A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Possible Role of Vitamin C in Sepsis

Natural Product Use Among Veterans with Chronic Pain: A Qualitative Study of Attitudes and Communication with Healthcare Providers

BACKGROUND

Despite mixed evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of natural products, many are marketed for pain and related symptoms. Use of these products is prevalent among veterans, who have disproportionately high rates of chronic pain. To date, however, there is limited research on veterans' beliefs and attitudes about natural products and their communication with healthcare providers about their natural product use.

OBJECTIVE

To explore how veterans experiencing chronic pain make decisions about natural product use, to investigate veterans' beliefs about the safety and efficacy of these products, and to examine veterans' experiences discussing natural products with their providers.

DESIGN

Qualitative sub-study conducted as a supplement to a pragmatic randomized controlled trial for chronic pain management.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty veterans experiencing chronic pain who reported using natural products for pain management or related health concerns.

APPROACH

Qualitative interviews with veterans were conducted over the phone and audio-recorded. Interviews were guided by an original semi-structured interview guide and qualitative data were analyzed using a template-based rapid analysis technique.

KEY RESULTS

Veterans with chronic pain may perceive natural products as safer than pharmaceutical products and may prefer to use natural products. Talking with providers about natural products is important to veterans, who would like information regarding the safety and potential for interaction of natural products with pharmaceutical products. However, veterans were frequently disappointed with these conversations. Veterans felt their providers demonstrated biases against natural products, which negatively impacted patient-provider relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

Veterans wish to have more productive conversations with providers about natural products. They value providers' open-mindedness towards natural products and transparency about limitations in their knowledge. Suggestions for how providers and healthcare systems might better support veterans interested in natural products are discussed.

Intravenous Ascorbic Acid for the Prevention of Postreperfusion Syndrome in Orthotopic Liver Transplantation: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is the last therapeutic option for patients with end-stage liver disease. Postreperfusion syndrome (PRS), defined as a fall in mean arterial pressure of more than 30% within the first 5 minutes after reperfusion of at least 1 minute, can occur in liver transplantation as a deep hemodynamic instability with associated hyperfibrinolysis immediately after reperfusion of the new graft. Its incidence has remained unchanged since it was first described in 1987. PRS is related to ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) injury, whose pathophysiology involves the release of several mediators from both the donor and the recipient. The antioxidant effect of ascorbic acid has been studied in resuscitating patients with septic shock and burns. Even today, there are publications with conflicting results, and there is a need for further studies to confirm or rule out the usefulness of this drug in this group of patients. The addition of ascorbic acid to preservation solutions used in solid organ transplantation is under investigation to harness its antioxidant effect and mitigate I/R injury. Since PRS could be considered a manifestation of I/R injury, we believe that the possible beneficial effect of ascorbic acid on the occurrence of PRS should be investigated.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this randomized controlled trial is to assess the benefits of ascorbic acid over saline in the development of PRS in adult liver transplantation.

METHODS

We plan to conduct a single-center randomized controlled trial at the Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal in Spain. A total of 70 participants aged 18 years or older undergoing liver transplantation will be randomized to receive either ascorbic acid or saline. The primary outcome will be the difference between groups in the incidence of PRS. The randomized controlled trial will be conducted under conditions of respect for fundamental human rights and ethical principles governing biomedical research involving human participants and in accordance with the international recommendations contained in the Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent revisions.

RESULTS

The enrollment process began in 2020. A total of 35 patients have been recruited so far. Data cleaning and analysis are expected to occur in the first months of 2024. Results are expected around the middle of 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that this study could be particularly relevant because it will be the first to analyze the clinical effect of ascorbic acid in liver transplantation. Moreover, we believe that this study fills an important gap in the knowledge of the potential benefits of ascorbic acid in the field of liver transplantation, particularly in relation to PRS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database 2020-000123-39; https://tinyurl.com/2cfzddw8; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05754242; https://tinyurl.com/346vw7sm.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/50091.

Intravenous vitamin C therapy in adult patients with sepsis: A rapid practice guideline

BACKGROUND

This Rapid Practice Guideline provides an evidence-based recommendation to address the question: in adults with sepsis or septic shock, should we recommend using or not using intravenous vitamin C therapy?

METHODS

The panel included 21 experts from 16 countries and used a strict policy for potential financial and intellectual conflicts of interest. Methodological support was provided by the Guidelines in Intensive Care, Development, and Evaluation (GUIDE) group. Based on an updated systematic review, and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation approach, we evaluated the certainty of evidence and developed recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. We conducted an electronic vote, requiring >80% agreement among the panel for a recommendation to be adopted.

RESULTS

At longest follow-up, 90 days, intravenous vitamin C probably does not substantially impact (relative risk 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94 to 1.17; absolute risk difference 1.8%, 95% CI -2.2 to 6.2; 6 trials, n = 2148, moderate certainty). Effects of vitamin C on mortality at earlier timepoints was of low or very low certainty due to risk of bias of the included studies and significant heterogeneity between study results. Few adverse events were reported with the use of vitamin C. The panel did not identify any major differences in other outcomes, including duration of mechanical ventilation, ventilator free days, hospital or intensive care unit length of stay, acute kidney injury, need for renal replacement therapy. Vitamin C may result in a slight reduction in duration of vasopressor support (MD -18.9 h, 95% CI -26.5 to -11.4; 21 trials, n = 2661, low certainty); but may not reduce sequential organ failure assessment scores (MD -0.69, 95% CI -1.55 to 0.71; 24 trials, n = 4002, low certainty). The panel judged the undesirable consequences of using IV vitamin C to probably outweigh the desirable consequences, and therefore issued a conditional recommendation against using IV vitamin C therapy in sepsis.

CONCLUSIONS

The panel suggests against use of intravenous vitamin C in adult patients with sepsis, beyond that of standard nutritional supplementation. Small and single center trials on this topic should be discouraged.

Intravenous vitamin injections: where is the evidence?

The body needs small daily quantities of vitamins and minerals, which are usually obtained from the diet. Intravenous vitamins are used for a few serious medical conditions (eg, malabsorption syndromes with severe vitamin depletion, Wernicke's encephalopathy or critical illness). Intravenous drips containing high doses of various vitamins and minerals (eg, the so-called 'Myers' cocktail') have been promoted in popular culture to 'reduce stress', 'increase energy' or 'boost immunity', with claims that the intravenous route allows faster absorption of vitamins into the bloodstream than if they are taken orally. There is a lack of high-quality evidence to suggest that high-dose vitamin infusions are necessary or offer any health benefit in the absence of a specific vitamin deficiency or medical condition. There may be harms from taking high (non-physiological) quantities of some vitamins and minerals. Licensed forms of injectable vitamins that are prescription-only medicines should not be advertised to the public and should only be supplied and administered by appropriately qualified healthcare professionals.

Effect of intravenous vitamin C on adult septic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

An increasing number of studies indicate that vitamin C (VC) reduces the mortality of adult septic patients, while some articles suggest otherwise. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to resolve the discrepancies in reported results concerning the efficacy of VC in septic patients.

Methods

We comprehensively searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of intravenous VC (IVVC) on adult septic patients published from inception to November 28, 2022. The quality of outcomes for eligible studies was assessed using the Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. The results were analyzed using the pooled mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Twenty-two studies (3,570 adult septic patients) were included. IVVC treatment did not improve 28-day mortality compared to the control group (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81-1.04; I2 = 26%; evidence risk, moderate). IVVC monotherapy decreased mortality (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93; I2 = 57%), whereas combination therapy did not affect mortality (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.90-1.17; I2 =0%). IVVC had a trend to decrease the mortality of septic patients (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.00; I2 = 33%) but did not affect septic shock patients (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.85-1.21; I2 = 18%). IVVC reduced the duration of vasopressor use (MD, -8.45; 95% CI, -15.43 to -1.47; evidence risk, very low) but did not influence the incidence of AKI, ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation.

Conclusions

IVVC treatment did not improve the 28-day mortality in septic patients. Subgroup analysis indicated that VC had a trend to decrease the 28-day mortality in patients with sepsis but not septic shock. IVVC monotherapy, rather than combination therapy, decreased the 28-day mortality in septic patients. The findings imply that Hydrocortisone, Ascorbic acid, Thiamine (HAT) combination therapy is not superior to IVVC monotherapy for septic patients. These findings warrant further confirmation in future studies, which should also investigate the mechanisms underlying the enhanced efficacy of IVVC monotherapy in septic patients.

Systematic review registration

https://inplasy.com/.