|
|
|
|
|
|
This article may be reprinted free of charge provided 1) that there is clear attribution to the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, and 2) that both the OMNS free subscription link http://orthomolecular.org/subscribe.html and also the OMNS archive link http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml are included.
Vitamin C in Severe Burns: What Does the VICTORY Trial Really Tell Us?Richard Z. Cheng, MD, PhD1 1Editor-in-Chief, Orthomolecular Medicine News Service (OMNS)
The recently published VICTORY trial reported that intravenous vitamin C administration in patients with severe burn injury was associated with increased mortality and greater organ dysfunction compared with placebo [1]. These findings will undoubtedly be interpreted by many as evidence that intravenous vitamin C is ineffective-or even harmful-in critically ill burn patients. However, a closer examination of the study suggests that such conclusions may be premature. What Did the Study Actually Test?The VICTORY investigators administered vitamin C at 50 mg/kg every 6 hours for 96 hours. For an 80-kg patient, this corresponds to approximately 16 grams per day. While higher than nutritional supplementation, this protocol differs considerably from the pharmacologic intravenous vitamin C (HDIVC) approaches commonly used in orthomolecular medicine, where individual infusions frequently range from 25-100 grams or more and are often individualized according to patient status and therapeutic goals [2, 3]. Therefore, the VICTORY trial should not be viewed as a definitive test of all forms of intravenous vitamin C therapy. Rather, it tested a specific ICU protocol in a highly specialized patient population. Pharmacologic Vitamin C Is Not the Same as Nutritional Vitamin COne of the most important distinctions in vitamin C research is the difference between nutritional and pharmacologic dosing. Padayatty and colleagues demonstrated that intravenous administration can achieve plasma vitamin C concentrations many times higher than those achievable through oral administration [2]. At these pharmacologic concentrations, vitamin C may exert biologic effects distinct from its traditional nutritional role, including effects on oxidative stress, endothelial function, inflammatory signaling, immune function, and cellular redox balance. Vitamin C also has well-established roles in collagen synthesis, wound healing, endothelial integrity, catecholamine synthesis, and antioxidant defense-functions that are especially relevant in serious burn injury. This raises an important question: Did the VICTORY protocol achieve and maintain the pharmacologic plasma concentrations required to fully test the mechanisms proposed by advocates of HDIVC? The trial does not definitively answer this question. Burn Injury Is a Systems-Level DisorderSevere burn injury is among the most complex physiologic challenges encountered in medicine. Patients experience:
Burn recovery also depends on coordinated nutritional and antioxidant networks. Albumin, protein status, zinc, selenium, sulfur-containing amino acids, vitamin D, and other nutrients may influence oxidative stress, collagen synthesis, immune function, and tissue repair. Critically ill burn patients often experience capillary leak, wound exudation, metabolic stress, and low albumin levels, raising the possibility that baseline nutritional and redox status could modify responses to vitamin C. From a systems-medicine perspective, severe burns represent a profound disruption of multiple biologic systems simultaneously. Expecting a single nutrient intervention to reverse such widespread physiologic injury may be unrealistic. A negative outcome from vitamin C monotherapy should not automatically be interpreted as evidence against broader metabolic and nutritional approaches. This broader nutrient-network view is consistent with a recent NHANES-based analysis reporting that higher intake of several nutrients-including vitamin C, vitamin D, magnesium, folate, vitamin B6, and vitamin K-was associated with lower hs-CRP levels in U.S. adults [4]. Timing MattersThe intervention was administered during the first 96 hours following injury. Yet many of the complications responsible for burn mortality-including infection, sepsis, and progressive organ dysfunction-often develop days to weeks after the initial injury. The accompanying JAMA editorial raised questions regarding whether a short-course intervention early after injury would be expected to influence outcomes that may develop much later in the disease course [5]. This raises an important question: Was the trial testing vitamin C, or was it testing the ability of a brief intervention to alter a prolonged and highly complex disease process? Third-degree burns do not heal in 96 hours. Collagen synthesis, immune recovery, wound remodeling, and tissue repair continue well beyond the first four days. Historical ContextThe burn literature regarding vitamin C is not new. More than 25 years ago, Tanaka and colleagues reported that high-dose vitamin C administered during burn resuscitation reduced fluid requirements and edema formation in patients with severe burns [6]. Subsequent studies reported improvements in endothelial function, oxidative stress markers, and clinical outcomes associated with antioxidant therapy in critically ill and burn patients [7, 8]. Long before modern burn-resuscitation protocols were developed, Fred R. Klenner, MD, reported clinical observations suggesting that vitamin C requirements may increase dramatically during severe physiologic stress, including burns, infections, and trauma [8]. Although these observations were not conducted according to modern randomized-trial methodology, they helped stimulate decades of investigation into the role of vitamin C in critical illness [9]. These earlier observations helped establish the biologic rationale for vitamin C use in burn medicine. The VICTORY findings therefore stand in contrast to portions of the previous literature and deserve careful examination rather than immediate acceptance as definitive. The Context of Previous Critical-Care Vitamin C TrialsThe VICTORY protocol closely resembles the dosing strategy used in the LOVIT sepsis trial, which also reported unfavorable outcomes [10]. Both studies differ from many earlier reports suggesting benefit from intravenous vitamin C in selected settings. The reasons for these discrepancies remain unclear. Potential explanations include:
Further investigation is warranted before broad conclusions are drawn. What Can We Conclude?The VICTORY trial is an important study and its findings should be taken seriously. However, it does not establish that all intravenous vitamin C therapy is ineffective or harmful. Rather, it demonstrates that one specific vitamin C protocol-50 mg/kg every 6 hours for 96 hours-did not improve outcomes in patients with severe burn injury and was associated with worse results in this particular setting. The broader question remains unanswered: Can optimization of vitamin C status improve physiologic resilience, recovery, and clinical outcomes under appropriate circumstances? The VICTORY trial does not definitively answer that question. As with many negative studies, the most important lesson may not be that vitamin C does not work, but rather that patient selection, timing, dose, duration, and clinical context matter. The challenge moving forward is not simply to ask whether vitamin C works, but to determine when, where, for whom, and under what conditions it may provide benefit. From an Integrative Orthomolecular Systems Medicine (IOM) perspective, the VICTORY trial highlights a broader principle: severe burn injury is not a single-pathway disorder but a complex systems-level disturbance involving oxidative stress, inflammation, immune dysfunction, endothelial injury, mitochondrial impairment, metabolic disruption, protein loss, and nutrient depletion. In this context, vitamin C should not necessarily be viewed as an isolated intervention, but as one component of a larger biologic network supporting antioxidant defense, collagen synthesis, vascular integrity, immune regulation, and tissue repair. Future research may therefore benefit from evaluating vitamin C within broader systems-based strategies designed to improve physiologic resilience, recovery, and clinical outcomes. References1. Stoppe, C.; Hill, A.; Cancio, L.C.; et al. High-Dose Intravenous Vitamin C and Mortality and Organ Dysfunction in Severe Burn Injury: The VICTORY Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2026. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2026.10616. 2. Padayatty, S.J.; Sun, H.; Wang, Y.; et al. Vitamin C Pharmacokinetics: Implications for Oral and Intravenous Use. Ann Intern Med 2004, 140, (7), 533-537. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-7-200404060-00010. 3. Riordan, H.D.; Casciari, J.J.; González, M.J.; et al. A Pilot Clinical Study of Continuous Intravenous Ascorbate in Terminal Cancer Patients. P R Health Sci J 2005, 24, (4), 269-276. 4. Mainous, A.G.; Yin, L.; Orlando, F.A.; et al. Daily Nutrient Intake and Inflammation Among US Adults. J Am Board Fam Med 2026, 39, (1), 162211. DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2025.250393R1. 5. Greenhalgh, D.G. High-Dose Vitamin C in Burns: Time to Stop. JAMA 2026. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2026.10573. 6. Tanaka, H.; Matsuda, T.; Miyagantani, Y.; et al. Reduction of Resuscitation Fluid Volumes in Severely Burned Patients Using Ascorbic Acid Administration: A Randomized, Prospective Study. Arch Surg 2000, 135, (3), 326-331. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.135.3.326. 7. Nathens, A.B.; Neff, M.J.; Jurkovich, G.J.; et al. Randomized, Prospective Trial of Antioxidant Supplementation in Critically Ill Surgical Patients. Ann Surg 2002, 236, (6), 814-822. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-200212000-00014. 8. Kahn, S.A.; Beers, R.J.; Lentz, C.W. Resuscitation after Severe Burn Injury Using High-Dose Ascorbic Acid: A Retrospective Review. J Burn Care Res 2011, 32, (1), 110-117. DOI: 10.1097/BCR.0b013e318204b336. 9. Klenner, F. Observations on the Dose and Administration of Ascorbic Acid When Employed Beyond the Range of a Vitamin in Human Pathology. J Appl Nutr. 1971, 23, (3 & 4).; Available online: https://isom.ca/article/observations-on-the-dose-and-administration-of-ascorbic-acid-when-employed-beyond-the-range-of-a-vitamin-in-human-pathology/. 10. Lamontagne, F.; Masse, M.-H.; Menard, J.; et al. Intravenous Vitamin C in Adults with Sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit. N Engl J Med 2022, 386, (25), 2387-2398. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2200644. Reader Discussion and QuestionsOMNS welcomes comments, questions, ideas, experiences, and respectful dialogue from readers, patients, healthcare professionals, researchers, and students worldwide. We encourage participation on OMNS Interactive, where the exchange of knowledge and perspectives helps advance understanding and foster meaningful discussion. Join the conversation:
About OMNS InteractiveOMNS Interactive is the discussion and commentary platform of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service (OMNS). The original OMNS website remains the official archive of OMNS publications. Subscribe to OMNS Interactive for future articles, commentary, and discussions:
Content is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Follow OMNS Interactive
Orthomolecular MedicineOrthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org Find a DoctorTo locate an orthomolecular physician near you: http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n09.shtml The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource. Editorial Review Board:
Jennifer L. Aliano, M.S., L.Ac., C.C.N. (USA)
Comments and media contact: editor@orthomolecular.org OMNS welcomes but is unable to respond to individual reader emails. Reader comments become the property of OMNS and may or may not be used for publication. To Subscribe at no charge: https://www.orthomolecular.org/subscribe.html To Unsubscribe from this list: https://www.orthomolecular.org/unsubscribe.html |
This website is managed by Riordan Clinic
A Non-profit 501(c)(3) Medical, Research and Educational Organization
3100 North Hillside Avenue, Wichita, KS 67219 USA
Phone: 316-682-3100; Fax: 316-682-5054
© (Riordan Clinic) 2004 - 2024c
Information on Orthomolecular.org is provided for educational purposes only. It is not intended as medical advice.
Consult your orthomolecular health care professional for individual guidance on specific health problems.
