Association between age and outcomes of evidence-based feeding protocol versus usual care in critically ill patients: secondary analysis of a multicenter cluster-randomised controlled trial
Authors' conclusion
In this secondary analysis, associations between an evidence-based feeding protocol and clinical outcomes differed across age groups.
Study context
- Population
- Adults newly admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) in China (NEED trial)included in the analysis
- Participants
- 2,672 adults
- Comparison
- Evidence-based feeding protocol vs usual care, by age
- Primary endpoint
- Treatment-age interaction for 28-day all-cause mortality
- Follow-up
- 28 days
Methodological detailspost hoc, multicentre, effect-modification analysis
- Post hoc
- Multicentre
- Effect-modification analysis
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
28-day all-cause mortality: treatment-age interaction (subgroup analysis by age)
- Each 10-year increase in age: adjusted HR for mortality, intervention vs usual care
- 1.28 (95% CI 1.13-1.46; continuous interaction P < 0.001)
- Age ≤65 years: adjusted HR, intervention vs usual care (95% CI 0.44-0.92); mortality reduced
- 0.64
- Age 66-75 years: adjusted HR, intervention vs usual care (95% CI 0.64-1.60); not reduced
- 1.01
- Age ≥76 years: adjusted HR, intervention vs usual care (95% CI 0.89-1.88); not reduced
- 1.29
- Categorical interaction P
- P = 0.010
Secondary outcomes
Persistent multiple organ failure (exploratory)
- Similar age-dependent pattern; interaction P
- P = 0.017
- Exploratory analysis
Per-protocol and sensitivity analyses
- Results consistent
Original publication
Association between age and outcomes of evidence-based feeding protocol versus usual care in critically ill patients: secondary analysis of a multicenter cluster-randomised controlled trial. J Intensive Care. Published 21 September 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →