4.7 Review

Efficacy of vitamin C in patients with sepsis: An updated meta-analysis

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 868, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2019.172889

Keywords

Meta-analysis; Sepsis; Vitamin C

Funding

  1. Medical science and Technology Research Funding of Guangdong [A2019409]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2019MS136]
  3. National Clinical Key Specialty Construction Project of China [2012-649, 2013-544]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous studies have suggested the beneficial effects of vitamin C in patients with sepsis. However, the results could not be reproduced in the subsequent studies. This meta-analysis aimed to reevaluate the value of vitamin C treatment in patients with sepsis. Electronic databases were searched from inception to August 2019 for the studies comparing the effect of vitamin C versus non-vitamin C infusion in patients with sepsis. Data from 10 studies (4 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 6 retrospective studies) involving 1671 patients (495 in the vitamin C treatment group and 1176 in the control group) were included. The use of vitamin C did not reduce the risk of 28-day (OR = 0.84, P = 0.611, I-2 = 56.3%), intensive care unit (ICU; OR = 0.79, P = 0.319, I-2 = 46.2%), or in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.76, P = 0.251, I-2 = 51.0%). No difference in the duration of vasopressor usage and the length of ICU or hospital stay was present. The subgroup analysis for two RCTs suggested that vitamin C treatment showed reduced 28-day mortality (OR = 0.22, P = 0.014, I-2 = 35.7%), whereas this beneficial effect did not occur in subgroup analysis for three retrospective studies (OR = 1.11, P = 0.527, I-2 = 0%). Retrospective meta-analysis could not reveal the beneficial effect of vitamin Con patients with sepsis. Therefore, in order to clarify the role of vitamin C in sepsis the high-quality RCTs will be required in the future study.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available