The Impact of Individualized Complementary and Integrative Health Interventions Provided in Clinical Settings on Quality of Life: A Systematic Review of Practice-Based Research.

Background: The goal of this systematic review was to evaluate the impact of individualized complementary and integrative health (CIH) interventions on quality-of-life outcomes as collected in CIH outpatient clinics. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, OVID, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase through December 2020. Inclusion criteria were as follows: individualized CIH treatment, longitudinal effectiveness design, patient-reported outcomes, outpatient CIH clinic setting, participants aged ≥18 years, sample size of ≥25, and English full text. The study was listed in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020159193), and PRISMA guidelines were used. The variables extracted from articles focused on study details/demographics, CIH intervention characteristics, and outcome characteristics. Results: The literature search yielded 3316 records with 264 assessed for full-text review. Of these, 19 studies (including ∼14,002 patients) were specific to quality of life (or well-being) as a main outcome. Most studies included were multidisciplinary studies (n = 12), followed by acupuncture (n = 4), chiropractic (n = 3), and massage or reflexology (n = 1). The short-form group of questionnaires (SF-12, SF-36, SF-8) were the most used quality-of-life/well-being questionnaire, comprising 37% of studies (n = 7), and the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures comprised 21% (n = 4). Both questionnaires are normed to U.S. population, allowing for comparison. The average improvement across the comparable SF and PROMIS measures for Physical Health was 6% (range 2%-20%) and for Mental Health was 5% (range 1%-11%), demonstrating clinical significance. Improvements in the observational studies are comparable to improvements reported from randomized controlled trials. Conclusions: Results from this systematic review indicate that CIH therapies largely have positive effects on health-related quality of life and well-being for various patient populations seen in CIH clinical settings. Direct comparisons across studies were limited due to the variability in study design and incomplete reporting in some of the publications. Suggestions for improving the design and reporting for future practice-based research are provided.

Any Role of High-Dose Vitamin C for Septic Shock in 2021?

While the use of vitamin C as a therapeutic agent has been investigated since the 1950s, there has been substantial recent interest in the role of vitamin C supplementation in critical illness and particularly, sepsis and septic shock. Humans cannot synthesize vitamin C and rely on exogenous intake to maintain a plasma concentration of approximately 70 to 80 µmol/L. Vitamin C, in healthy humans, is involved with antioxidant function, wound healing, endothelial function, and catecholamine synthesis. Its function in the human body informs the theoretical basis for why vitamin C supplementation may be beneficial in sepsis/septic shock.Critically ill patients can be vitamin C deficient due to low dietary intake, increased metabolic demands, inefficient recycling of vitamin C metabolites, and loss due to renal replacement therapy. Intravenous supplementation is required to achieve supraphysiologic serum levels of vitamin C. While some clinical studies of intravenous vitamin C supplementation in sepsis have shown improvements in secondary outcome measures, none of the randomized clinical trials have shown differences between vitamin C supplementation and standard of care and/or placebo in the primary outcome measures of the trials. There are some ongoing studies of high-dose vitamin C administration in patients with sepsis and coronavirus disease 2019; the majority of evidence so far does not support the routine supplementation of vitamin C in patients with sepsis or septic shock.