Dataset Information

Early administration of Vitamin C in patients with sepsis or septic shock in emergency departments: A multicenter, double blinded, randomized controlled trial: The C-EASIE trial protocol

ABSTRACT:

Background

Sepsis is a potentially life-threatening condition characterized by a deregulated body’s response to infection causing injury to its own tissues and organs. Sepsis is the primary cause of death from infection. If not recognized and treated timely, it can evolve within minutes/hours to septic shock. Sepsis is associated with an acute deficiency of Vitamin C. Despite the proof-of-concept of the benefit of administering Vitamin C in patients with sepsis or septic shock, Vitamin C administration is not yet current practice.

Objective

To investigate the potential benefit of early administration of high doses of Vitamin C in addition to standard of care in patients with sepsis or septic shock.

Methods

This phase 3b multi-center trial is conducted in 8 hospitals throughout Belgium. In total 300 patients will be randomly assigned to one of two groups in a 1:1 allocation ratio. The intervention group will receive 1.5 g Vitamin C 4 times a day during 4 days, started within 6 hours after admission. The primary outcome is the average post-baseline patient SOFA score.

Conclusion

This trial will determine whether the early administration of Vitamin C in patients with sepsis or septic shock can lead to a more rapid solution of shock and less deterioration from sepsis to septic shock, hereby reducing morbidity and mortality as well as the length of hospital stay in this patient population.

Trial registration

The C-EASIE trial has been registered on the ClinicalTrials.gov website on 10 February 2021 with registration number NCT04747795.

Trial Sponsor

UZ Leuven (sponsor’s reference S63213)

SUBMITTER: Vandervelden S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8570477 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIntravenous vitamin C administration in septic shock may have a sparing effect on vasopressor requirements, and vitamin C's enzyme cofactor functions provide a mechanistic rationale. Our study aimed to determine the effect of intravenous vitamin C administration on vasopressor requirements and other outcomes in patients with septic shock.MethodsThis was a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial in 40 patients with septic shock who were randomised (1:1) to receive intravenous vitamin C (at a dose of 25 mg/kg of body weight every 6 h) or placebo (intravenous 5% dextrose) for up to 96 h, or until death or discharge. The primary outcome was intravenous vasopressor requirements (dose and duration), and secondary outcomes included Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, and mortality. In addition, blood samples were collected to determine vitamin C kinetics and inflammatory marker concentrations.ResultsMedian plasma vitamin C concentrations were deficient at baseline (9.2 [4.4, 12] µmol/L) and increased to 408 (227, 560) µmol/L following 72 h of intervention. The mean duration of intravenous vasopressor infusion in the vitamin C group was 48 (95% CI 35-62) hours and in the placebo group was 54 (95% CI 41-62) hours (p = 0.52). The dose of vasopressor delivered over time was comparable between the two groups, as were SOFA scores (p > 0.05). The median ICU length of stay in the intervention group was 3.8 (2.2, 9.8) days versus 7.1 (3.1, 20) days in the placebo group (p = 0.12). The median hospital length of stay for the vitamin C group was 18 (11, 35) days versus 22 (10, 52) days for the placebo group (p = 0.65). Mortality was comparable between the two groups (p > 0.05). Of the inflammatory markers, neutrophil counts were elevated in the vitamin C group relative to placebo by 72 h (p = 0.01). C-reactive protein and myeloperoxidase concentrations were elevated at baseline, however, the two groups were comparable over time (p > 0.05).ConclusionsOur pilot study indicated that intravenous vitamin C did not provide significant decreases in the mean dose or duration of vasopressor infusion. Further research that takes into account the potential impact of intervention timing, dose and duration, and location of trial, may provide more definitive evidence.Trial registrationACTRN12617001184369 (11/8/2017).

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsAmong 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).ConclusionAmong 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.

Project description:Clinical manifestations of sepsis differ between patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM), and these differences could influence the clinical behaviors of medical staff. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether pre-existing DM was associated with the time to antibiotics or sepsis care protocols.This was a retrospective cohort study.It conducted at 53 intensive care units (ICUs) in Japan.Consecutive adult patients with severe sepsis admitted directly to ICUs form emergency departments from January 2016 to March 2017 were included.The primary outcome was time to antibiotics.Of the 619 eligible patients, 142 had DM and 477 did not have DM. The median times (interquartile ranges) to antibiotics in patients with and without DM were 103 minutes (60-180 minutes) and 86 minutes (45-155 minutes), respectively (P = .05). There were no significant differences in the rates of compliance with sepsis protocols or with patient-centred outcomes such as in-hospital mortality. The mortality rates of patients with and without DM were 23.9% and 21.6%, respectively (P = .55). Comparing patients with and without DM, the gamma generalized linear model-adjusted relative difference indicated that patients with DM had a delay to starting antibiotics of 26.5% (95% confidence intervals (95%CI): 4.6-52.8, P = .02). The gamma generalized linear model-adjusted relative difference with multiple imputation for missing data of sequential organ failure assessment was 19.9% (95%CI: 1.0-42.3, P = .04). The linear regression model-adjusted beta coefficient indicated that patients with DM had a delay to starting antibiotics of 29.2 minutes (95%CI: 6.8-51.7, P = .01). Logistic regression modelling showed that pre-existing DM was not associated with in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.26; 95%CI: 0.72-2.19, P = .42).Pre-existing DM was associated with delayed antibiotic administration among patients with severe sepsis or septic shock; however, patient-centred outcomes and compliance with sepsis care protocols were comparable.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock.DesignA consensus committee of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine was convened at the annual meetings of both societies. Subgroups had teleconference and electronic-based discussion. The entire committee iteratively developed the entire document and recommendations.MethodsEach committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (ESM 1 - supplemental table 1) were grouped into categories by the committee co-chairs, leading to the formation of seven subgroups: infection, fluids and vasoactive agents, adjunctive therapy, administration/epidemiology, scoring/identification, post-intensive care unit, and basic/translational science. Each subgroup had teleconferences to go over each priority followed by formal voting within each subgroup. The entire committee also voted on top priorities across all subgroups except for basic/translational science.ResultsThe Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Of these, the top six clinical priorities were identified and include the following questions: (1) can targeted/personalized/precision medicine approaches determine which therapies will work for which patients at which times?; (2) what are ideal endpoints for volume resuscitation and how should volume resuscitation be titrated?; (3) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice?; (4) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock?; (5) what are the predictors of sepsis long-term morbidity and mortality?; and (6) what information identifies organ dysfunction?ConclusionsWhile the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines give multiple recommendations on the treatment of sepsis, significant knowledge gaps remain, both in bedside issues directly applicable to clinicians, as well as understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying the development and progression of sepsis. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.