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.

Update on vitamin C administration in critical illness.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Several studies have recently explored the effects of intravenous vitamin C in sepsis. We aimed to summarize their findings to provide perspectives for future research. RECENT FINDINGS: Sepsis trials examined 6 g/day of intravenous vitamin C with or without the thiamine and/or hydrocortisone compared with placebo or hydrocortisone. Network meta-analysis reported that intravenous vitamin C, thiamine, hydrocortisone, or combinations of these drugs was not proven to reduce long-term mortality. However, the component network meta-analysis suggested an association of high-dose (>6 g/day) and very-high dose vitamin C (>12 g/day) and decreased mortality but with low certainty. The preclinical investigations have, however, advanced to much higher doses of intravenous vitamin C therapy since a scoping review on harm reported that mega-doses of intravenous vitamin C (50-100 g/day) had been administered without any conclusive adverse effects. In a Gram-negative sheep model, renal tissue hypoperfusion was reversed, followed by improvements in kidney function when a mega-dose of vitamin C (150 g/day equivalent) was administered. SUMMARY: The effect of intravenous vitamin C in critically ill patients has yet to be determined and might be dose-dependent. Clinical studies of very high or mega doses of vitamin C are justified by preclinical data.

Effect of adjunctive vitamin C, glucocorticoids, and vitamin B1 on longer-term mortality in adults with sepsis or septic shock: a systematic review and a component network meta-analysis.

We aimed to compare the effects of vitamin C, glucocorticoids, vitamin B1, combinations of these drugs, and placebo or usual care on longer-term mortality in adults with sepsis or septic shock. MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO-ICTRP were searched. The final search was carried out on September 3rd, 2021. Multiple reviewers independently selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing very-high-dose vitamin C (≥ 12 g/day), high-dose vitamin C (< 12, ≥ 6 g/day), vitamin C (< 6 g/day), glucocorticoid (< 400 mg/day of hydrocortisone), vitamin B1, combinations of these drugs, and placebo/usual care. We performed random-effects network meta-analysis and, where applicable, a random-effects component network meta-analysis. We used the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework to assess the degree of treatment effect certainty. The primary outcome was longer-term mortality (90-days to 1-year). Secondary outcomes were severity of organ dysfunction over 72 h, time to cessation of vasopressor therapy, and length of stay in intensive care unit (ICU). Forty-three RCTs (10,257 patients) were eligible. There were no significant differences in longer-term mortality between treatments and placebo/usual care or between treatments (10 RCTs, 7,096 patients, moderate to very-low-certainty). We did not find any evidence that vitamin C or B1 affect organ dysfunction or ICU length of stay. Adding glucocorticoid to other treatments shortened duration of vasopressor therapy (incremental mean difference, - 29.8 h [95% CI - 44.1 to - 15.5]) and ICU stay (incremental mean difference, - 1.3 days [95% CI - 2.2 to - 0.3]). Metabolic resuscitation with vitamin C, glucocorticoids, vitamin B1, or combinations of these drugs was not significantly associated with a decrease in longer-term mortality.

Metabolic support in sepsis: corticosteroids and vitamins: the why, the when, the how.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Sepsis is a global health issue, and there is a need for effective, low-cost adjunct metabolic treatments. Corticosteroids have been investigated in many trials for decades, and recently the administration of vitamin C, thiamine (vitamin B1), and vitamin D have been proposed as novel therapies in patients with sepsis. RECENT FINDINGS: APROCCHSS (N = 1241) and ADRENAL (N = 3800) trial reported inconsistent results in mortality outcome; however, both demonstrated a decreased duration of shock with low-dose corticosteroids. The CITRIS-ALI trial (N = 170) examined the effects of intravenous vitamin C 200 mg/kg/day and reported no effect on organ dysfunction or biomarkers. The VITAMINS trial (N = 216) compared combination therapy of vitamin C 6 g/day, thiamine 200 mg/day, and hydrocortisone 200 mg/day with hydrocortisone alone to find that the combination did not increase vasopressor free time. A single trial (N = 88) evaluating the effect of thiamine in patients with sepsis reported a neutral result. Two randomized trials (N = 475 and N = 1360) on the supplementation of vitamin D in the critically ill patients did not identify statistically significant reduction in mortality. SUMMARY: Evidence from high-quality research is still insufficient to support the use of vitamin C, thiamine, and vitamin D as metabolic support in sepsis treatment.

Harm of IV High-Dose Vitamin C Therapy in Adult Patients: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: The potential harm associated with the use of IV vitamin C has not been systematically assessed. We aimed to review the available evidence on harm related to such treatment. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, National Institute of Health Clinical Trials Register, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies in adult population that reported harm related to IV high-dose vitamin C which we defined as greater than or equal to 6 g/d, greater than or equal to 75 mg/kg/d, or greater than or equal to 3 g/m/d. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent investigators screened records and extracted data. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 8,149 reports, of which 650 full text were assessed for eligibility, leaving 74 eligible studies. In these studies, 2,801 participants received high-dose vitamin C at a median (interquartile range) dose of 22.5 g/d (8.25-63.75 g/d), 455 mg/kg/d (260-925 mg/kg/d), or 70 g/m/d (50-90 g/m/d); and 932 or more adverse events were reported. Among nine double-blind randomized controlled trials (2,310 patients), adverse events were reported in three studies with an event rate per patient for high-dose vitamin C identical to placebo group in one study (0.1 [1/10] vs 0.1 [1/10]), numerically lower in one study (0.80 [672/839] vs 0.82 [709/869]), and numerically higher in one study (0.33 [24/73] vs 0.23 [17/74]). Six double-blind randomized controlled trials reported no adverse event in either group. Five cases of oxalate nephropathy, five cases of hypernatremia, three cases of hemolysis in glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency patients, two cases of glucometer error, and one case of kidney stones were also reported overall. CONCLUSIONS: There is no consistent evidence that IV high-dose vitamin C therapy is more harmful than placebo in double-blind randomized controlled trials. However, reports of oxalate nephropathy, hypernatremia, glucometer error, and hemolysis in glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency patients warrant specific monitoring.

Pharmacokinetic data support 6-hourly dosing of intravenous vitamin C to critically ill patients with septic shock.

OBJECTIVES: To study vitamin C pharmacokinetics in septic shock. DESIGN: Prospective pharmacokinetic study. SETTING: Two intensive care units. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one patients with septic shock enrolled in a randomised trial of high dose vitamin C therapy in septic shock. INTERVENTION: Patients received 1.5 g intravenous vitamin C every 6 hours. Plasma samples were obtained before and at 1, 4 and 6 hours after drug administration, and vitamin C concentrations were measured by high performance liquid chromatography. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clearance, volume of distribution, and half-life were calculated using noncompartmental analysis. Data are presented as median (interquartile range [IQR]). RESULTS: Of the 11 participants who had plasma collected before any intravenous vitamin C administration, two (18%) were deficient (concentrations < 11 µmol/L) and three (27%) had hypovitaminosis C (concentrations between 11 and 23 µmol/L), with a median concentration 28 µmol/L (IQR, 11-44 µmol/L). Volume of distribution was 23.3 L (IQR, 21.9-27.8 L), clearance 5.2 L/h (IQR, 3.3-5.4 L/h), and half-life 4.3 h (IQR, 2.6-7.5 h). For the participants who had received at least one dose of intravenous vitamin C before sampling, T0 concentration was 258 µmol/L (IQR, 162- 301 µmol/L). Pharmacokinetic parameters for subsequent doses were a median volume of distribution 39.9 L (IQR, 31.4-44.4 L), clearance 3.6 L/h (IQR, 2.6-6.5 L/h), and half-life 6.9 h (IQR, 5.7-8.5 h). CONCLUSION: Intravenous vitamin C (1.5 g every 6 hours) corrects vitamin C deficiency and hypovitaminosis C and provides an appropriate dosing schedule to achieve and maintain normal or elevated vitamin C levels in septic shock.

Vitamin C therapy for patients with sepsis or septic shock: a protocol for a systematic review and a network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Vasoplegia is common and associated with a poor prognosis in patients with sepsis and septic shock. Vitamin C therapy in combination with vitamin B1 and glucocorticoid, as well as monotherapy in various doses, has been investigated as a treatment for the vasoplegic state in sepsis, through targeting the inflammatory cascade. However, the combination effect and the relative contribution of each drug have not been well evaluated. Furthermore, the best combination between the three agents is currently unknown. We are planning a systematic review (SR) with network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the different treatments and identify the combination with the most favourable effect on survival. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include all randomised controlled trials comparing any intervention using intravenous vitamin C, vitamin B1 and/or glucocorticoid with another or with placebo in the treatment of sepsis. We are interested in comparing the following active interventions. Very high-dose vitamin C (≥12 g/day), high-dose vitamin C (≥6 g/day), vitamin C (<6 g/day); low-dose glucocorticoid (<400 mg/day of hydrocortisone (or equivalent)), vitamin B1 and combinations of the drugs above. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up within 1 year but 90 days or longer postrandomisation. All relevant studies will be sought through database searches and trial registries. All reference selection and data extraction will be conducted by two independent reviewers. We will conduct a random-effects NMA to synthesise all evidence for each outcome and obtain a comprehensive ranking of all treatments. We will use the surface under the cumulative ranking curve and the mean ranks to rank the various interventions. To differentiate between the effect of combination therapies and the effect of a component, we will employ a component NMA. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This SR does not require ethical approval. We will publish findings from this systematic review in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and present these at scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018103860.

A comparative study of three conservative treatments in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: lumbar spinal stenosis with acupuncture and physical therapy study (LAP study).

BACKGROUND: Although the efficiency of conservative management for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has been examined, different conservative management approaches have not been compared. We have performed the first comparative trial of three types of conservative management (medication with acetaminophen, exercise, and acupuncture) in Japanese patients with LSS. METHODS: Patients with L5 root radiculopathy associated with LSS who visited our hospital for surgical treatment were enrolled between December 2011 and January 2014. In this open-label study, patients were assigned to three treatment groups (medication, exercise, acupuncture) according to the visit time. The primary outcomes were Zurich claudication questionnaire (ZCQ) scores before and after 4 weeks of treatment. Least square mean analysis was used to assess the following dependent variables in the treatment groups: changes in symptom severity and physical function scores of the ZCQ and the ZCQ score of patient's satisfaction after treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-eight, 40, and 41 patients were allocated to the medication, exercise, and acupuncture groups, respectively. No patient underwent surgical treatment during the study period. The symptom severity scores of the ZCQ improved significantly after treatment in the medication (p = 0.048), exercise (p = 0.003), and acupuncture (p = 0.04) groups. The physical function score improved significantly in the acupuncture group (p = 0.045) but not in the medication (p = 0.20) and exercise (p = 0.29) groups. The mean reduction in the ZCQ score for physical function was significantly greater for acupuncture than for exercise. The mean ZCQ score for treatment satisfaction was significantly greater for acupuncture than for medication. CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture was significantly more effective than physical exercise according to the physical function score of the ZCQ and than medication according to the satisfaction score. The present study provides new important information that will aid decision making in LSS treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry ( UMIN000006957 ).