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.

Effect of High-Dose Selenium on Postoperative Organ Dysfunction and Mortality in Cardiac Surgery Patients: The SUSTAIN CSX Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Selenium contributes to antioxidative, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory pathways, which may improve outcomes in patients at high risk of organ dysfunctions after cardiac surgery. Objective: To assess the ability of high-dose intravenous sodium selenite treatment to reduce postoperative organ dysfunction and mortality in cardiac surgery patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial took place at 23 sites in Germany and Canada from January 2015 to January 2021. Adult cardiac surgery patients with a European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II score-predicted mortality of 5% or more or planned combined surgical procedures were randomized. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based system to receive either perioperative intravenous high-dose selenium supplementation of 2000 µg/L of sodium selenite prior to cardiopulmonary bypass, 2000 µg/L immediately postoperatively, and 1000 µg/L each day in intensive care for a maximum of 10 days or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite of the numbers of days alive and free from organ dysfunction during the first 30 days following cardiac surgery. Results: A total of 1416 adult cardiac surgery patients were analyzed (mean [SD] age, 68.2 [10.4] years; 1043 [74.8%] male). The median (IQR) predicted 30-day mortality by European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II score was 8.7% (5.6%-14.9%), and most patients had combined coronary revascularization and valvular procedures. Selenium did not increase the number of persistent organ dysfunction-free and alive days over the first 30 postoperative days (median [IQR], 29 [28-30] vs 29 [28-30]; P = .45). The 30-day mortality rates were 4.2% in the selenium and 5.0% in the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.50-1.36; P = .44). Safety outcomes did not differ between the groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In high-risk cardiac surgery patients, perioperative administration of high-dose intravenous sodium selenite did not reduce morbidity or mortality. The present data do not support the routine perioperative use of selenium for patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02002247.

Lessening Organ Dysfunction With Vitamin C (LOVIT) Trial: Statistical Analysis Plan.

BACKGROUND: The LOVIT (Lessening Organ Dysfunction with Vitamin C) trial is a blinded multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing high-dose intravenous vitamin C to placebo in patients admitted to the intensive care unit with proven or suspected infection as the main diagnosis and receiving a vasopressor. OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe a prespecified statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the LOVIT trial prior to unblinding and locking of the trial database. METHODS: The SAP was designed by the LOVIT principal investigators and statisticians, and approved by the steering committee and coinvestigators. The SAP defines the primary and secondary outcomes, and describes the planned primary, secondary, and subgroup analyses. RESULTS: The SAP includes a draft participant flow diagram, tables, and planned figures. The primary outcome is a composite of mortality and persistent organ dysfunction (receipt of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or new renal replacement therapy) at 28 days, where day 1 is the day of randomization. All analyses will use a frequentist statistical framework. The analysis of the primary outcome will estimate the risk ratio and 95% CI in a generalized linear mixed model with binomial distribution and log link, with site as a random effect. We will perform a secondary analysis adjusting for prespecified baseline clinical variables. Subgroup analyses will include age, sex, frailty, severity of illness, Sepsis-3 definition of septic shock, baseline ascorbic acid level, and COVID-19 status. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed an SAP for the LOVIT trial and will adhere to it in the analysis phase. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/36261.

High-dose vitamin-C induced prolonged factitious hyperglycemia in a peritoneal dialysis patient: a case report.

BACKGROUND: High-dose vitamin C is increasingly used for sepsis and more recently for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections. Proponents argue that the low cost and near perfect safety profile of vitamin C support its early adoption. Yet, adverse events might be underreported and underappreciated. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a 73-year-old non-diabetic white man with end-stage renal disease on peritoneal dialysis admitted to the intensive care unit with septic shock that was suspected to be due to peritonitis. The patient was enrolled in LOVIT (Lessening Organ Dysfunction with VITamin C; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03680274), a randomized placebo-controlled trial of high-dose intravenous vitamin C. He developed factitious hyperglycemia, as measured with a point-of-care glucometer, that persisted for 6 days after discontinuation of the study drug, confirmed to be vitamin C after unblinding. He also had short-lived iatrogenic coma because of hypoglycemia secondary to insulin administration. These events triggered a protocol amendment. CONCLUSIONS: Although factitious hyperglycemia has been reported before using certain glucometers in patients treated with high-dose vitamin C, the persistence of this phenomenon for 6 days after the discontinuation of the therapy is a distinguishing feature. This case highlights the importance of monitoring glucose with a core laboratory assay for up to a week in specific populations, such as patients on peritoneal dialysis.

Prophylaxis against covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

UPDATES: This is the second version (first update) of the living systematic review, replacing the previous version (available as a data supplement). When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity. OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). DATA SOURCES: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 4 March 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials in which people at risk of covid-19 were allocated to prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, we conducted random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: The second iteration of this living NMA includes 32 randomised trials which enrolled 25 147 participants and addressed 21 different prophylactic drugs; adding 21 trials (66%), 18 162 participants (75%) and 16 (76%) prophylactic drugs. Of the 16 prophylactic drugs analysed, none provided convincing evidence of a reduction in the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. For admission to hospital and mortality outcomes, no prophylactic drug proved different than standard care or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation­risk difference for hydroxychloroquine (RD) 6 more per 1000 (95% credible interval (CrI) 2 more to 10 more); for vitamin C combined with zinc, RD 69 more per 1000 (47 more to 90 more), moderate certainty evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Much of the evidence remains very low certainty and we therefore anticipate future studies evaluating drugs for prophylaxis may change the results for SARS-CoV-2 infection, admission to hospital and mortality outcomes. Both hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase adverse effects. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. FUNDING: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321).

Promotion of Regular Oesophageal Motility to Prevent Regurgitation and Enhance Nutrition Intake in Long-Stay ICU Patients. A Multicenter, Phase II, Sham-Controlled, Randomized Trial: The PROPEL Study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of esophageal stimulation on nutritional adequacy in critically ill patients at risk for enteral feeding intolerance. DESIGN: A multicenter randomized sham-controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Twelve ICUs in Canada. PATIENTS: We included mechanically ventilated ICU patients who were given moderate-to-high doses of opioids and expected to remain alive and ventilated for an additional 48 hours and who were receiving enteral nutrition or expected to start imminently. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to esophageal stimulation via an esophageal stimulating catheter (E-Motion Tube; E-Motion Medical, Tel Aviv, Israel) or sham treatment. All patients were fed via these catheters using a standardized feeding protocol. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The co-primary outcomes were proportion of caloric and protein prescription received enterally over the initial 7 days following randomization. Among 159 patients randomized, the modified intention-to-treat analysis included 155 patients: 73 patients in the active treatment group and 82 in the sham treatment group. Over the 7-day study period, the percent of prescribed caloric intake (± SE) received by the enteral route was 64% ± 2 in the active group and 65% ± 2 in sham patients for calories (difference, -1; 95% CI, -8 to 6; p = 0.74). For protein, it was 57% ± 3 in the active group and 60% ± 3 in the sham group (difference, -3; 95% CI, -10 to 3; p = 0.30). Compared to the sham group, there were more serious adverse events reported in the active treatment group (13 vs 6; p = 0.053). Clinically important arrhythmias were detected by Holter monitoring in 36 out of 70 (51%) in the active group versus 22 out of 76 (29%) in the sham group (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal stimulation via a special feeding catheter did not improve nutritional adequacy and was associated with increase risk of harm in critically ill patients.

Lessening Organ dysfunction with VITamin C (LOVIT): protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a health problem of global importance; treatments focus on controlling infection and supporting failing organs. Recent clinical research suggests that intravenous vitamin C may decrease mortality in sepsis. We have designed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to ascertain the effect of vitamin C on the composite endpoint of death or persistent organ dysfunction at 28 days in patients with sepsis. METHODS: LOVIT (Lessening Organ dysfunction with VITamin C) is a multicenter, parallel-group, blinded (participants, clinicians, study personnel, Steering Committee members, data analysts), superiority RCT (minimum n = 800). Eligible patients have sepsis as the diagnosis for admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and are receiving vasopressors. Those admitted to the ICU for more than 24 h are excluded. Eligible patients are randomized to high-dose intravenous vitamin C (50 mg/kg every 6 h for 96 h) or placebo. The primary outcome is a composite of death or persistent organ dysfunction (need for vasopressors, invasive mechanical ventilation, or new and persisting renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes include persistent organ dysfunction-free days to day 28, mortality and health-related quality of life at 6 months, biomarkers of dysoxia, inflammation, infection, endothelial function, and adverse effects (hemolysis, acute kidney injury, and hypoglycemia). Six subgroup analyses are planned. DISCUSSION: This RCT will provide evidence of the effect of high-dose intravenous vitamin C on patient-important outcomes in patients with sepsis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03680274, first posted 21 September 2018.

Vitamin C for the critically ill: Is the evidence strong enough?

Vitamin C exhibits interesting properties in the context of critical illness, with benefits described in neurologic, cardiovascular, renal, and hematologic systems, both in in vitro and in animal models. Through direct effects on bacterial replication, immunomodulation, and antioxidant reserve of the organism, vitamin C directly affects the pathophysiological process of sepsis, trauma, burn, and systemic inflammation. Even if several observational trials have linked vitamin C deficiency to worse outcomes, the evidence is not such as to provide us with a distinction between causality effects or simple epiphenomenon, and the current focus is on interventional trials. Pharmacokinetic data suggest that a minimal supplementation of 3 g/d intravenously is required to restore normal serum values in critically ill patients with known deficiency. According to these data, only five trials, including a retrospective analysis, studied pharmacologic dose: three as an antioxidant cocktail and two as monotherapy. The largest trial, conducted in 2002, reported reduced incidence of multiorgan failure and duration of mechanical ventilation. Recently a retrospective analysis reported impressive results after administration of vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone. The two most recent trials reported improved clinical outcomes, including improved mortality, but contained significant methodological limitations. A recent systematic review did not find clinical benefits with the most-studied low-dose oral supplementation, potentially because of suboptimal or insufficient repletion. Current guidelines do not support the administration of high-dose vitamin C in critically ill patients. Future larger trials are required to support any therapy, but the low cost and safety profile can justify supplementation in the meantime. Metabolomics study will further help understand biological effect.

Vitamin C Administration to the Critically Ill: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Vitamin C, an enzyme cofactor and antioxidant, could hasten the resolution of inflammation, oxidative stress, and microvascular dysfunction. While observational studies have demonstrated that critical illness is associated with low levels of vitamin C, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin C, alone or in combination with other antioxidants, have yielded contradicting results. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception to December 2017) for RCTs comparing vitamin C, by enteral or parenteral routes, with placebo or none, in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Two independent reviewers assessed study eligibility without language restrictions and abstracted data. Overall mortality was the primary outcome; secondary outcomes were incident infections, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and duration of mechanical ventilation (MV). We prespecified 5 subgroups hypothesized to benefit more from vitamin C. Eleven randomized trials were included. When 9 RCTs (n = 1322) reporting mortality were pooled, vitamin C was not associated with reduced risk of mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43-1.20, P = .21). No effect was found on infections, ICU or hospital LOS, or duration of MV. In multiple subgroup comparison, no statistically significant subgroup effects were observed. However, we did observe a tendency towards a mortality reduction (RR 0.21; 95% CI: 0.04-1.05; P = .06) when intravenous high-dose vitamin C monotherapy was administered. Current evidence does not support supplementing critically ill patients with vitamin C. A moderately large treatment effect may exist, but further studies, particularly of monotherapy administration, are warranted.

Nutrition Adequacy Therapeutic Enhancement in the Critically Ill: A Randomized Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of the Motilin Receptor Agonist Camicinal (GSK962040): The NUTRIATE Study.

BACKGROUND: Camicinal is a novel, nonmacrolide, motilin receptor agonist that accelerates gastric emptying in critically ill patients with established feed intolerance. The primary question was whether the preemptive administration of camicinal increased the provision of enteral nutrition (EN) to critically ill patients with risk factors that predisposed to feed intolerance. METHODS: This was an international, multicenter, parallel-group, blinded, randomized controlled trial. Patients at risk for feed intolerance, defined as receiving moderate to high doses of vasopressors or opiates, or admitted because of multiple traumatic injuries or with brain injury, received either enteral camicinal 50 mg or placebo daily for a maximum of 7 days, along with EN administered according to a standardized feeding protocol. The primary outcome was the daily adequacy of enteral feed delivered, as assessed by percentage of goal volume (delivered/prescribed × 100) before development of intolerance. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients participated. The administration of camicinal did not result in a statistically significant clinical difference in the daily average percentage goal volume delivered (camicinal vs placebo: 77% [95% confidence interval: 71, 83] vs 68% (58, 78); mean difference 9% [-5, 23]; P = 0.21). Similarly, there were no differences in the percentage goal calories (76% [65, 88] vs 68% [60, 77]) and protein (76% [66, 86] vs 70% [61, 80]) administered, or the incidence of feed intolerance (15% vs 14%). CONCLUSION: The incidence of feed intolerance was low in both groups. In this cohort the preemptive administration of enteral camicinal did not significantly augment the provision of goal EN.

Dissemination bias in systematic reviews of animal research: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of preclinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical research and thus even clinical care. Dissemination bias, selective dissemination of positive or significant results, is one of the major threats to validity in systematic reviews also in the realm of animal studies. We conducted a systematic review to determine the number of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present, to investigate their methodological features especially with respect to assessment of dissemination bias, and to investigate the citation of preclinical systematic reviews on clinical research. METHODS: Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews that summarize in vivo animal experiments whose results could be interpreted as applicable to clinical care. We systematically searched Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 1st January 2009 to 9th January 2013 for eligible systematic reviews without language restrictions. Furthermore we included articles from two previous systematic reviews by Peters et al. and Korevaar et al. RESULTS: The literature search and screening process resulted in 512 included full text articles. We found an increasing number of published preclinical systematic reviews over time. The methodological quality of preclinical systematic reviews was low. The majority of preclinical systematic reviews did not assess methodological quality of the included studies (71%), nor did they assess heterogeneity (81%) or dissemination bias (87%). Statistics quantifying the importance of clinical research citing systematic reviews of animal studies showed that clinical studies referred to the preclinical research mainly to justify their study or a future study (76%). DISCUSSION: Preclinical systematic reviews may have an influence on clinical research but their methodological quality frequently remains low. Therefore, systematic reviews of animal research should be critically appraised before translating them to a clinical context.