Administration of parenteral vitamin C in patients with severe infection: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Vitamin C for all?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Vitamin C can be a potential adjunctive treatment option for critically ill individuals due to its pleiotropic effects as electron donor in many enzymatic reactions throughout the body. Recently, several important randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating vitamin C in critically ill patients have been published.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two recent large RCTs administering high-dose vitamin C to patients with sepsis and COVID-19 showed signs of harm. Though performed at high standard, these trials had several limitations. Recent studies in cardiac surgery and burns showed decreased cardiac enzymes and improved clinical outcomes after cardiac surgery, and decreased fluid requirements, reduced wound healing time and in-hospital mortality after burns. Vitamin C may hold benefit in the management of other ischemia/reperfusion injury populations, including postcardiac arrest patients and after solid organ transplantation. Currently, covering basal vitamin C requirements during critical illness is recommended, though the exact dose remains to be determined.

SUMMARY

Future work should address optimal vitamin C timing, since early versus late drug administration are likely distinct, and duration of therapy, where withdrawal-induced injury is possible. Additionally accurate assessment of body stores with determination of individual vitamin requirements is crucial to ascertain patient and subgroups most likely to benefit from vitamin C.

Highlights in the clinical nutrition literature: A critical appraisal of current research

Within the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), the Physician Engagement Committee (PEC) was created in 2017 by the ASPEN Board of Directors with the goal of growing the physician community both nationally and internationally. The PEC meets each month throughout the year to develop educational and research initiatives. In 2022, the PEC began an initiative to systematically review and evaluate practice-changing literature annually with the overall aim to highlight these studies at the annual ASPEN conferences and to critically discuss the potential clinical implications. The objective of the held meeting session was to present identified key papers in the fields of critical care medicine, gastroenterology and hepatology, and adult internal medicine that were published in 2022, which would complement the knowledge of the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of nutrition topics as well as to identify areas of future research. Overall, several large-scale randomized controlled studies were identified in each of these sections, with practice-changing major results. This manuscript summarizes the information that was presented and the discussions that followed.

Early administration of hydrocortisone, vitamin C, and thiamine in adult patients with septic shock: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Background

The combination therapy of hydrocortisone, vitamin C, and thiamine has been proposed as a potential treatment in patients with sepsis and septic shock. However, subsequent trials have reported conflicting results in relation to survival outcomes. Hence, we performed this randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early combination therapy among adult patients with septic shock.

Methods

This single-center, double-blind RCT enrolled adult patients with diagnosis of septic shock within 12 h from Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital between February 2019 and June 2021. Recruited patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intervention (hydrocortisone 200 mg daily, vitamin C 2 g every 6 h, and thiamine 200 mg every 12 h) or placebo (0.9% saline) for 5 days or until ICU discharge. The primary endpoint was 90-day mortality. The secondary endpoints included mortality at day 28, ICU discharge, and hospital discharge; shock reversal; 72-h Delta SOFA score; ICU-free days, vasopressor-free days, and ventilator support -free days up to day 28; ICU length of stay (LOS) and hospital LOS.

Results

Among 426 patients randomized, a total of 408 patients with septic shock were included in the per-protocol (PP) analysis, of which 203 were assigned to the intervention group and 205 to the placebo group. In the PP population, the primary outcome of 90-day mortality was 39.9% (81/203) and 39.0% (80/205) in the intervention and the placebo groups, respectively, and was not significantly different (P = 0.86). There was no significant difference between two groups in 28-day mortality (36.5% vs. 36.1%, P = 0.94) or the ICU mortality (31.5% vs. 28.8%, P = 0.55) and hospital mortality (34.5% vs. 33.2%, P = 0.78). No other secondary outcomes showed significant differences between two groups, including shock reversal, vasopressor-free days, and ICU LOS. Intention-to-treat analysis included all the 426 patients and confirmed these results (all P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Among adult patients with septic shock, early use of hydrocortisone, vitamin C, and thiamine combination therapy compared with placebo did not confer survival benefits.

Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03872011, registration date: March 12, 2019.

Graphic Abstract

Parenteral Vitamin C in Patients with Severe Infection: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Inflammation and oxidative damage caused by severe infections may be attenuated by vitamin C. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of parenteral vitamin C as combined therapy or monotherapy versus no parenteral vitamin C administered to adults hospitalized with severe infection. The primary outcome was mortality. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and assessed certainty in effect estimates. RESULTS: Of 1547 citations, 41 RCTs (n = 4915 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Low-certainty evidence suggested that vitamin C may reduce in-hospital mortality (21 RCTs, 2762 patients; risk ratio, 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.73 to 1.06]), 30-day mortality (24 RCTs, 3436 patients; risk ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.71 to 0.98]), and early mortality (before hospital discharge or 30 days; 34 RCTs, 4366 patients; risk ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.93]). Effects were attenuated in sensitivity analyses limited to published blinded trials at low risk-of-bias (in-hospital mortality: risk ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.24], moderate certainty; 30-day mortality: risk ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.71 to 1.10], low certainty; and early mortality: risk ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.06], low certainty). For 90-day mortality, all trials had low risk-of-bias; moderate-certainty evidence suggested harm (five RCTs, 1722 patients; risk ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.94 to 1.21]). Moderate-certainty evidence suggested an increased risk of hypoglycemia (risk ratio, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.69 to 2.08]). Effects on other secondary outcomes were mixed and informed by low-certainty evidence. No credible subgroup effects were observed for mortality related to cointerventions (monotherapy vs. combined therapy), dose, or type of infection (Covid-19 vs. other). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, evidence from RCTs does not establish a survival benefit for vitamin C in patients with severe infection. (PROSPERO number, CRD42020209187.)