Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Fujii T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6858173 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Fujii Tomoko T Belletti Alessandro A Carr Anitra A Furukawa Toshi A TA Luethi Nora N Putzu Alessandro A Sartini Chiara C Salanti Georgia G Tsujimoto Yasushi Y Udy Andrew A AA Young Paul J PJ Bellomo Rinaldo R

BMJ open 20191112 11

<h4>Introduction</h4>Vasoplegia is common and associated with a poor prognosis in patients with sepsis and septic shock. Vitamin C therapy in combination with vitamin B<sub>1</sub> 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 be ...[more]

PMID: 31722954

Similar Datasets

Project description:Procalcitonin (PCT) algorithms for antibiotic treatment decisions have been studied in adult patients from primary care, emergency department, and intensive care unit (ICU) settings, suggesting that procalcitonin-guided therapy may reduce antibiotic exposure without increasing the mortality rate. However, information on the efficacy and safety of this approach in the most vulnerable population of critically ill patients with severe sepsis and septic shock is missing.Two reviewers independently performed a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, BioMed Central, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov and http://www.ISRCTN.org. Eligible studies had to be randomized controlled clinical trials or cohort studies which compare procalcitonin-guided therapy with standard care in severe sepsis patients and report at least one of the following outcomes: hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, duration of antimicrobial therapy, length of stay in the intensive care unit or length of hospital stay. Disagreements about inclusion of studies and judgment of bias were solved by consensus.Finally seven studies comprising a total of 1,075 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock were included in the meta-analysis. Both hospital mortality (RR [relative risk]: 0.91, 95%CI [confidence interval]: 0.61; 1.36) and 28-day mortality (RR: 1.02, 95%CI: 0.85; 1.23) were not different between procalcitonin-guided therapy and standard treatment groups. Duration of antimicrobial therapy was significantly reduced in favor of procalcitonin-guided therapy (HR [hazard ratio]: 1.27, 95%CI: 1.01; 1.53). Combined estimates of the length of stay in the ICU and in hospital did not differ between groups.Procalcitonin-guided therapy is a helpful approach to guide antibiotic therapy and surgical interventions without a beneficial effect on mortality. The major benefit of PCT-guided therapy consists of a shorter duration of antibiotic treatment compared to standard care. Trials are needed to investigate the effect of PCT-guided therapy on mortality, length of ICU and in-hospital stay in severe sepsis patients.

Project description:BackgroundThe reported mortality for sepsis and septic shock varies between 15% and 59% in international comparison. For Germany, the number of studies is limited. Previous estimations of mortality in Germany are outdated or based on claims data analyses. Various authors discuss whether lacking quality initiatives and treatment standards in Germany could cause higher mortality for sepsis. This contrasts with the internationally well-recognized performance of the German intensive care infrastructure during the COVID-19 pandemic.ObjectivesThe objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to estimate 30-day and 90-day mortality of patients with sepsis and patients with septic shock in Germany and to compare the mortality with that of other industrialized regions (Europe, North America).Material and methodsA systematic literature search included interventional and observational studies published between 2009 and 2020 in PubMed and the Cochrane Library that analyzed adult patients with sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock in Europe and North America. Studies with less than 20 patients were excluded. The 30-day and 90-day mortality for sepsis and septic shock were pooled separately for studies conducted in Germany, Europe (excluding Germany) and North America in a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Mortality over time was analyzed in a linear regression model.ResultsOverall, 134 studies were included. Of these, 15 studies were identified for the estimation of mortality in Germany, covering 10,434 patients, the number of patients per study ranged from 28 to 4183 patients. The 30-day mortality for sepsis was 26.50% (95% confidence interval, CI: 19.86-33.15%) in Germany, 23.85% (95% CI: 20.49-27.21%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 19.58% (95% CI: 14.03-25.14%) in North America. The 30-day mortality for septic shock was 30.48% (95% CI: 29.30-31.67%) in Germany, 34.57% (95% CI: 33.51-35.64%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 33.69% (95% CI: 31.51-35.86%) in North America. The 90-day mortality for septic shock was 38.78% (95% CI: 32.70-44.86%) in Germany, 41.90% (95% CI: 38.88-44.91%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 34.41% (95% CI: 25.66-43.16%) in North America. A comparable decreasing trend in sepsis 30-day mortality was observed in all considered regions since 2009.ConclusionOur analysis does not support the notion that mortality related to sepsis and septic shock in Germany is higher in international comparison. A higher mortality would not be obvious either, since intensive care, for example also during the COVID-19 pandemic, is regarded as exemplary in Germany and the structural quality, such as the number of intensive care beds per 100,000 inhabitants, is high in international comparison. Nevertheless, deficits could also exist outside intensive care medicine. A comparison of international individual studies should take greater account of the structure of healthcare systems, the severity of disease and the limitations resulting from the data sources used.

Project description:Importance:The global patterns and distribution of case-fatality rates (CFRs) in pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock remain poorly described. Objective:We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of children with severe sepsis and septic shock to elucidate the patterns of CFRs in developing and developed countries over time. We also described factors associated with CFRs. Data Sources:We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Excerpta Medica database, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Cochrane Central systematically for randomized clinical trials and prospective observational studies from earliest publication until January 2017, using the keywords "pediatric," "sepsis," "septic shock," and "mortality." Study Selection:Studies involving children with severe sepsis and septic shock that reported CFRs were included. Retrospective studies and studies including only neonates were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis:We conducted our systematic review and meta-analysis in close accordance to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Pooled case-fatality estimates were obtained using random-effects meta-analysis. The associations of study period, study design, sepsis severity, age, and continents in which studies occurred were assessed with meta-regression. Main Outcomes and Measures:Meta-analyses to provide pooled estimates of CFR of pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock over time. Results:Ninety-four studies that included 7561 patients were included. Pooled CFRs were higher in developing countries (31.7% [95% CI, 27.3%-36.4%]) than in developed countries (19.3% [95% CI, 16.4%-22.7%]; P < .001). Meta-analysis of CFRs also showed significant heterogeneity across studies. Continents that include mainly developing countries reported higher CFRs (adjusted odds ratios: Africa, 7.89 [95% CI, 6.02-10.32]; P < .001; Asia, 3.81 [95% CI, 3.60-4.03]; P < .001; South America, 2.91 [95% CI, 2.71-3.12]; P < .001) than North America. Septic shock was associated with higher CFRs than severe sepsis (adjusted odds ratios, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.41-1.54]). Younger age was also a risk factor (adjusted odds ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.94-0.96] per year of increase in age). Earlier study eras were associated with higher CFRs (adjusted odds ratios for 1991-2000, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.13-1.37]; P < .001) compared with 2011 to 2016. Time-trend analysis showed higher CFRs over time in developing countries than developed countries. Conclusions and Relevance:Despite the declining trend of pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock CFRs, the disparity between developing and developed countries persists. Further characterizations of vulnerable populations and collaborations between developed and developing countries are warranted to reduce the burden of pediatric sepsis globally.

Project description:IntroductionMost experts recommend norepinephrine as the first-line agent in septic shock. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness and safety of norepinephrine in patients with septic shock.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Epistemonikos, as well as MEDLINE from 1966 till August 2019. Screening of full texts, evaluation for eligibility, and data extraction were done by four independent reviewers. We estimated risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) using a random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary outcomes included the number of participants who achieved the target mean arterial pressure (MAP), time to achieve the target MAP, and number of participants with all-cause 28-day mortality. The secondary outcomes included the length of stay in the intensive care unit, length of hospital stay, incidence of arrhythmia and myocardial infarction, vasopressor-free days, and number of participants with all-cause 90-day mortality.ResultsWe identified 11 randomized controlled trials with a total of 4,803 participants. There was no difference in the number of participants who achieved the target MAP between those patients receiving norepinephrine and other vasopressors (RR 1.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 6.54; P = 0.640; I2 = 94%; two trials, 116 participants). There was no significant difference in time to achieve the target MAP (MD -0.05; 95%, CI, -0.32 to 0.21; P = 0.690; I2 = 26%; two trials, 1763 participants) and all-cause 28-day mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.02; P = 0.160; I2 = 0%; seven trials, 4,139 participants). Regarding the secondary outcome, norepinephrine may significantly reduce the incidence of arrhythmia as compared to other vasopressors (RR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.97; P = 0.030; I2 = 64%; six trials, 3974 participants). There was no difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction (RR 1.28; 95% CI, 0.79 to 2.09), vasopressor-free day (RR 0.46; 95% CI, -1.82 to 2.74) and all-cause 90-day mortality (RR 1.08; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.21) between norepinephrine and vasopressors.ConclusionIn minimizing the occurrence of an arrhythmia, norepinephrine is superior to other vasopressors, making it safe to be used in septic shock. However, there was insufficient evidence concerning mortality and achievement of the target MAP outcomes.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets