Knowledge · Natural Compounds

Vitamin C

Vitamin C (L-ascorbic acid) is a water-soluble vitamin; human studies show benefits for colds, indications for skin and wound healing, and a mixed picture for sepsis.

Last updated:

We evaluated 252 human studies on Vitamin C, including 160 randomised controlled trials and 63 meta-analyses or systematic reviews; the controlled studies include 26,210 participants in total. As of 13 October 2026.

This page as PDF · Summary

1. What Is Vitamin C? Occurrence, Origin and Forms

Vitamin C is a water-soluble vitamin, chemically L-ascorbic acid. The human body cannot make it and depends on dietary intake. It became known through the link between vitamin C deficiency and scurvy, the disease that affected sailors on long voyages without fresh fruit and vegetables; today it is taken mainly as a dietary supplement, for example during colds.

Vitamin C occurs in fresh fruit and vegetables, especially in citrus fruits, peppers, kiwi, berries and potatoes. In the body it is found in all cells, in high concentration in the adrenal glands and in white blood cells.

For dietary supplements, vitamin C is produced industrially from glucose and is usually supplied as ascorbic acid or as an ascorbate salt. Studies examine mainly the oral intake of ascorbic acid or sodium ascorbate, liposomal preparations and intravenous administration.

Forms and Preparations Studied

  • L-ascorbic acid (pure form)
  • Sodium ascorbate and calcium ascorbate (salts, less acidic)
  • Ascorbyl palmitate (fat-soluble)
  • Liposomal preparations
  • Oral intake as tablet, capsule, powder or drink
  • Intravenous administration as an infusion

Not covered on this page:

  • D-isoascorbic acid (erythorbic acid, E 315), a related substance without vitamin C activity
  • Multivitamin preparations and combinations with other substances (e.g. zinc, vitamin D)
  • Preparations from vitamin C-rich fruits such as acerola, rose hip or sea buckthorn; a study on these is not a study on isolated vitamin C
  • Ascorbic acid as a technical antioxidant and preservative in foods (E 300)

2. What Does Vitamin C Do? Results by Area

AreaResult in controlled studiesStrength of evidenceStudiesParticipants
Sepsis and critical caremixedhigh17 meta-analyses · 24 controlled · 18 other3,389
Oxidative stress and antioxidant statusmixedhigh5 meta-analyses · 24 controlled · 2 other1,147
Skin and connective tissuemixedhigh3 meta-analyses · 10 controlled · 2 other262
Common cold and respiratory infectionsmixedhigh5 meta-analyses · 7 controlled · 2 other2,445
Immune functionmixedhigh1 meta-analyses · 5 controlled · 1 other217
Iron absorption from foodmostly no differenceunclear0 meta-analyses · 1 controlled · 0 other75
Other investigationsmixedhigh21 meta-analyses · 50 controlled · 18 other5,218

How to read the table: counted are human studies whose results concern the area. “High” means at least one meta-analysis and two controlled studies showing improvement, or at least three controlled studies of which three quarters show improvement, with at least 300 participants in total. “Moderate” means at least two controlled studies showing improvement, as a majority, or one meta-analysis alongside controlled studies. “Low” means one controlled study showing improvement. Where an area has no controlled study, the strength of evidence is at most “low” (result “reviews only” or “observational data only”). Everything else is “unclear”. A study counts as showing improvement when at least half of its outcomes in this area improved. Reviews of combination products do not count as meta-analyses; results that only describe side effects or shares of users do not count as an effect. The same study is counted only once.

3. What the Studies Show in Detail

Vitamin C, Sepsis and Critical Care: Human Studies

In sepsis and intensive care, the studies show a mixed picture with high certainty of evidence. Meta-analyses found a lower mortality with vitamin C, especially intravenously and without adjunctive agents 412131931, which, however, still needs to be confirmed. Other meta-analyses found overall no confirmed difference 81622, and in septic shock no survival benefit 824. Whether high or lower doses are more favorable is answered in opposite ways by two meta-analyses 1219. In the largest single study, death or persistent organ failure combined occurred more often with intravenous vitamin C than with placebo 62. The administration of circulatory agents (vasopressors) was shorter with intravenous vitamin C 816192231, the length of stay in the intensive care unit did not change 16222431. The mixture of vitamin C, thiamine and hydrocortisone shortened the vasopressor duration and lowered the SOFA score in meta-analyses 1121, but not the short-term mortality 21. These findings belong to the mixture, not to vitamin C alone. Predominantly intravenous preparations were investigated, in addition sodium ascorbate; the optimal dose, the timing and which patient groups benefit remain open.

StudyDesign · participantsPreparation · dose · duration · comparisonResult
4 Xu et al. 2023meta-analysis · 26,540 participantsVitamin C oral or intravenous (monotherapy); vs. placebo or no therapymortality in sepsis patients: improved (p = 0.005, RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.91, I2 = 47%)
5 Fujii et al. 2022systematic review · 10,257 participantsVitamin C alone or with glucocorticoids and vitamin B1; Categories ≥12, 6 to <12, and <6 g/day; 90-day to 1-year mortality assessment; vs. Placebo or usual care, or other drug combinationsLonger-term mortality (90 days to 1 year): no difference (no significant differences); Organ dysfunction: no difference (no evidence); ICU length of stay: no difference (no evidence)
6 Pham et al. 2024meta-analysis · 9,366 participantsVitamin C, also combined with other compounds; high-dose (exact dose not reported); follow-up up to 28 days; vs. melatonin, vitamin E, selenium, N-acetylcysteine, placebo/other antioxidants28-day mortality: no difference (not statistically significant); SOFA score / organ dysfunction: unclear (SUCRA = 83.97%)
7 Brown et al. 2022systematic review · 4,078 participantsParenteral vitamin C, alone or with thiamine/glucocorticoids; various dosage regimens (subgroup analysis); vs. standard of care28-day mortality: no difference (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.09; p = 0.34); change in SOFA score: no difference; ICU length of stay: no difference
8 Liang et al. 2023systematic review · 3,570 participantsintravenous vitamin C (IVVC); vs. control group; monotherapy vs. combination therapy (incl. HAT)28-day mortality: no difference (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81-1.04); 28-day mortality with IVVC monotherapy: improved (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93); 28-day mortality with combination therapy: no difference (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.90-1.17)
9 Liang et al. 2023meta-analysis · 3,364 participantsIntravenous vitamin C, alone or with thiamine/hydrocortisone; any dose; subgroup 25-100 mg/kg/day; follow-up 72-96 h or short-term; vs. standard of care, no intervention or placeboDelta SOFA score at 72-96 h: improved (MD, - 0.62; 95% CI, - 1.00 to - 0.25; p = 0.001); Duration of vasopressor use: improved (MD, - 15.07; 95% CI, - 21.59 to - 8.55; p < 0.00001); Short-term mortality: no difference (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.04; p = 0.14)
10 Chen et al. 2022meta-analysis · 2,985 participantsVitamin C-containing therapy (mixture, co-components not specified); vs. Placebo or alternative treatment28-day mortality: no difference (OR, 0.87; 95% CI: 0.71-1.08; P = .20); 28-day mortality in septic shock: no difference (OR, 1.09; 95% CI: 0.89-1.34; P = .41); intensive care unit mortality: no difference (OR, 1.03; 95% CI: 0.84-1.25; P = .81)
12 Patel et al. 2022meta-analysis · 2,490 participantsIntravenous vitamin C; high-dose vs. low-dose (cutoff not stated); vs. PlaceboOverall mortality (all doses): no difference (relative risk, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-1.00; p = 0.06); Overall mortality (high-dose): improved (relative risk, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.96; p = 0.03); Overall mortality (low-dose): no difference (relative risk, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.07; p = 0.46)

Further studies in this area: 13 14 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 31 32 39 40 46 49 62 63 72 77 78 84 85 87 95 96 99 100 105 107 115 118 119 120 124 128 134 155 157 159 167 168 169 171 176 178 181 182 183 184 186 187

Vitamin C, Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant Status: Human Studies

For oxidative stress and antioxidant status, the studies on vitamin C show a mixed picture with high certainty of evidence. A randomized controlled study found a higher antioxidant capacity after vitamin C administration during cardiopulmonary bypass 93. In overweight individuals, it rose more strongly after vitamin C added to a sugar solution than without 137. Inflammation markers fell compared with the control in several randomized studies, for example IL-8 in ARDS 116 and a TNF receptor in sepsis 95. In healthy individuals with low vitamin C status, isoprostanes, IL-6 and TNF-α fell compared with placebo 146. In moderate pancreatitis, CRP fell more strongly than with placebo 76; after joint replacement, a meta-analysis found lower CRP and IL-6 values on the first day 28. Other randomized controlled studies found no difference in cytokines 121 or in CRP 78. A systematic review on knee prosthesis found inconsistent results for inflammation markers 25; in septic shock, CRP and myeloperoxidase remained the same compared with placebo 118. Isoprostanes did not change with parenteral vitamin C compared with placebo 117. Mixtures of vitamin C and vitamin E lowered malondialdehyde and ROS in endometriosis 35 and, in sarcopenia, malondialdehyde compared with placebo, while glutathione rose 103. In a randomized study in septic shock with separate arms for vitamin C, vitamin E, N-acetylcysteine and melatonin, lipid peroxidation fell in each arm compared with the baseline value 84. The mixture of vitamin C and chromium improved blood lipids in type 2 diabetes compared with placebo; the contribution of vitamin C remains open 104. The investigations predominantly concerned ill or inadequately supplied people; the transferability to well-supplied individuals and the comparison of form, dose and administration remain open.

StudyDesign · participantsPreparation · dose · duration · comparisonResult
25 Vosoughi et al. 2026systematic review · 1,364 participantsperioperative vitamin C (ascorbic acid); varied across studies (heterogeneous dose, route, timing); vs. placebo or control in included RCTsinflammatory markers: no difference
28 Moftakhari et al. 2025meta-analysis · 1,162 participantsvitamin C, oral or intravenous; postoperative up to 48 hours; vs. control/placebo (not further reported)CRP at 24 hours: improved (WMD = -11.32 mg/L; P = 0.0007); IL-6 at 24 hours: improved (WMD = -8.27 pg/mL; P < 0.0001)
37 Candeloro et al. 2026systematic reviewVitamin C supplementation, various forms; vs. PlaceboIL-6: no difference (MD = 0.00; 95 % CI: -0.25 to 0.25; p = 1.00); MDA: no difference (MD = -0.59; 95 % CI: -1.99 to 0.81; p = 0.41); CRP: improved (MD = -0.44; 95 % CI: -0.66 to -0.22; p = 0.0001)
39 Alangari et al. 2026systematic reviewHigh-dose intravenous vitamin C; vs. Placebo or standard care, sometimes combined with chemotherapyAntioxidant, immune-modulating and pharmacokinetic effects: unclear
46 Thakare et al. 2024systematic reviewParenteral vitamin C; vs. Heterogeneous study designs; controls not uniformOxidative stress: improved
76 Zhao et al. 2025randomised controlled · 212 participantsVitamin C infusion (ascorbic acid) versus placebo; 200 mg/kg/24 h; 7 days; vs. Placebo infusionCRP reduction Day 0 to Day 3 (MSAP): improved (median 72 mg/L vs. 46 mg/L, p = 0.003); CRP reduction Day 0 to Day 7 (MSAP): improved (median 168 mg/L vs. 121 mg/L, p = 0.013)
78 Fowler et al. 2019randomised controlled · 167 participantsintravenous vitamin C (ascorbic acid) infusion in dextrose 5% in water; 50 mg/kg every 6 hours for 96 hours; 96-hour infusion, follow-up to 168 hours and day 60; vs. placebo (dextrose 5% in water only)C-reactive protein levels at 168 hours: no difference (54.1 vs 46.1 μg/mL; difference, 7.94 μg/mL; 95% CI, -8.2 to 24.11; P = .33); thrombomodulin levels at 168 hours: no difference (14.5 vs 13.8 ng/mL; difference, 0.69 ng/mL; 95% CI, -2.8 to 4.2; P = .70)
84 Pérez-Torres et al. 2023randomised controlled · 131 participantsVitamin C, vitamin E, N-acetylcysteine or melatonin plus standard therapy; vs. standard therapy (control group)lipid peroxidation: unclear; nitrates and nitrites: unclear; glutathione reductase: unclear

Further studies in this area: 88 93 95 116 117 118 120 121 133 137 139 140 143 145 146 147 155 156 158 163 164 179 186

Vitamin C, Skin and Connective Tissue: Human Studies

In second-degree burns, a topical vitamin C solution accelerated epithelialization in a small randomized study 129; a systematic review on perioperative care describes slightly better wound healing 42. In melasma, topical vitamin C was among the more effective treatments versus placebo in a network meta-analysis 50. After microneedling, melasma improved with vitamin C as with tranexamic acid compared with baseline 135. In Bateman purpura of aged skin, topical vitamin C improved skin appearance, skin thickness and elasticity compared with the untreated side 141. After wisdom tooth removal, pain and swelling on the second day were less than with placebo, wound healing did not differ with certainty 106. Vitamin C injections after flexor tendon repair showed no certain difference 126. A mixture of collagen and vitamin C, sometimes with hyaluronic acid, improved dermal density and wrinkles compared with placebo; the contribution of vitamin C remains open 92. Statements on dose-response relationships, on transferability to well-nourished individuals and on long-term effects remain open.

StudyDesign · participantsPreparation · dose · duration · comparisonResult
42 Banerjee et al. 2026systematic reviewVitamin C supplementation (form not specified); perioperative; vs. Control groups without vitamin CWound healing: improved (modestly improved wound healing)
47 González-Molina et al. 2022systematic reviewTopical ascorbic acid as adjuvant; vs. Hydroquinone and triple combination therapy as standardEfficacy of topical ascorbic acid as adjuvant: improved
50 Liu et al. 2021meta-analysistopical vitamin C compared with 13 other melasma therapies; vs. placebo and other agents (lasers, TCC, tranexamic acid, peeling, HQ)efficacy ranking versus placebo (Melasma Area and Severity Index): unclear
106 Demirel et al. 2026randomised controlled · 56 participantsoral vitamin C (ascorbic acid); started 1 day before surgery, continued for 7 days; vs. placebo (contralateral side, split-mouth)wound healing: no difference (did not reach statistical significance); facial swelling: improved (significantly reduced on day 2)
122 Pazyar et al. 2025randomised controlled · 37 participantsTopical vitamin C after microneedling; vs. Tranexamic acid + microneedling (other side of face)Improvement of infraorbital hyperpigmentation: unclear (dramatic advancement in all sessions compared to the baseline); Vitamin C vs. tranexamic acid comparison: unclear (P = 0.444)
126 Tajari et al. 2026randomised controlled · 30 participantsvitamin C injections after surgery; vs. standard care (control group)range of motion (ROM): no difference (p>0.05); Strickland Rating Scale (SRS): no difference (p>0.05)
127 Dawar et al. 2026randomised controlled · 30 participantsMicroneedling with vitamin C serum (group B) vs. PRP (group A); 3 sessions, follow-up at 1, 2 and 3 months; vs. Microneedling with PRP vs. microneedling with vitamin C serumScar quality (POSAS): unclear (p < 0.05); Pliability: unclear (p = 0.10)
129 Haddadi et al. 2020randomised controlled · 30 participantsTopical vitamin C solution; Assessment on days 1, 3, 7 and 14; vs. Control group with other dressing/placebo (not specified)Burn wound epithelialization (Bates-Jensen score): improved (P = 0.047)

Further studies in this area: 135 141 142 143 165 180 183

Vitamin C, Common Cold and Respiratory Infections: Human Studies

Regularly taken vitamin C shortened colds in placebo studies, more clearly in children than in adults 55; an additional dose at the onset of a cold shortened the duration and alleviated fever 54. In a randomized controlled trial with recruits, the frequency of a cold diagnosis decreased 58, as it did in a placebo study over the winter 161. In adults with atrophic gastritis, there were fewer colds at a higher dose, but not shorter ones 74. In children with pneumonia, vitamin C improved the severity compared with placebo, but not the length of hospital stay 81. In ARDS, intravenous vitamin C in an open randomized trial improved oxygen supply and weaning from the ventilator compared with standard treatment 116. In COVID-19, a meta-analysis saw lower mortality, which still needs to be confirmed 4; two other meta-analyses found no difference 1538. The strength of evidence is high, supported by several meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials; however, the individual studies are mixed. However, forms, doses, duration, comparison groups and the baseline status of participants differ considerably; for well-supplied individuals without deficiency, the transferability is open. As an addition to antiviral therapy, vitamin C in a meta-analysis of Chinese studies shortened the time to improvement compared with antiviral therapy alone 52. A randomized trial found no difference in duration or severity compared with a very low vitamin C dose when taken from the onset of a cold 70. In COVID-19, high-dose ascorbic acid alone did not shorten the symptom duration 75. Mixtures with zinc 91 and the preparation ArtemiC made of artemisinin, curcumin, frankincense and vitamin C 110 do not allow conclusions about vitamin C alone.

StudyDesign · participantsPreparation · dose · duration · comparisonResult
4 Xu et al. 2023meta-analysis · 26,540 participantsVitamin C oral or intravenous (monotherapy); vs. placebo or no therapyCOVID-19 patient mortality: improved (p = 0.03, RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98, I2 = 0%)
16 Yong et al. 2024meta-analysis · 2,047 participantsisolated intravenous vitamin C (IVVC); vs. Placebopneumonia: no difference (RR 0.85; CI 0.50-1.44; I2 = 0%, P = .552)
52 Ran et al. 2020meta-analysisVitamin C as supplement to antiviral therapy; vs. antiviral therapy aloneTotal efficacy: improved (RR = 1.27, 95% CI (1.08, 1.48), P = 0.003); Time for symptom amelioration: improved (MD = -15.84, 95% CI (-17.02, -14.66), P < 0.00001); Time for healing: improved (95% CI (-14.98, -4.22), P = 0.0005)
54 Ran et al. 2018meta-analysisVitamin C (oral supplementation); extra therapeutic dose at cold onset in addition to routine supplementation; vs. PlaceboCold duration: improved (MD = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.03, -0.10], P = 0.02); Time of confinement indoors: improved (MD = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.62, -0.19], P = 0.0002); Chest pain: improved (MD = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.77, -0.03], P = 0.03)
55 Hemilä et al. 1999systematic reviewVitamin C supplementation, form not specified; ≥1 g/day regularly, partly ≥2 g/day, 1 g/day in adults; vs. Placebo and dose comparison 1 g/day vs. ≥2 g/dayReduction in cold duration in children (2 g/day) vs. adults (1 g/day): improved (26%); Reduction in cold duration in adults (1 g/day): improved (6%)
58 Kim et al. 2022randomised controlled · 1,444 participantsOral vitamin C (pure ascorbic acid) vs placebo; 6000 mg/day (vitamin C), 0 mg/day (placebo); 30 days; vs. Placebo, double-blindRisk of common cold diagnosis (odds ratio): improved (0.80-fold lower risk)
70 Audera et al. 2001randomised controlled · 400 participantsOral vitamin C, 0.03 g ('placebo'), 1 g, 3 g, or 3 g with additives ('Bio-C'); 0.03 g, 1 g or 3 g daily at onset of cold; At onset of cold and following two days; trial ran 18 months; vs. Vitamin C 0.03 g as placebo versus 1 g, 3 g and 3 g Bio-CDuration of cold symptoms and episodes: no difference (No significant differences were observed in any measure of cold duration or severity between the four medication groups); Cumulative symptom severity scores after 7, 14 and 28 days: no difference (No significant differences were observed in any measure of cold duration or severity between the four medication groups)
74 Sasazuki et al. 2006randomised controlled · 244 participantsOral vitamin C; 50 mg/day (low) or 500 mg/day (high); 5 years; vs. 50 mg versus 500 mg vitamin CFrequency of common colds (per 1000 person-months): improved (21.3 and 17.1); Relative risk of three or more common colds: improved (0.34 (0.12-0.97)); Severity of common cold: no difference

Further studies in this area: 75 81 159 161 183 187

Vitamin C and Immune Function: Human Studies

In severe infections and sepsis, a systematic review describes individual studies with favorable effects on the immune response, but no consistent clinical benefit 46. A small randomized controlled pilot study in septic shock found higher neutrophil counts with intravenous L-ascorbic acid than with placebo 118. A randomized controlled study in healthy individuals found better uptake into plasma and white blood cells for a liposomal preparation than for standard vitamin C 132. No difference was shown in acute graft-versus-host disease after stem cell transplantation with intravenous, then oral L-ascorbic acid 125. Larger studies with immune measures as the primary aim are still pending.

StudyDesign · participantsPreparation · dose · duration · comparisonResult
27 Langlois et al. 2019meta-analysis · 1,322 participantsVitamin C, enteral or parenteral, sometimes with other antioxidants; vs. Placebo or noneIncident infections: no difference
46 Thakare et al. 2024systematic reviewParenteral vitamin C; vs. Heterogeneous study designs; controls not uniformImmune function: improved
86 Ahn et al. 2026randomised controlled · 120 participantsAptamin C (vitamin C-aptamer conjugate) vs. placebo; 36.057 mg/day; 4 weeks; vs. Placebo in RCT; in vitro vitamin C in NK-92 cellsNK cell cytotoxicity: improved (significant increases in NK cell cytotoxicity after 2 and 4 weeks); serum cytokines and cytotoxic granules: improved (peaked 4 weeks after Aptamin C intake); NK cell activity in participants older than 40 years: improved
118 Rosengrave et al. 2022randomised controlled · 40 participantsintravenous vitamin C versus 5% dextrose (placebo); 25 mg/kg body weight every 6 h; up to 96 h or until death/discharge; vs. placebo (intravenous 5% dextrose)neutrophil counts: unclear (elevated in the vitamin C group relative to placebo by 72 h (p = 0.01))
125 Heidari et al. 2026randomised controlled · 31 participantsIntravenous then oral vitamin C versus placebo; 50 mg/kg/day i.v. (day +1 to +14), then 500 mg/day orally to day +100; up to day +100 post-transplant; vs. Placebo (triple-blind)Acute graft-versus-host disease: no difference (33% vs. 44%)
133 Van et al. 2026randomised controlled · 26 participantsVitamin C (form not specified); 1000 mg/day; 4 months; vs. Placebo, crossover, double-blindInnate immune system underrepresented in pathway enrichment: unclear
149 Sim et al. 2025randomised controlledVitamin C or placebo, oral; 500 mg vitamin C twice daily; 4 weeks; vs. Placebo (n = 19)Inflammatory response (e.g. serum LPS, IL-10, classical monocytes): improved

Vitamin C and Iron Absorption from Food: Human Studies

In young children, an ascorbic acid addition to iron-zinc sprinkles did not change iron absorption in a randomized controlled trial 98. In iron deficiency anemia, hemoglobin increased more under plant iron with vitamin C from amla and under iron alone than under placebo 90. Whether the vitamin C addition provides its own benefit remains open. The strength of evidence is unclear: only one small controlled trial tested the vitamin C addition alone, a meta-analysis is lacking.

StudyDesign · participantsPreparation · dose · duration · comparisonResult
98 Zlotkin et al. 2006randomised controlled · 75 participantsSprinkles containing iron, zinc and ascorbic acid; 50 mg ascorbic acid, 30 mg iron, 5 or 10 mg zinc; Blood sampling at 48 h and 14 days; vs. Groups with 5 vs. 10 mg zinc; with vs. without ascorbic acidpercentage iron absorption: no difference (5.9%; min-max: 0.8-21); percentage iron absorption (zinc groups vs. control): no difference (5.0%; min-max: 1.4-24)

Vitamin C: Further Outcomes in Studies

In this area, many controlled trials and meta-analyses have been conducted on very different questions; the strength of evidence is high, but the results are mixed. In intensive care patients overall, a meta-analysis saw lower overall mortality with oral or intravenous administration, which is not yet secured 4; an older meta-analysis found no difference 27. In type 2 diabetes, two meta-analyses found better values for long-term blood sugar and fasting blood sugar 2048. After gallbladder surgery, high-dose oral vitamin C did not alleviate pain 71; after joint replacement, according to a meta-analysis, it reduced morphine consumption, but not pain scores 28. For cancer prevention, a meta-analysis of large studies found no difference 3. Statements on precisely defined dosages, on transferability to well-supplied individuals, and on forms such as sodium ascorbate, calcium ascorbate, ascorbyl palmitate and liposomal preparations remain open.

StudyDesign · participantsPreparation · dose · duration · comparisonResult
1 An et al. 2022meta-analysis · 883,627 participantsVitamin C supplementation (form not reported); 4,895,544 person-years; vs. Placebo or controlCardiovascular or type 2 diabetes risk: no difference (no effect on CVD or type 2 diabetes risk)
2 Nguyen et al. 2026meta-analysis · 673,624 participantsVitamin C; vs. Control group, various interventionsIschemic stroke: improved
3 Lee et al. 2015meta-analysis · 62,619 participantsvitamin C supplements, some combined with other supplements; vs. placebo or controlcancer incidence (risk): no difference (relative risk, 1.00; 95% confidence intervals, 0.95-1.05); cancer mortality: no difference
4 Xu et al. 2023meta-analysis · 26,540 participantsVitamin C oral or intravenous (monotherapy); vs. placebo or no therapyall-cause mortality: improved (p = 0.009, RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, I2 = 36%)
13 Lee et al. 2023meta-analysis · 2,130 participantsIntravenous vitamin C monotherapy; higher (≥ 10,000 mg/day) vs lower dose; longer (> 4 days) vs shorter; vs. placebo/control; subgroups by dose, sepsis, timingmortality in trials with lower control mortality (≤ 37.5%): no difference (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68-1.16)
15 Li et al. 2026meta-analysis · 2,104 participantsHigh-dose vitamin C (administration route not specified); not reported; not reported; vs. Placebo/untreated controls in the included RCTsMortality (all-cause): no difference (OR 0.97[95% CI 0.80-1.18, P = 0.76])
20 Nosratabadi et al. 2023meta-analysis · 1,447 participantsVitamin C supplements (ascorbic acid); high-dose ≥1000 mg/day in subgroups; long-term ≥12 weeks; vs. untreated controlsSerum HbA1c: improved; Fasting insulin: improved; Fasting blood glucose (FBG): improved
25 Vosoughi et al. 2026systematic review · 1,364 participantsperioperative vitamin C (ascorbic acid); varied across studies (heterogeneous dose, route, timing); vs. placebo or control in included RCTspostoperative pain: no difference; blood loss: no difference; functional recovery: no difference

Further studies in this area: 26 27 28 29 33 34 36 38 39 41 42 43 44 45 48 51 53 60 64 68 71 73 76 79 80 82 83 89 93 94 97 99 101 102 106 108 109 111 112 113 114 116 121 123 125 128 130 131 133 136 138 139 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 156 160 162 163 166 169 170 172 173 174 175 177 179 183 184 185 188 189

4. How Is Vitamin C Dosed? Preparation, Dose and Duration in Studies

The studies predominantly used oral L-ascorbic acid as a tablet, capsule or powder as well as intravenous infusions, in addition sodium ascorbate and topical preparations. Individual controlled studies tested liposomal preparations and ascorbyl palmitate. The doses, durations and comparison groups differ considerably between the studies.

Preparation or formDoseDurationStudy
Vitamin C combined with vitamin E and selenium (vitamin arm); factorial design with garlic and H. pylori arms—7.3 years supplementation, 14.7 years follow-up56
Vitamin C plus vitamin E plus selenium (oral supplements)—7.3 years57
Oral vitamin C (pure ascorbic acid) vs placebo6000 mg/day (vitamin C), 0 mg/day (placebo)30 days58
1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1L-PEGA) vs. sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SPMC)—split-dose regimen before colonoscopy59
Vitamin C as ascorbic acid orally1000 mg dailyuntil delivery60
Oral antioxidant mixture with 500 mg vitamin C plus vitamin E and β-carotene500 mg vitamin C, 400 IU vitamin E, 15 mg β-carotene—61
intravenous vitamin C50 mg per kilogram body weight every 6 hoursup to 96 hours62
Intravenous vitamin C (ascorbic acid)50 mg/kg body weight every 6 hours4 days63
2% topical vitamin C solution vs 10% N-acetylcysteine vs 0.9% saline2% vitamin C solution, applied topicallysymptoms assessed at 15 and 30 minutes64
perioperative antioxidants: vitamin C plus N-acetylcysteine vs. placebo—perioperative, 1-year follow-up65
PEG/ascorbic acid (PEGA), sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC), oral sulfate formula (SIR)—single- or split-dose before colonoscopy66
intravenous vitamin C 1.5 g plus thiamine 100 mg plus hydrocortisone 50 mg1.5 g vitamin C every 6 hours96 hours or until ICU discharge or death67
High-dose intravenous vitamin C plus FOLFOX ± bevacizumab1.5 g/kg/d, 3-hour infusion on days 1-3—68
Vitamin C plus hydrocortisone and thiaminevitamin C 2 g every 6 h, hydrocortisone 200 mg daily, thiamine 200 mg every 12 h5 days or until ICU discharge69
Oral vitamin C, 0.03 g ('placebo'), 1 g, 3 g, or 3 g with additives ('Bio-C')0.03 g, 1 g or 3 g daily at onset of coldAt onset of cold and following two days; trial ran 18 months70

5. Is Vitamin C Safe? Side Effects in Studies

Meta-analyses found no increased adverse events with intravenous vitamin C 12 and with the mixture with thiamine and hydrocortisone 1121. Another meta-analysis, by contrast, saw more adverse events 9. Nausea, vomiting, hypotension and tachycardia were mentioned occasionally 45. Reviews describe oxalate nephropathy and hemolysis in G6PD deficiency at very high or repeated doses 3940. After liver transplantation, kidney failure occurred more often with ascorbic acid than with placebo in a small study 121.

StudyReported side effects
9 Liang et al. 2023Higher rate of adverse events with IVVC
11 Deng et al. 2024No increase in adverse events versus placebo/standard of care
12 Patel et al. 2022No trial reported increased adverse events
14 Martimbianco et al. 2022little to no difference or very uncertain evidence
15 Li et al. 2026not reported
18 Sato et al. 2021one study: hypernatremia; adverse effects rare, deemed relatively safe
21 Yao et al. 2021no statistical differences in adverse events
25 Vosoughi et al. 2026no major safety concerns identified
30 Zayed et al. 2022acute kidney injury (incidence, no difference)
35 Tsokkou et al. 2026safe, no serious adverse events reported
38 Abid et al. 2026no significant differences reported
39 Alangari et al. 2026Oxalate nephropathy, hemolysis in G6PD deficiency, especially with very large or repeated doses

6. What Remains Open: Limits of the Evidence

  • The optimal dose, the timing and the duration of administration are open for most areas.
  • The transferability to well-supplied individuals without deficiency is not clarified.
  • Many studies investigated combination preparations whose findings cannot be attributed to vitamin C alone.
  • Long-term effects and dose-response relationships are hardly studied.
  • The comparison of different vitamin C forms (ascorbic acid, sodium ascorbate, liposomal form) with one another is still largely pending.

7. Bottom Line: What Is Established About Vitamin C

Vitamin C is an essential water-soluble vitamin that the body cannot produce itself. Human studies show benefits for colds, especially a shorter duration with regular intake, and indications from small studies of better wound and skin healing. For oxidative stress and inflammation, the results are mixed: some studies found lower inflammation markers, others no difference. In sepsis, the picture is inconsistent: some meta-analyses report a lower mortality, others no difference, and the largest single study saw rather disadvantages. Combination preparations with other substances do not allow a conclusion about vitamin C alone. The tolerability is considered predominantly good; at very high doses, oxalate nephropathy and hemolysis in G6PD deficiency are described.

Frequently Asked Questions

How well has Vitamin C been studied in humans?

We evaluated 252 human studies on Vitamin C, including 160 randomised controlled trials and 63 meta-analyses or systematic reviews; the controlled studies include 26,210 participants in total. As of 13 October 2026.

Does Vitamin C help with sepsis and critical care? What the studies show

We evaluated 17 meta-analyses or systematic reviews, 24 controlled studies and 18 further studies; the controlled studies include 3,389 participants in total. Result of the controlled studies: mixed. Strength of evidence under our published rules: high. Sources: 4567

Does Vitamin C help with oxidative stress and antioxidant status? What the studies show

We evaluated 5 meta-analyses or systematic reviews, 24 controlled studies and 2 further studies; the controlled studies include 1,147 participants in total. Result of the controlled studies: mixed. Strength of evidence under our published rules: high. Sources: 25283739

Does Vitamin C help with skin and connective tissue? What the studies show

We evaluated 3 meta-analyses or systematic reviews, 10 controlled studies and 2 further studies; the controlled studies include 262 participants in total. Result of the controlled studies: mixed. Strength of evidence under our published rules: high. Sources: 424750106

Does Vitamin C help with common cold and respiratory infections? What the studies show

We evaluated 5 meta-analyses or systematic reviews, 7 controlled studies and 2 further studies; the controlled studies include 2,445 participants in total. Result of the controlled studies: mixed. Strength of evidence under our published rules: high. Sources: 4165254

Does Vitamin C help with immune function? What the studies show

We evaluated one meta-analysis or systematic review, 5 controlled studies and one further study; the controlled studies include 217 participants in total. Result of the controlled studies: mixed. Strength of evidence under our published rules: high. Sources: 274686118

Does Vitamin C help with iron absorption from food? What the studies show

We evaluated one controlled study; the controlled studies include 75 participants in total. Result of the controlled studies: mostly no difference. Strength of evidence under our published rules: unclear. Sources: 98

Does vitamin C help against colds?

Regularly taken vitamin C shortened colds in placebo studies 55, and recruits fell ill less often with vitamin C 58; intake only from the start of a cold showed inconsistent results 5470. The studies tested orally taken ascorbic acid; above all, it remains open which dose and which start of intake help most.

Which vitamin C forms were investigated?

Most frequently, L-ascorbic acid was tested orally as a tablet, capsule or powder as well as intravenously as an infusion. In addition, sodium ascorbate, topical preparations and, in individual studies, liposomal preparations were used. Ascorbyl palmitate was investigated only occasionally.

How safe is vitamin C?

Meta-analyses mostly found no increased adverse events 111221, one meta-analysis, by contrast, did 9. Nausea, vomiting, hypotension and tachycardia were mentioned occasionally 45. At very high or repeated doses, reviews describe oxalate nephropathy and hemolysis in G6PD deficiency 3940.

Does vitamin C show a benefit in sepsis?

The picture is mixed: meta-analyses found partly a lower mortality, especially without adjunctive agents 412131931, others found no confirmed difference 81622. The largest single study saw death or persistent organ failure combined more often with vitamin C than with placebo 62. Several reviews report a shorter vasopressor duration 816192231. The optimal dose, the timing and which patient groups benefit remain open.

What do studies on oxidative stress show?

Administration reliably raised the vitamin C level in the blood 94117118125; the isoprostanes as a measure of oxidative stress nevertheless did not fall in septic shock 117. For cytokines and CRP, some studies found improvements 951161467628, others no difference 12178.

Sources

  1. 1
    An P, Wan S, Luo Y, Luo J, Zhang X, Zhou S et al. · 2022
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
    Brown J, Robertson C, Sevilla L, Garza J, Rashid H, Benitez AC et al. · 2022
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
    Patel JJ, Ortiz-Reyes A, Dhaliwal R, Clarke J, Hill A, Stoppe C et al. · 2022
  13. 13
  14. 14
    Martimbianco ALC, Pacheco RL, Bagattini ÂM, de Fátima Carreira Moreira Padovez R, Azevedo LCP, Riera R · 2022
  15. 15
  16. 16
  17. 17
  18. 18
  19. 19
  20. 20
    Nosratabadi S, Ashtary-Larky D, Hosseini F, Namkhah Z, Mohammadi S, Salamat S et al. · 2023
  21. 21
  22. 22
  23. 23
  24. 24
  25. 25
  26. 26
  27. 27
    Langlois PL, Manzanares W, Adhikari NKJ, Lamontagne F, Stoppe C, Hill A et al. · 2019
  28. 28
  29. 29
  30. 30
  31. 31
  32. 32
  33. 33
  34. 34
  35. 35
    Tsokkou S, Matsas A, Konstantinidis I, Karopoulou E, Papamitsou T, Stamoula E · 2026
  36. 36
  37. 37
  38. 38
    Abid H, Mushtaq I, Munir ABI, Shakil J, Vinjamuri S, Tadasare N et al. · 2026
  39. 39
  40. 40
    Ahmed R, Shetty S, Aziz Khan MQ, Kalsoom I, Qasim S, Khan SB et al. · 2026
  41. 41
  42. 42
  43. 43
  44. 44
  45. 45
  46. 46
  47. 47
    Topical Treatments for Melasma and Their Mechanism of Action
    González-Molina V, Martí-Pineda A, González N · 2022
  48. 48
  49. 49
    Guideline committee of The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020, Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine, Japanese Association for Acute Medicine · 2022
  50. 50
  51. 51
    Borges L, Gennari-Felipe M, Dias BB, Hatanaka E · 2021
  52. 52
  53. 53
  54. 54
  55. 55
  56. 56
  57. 57
  58. 58
  59. 59
  60. 60
  61. 61
    Keenan TDL, Agrón E, Keane PA, Domalpally A, Chew EY, Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group et al. · 2025
  62. 62
    Lamontagne F, Masse MH, Menard J, Sprague S, Pinto R, Heyland DK et al. · 2022
  63. 63
    Müller MM, Pinto R, Lamontagne F, Adhikari NKJ, Del Sorbo L, Lessening Organ Dysfunction With Vitamin C (LOVIT) Investigators · 2025
  64. 64
  65. 65
  66. 66
    Comparison of efficacy of low-volume bowel cleansers prior to colonoscopy: a randomised, prospective, open-label trial
    Kojecký V, Matouš J, Kianička B, Zádorová Z, Varga M · 2019
  67. 67
  68. 68
  69. 69
  70. 70
  71. 71
  72. 72
  73. 73
    Rozemeijer S, Dubois EA, de Grooth HJ, den Uil CA, Rettig TCD, Rijpstra TA et al. · 2026
  74. 74
    Sasazuki S, Sasaki S, Tsubono Y, Okubo S, Hayashi M, Tsugane S · 2006
  75. 75
  76. 76
  77. 77
  78. 78
  79. 79
  80. 80
  81. 81
  82. 82
    Shorey-Kendrick LE, McEvoy CT, Milner K, Harris J, Brownsberger J, Tepper RS et al. · 2025
  83. 83
  84. 84
  85. 85
    Wacker DA, Burton SL, Berger JP, Hegg AJ, Heisdorffer J, Wang Q et al. · 2022
  86. 86
  87. 87
  88. 88
  89. 89
  90. 90
  91. 91
  92. 92
  93. 93
  94. 94
    Mahmoodpoor A, Shadvar K, Sanaie S, Hadipoor MR, Pourmoghaddam MA, Saghaleini SH · 2021
  95. 95
    Files DC, Matthay MA, Ware LB, Brower RG, Aggarwal NR, Brown SM et al. · 2025
  96. 96
  97. 97
  98. 98
  99. 99
  100. 100
  101. 101
  102. 102
    Khakifirooz B, Mashak B, Hashemnejad M, Abdullahi S, Miri M, Amirpour-Kondelji F et al. · 2026
  103. 103
  104. 104
    Synchronizing positive effect of vitamin C and chromium on hyper lipidemia, hyperglycemia, liver enzymes and BMI of diabetes mellitus type 2 patients
    Sabar N, Hussain MI, Saleem H, Khan MA, Khalid H, Kanwal Z et al. · 2024
  105. 105
  106. 106
  107. 107
    Zhang J, Rao X, Li Y, Zhu Y, Liu F, Guo G et al. · 2021
  108. 108
  109. 109
  110. 110
    Hellou E, Mohsin J, Elemy A, Hakim F, Mustafa-Hellou M, Hamoud S · 2022
  111. 111
  112. 112
  113. 113
  114. 114
  115. 115
  116. 116
  117. 117
  118. 118
    Rosengrave P, Spencer E, Williman J, Mehrtens J, Morgan S, Doyle T et al. · 2022
  119. 119
  120. 120
  121. 121
    Gajate Martín L, de la Hoz I, Martín M, Fernández C, Martín Grande A, Parise D et al. · 2025
  122. 122
  123. 123
    Bodeker KL, Smith BJ, Berg DJ, Chandrasekharan C, Sharif S, Fei N et al. · 2024
  124. 124
  125. 125
  126. 126
    Tajari F, Toloue Ghamari B, Jafari Kafiabadi M, Shariatzade H, Biglari F, Mahmoudi Nasab O et al. · 2026
  127. 127
  128. 128
  129. 129
  130. 130
  131. 131
  132. 132
  133. 133
  134. 134
  135. 135
  136. 136
  137. 137
  138. 138
  139. 139
  140. 140
    Martins ML, da Silva AT, Machado RP, Ramos HP, Martinelli C, Silveira TT et al. · 2021
  141. 141
  142. 142
  143. 143
    Protective Effects of an Advanced Antioxidant Serum and an Encapsulated Vitamin C Serum From UV-Induced Erythema and Oxidative Stress
    Amini-Nik S, Law RM, Bhardwaj V, Lynch S, Nelson DB · 2026
  144. 144
  145. 145
  146. 146
    Nastos GG, Lolli L, Atkinson G, Theodorou AA, Paschalis V, Kyparos A et al. · 2026
  147. 147
    Gutierrez AD, Duran-Valdez E, Robinson I, de Serna DG, Schade DS · 2013
  148. 148
    Leelasawatsuk P, Supanimitjaroenporn P, Rodsom N, Wongkittithaworn T, Tangthongkum M · 2026
  149. 149
  150. 150
    Hosseini-Monfared P, Mirahmadi A, Sarzaeem MM, Pourshahryari S, Aminnia P, Poursalehian M et al. · 2025
  151. 151
    Tepper RS, Milner K, Harris J, Lee B, Cunningham M, Tiller C et al. · 2025
  152. 152
    Azevedo Filho FAS, Blunck RM, Ali AY, Fucs PMMB, Cotias RB · 2025
  153. 153
  154. 154
    LOVIT-COVID Investigators, on behalf of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group, and the REMAP-CAP Investigators, Adhikari NKJ, Hashmi M, Tirupakuzhi Vijayaraghavan BK et al. · 2023
  155. 155
  156. 156
  157. 157
  158. 158
  159. 159
    JamaliMoghadamSiahkali S, Zarezade B, Koolaji S, SeyedAlinaghi S, Zendehdel A, Tabarestani M et al. · 2021
  160. 160
  161. 161
  162. 162
  163. 163
    Ingwersen LC, Kistenmacher A, Melchert UH, Oltmanns KM · 2025
  164. 164
  165. 165
  166. 166
  167. 167
  168. 168
    Legouis D, Monard C, Ourahmoune A, Sgardello S, Quintard H, Criton G et al. · 2024
  169. 169
    Kanji S, Hernández-Mitre MP, Blain H, Adhikari NKJ, Lamontagne F, Battista MC et al. · 2026
  170. 170
  171. 171
  172. 172
  173. 173
    Padayatty SJ, Riordan HD, Hewitt SM, Katz A, Hoffer LJ, Levine M · 2006
  174. 174
    Mack E, Rau C, Otet C, Schäfer JA, Brendel C, Grass A et al. · 2025
  175. 175
  176. 176
    Angriman F, Muttalib F, Lamontagne F, Adhikari NKJ, LOVIT Investigators · 2023
  177. 177
  178. 178
    Radke DI, Homayr AL, Stoppe C, Elke G · 2023
  179. 179
  180. 180
    Kazemeini S, Nadeem-Tariq A, Luthra A, Suha R, Turna A, Easterly J et al. · 2025
  181. 181
    Alissa A, Alrashed MA, Alshaya AI, Al Sulaiman K, Alharbi S · 2024
  182. 182
  183. 183
    de Man A, Long MT, Stoppe C · 2024
  184. 184
    Stoppe C, Dresen E, de Man A · 2024
  185. 185
  186. 186
    Ammar MA, Ammar AA, Condeni MS, Bell CM · 2021
  187. 187
    Hemilä H, de Man AME · 2020
  188. 188
    Ageing, inorganic nitrate and vitamin C : effects on markers of cardiovascular risk
    Ashor AW · 2017
  189. 189

Every statement on this page carries its evidence tier — proven, plausible or hypothesis — and leads to the original work. The decision in the individual case rests with the practitioner; we provide the connections.

International Health Research · https://ih-research.com/en/knowledge/vitamin-c/ · Last updated: 2026-10-15