Clinical rationale for study: Despite advancements in critical care, the mortality rate of sepsis remains high, with an overall poor prognosis. There is a complex pathophysiology of a lethal cascade of cytokines and inflammatory proteins underlying sepsis. The use of vitamin C can theoretically suppress the inflammatory cascade but remains a questionable practice due to a lack of conclusive evidence. Aims of the study: To appraise the therapeutic role of vitamin C in sepsis. Materials and methods: A systematic review was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and the Central Cochrane Registry. The study included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with vitamin C as an intervention arm in the septic patient population. For continuous variables, the difference in means (MD) and for discrete variables, the odds ratio (OR) was used. For effect sizes, a confidence interval of 95% was used. A p-value of less than 0.05 was used for statistical significance. The analysis was performed using a random-effects model irrespective of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic. Results: 23 studies were included with the total sample size of 2712 patients. In patients treated with vitamin C, there was a statistically significant reduction in the mortality: OR = 0.778 (0.635 to 0.954), p = 0.016; the sequential organ failure assessment score (SOFA): MD = −0.749 (−1.115 to −0.383), p < 0.001; and the duration of vasopressor requirement: MD = −1.034 days (−1.622 to −0.445), p = 0.001. No significant difference was found in the hospital or ICU length of stay. Conclusions and clinical implications: Vitamin C treatment regimens were associated with reduced mortality, SOFA score, and vasopressor requirement compared to the control in sepsis. Given its low cost and minimal adverse effects, we strongly encourage further large, randomized trials to establish vitamin C as a standard of care in sepsis management.

Fevipiprant is a non-steroidal oral prostaglandin D2 (PGD2) receptor 2 antagonist that reduces bronchial wall inflammation, possibly improving clinical outcomes in the asthmatic population. A systemic review search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and Central Cochrane Registry. Randomized clinical trials were included with Fevipiprant as an intervention arm compared to placebo. For continuous variables, the standardized mean difference, and for discrete variables, Mantel-Haenszel Risk Ratio (MH Risk ratio) was used for analysis. Confidence interval of 95% and p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. The analysis was done using a random-effects model irrespective of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic. A total of five articles, including seven trials, were included in the analysis. There was significant increase in post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) 0.249 (0.157-0.341), p<0.001 and pre-bronchodilator FEV1 0.115 (0.043 to 0.188), p=0.002. A decrease in asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) score of -0.124 (-0.187 to -0.062), p<0.001, was reported. Statistically significant asthma exacerbation reduction was reported in the high eosinophil count population with a daily dose of 450mg 0.77 relative risks (RR) (0.61-0.97). There was a positive deviation toward Fevipiprant 450mg dose for asthma reduction in the overall population, but it was not statistically significant. Fevipiprant produced a slight statistically significant reduction in asthma exacerbations in the high eosinophil count population with favorable deviation in the overall population. It significantly increased pre-and post-bronchodilator FEV1 and improved ACQ scores in treated patients. The benefits, though statistically significant, failed to translate into clinical importance.