Lack of Benefit of High-Dose Vitamin C, Thiamine, and Hydrocortisone Combination for Patients With Sepsis

Oxygen therapy for sepsis and prevention of complications

Patients with sepsis have a wide range of respiratory disorders that can be treated with oxygen therapy. Experimental data in animal sepsis models show that oxygen therapy significantly increases survival, while clinical data on the use of different oxygen therapy protocols are ambiguous. Oxygen therapy, especially hyperbaric oxygenation, in patients with sepsis can aggravate existing oxidative stress and contribute to the development of disseminated intravascular coagulation. The purpose of this article is to compare experimental and clinical data on oxygen therapy in animals and humans, to discuss factors that can influence the results of oxygen therapy for sepsis treatment in humans, and to provide some recommendations for reducing oxidative stress and preventing disseminated intravascular coagulation during oxygen therapy.

Bias against Vitamin C in Mainstream Medicine: Examples from Trials of Vitamin C for Infections

Evidence has shown unambiguously that, in certain contexts, vitamin C is effective against the common cold. However, in mainstream medicine, the views on vitamin C and infections have been determined by eminence-based medicine rather than evidence-based medicine. The rejection of the demonstrated benefits of vitamin C is largely explained by three papers published in 1975-two published in JAMA and one in the American Journal of Medicine-all of which have been standard citations in textbooks of medicine and nutrition and in nutritional recommendations. Two of the papers were authored by Thomas Chalmers, an influential expert in clinical trials, and the third was authored by Paul Meier, a famous medical statistician. In this paper, we summarize several flaws in the three papers. In addition, we describe problems with two recent randomized trial reports published in JAMA which were presented in a way that misled readers. We also discuss shortcomings in three recent JAMA editorials on vitamin C. While most of our examples are from JAMA, it is not the only journal with apparent bias against vitamin C, but it illustrates the general views in mainstream medicine. We also consider potential explanations for the widespread bias against vitamin C.

Combination therapy of thiamine, vitamin C and hydrocortisone in treating patients with sepsis and septic shock: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Background

The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of thiamine and vitamin C with or without hydrocortisone coadministration on the treatment of sepsis and septic shock.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that made a comparative study between the combination therapy of vitamin C and thiamine with or without hydrocortisone and the administration of placebo in patients with sepsis or septic shock. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Both short-term mortality and change in the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score from baseline (delta SOFA) were set as the primary outcomes. Secondary endpoints included intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, new onset of acute kidney injury, total adverse events, ICU and hospital length of stay, duration of vasopressor usage and ventilator-free days. Meanwhile, trial sequential analysis was conducted for primary outcomes.

Results

Eight RCTs with 1428 patients were included in the current study. The results showed no significant reduction of short-term mortality in sepsis and septic shock patients who received combination therapy of vitamin C and thiamine with or without hydrocortisone compared to those with placebo {risk ratio (RR), 1.02 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.87 to 1.20], p = 0.81, I² = 0%; risk difference (RD), 0 [95% CI, −0.04 to 0.05]}. Nevertheless, the combination therapy was associated with significant reduction in SOFA score [mean difference (MD), −0.63, (95% CI, −0.96 to −0.29, p < 0.001, I² = 0%] and vasopressors duration (MD, −22.11 [95% CI, −30.46 to −13.77], p < 0.001, I² = 6%). Additionally, there were no statistical differences in the pooled estimate for other outcomes.

Conclusions

In the current meta-analysis, the combination therapy of vitamin C and thiamine, with or without hydrocortisone had no impact on short-term mortality when compared with placebo, but was associated with significant reduction in SOFA score among patients with sepsis and septic shock.

Effect of thiamine supplementation in critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Several studies have previously shown the benefit of thiamine supplementation in critically ill patients. In order to fully appraise the available data, we performed a meta-analysis of 18 published studies.

METHODS

A thorough systematic search was conducted. The studies enrolling critically ill patients receiving thiamine supplementation was compared with the standard of care (SOC) group. Data was analyzed using RevMan 5.4. Clinical outcomes were pooled using Odds Ratio (OR) and mean differences.

RESULT

Eighteen studies (8 RCTs and 10 cohort studies) met the criteria for quantitative synthesis. In the analysis of RCTs, thiamine supplementation showed 42% lower odds of developing ICU delirium (OR 0.58, 95% CI, 0.34-0.98). A reduction in mortaliy was observed on performing fixed effect model analysis however, a level of statistical significance could not be reached on performing randon effect model analysis (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.04). Further sub-group analysis of 13 studies in patients with sepsis, there was no difference in mortality between the two groups (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.09).

CONCLUSION

Thiamine supplementation in critically ill patients showed a reduction in the incidence of ICU delirium among RCTs. However, there was no significant benefit in terms of overall mortality, and mortality in patients with sepsis. Further, large scale randomized prospective studies are warranted to investigate the role of thiamine supplementation in critically ill patients.

Micronutrients early in critical illness, selective or generous, enteral or intravenous?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Micronutrients have essential antioxidant and immune functions, while low blood concentrations are frequently observed in critically ill patients. This has led to the concepts of complementation, repletion, or even pharmacological supplementation. Over the last three decades, many clinical studies have tested the latter strategy, with controversial or negative results. Therefore, this review aims at evaluating micronutrient-related interventions that are mandatory or need to be assessed in future trials or clinical registries in all or specific critically ill patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the critically ill, low plasma/serum micronutrient levels not always reflect a true deficiency in the absence of demonstrable losses. Current practices of micronutrient provision and monitoring in critical care, vary substantially across the world. Also, recent clinical trials testing high dose as monotherapy (selenium, thiamine, vitamin C, vitamin D) or in combination have failed to demonstrate clinical benefits in sepsis. However, these studies have not applied a physiological integrative approach of micronutrient action.

SUMMARY

Micronutrients are essential in nutrition but their administration and monitoring are difficult. So far, different well designed RCTs on intravenous and oral high dose micronutrient supplementation have been conducted. Nevertheless, very high-dose single micronutrients cannot be advocated at this stage in sepsis, or any other critical condition. By contrast, studies using combination of moderate doses of micronutrients in specific diseases, such as burns and trauma have been associated with improved outcomes. Intravenous administration seems to be the most efficient route. Future clinical trials need to integrate the physiology underlying the interconnected micronutrient activity, and choose more specific primary and secondary endpoints.

What Do We Know about Early Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock in Polish Hospitals? A Questionnaire Study

Background: Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies with a high risk of poor prognosis. We investigate the correspondence between Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines and clinical practice in Poland, with special attention given to differences between ICU and non-ICU environments as well as regional variations within the country. Methods: A web-based questionnaire study was performed on a random sample of 60 hospitals from the three most populated regions in Poland—Masovia, Silesia, and Greater Poland. A 19-item questionnaire was built based on the most recent edition of SSC guidelines. Results: Sepsis diagnosis was primarily based on clinical evaluation (ICUs: 94%, non-ICUs: 62%; p = 0.02). There were significant differences between ICUs and non-ICUs regarding taking blood cultures for pathogen identification (2-times more frequent in ICUs) and having hospital-based operating procedures to adjust antimicrobial treatment to a clinical scenario (a difference of 17%). Modification of empiric antimicrobial treatment was required post-ICU admission in 70% of cases. ICUs differed from non-ICUs with regard to the methods of fluid responsiveness assessment and the types of catecholamines and fluids used to treat septic shock. The mean fluid load applied before the implementation of catecholamines was 25.8 ± 10.6 mL/kg. Norepinephrine was the first-line agent used to treat shock, and balanced crystalloids were preferred in both ICUs and non-ICUs. Conclusion: Compliance with SCC guidelines in Polish hospitals is insufficient, especially outside ICUs. There is a need for education among healthcare professionals to reach at least an acceptable level of knowledge and attitude in this field.

Adjunctive treatments for the management of septic shock - a narrative review of the current evidence

Septic shock is a leading cause of death and morbidity worldwide. The cornerstones of management include prompt identification of sepsis, early initiation of antibiotic therapy, adequate fluid resuscitation and organ support. Over the past two decades, there have been considerable improvements in our understanding of the pathophysiology of sepsis and the host response, including regulation of inflammation, endothelial disruption and impaired immunity. This has offered opportunities for innovative adjunctive treatments such as vitamin C, corticosteroids and beta-blockers. Some of these approaches have shown promising results in early phase trials in humans, while others, such as corticosteroids, have been tested in large, international, multicentre randomised controlled trials. Contemporary guidelines make a weak recommendation for the use of corticosteroids to reduce mortality in sepsis and septic shock. Vitamin C, despite showing initial promise in observational studies, has so far not been shown to be clinically effective in randomised trials. Beta-blocker therapy may have beneficial cardiac and non-cardiac effects in septic shock, but there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend their use for this condition. The results of ongoing randomised trials are awaited. Crucial to reducing heterogeneity in the trials of new sepsis treatments will be the concept of enrichment, which refers to the purposive selection of patients with clinical and biological characteristics that are likely to be responsive to the intervention being tested.