Cited by 253Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentVitamin C and Antioxidants ResearchAdrenal Hormones and Disorders

Effect of Ascorbic Acid, Corticosteroids, and Thiamine on Organ Injury in Septic Shock: The ACTS Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Moskowitz, Ari, Huang, David T., Hou, Peter C., Gong, Jonathan, Doshi, Pratik B., Grossestreuer, Anne V., Andersen, Lars W., Ngo, Long +14 more·2020·JAMA

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: The combination of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine has been identified as a potential therapy for septic shock. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the combination of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine attenuates organ injury in patients with septic shock. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, blinded, multicenter clinical trial of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine vs placebo for adult patients with septic shock. Two hundred five patients were enrolled between February 9, 2018, and October 27, 2019, at 14 centers in the United States. Follow-up continued until November 26, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive parenteral ascorbic acid (1500 mg), hydrocortisone (50 mg), and thiamine (100 mg) every 6 hours for 4 days (n = 103) or placebo in matching volumes at the same time points (n = 102). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (range, 0-24; 0 = best) between enrollment and 72 hours. Key secondary outcomes included kidney failure and 30-day mortality. Patients who received at least 1 dose of study drug were included in analyses. RESULTS: Among 205 randomized patients (mean age, 68 [SD, 15] years; 90 [44%] women), 200 (98%) received at least 1 dose of study drug, completed the trial, and were included in the analyses (101 with intervention and 99 with placebo group). Overall, there was no statistically significant interaction between time and treatment group with regard to SOFA score over the 72 hours after enrollment (mean SOFA score change from 9.1 to 4.4 [-4.7] points with intervention vs 9.2 to 5.1 [-4.1] points with placebo; adjusted mean difference, -0.8; 95% CI, -1.7 to 0.2; P = .12 for interaction). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of kidney failure (31.7% with intervention vs 27.3% with placebo; adjusted risk difference, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.2; P = .58) or in 30-day mortality (34.7% vs 29.3%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8-2.2; P = .26). The most common serious adverse events were hyperglycemia (12 patients with intervention and 7 patients with placebo), hypernatremia (11 and 7 patients, respectively), and new hospital-acquired infection (13 and 12 patients, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients with septic shock, the combination of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine, compared with placebo, did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SOFA score during the first 72 hours after enrollment. These data do not support routine use of this combination therapy for patients with septic shock. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03389555.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2020.11946

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A patient-level analysis of two randomized PEEP trials suggested that patients with ARDS who respond to increased PEEP with improved oxygenation have a lower risk of death; this association was stronger in patients with more severe ARDS (PaO2/FiO2 < 150 mm Hg) compared with patients with less severe ARDS.

    “A patient-level analysis of two of the randomized PEEP trials (440, 441) suggested that patients with ARDS who respond to increased PEEP with improved oxygenation have a lower risk of death; this association was stronger in patients with more severe ARDS (PaO 2 /FiO 2 < 150 mm Hg) compared with patients with less severe ARDS (444).”

    From Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. (2021) · cites this paper as [440]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the Moskowitz et al. study, no difference in the primary outcome of mean SOFA score change at 72 h post enrolment was observed.

    “No difference in the primary outcome of mean SOFA score change at 72 h post enrolment was observed.”
  • In the Moskowitz et al. study, at 30 days, 34.7% (35/101) of patients randomised to combination therapy had died versus 29.3% (29/99) randomised to placebo (HR 1.3; 95% CI 0.8-2.2; p = 0.26).

    “At 30 days, 34.7% (35/101) of patients randomised to combination therapy had died vs. 29.3% (29/99) randomised to placebo (HR, 1.3; 95% CI 0.8–2.2; p = 0.26).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 25 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moskowitz, A., Huang, D. T., Hou, P. C., Gong, J., Doshi, P. B., Grossestreuer, A. V., Andersen, L. W., Ngo, L., Sherwin, R. L., Berg, K. M., Chase, M., Cocchi, M. N., McCannon, J. B., Hershey, M., Hilewitz, A., Korotun, M., Becker, L. B., Otero, R. M., Uduman, J., Sen, A., Donnino, M. W., & for the ACTS Clinical Trial Investigators
Affiliations
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Hofstra University (US)
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
  • Wayne State University (US)
  • Mount Auburn Hospital (US)
  • South Shore Hospital (US)
  • Oakland University (US)
  • Henry Ford Health (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Donnino, Michael W.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2020-08-18
Volume
324
Issue
7
Pages
642
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W3069087306
Cited by
253
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 11
FWCI
32.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Massachusetts General Hospital
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • Open Philanthropy Project
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (K23GM128005)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Vitamin C and Antioxidants Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Adrenal Hormones and Disorders
Keywords
septic shock, vitamin C, cortisol, thiamine, organ failure, SOFA score, renal failure, 30-day mortality, combination therapy, sepsis
MeSH terms
Adrenal Cortex Hormones, Adult, Aged, Ascorbic Acid, Cross Infection, Drug Therapy, Combination, Female, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Hypernatremia, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Organ Failure, Shock, Septic, Thiamine, Proportional Hazards Models, Treatment Failure, Organ Dysfunction Scores

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review