Tiny dose of Vitamin C does not improve outcomes in sepsis and ARDS patients: JAMA

[ofonorow]

https://speciality.medicaldialogues.in/vitamin-c-infusion-sepsis-acute-respiratory-distress-syndrome-ards-jama-citris-ali-trial/

If we accept this as "real" science, then it tells us that a key component of the Marik sepsis therapy is hydrocortisone. In theory, the vitamin C "unoxidizes" the blocked hydrocortisone receptors.

Lets take a look.. Could this be a propaganda study??

Patients were randomly assigned to receive an intravenous infusion of vitamin C (50 mg/kg in dextorse 5% in water, every 6 hours for 96 hours.

70kg * 50mg/kg = 3,500 mg or 3.5 grams IV for the average 70 kg male

Tiny dosage IV?!? No wonder there was little benefit found, as per usual with this under dosed studies. Most people could have taken 10-20 grams by mouth.

[johnjackson]

yes and "studies" like this confuse people.
my friend thinks 500mg a day is HUGE dose of Vit C....

[ofonorow]

Apparently, 500 mg would be - if it was the vitamin C in celery juice

[johnjackson]

[Serdna]

[Serdna]

I don't think Dr. Fowler et alter failed on purpose. They have corrected their analysis of the primary outcome (my bolds):

The treatment caused the missing data, which thus were not missing at random or normally distributed. We applied the Mann-Whitney rank sum test 4 to compare the ranked mSOFA scores at 0, 48, and 96 hours. We found no statistically significant differences in mSOFA scores between the vitamin C and placebo groups at 0 and 48 hours (P = .32 and P = .17, respectively) (Figure). However, we found a statistically significant difference in the mSOFA scores at 96 hours (P = .03). There was a 60% probability that any random patient from the placebo group had a higher mSOFA score than any random patient from the vitamin C group. Although the result at 96 hours differs from the primary analysis, this analysis is post hoc and exploratory and does not change the conclusion of the study.

Yes, they are extra cautious and methodolatry complying in order to not give any chance to dismissive comments by the statu quo. As I quoted in my other recent comment:

NB It is difficult to emphasise how good this study is. Just ignore anything the authors have to say.