Background: Previous studies have suggested favorable outcomes of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid (vitamin C), and thiamine (HAT) therapy in patients with sepsis. However, similar results have not been duplicated in sequential studies. This meta-analysis aimed to reevaluate the value of HAT treatment in patients with sepsis. Methods: Electronic databases were searched up until October 2020 for any studies that compared the effect of HAT versus non-HAT use in patients with sepsis. Results: Data from 15 studies (eight randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and seven cohort studies) involving 67,349 patients were included. The results from the RCTs show no significant benefit of triple therapy on hospital mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.99; P=0.92; I2=0%); intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR, 0.77; P=0.20; I2=58%); ICU length of stay (weighted mean difference [WMD], 0.11; P=0.86; I2=37%) or hospital length of stay (WMD: 0.57; P=0.49; I2=17%), and renal replacement therapy (RR, 0.64; P=0.44; I2=39%). The delta Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score favored treatment after a sensitivity analysis (WMD, -0.72; P=0.01; I2=32%). However, a significant effect was noted for the duration of vasopressor use (WMD, -25.49; P<0.001; I2=46%). The results from cohort studies have also shown no significant benefit of HAT therapy on hospital mortality, ICU mortality, ICU length of stay, length of hospital stay, the delta SOFA score, the use of renal replacement therapy, or vasopressor duration. Conclusion: HAT therapy significantly reduced the duration of vasopressor use and improved the SOFA score but appeared not to have significant benefits in other outcomes for patients with sepsis. Further RCTs can help understand its benefit exclusively.
Background: Previous studies have suggested favorable outcomes of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid (vitamin C), and thiamine (HAT) therapy in patients with sepsis. However, similar results have not been duplicated in sequential studies. This meta-analysis aimed to reevaluate the value of HAT treatment in patients with sepsis. Methods: Electronic databases were searched up until October 2020 for any studies that compared the effect of HAT versus non-HAT use in patients with sepsis. Results: Data from 15 studies (eight randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and seven cohort studies) involving 67,349 patients were included. The results from the RCTs show no significant benefit of triple therapy on hospital mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.99; P=0.92; I2=0%); intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR, 0.77; P=0.20; I2=58%); ICU length of stay (weighted mean difference [WMD], 0.11; P=0.86; I2=37%) or hospital length of stay (WMD: 0.57; P=0.49; I2=17%), and renal replacement therapy (RR, 0.64; P=0.44; I2=39%). The delta Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score favored treatment after a sensitivity analysis (WMD, -0.72; P=0.01; I2=32%). However, a significant effect was noted for the duration of vasopressor use (WMD, -25.49; P<0.001; I2=46%). The results from cohort studies have also shown no significant benefit of HAT therapy on hospital mortality, ICU mortality, ICU length of stay, length of hospital stay, the delta SOFA score, the use of renal replacement therapy, or vasopressor duration. Conclusion:HAT therapy significantly reduced the duration of vasopressor use and improved the SOFA score but appeared not to have significant benefits in other outcomes for patients with sepsis. Further RCTs can help understand its benefit exclusively.
Entities:
Keywords:
HAT therapy; ascorbic acid; septic shock; steroids; thiamine; vitamin C