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

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

Parenteral Vitamin C in Patients with Severe InfectionIn this systematic review and meta-analysis of mortality outcomes in trials of vitamin C for severe infection, including the recently reported LOVIT trial, Agarwal et al. find no clear evidence of survival benefit among published blinded trials at low risk-of-bias.