Randomized trial outlines statistical methods evaluating augmented enteral protein in critically ill adults, establishing transparent reporting standards before outcome analysis.
BACKGROUND: The TARGET Protein trial will evaluate the effect of greater enteral protein delivery (augmented protein) on clinical outcomes of critically ill adult patients when compared to usual care. OBJECTIVE: To describe the statistical analysis plan for the TARGET Protein trial. METHODS: TARGET Protein is a cluster randomized, cross-sectional, double cross-over, open-label, registry-embedded, pragmatic clinical trial conducted across Australia and New Zealand. The trial randomized eight intensive care units (ICU) to receive enteral formula containing either higher dose enteral protein (augmented protein) or usual dose protein in a 1:1 ratio. Each ICU received one trial formula for a 3-month period and then switched to the alternate formulae. This sequence was repeated, for a total trial length of 12 months. The primary outcome is the number of days free of the index hospital and alive at day 90. Secondary outcomes include proportion of patients alive at day 90, survivor-only analysis of days free of the index hospital at day 90, duration of invasive ventilation, ICU and hospital length of stay, incidence of tracheostomy insertion, renal replacement therapy, and discharge destination. The statistical methods and models which will be used to estimate the effects for the primary and secondary outcomes are described. All statistical models will account for the cluster-randomized cross-over design to ensure correct estimation of the 95% confidence intervals. Trial enrolment is complete with 3412 patients enrolled. Data linkage is ongoing. CONCLUSION: This statistical analysis plan enables transparent reporting of the TARGET Protein trial. It will reduce the risk of potential selective reporting biases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621001484831). Registered on November 1, 2021.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zaloumis et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: