International archives of allergy and immunology · 2024
Efficacy and Safety of Hydrocortisone, Ascorbic Acid, and Thiamine Combination Therapy for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.
Систематический обзорСтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Deng Jiawen, Zuo Qi Kang, Venugopal Kaden, Hung Jay, Zubair Areeba, Blais Sara, Porter Victoria, Moskalyk Myron, Heybati Kiyan
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine (HAT) combination therapy in patients with sepsis and septic shock.
METHODS: We conducted a database search in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CNKI for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HAT against placebo/standard of care or against hydrocortisone in sepsis/septic shock patients. Outcomes included mortality, ICU/hospital length of stay (LOS), vasopressor durations, mechanical ventilation durations, change in SOFA at 72 h, and adverse events. RCT results were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE.
RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs (N = 2,594) were included. At 72 h, HAT reduced SOFA scores from baseline (mean difference [MD] -1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.58 to -0.74, I2 = 0%) compared to placebo/SoC, based on moderate quality of evidence. HAT also reduced the duration of vasopressor use (MD -18.80 h, 95% CI: -23.67 to -13.93, I2 = 64%) compared to placebo/SoC, based on moderate quality of evidence. HAT increased hospital LOS (MD 2.05 days, 95% CI: 0.15-3.95, I2 = 57%) compared to placebo/SoC, based on very low quality of evidence. HAT did not increase incidence of adverse events compared to placebo/SoC.
CONCLUSIONS: HAT appears beneficial in reducing vasopressor use and improving organ function in sepsis/septic shock patients. However, its advantages over hydrocortisone alone remain unclear. Future research should use hydrocortisone comparators and distinguish between sepsis-specific and comorbidity- or care-withdrawal-related mortality.
METHODS: We conducted a database search in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CNKI for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HAT against placebo/standard of care or against hydrocortisone in sepsis/septic shock patients. Outcomes included mortality, ICU/hospital length of stay (LOS), vasopressor durations, mechanical ventilation durations, change in SOFA at 72 h, and adverse events. RCT results were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE.
RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs (N = 2,594) were included. At 72 h, HAT reduced SOFA scores from baseline (mean difference [MD] -1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.58 to -0.74, I2 = 0%) compared to placebo/SoC, based on moderate quality of evidence. HAT also reduced the duration of vasopressor use (MD -18.80 h, 95% CI: -23.67 to -13.93, I2 = 64%) compared to placebo/SoC, based on moderate quality of evidence. HAT increased hospital LOS (MD 2.05 days, 95% CI: 0.15-3.95, I2 = 57%) compared to placebo/SoC, based on very low quality of evidence. HAT did not increase incidence of adverse events compared to placebo/SoC.
CONCLUSIONS: HAT appears beneficial in reducing vasopressor use and improving organ function in sepsis/septic shock patients. However, its advantages over hydrocortisone alone remain unclear. Future research should use hydrocortisone comparators and distinguish between sepsis-specific and comorbidity- or care-withdrawal-related mortality.