Early administration of vitamin C in patients with sepsis or septic shock in emergency departments: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial: the C-EASIE trial

IF 9.3 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Critical Care Pub Date : 2025-04-23 DOI:10.1186/s13054-025-05383-x
Stefanie Vandervelden, Bente Cortens, Steffen Fieuws, Wilma Eegdeman, Stefano Malinverni, Philippe Vanhove, Koen Monsieurs, Jan Breuls, Ives Hubloue, François Stifkens, Jacques Creteur, Lina Wauters, Didier Desruelles
{"title":"Early administration of vitamin C in patients with sepsis or septic shock in emergency departments: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial: the C-EASIE trial","authors":"Stefanie Vandervelden, Bente Cortens, Steffen Fieuws, Wilma Eegdeman, Stefano Malinverni, Philippe Vanhove, Koen Monsieurs, Jan Breuls, Ives Hubloue, François Stifkens, Jacques Creteur, Lina Wauters, Didier Desruelles","doi":"10.1186/s13054-025-05383-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sepsis and septic shock are associated with high mortality and morbidity despite adequate standard care. Vitamin C deficiency is a common, potentially reversible, contributor to morbidity and mortality in sepsis. Previous studies have shown mixed and conflicting results. Our study aimed to determine the potential benefit of early administration (within 6 h after admission) of vitamin C in patients with sepsis or septic shock. This was a phase 3b prospective, multicenter, double-blinded, randomized placebo-controlled trial. Participants were enrolled in the Emergency Departments of 8 hospitals throughout Belgium. Patients were randomized to receive 1.5 g of vitamin C, or matching placebo, every 6 h for 4 days. The primary outcome was the average post-baseline patient Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score on day 2 to 5. Key secondary outcomes were the maximum SOFA score, 28-day mortality and length of ICU and hospital stay. A total of 300 patients were recruited between June 4th, 2021, and August 19th, 2023. 292 patients, of which 147 were assigned to the vitamin C and 145 to the placebo group, completed the trial and were included in the analysis. The primary outcome (vitamin C, 1.98; placebo, 2.19) was 8.7% lower in the vitamin C group, but not significantly (ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.08, P = 0.30). In a planned subgroup analysis, patients with a baseline SOFA score of 6 or above had a significant lower average post-baseline SOFA score in the vitamin C group (ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99, P = 0.042). Findings were similar in the two groups regarding secondary outcomes and adverse events, except for a lower probability of being on renal replacement therapy in the vitamin C group of the per protocol analysis (ratio 0.28, 95% CI 0.078 to 1.0, P = 0.05). Early treatment with vitamin C did not result in a statistically significant reduction in organ dysfunction. Therefore, this study does not support the use of vitamin C in sepsis patients. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04747795 . Registered 4 February 2021. Question Does early treatment with vitamin C lead to a less severe disease course in patients with sepsis or septic shock? Findings In this randomized clinical trial that included 292 patients, treatment with intravenous vitamin C compared to placebo did not result in a lower average post-baseline patient Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score on day 2 to 5 (1.98 vs 2.19), except for a subgroup of patients with a baseline SOFA score of 6 or above. Meaning Early treatment with vitamin C did not result in a significant improvement of the disease course.","PeriodicalId":10811,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-025-05383-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Sepsis and septic shock are associated with high mortality and morbidity despite adequate standard care. Vitamin C deficiency is a common, potentially reversible, contributor to morbidity and mortality in sepsis. Previous studies have shown mixed and conflicting results. Our study aimed to determine the potential benefit of early administration (within 6 h after admission) of vitamin C in patients with sepsis or septic shock. This was a phase 3b prospective, multicenter, double-blinded, randomized placebo-controlled trial. Participants were enrolled in the Emergency Departments of 8 hospitals throughout Belgium. Patients were randomized to receive 1.5 g of vitamin C, or matching placebo, every 6 h for 4 days. The primary outcome was the average post-baseline patient Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score on day 2 to 5. Key secondary outcomes were the maximum SOFA score, 28-day mortality and length of ICU and hospital stay. A total of 300 patients were recruited between June 4th, 2021, and August 19th, 2023. 292 patients, of which 147 were assigned to the vitamin C and 145 to the placebo group, completed the trial and were included in the analysis. The primary outcome (vitamin C, 1.98; placebo, 2.19) was 8.7% lower in the vitamin C group, but not significantly (ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.08, P = 0.30). In a planned subgroup analysis, patients with a baseline SOFA score of 6 or above had a significant lower average post-baseline SOFA score in the vitamin C group (ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99, P = 0.042). Findings were similar in the two groups regarding secondary outcomes and adverse events, except for a lower probability of being on renal replacement therapy in the vitamin C group of the per protocol analysis (ratio 0.28, 95% CI 0.078 to 1.0, P = 0.05). Early treatment with vitamin C did not result in a statistically significant reduction in organ dysfunction. Therefore, this study does not support the use of vitamin C in sepsis patients. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04747795 . Registered 4 February 2021. Question Does early treatment with vitamin C lead to a less severe disease course in patients with sepsis or septic shock? Findings In this randomized clinical trial that included 292 patients, treatment with intravenous vitamin C compared to placebo did not result in a lower average post-baseline patient Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score on day 2 to 5 (1.98 vs 2.19), except for a subgroup of patients with a baseline SOFA score of 6 or above. Meaning Early treatment with vitamin C did not result in a significant improvement of the disease course.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
急诊败血症或感染性休克患者早期给予维生素C:一项多中心、双盲、随机对照试验:C- easie试验
尽管有适当的标准治疗,败血症和感染性休克仍与高死亡率和发病率相关。维生素C缺乏是一种常见的,潜在可逆的,导致败血症发病率和死亡率的因素。之前的研究显示了混合和相互矛盾的结果。我们的研究旨在确定败血症或感染性休克患者早期(入院后6小时内)给予维生素C的潜在益处。这是一项3b期前瞻性、多中心、双盲、随机安慰剂对照试验。参与者在比利时各地8家医院的急诊科登记。患者随机接受1.5 g维生素C,或匹配的安慰剂,每6小时,持续4天。主要终点是第2天至第5天基线后患者序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)的平均评分。主要的次要结局是SOFA评分、28天死亡率、ICU和住院时间。在2021年6月4日至2023年8月19日期间,共招募了300名患者。292名患者完成了试验并被纳入分析,其中147名患者被分配到维生素C组,145名患者被分配到安慰剂组。主要终点(维生素C, 1.98;安慰剂,2.19)比维生素C组低8.7%,但不显著(比值0.91,95% CI 0.77 ~ 1.08, P = 0.30)。在计划的亚组分析中,基线SOFA评分为6分或以上的患者在维生素C组中基线后平均SOFA评分显着降低(比值0.76,95% CI 0.86至0.99,P = 0.042)。在次要结局和不良事件方面,两组的结果相似,除了在每个方案分析中维生素C组接受肾脏替代治疗的可能性较低(比值0.28,95% CI 0.078至1.0,P = 0.05)。早期用维生素C治疗并不能显著减少器官功能障碍。因此,本研究不支持在败血症患者中使用维生素C。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT04747795。注册于2021年2月4日。早期使用维生素C治疗败血症或感染性休克患者的病程是否较轻?在这项包括292名患者的随机临床试验中,除了基线SOFA评分为6或以上的患者亚组外,静脉注射维生素C治疗与安慰剂相比,并没有导致基线后患者顺序器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分在第2天至第5天(1.98 vs 2.19)降低。早期用维生素C治疗并不能显著改善病程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Care
Critical Care 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
20.60
自引率
3.30%
发文量
348
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care is an esteemed international medical journal that undergoes a rigorous peer-review process to maintain its high quality standards. Its primary objective is to enhance the healthcare services offered to critically ill patients. To achieve this, the journal focuses on gathering, exchanging, disseminating, and endorsing evidence-based information that is highly relevant to intensivists. By doing so, Critical Care seeks to provide a thorough and inclusive examination of the intensive care field.
期刊最新文献
Urinary angiopoietin-2 is associated with adverse kidney outcomes in the ICU. Critical illness at extreme age: outcomes and clinical characteristics of centenarian ICU admissions in Australia and New Zealand. Frailty and long-term mortality in cardiogenic shock: a binational multicentre cohort study. Circulating DPP3 limits efficacy of angiotensin II infusion in septic shock. Factors influencing the interpretation of meta-analytic findings in cangrelor research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1