: is enrichment of the previous bolus still detectable? How does this influence calculation of current turnover kinetics?

13C-Phe was not administered by directly supplementing the enteral formula, it was provided as a separate infusion connected to the patient's nasogastric line by a three-way stopcock. At the end of the first measurement period this infusion was stopped and standard EN formula continued at the new rate. Arterial enrichments of all tracers were back to baseline at the start of the second measurement period. The “Protocol” section has been revised for greater clarity.

• There is considerable variation in SAPS II, SOFA and LoS between patients. These variables certainly influence protein metabolism, thus homogeneity of sample population for outcome measures.

We agree that this limits the interpretation of our results.

• All tables/figures are not stand alone. These should be inclusive for descriptive statistics and statistical comparisons.

We have revised all figures/legends according to your recommendations.

• It would be interesting to note how many potential participants were excluded due to not meeting inclusion of >= 80% EE needs by IC. These data will provide insight on how practical the current effort is for clinical application. Furthermore, 1 out 6 feeding intolerance was noted. Even if protein balance may be improved based on these results from a heterogenous and insufficient sample size, how achievable is 100% goal rate to achieve >80% EEN in the ICU setting?

Our opinion (outside the scope of this study) is that the majority of our patients meet their caloric targets by enteral nutrition after the first week of ICU stay. The CONSORT flowchart has been updated with reasons for exclusion to show how common “inadequate” enteral nutrition was in all cases initially screened.

Minor Comments

• Line 83-84 indicates revised inclusion/exclusion criteria. It is unclear if the previously mentioned criteria were the original or updated. This should be better articulated

This has been clarified in the revised manuscript, Line 84-85.

• Study protocol figure is confusing and not clear.

We agree and have revised the figure for greater clarity.

• Line 119: The ring-D4-Tyr bolus is not clarified as within EN or IV.

I.V., this is now stated clearly in the manuscript on Line 120.

• What is the justification for performing IC so frequently (baseline inclusion, between crossover, and end of trial 2)? Is this really necessary? Especially considering IC is not widely available or used in the clinical setting.

The purpose of performing multiple indirect calorimetries is to ascertain that the two intervention periods are comparable from a metabolic research perspective. Unfortunately it was not possible to measure EE in all patients according to protocol. We do not advocate for measurements this frequently for clinical purposes.

• Inconsistency in units for infusion rate within the manuscript: Lines 118-119: mg/kg/h versus Line 146: umol/kg/min.

The manuscript has been double-checked for inconsistencies regarding units and all instances should be corrected in the revised manuscript and given as umol/kg/h.

• Similarly, inconsistent units for outcome between power calculation (Line 162: mg Phe/kg/h) versus Table 4 results (umol Phe/kg/h).

• Table 4: What is the calculation for serum/plasma variables? Is this weighted average? Area under the curve? Please specifiy.

Kinetic data is based on average values from the four blood samples drawn at the end of the tracer period. Amino acid and urea values are single point measurements. This has been clarified in Line 137-145 of the manuscript.

• Table 4: Multiple blood samples were collected, but only mean cumulative values are reported. Response curves and appropriate statistical tests may provide valuable information.

Performing tracer kinetics using averages of 4 samples is standard practice in tracer studies. Raw data for calculation of plasma enrichment is available in the source data repository.

• Unclear why expressing isotopic enrichments as MPE? TTR is more appropriate. Graphs showing the isotopic enrichments would be helpful to interpret your results and modeling.

We know that both terms are used but we find MPE more appropriate for stable isotopes because it takes the actual mass contribution of the tracer into consideration. The calculations for TTR and MPE are slightly different and when the right formulas are used the results are the same. The mass spectrometry measurements from blood samples used to calculate isotopic enrichment are available in the open data repository. We have chosen not to include visual depictions of isotopic enrichments in the manuscript as this would necessitate a minimum of 24 individual graphs for D5/13C-phenylalanine.

Reviewer #3: The authors report a small (n=6) trial investigating 50% vs. 100% energy provision via enteric nutrition in ICU patients for the effect on protein balance, as measured by the kinetics of phenylalanine. My decision to recommend rejection of this manuscript is based on the fact that while the title of the study suggests that it is a feasibility study, there is nothing in the study report which shows that the authors were investigating the feasibility of investigating this intervention in a full trial. None of the usual outcomes of a feasibility/pilot trial (e.g. a timeframe for recruiting and randomising a certain number of patients which would demonstrate feasibility to scale up to a full trial) are even mentioned, and it is impossible to determine how the authors arrive at the conclusion that: "It is feasible to assess whole body protein turnover using a stable isotope technique in critically ill patients during enteral feeding and renal replacement therapy".

The manuscript is presented as if this was a full trial. If judged on this criterion, the study is way too small to reasonable assess the role of chance in the observed differences. The small size leaves the authors no scope to consider balancing the sample for baseline characteristics that could influence the outcome. Indeed there's no exploration at all of such an important issue. The size of the study is poorly justified, not reported in a standard format, and the calculation is not reproducible.

I would recommend that the authors offer clarity on whether this was in fact a feasibility study, and if so focus the reporting on demonstrating feasibility to scale it up to a full trial, with the outcomes reported here considered secondary in such a report, or whether this was really it - a small trial - and if so to report it and present all the caveats that would be necessary in the interpretation of such a study.

We want to thank Reviewer #3 for illuminating several important limitations of our study. However, there are certain points which we wish to clarify.

1. We understand that our use of the word “feasible” in the conclusions may cause confusion about the aims and scope of this study. To be clear, this is not a feasibility study and it was never our intention to report it as such. The reviewer correctly identifies it as a small clinical trial. Due to the limitations discussed below (and in the response to comments from Reviewers #1 & 2) we want to be restrictive in the interpretation of our results regarding protein kinetics during critical illness. The term “feasible” was used as we believe that the method applied is novel in critically ill patients, could be performed in a diverse group of subjects, is useful for future research, and that this is a conclusion we can stand by. To avoid other interpretations the manuscript has been rephrased.

2. We agree that heterogeneity in baseline characteristics limits interpretations of our results. This will always be the case in small studies of critically ill patients as the only common denominator of these patients is a severity of illness that warrants ICU admission. Narrowing the inclusion criteria to decrease heterogeneity would raise other questions about the method’s utility in a more diverse sample of patients (and also greatly increase difficulties in recruitment). To balance this we chose to use patients as their own controls, as this reduces the impact of between-group differences in characteristics when interpreting results.

3. The small size also limits interpretation of our results. The manuscript has been revised to clarify the sample size calculation. Unfortunately, for reasons previously described in our reply to Reviewer #2, recruitment fell short of the original target. As Reviewer #3 correctly points out, the results presented may be attributable to random effects in a small group of patients, although they are consistent with earlier observations in other studies. It was our intention to communicate this degree of uncertainty in the original manuscript. The Discussion/Conclusions sections have been revised to further stress these limitations.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Juan J Loor

17 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-06211R1

Whole body protein kinetics in critically ill patients during 50 or 100% energy provision by enteral nutrition: A pilot randomized cross-over study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sundström Rehal,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 31 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Juan J Loor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: The authors have made a commendable effort to respond to previous reviewers' comments. Although I agree that this is an important and novel study, I am still not satisfied with the responses to my previous comments relating to whether this is a pilot study or a small trial.

"Some recent reviews ... highlighted that sometimes a small underpowered effectiveness study is labelled as a pilot or feasibility study. There is therefore a need to raise awareness of the difference between a pilot study which is designed to clarify areas of uncertainty, and a small underpowered study labelled as a pilot which does not comply with definitions and is not reported according to the CONSORT guidance" - https://pilotandfeasibilitystudies.qmul.ac.uk/introduction/

The study still includes descriptions which present it as if it were a pilot study, e.g. the title, abstract, discussion, without reporting the requisite feasibility outcomes. I would recommend that the authors review the explanations and references provided in the link above to help with clarifying these issues.

One additional minor comment is that Table 4 could be improved by adding a column withe the mean difference and 95% confidence intervals for the differences. Additionally, the 50%EN and 100%EN columns should show the means and standard errors rather than the means and ranges - this is the standard format for reporting tables of main results for statistical inference.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Oct 5;15(10):e0240045. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240045.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


21 Jul 2020

The authors would again like to thank Reviewer #3 for insightful comments. The study is correctly identified as a small clinical trial, the word “pilot” (inappropriately) used to indicate the exploratory nature of the trial design and focus on physiological endpoints. The manuscript has been revised to avoid any ambiguity in this regard. We are aware of the limitations of a small and heterogenous sample, and hope that the reviewer feels that this has been adequately addressed in the discussions section and previous replies to the reviewers.

Table 4 has also been revised according to recommendations.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Response to reviewers V2.docx

Decision Letter 2

Juan J Loor

18 Sep 2020

Whole body protein kinetics in critically ill patients during 50 or 100% energy provision by enteral nutrition: A randomized cross-over study

PONE-D-20-06211R2

Dear Dr. Sundström Rehal,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Juan J Loor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: When reporting the means and standard errors in Table 4, please report them as mean (SE), without the ± as this implies a range.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

Acceptance letter

Juan J Loor

25 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-06211R2

Whole-body protein kinetics in critically ill patients during 50 or 100% energy provision by enteral nutrition: A randomized cross-over study.

Dear Dr. Sundström Rehal:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Juan J Loor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. CONSORT 2010 checklist.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File. Ethical application and study protocol (original language).

    (PDF)

    S2 File. Study protocol from ethical application (English translation).

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Response to reviewers V2.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    A comprehensive report of individual patient characteristics has been omitted from the database to avoid potential identification of research subjects. All other data constituting the minimal dataset for replicating the results presented in the manuscript are available from the Swedish National Data Service database (https://doi.org/10.5878/b1e8-fg58).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES