Vitamin D supplementation for the treatment of COVID-19: a living systematic review

Impact of vitamin D on COVID-19 and other viral diseases

This editorial aims to elucidate the intricate relationship between vitamin D and viral pathogenesis. It explores the anticipated role of vitamin D as a modulator in the immune response against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and other viral pathogens. The editorial comments are based on the review article by Engin et al. The potential role of vitamin D in modulating immune responses has been highlighted by several studies, suggesting that it may influence both the risk and severity of infections. Vitamin D receptors are present in immunocompetent cells, which indicates that vitamin D can potentially modulate innate and adaptive immune responses. This context is relevant in the pathophysiology of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), where the immune response to the virus can significantly impact the disease progression and outcome. The immunomodulatory effects of vitamin D can protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection by enhancing innate and adaptive immune responses. It also maintains the integrity of the body's physical barriers and modulates inflammatory responses, thereby preventing entry and replication of the virus. Many studies have suggested that adequate vitamin D levels help alleviate morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19. Furthermore, vitamin D supplementation has been linked with a lower risk of severe disease and mortality in COVID-19 patients, particularly in those with a deficiency during seasons with less sunlight exposure.

Clinical Course and Factors Associated With Hospital Admission and Mortality among Sars-Cov 2 Patients within Nairobi Metropolitan Area

This study aims to investigate the clinical course and factors associated with hospital admission and mortality among SARS-CoV-2 patients within the Nairobi Metropolitan Area. The study utilizes a multicenter retrospective cohort design, collecting clinical characteristics and laboratory parameters of hospitalized patients from March 2020 to May 2022. Data analysis includes percentages, frequencies, chi-square tests, Kaplan-Meier analysis, pairwise comparisons, and multivariate regression models. Ethical considerations are observed throughout the research process. The study findings highlight significant associations between comorbidities, such as hypertension, and increased mortality risk due to COVID-19. Symptoms including fever, cough, dyspnea, chest pain, sore throat, and loss of smell/taste are also identified as predictors of mortality. Abnormal laboratory parameters, such as oxygen saturation, procalcitonin, glucose levels, serum creatinine, and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, are associated with mortality. However, demographic factors and certain vital signs do not exhibit significant associations. Recommendations based on this study suggest increased monitoring and management of comorbidities, early identification and management of symptoms, regular monitoring of laboratory parameters, continued research and collaboration, and implementation of preventive measures. Overall, a multidisciplinary approach involving healthcare professionals, researchers, policymakers, and the public is crucial to improve COVID-19 outcomes and reduce mortality rates. Adaptation of strategies based on emerging evidence and resource allocation is essential for effective management of the pandemic.

Exploring trial publication and research waste in COVID-19 randomised trials of hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids, and vitamin D: a meta-epidemiological cohort study

BACKGROUND

The global research response to the COVID-19 pandemic was impressive, but also led to an infodemic and considerable research waste. Registered, but unpublished trials added to this noise. We aimed to determine the proportion of registered randomised trials of common COVID-19 treatments that were published and to describe the characteristics of these trials to examine the association between trial characteristics, publication status and research waste.

METHODS

This meta-epidemiological cohort study used a sample of randomised trials of corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine or vitamin D as treatments for COVID-19, registered between 1 November 2019 and 31 December 2021 and available via the WHO ICTRP portal. We searched for the trials' published results up to 20 October 2022. We extracted the trial characteristics, analysing with descriptive statistics. We performed univariate logistic regression to examine the association between trials' characteristics and publication status, followed by multiple logistic regression using significant characteristics to assess the association between trial characteristics and publication status.

RESULTS

We identified 357 eligible trials on ICTRP. Of these, 107 (30%) had published or made their results available publicly by 20 October 2022, while 250 (70%) had not been published or shared their results publicly. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that a larger target sample size was a significant positive predictor of publication with target sample sizes above 300 almost tripling the odds of publication (aOR: 2.75, 95% CI: 1.35 to 5.62).

CONCLUSIONS

Less than one third of registered trials made their results public and our findings identified that many trialists had not updated their trial registry entry with the trial status, results or both. Failure to share trial results publicly is a disservice to patients, clinicians and policy makers and adds to research waste.

Vitamin D status and clinical implications in the adult population of Malaysia: a position paper by the Malaysian Vitamin D Special Interest Group

PURPOSE

Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency is common among populations globally, and in Asia and Malaysia. The purpose of this Position Paper is to propose recommendations for both clinicians and non-clinicians to promote vitamin D sufficiency in Malaysian adults. Formation of a national multisector, multidisciplinary alliance is also proposed to progress initiatives relating to safe sun exposure, adequate vitamin D intake through food fortification, and vitamin D supplementation for high-risk groups.

METHODS

Literature reviews were undertaken to inform summaries of the following: vitamin D status globally and in Asian and Malaysian populations, vitamin D status among individuals with common medical conditions, and current recommendations to achieve vitamin D sufficiency through sun exposure, food intake and supplementation. Recommendations were based on the findings of the literature reviews, recent European guidance on vitamin D supplementation, the 2018 road map for action on vitamin D in low- and middle-income countries, and research recommendations proposed by the Malaysian Ministry of Health in 2017.

RESULTS

Recommendations on assessment of vitamin D in the adult Malaysian population include using serum or plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration as a biomarker, widespread participation by Malaysian laboratories in the Vitamin D Standardization Program, adoption of the US Endocrine Society definitions of vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency, and development of a comprehensive nationwide vitamin D status study. Specific high-risk groups are identified for vitamin D assessment and recommendations relating to loading doses and ongoing management are also made.

CONCLUSION

This Position Paper provides individual clinicians and national stakeholder organisations with clear recommendations to achieve vitamin D sufficiency in the adult population of Malaysia.

Quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs: systematic review

Objective

To assess the quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) harms extension and according to clinical trial design, and to examine reporting of serious adverse events in drug trials published on PubMed versus clinical trial summaries on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov registries were searched from 1 December 2019 to 17 February 2022.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Randomised clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19 disease in participants of all ages with suspected, probable, or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Clinical trials were screened on title, abstract, and text by two authors independently. Only articles published in French and English were selected. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used to assess risk of bias.

Results

The search strategy identified 1962 randomised clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19, published in the PubMed database; 1906 articles were excluded after screening and 56 clinical trials were included in the review. Among the 56 clinical trials, no study had a high score for quality of reporting of adverse events, 60.7% had a moderate score, 33.9% had a low score, and 5.4% had a very low score. All clinical trials with a very low score for quality of reporting of adverse events were randomised open label trials. For reporting of serious adverse events, journal articles published on PubMed under-reported 51% of serious adverse events compared with clinical trial summaries published on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Conclusions

In one in three published clinical trials on covid-19 drugs, the quality of reporting of adverse events was low or very low. Differences were found in the number of serious adverse events reported in journal articles versus clinical trial summaries. During the covid-19 pandemic, risk assessment of drugs in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs did not comply with good practice recommendations for publication of results.

Systematic review registration

European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) EUPAS45959.

Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of living systematic reviews (LSRs) on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while the secondary objective is to investigate potential factors that may influence the overall quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

METHODS

Six representative databases, including Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) were systematically searched for COVID-19 LSRs. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and then assessed the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2" (AMSTAR-2) tool and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) 2020 statement, respectively. Univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression were used to explore eight potential factors that might affect the methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

RESULTS

A total of 64 COVID-19 LSRs were included. The AMSTAR-2 evaluation results revealed that the number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 13 ± 2.68 (mean ± standard deviation). Among them, 21.9% COVID-19 LSRs were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low". The evaluation results of the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that the sections with poor adherence were methods, results and other information. The number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 21 ± 4.18 (mean ± standard deviation). The number of included studies and registration are associated with better methodological quality; the number of included studies and funding are associated with better reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement is needed in the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Researchers conducting COVID-19 LSRs should take note of the quality-related factors identified in this study to generate evidence-based evidence of higher quality.

Micronutrient perspective on COVID-19: Umbrella review and reanalysis of meta-analyses

INTRODUCTION

Micronutrients are clinically important in managing COVID-19, and numerous studies have been conducted, but inconsistent findings exist.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the association between micronutrients and COVID-19.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus for study search on July 30, 2022 and October 15, 2022. Literature selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed in a double-blinded, group discussion format. Meta-analysis with overlapping associations were reconsolidated using random effects models, and narrative evidence was performed in tabular presentations.

RESULTS

57 reviews and 57 latest original studies were included. 21 reviews and 53 original studies were of moderate to high quality. Vitamin D, vitamin B, zinc, selenium, and ferritin levels differed between patients and healthy people. Vitamin D and zinc deficiencies increased COVID-19 infection by 0.97-fold/0.39-fold and 1.53-fold. Vitamin D deficiency increased severity 0.86-fold, while low vitamin B and selenium levels reduced severity. Vitamin D and calcium deficiencies increased ICU admission by 1.09 and 4.09-fold. Vitamin D deficiency increased mechanical ventilation by 0.4-fold. Vitamin D, zinc, and calcium deficiencies increased COVID-19 mortality by 0.53-fold, 0.46-fold, and 5.99-fold, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The associations between vitamin D, zinc, and calcium deficiencies and adverse evolution of COVID-19 were positive, while the association between vitamin C and COVID-19 was insignificant.REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022353953.

Three out of four published systematic reviews on COVID-19 treatments were not registered and one-third of those registered were published: a meta-research study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to describe (1) registered and (2) published systematic reviews (SRs) on COVID-19 treatments, and to analyze (3) the proportion of publications among registered SRs and (4) the proportion of registrations among published SRs.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This meta-research study (CRD42021240423) is part of CEOsys (http://www.covid-evidenz.de/). Two reviewers identified protocols in PROSPERO (registered January 2020 to September 2020) and SRs published as preprint or peer-reviewed article in L·OVE (Living OVerview of the Evidence) COVID-19 (by May 2021). SRs of all types assessing COVID-19 treatments in humans were included.

RESULTS

We included 239 PROSPERO protocols and 346 SRs published in L·OVE. In both samples, the affiliation of the corresponding author with an Asian institution, standard SR as review type, and meta-analysis as synthesis method were the most frequent characteristics. Living SRs made up ≤10%. A total of 71 of 239 (29.7%) PROSPERO protocols were published as SR by February 2022, that is, after at least 17 months of follow-up (25 of 71 as preprints, 35.2%). In L·OVE, 261 of 346 (75.4%) SRs published by May 2021 were not registered in PROSPERO.

CONCLUSION

Overall, one-third PROSPERO protocols were published and three-fourth published SRs were not registered. We strongly encourage authors to register and publish their SRs promptly to reduce research waste and to allocate resources efficiently during the pandemic and beyond.

Association between vitamin D supplementation and COVID-19 infection and mortality

Vitamin D deficiency has long been associated with reduced immune function that can lead to viral infection. Several studies have shown that Vitamin D deficiency is associated with increases the risk of infection with COVID-19. However, it is unknown if treatment with Vitamin D can reduce the associated risk of COVID-19 infection, which is the focus of this study. In the population of US veterans, we show that Vitamin D₂ and D₃ fills were associated with reductions in COVID-19 infection of 28% and 20%, respectively [(D₃ Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.80, [95% CI 0.77, 0.83]), D₂ HR = 0.72, [95% CI 0.65, 0.79]]. Mortality within 30-days of COVID-19 infection was similarly 33% lower with Vitamin D₃ and 25% lower with D₂ (D₃ HR = 0.67, [95% CI 0.59, 0.75]; D₂ HR = 0.75, [95% CI 0.55, 1.04]). We also find that after controlling for vitamin D blood levels, veterans receiving higher dosages of Vitamin D obtained greater benefits from supplementation than veterans receiving lower dosages. Veterans with Vitamin D blood levels between 0 and 19 ng/ml exhibited the largest decrease in COVID-19 infection following supplementation. Black veterans received greater associated COVID-19 risk reductions with supplementation than White veterans. As a safe, widely available, and affordable treatment, Vitamin D may help to reduce the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The effect of Ni gella sativa and vitamin D3 supplementation on the clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a novel coronavirus that causes severe infection in the respiratory system. Since the immune status plays an essential role in combating COVID-19, herbal medicines, which have an immunomodulatory effect, may help prevent and even treat COVID-19. Nigella sativa is one of the herbal medicines with antiviral and immunomodulatory activities, and its therapeutic effectiveness makes it a promising add-on therapy for COVID-19. In addition, vitamin D3 has an immunomodulatory role, but the effect of therapeutic vitamin D3 supplementation in SARS-CoV-2 infection is still not well-known. Objective: This study aims to investigate the effects of Nigella sativa and vitamin D3 as single supplemental therapies and in combination on viral clearance indicated by a negative polymerase chain reaction and the alleviation of symptoms during the study follow-up duration of 14 days. Patients and Methods: The study design was an open-label randomized controlled clinical trial conducted at the Respiratory Hospital at the Kobry El Qobba Armed Forces Medical Complex. In total, 120 COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate symptoms were randomly assigned to four groups, with thirty patients each, as follows: Group 1 received an oral dose of 900 mg Nigella sativa through 450 mg soft gelatin capsules twice daily for two weeks; Group 2 received 2,000 IU of vitamin D3 through 1000-IU tablets given as two tablets, once daily; Group 3 received 900 mg of Nigella sativa and 2,000 IU of vitamin D3 in the same manner of dosing as in the previous groups; and Group 4 was the control group. All groups received standard therapy for COVID-19 infections and clinical management of COVID-19's clinical symptoms. Results: The Nigella sativa-vitamin D3 combination in addition to the standard therapy for COVID-19 infections significantly contributed to the alleviation of most COVID-19 symptoms: 50% of patients were free of cough after 7 days, 70% showed an absence of fatigue after 4 days, 80% had no headache after 5 days, 90% were free of rhinorrhea after 7 days, and 86.7% of the patients had no dyspnea after 7 days. Moreover, patients in the four studied groups showed a reduced median temperature after 3 days of treatment. Negative results of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test recorded on the 7th and 14th day of therapy were superior in the Nigella sativa and vitamin D3 combination arm compared to those of the other studied arms where the value of the odds ratio (OR) on the 7th day was 0.13 with 95% CI: 0.03-0.45 and that of the 14th day was 0.09 with 95% CI: 0.02-0.3. Conclusion: The results of this study showed a promising therapeutic benefit of the administration of Nigella sativa and vitamin D3 combination in COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate symptoms. Additionally, the remarkable viral clearance in a short time interval and reduction in the severity and progression of symptoms recommended the use of this combination as an add-on therapy for the management of COVID-19 patients. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT04981743.

The Effects of Vitamin D Supplementation in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review

Vitamin D has an immune-modulating effect on respiratory tract infections. For this reason, it has been proposed as part of the treatment in COVID-19. Furthermore, vitamin D deficiency has been associated with worse clinical outcomes of this disease. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether vitamin D supplementation modifies the disease course. Therefore, eleven studies involving randomised clinical trials are analysed, in which groups of COVID-19 patients with or without vitamin D supplementation as part of the treatment are compared. A control group was treated with best available therapy, and in some of the clinical trials, also with a placebo. According to the outcomes, it seems that patients benefit from receiving a daily or maintained in time vitamin D dose regardless of vitamin D serum levels at the beginning of the trial. The administration of a single vitamin D dose does not seem to have any effect on the health status of these patients. However, the outcomes are heterogeneous and larger clinical trials are necessary.

Impact of COVID-19 on the liver and on the care of patients with chronic liver disease, hepatobiliary cancer, and liver transplantation: An updated EASL position paper

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a serious challenge to the hepatology community, particularly healthcare professionals and patients. While the rapid development of safe and effective vaccines and treatments has improved the clinical landscape, the emergence of the omicron variant has presented new challenges. Thus, it is timely that the European Association for the Study of the Liver provides a summary of the latest data on the impact of COVID-19 on the liver and issues guidance on the care of patients with chronic liver disease, hepatobiliary cancer, and previous liver transplantation, as the world continues to deal with the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

What Are the Effects of Vitamin A Oral Supplementation in the Prevention and Management of Viral Infections? A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials

Vitamin A (VA) deficiency is associated with increased host susceptibility to infections, but evidence on its role in the prevention and management of viral infections is still lacking. This review aimed at summarizing the effects of VA supplementation against viral infections to support clinicians in evaluating supplemental treatments. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Randomized clinical trials comparing the direct effects of VA oral supplementation in any form vs. placebo or standard of care in the prevention and/or management of confirmed viral infections in people of any age were included. A narrative synthesis of the results was performed. The revised Cochrane Risk-Of-Bias tool was used to assess quality. Overall, 40 articles of heterogeneous quality were included. We found data on infections sustained by Retroviridae (n = 17), Caliciviradae (n = 2), Flaviviridae (n = 1), Papillomaviridae (n = 3), Pneumoviridae (n = 4), and Paramyxoviridae (n = 13). Studies were published between 1987 and 2017 and mostly conducted in Africa. The findings were heterogeneous across and within viral families regarding virological, immunological, and biological response, and no meaningful results were found in the prevention of viral infections. For a few diseases, VA-supplemented individuals had a better prognosis and improved outcomes, including clearance of HPV lesions or reduction in some measles-related complications. The effects of VA oral supplementation seem encouraging in relation to the management of a few viral infections. Difference in populations considered, variety in recruitment and treatment protocols might explain the heterogeneity of the results. Further investigations are needed to better identify the benefits of VA administration.

Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Fluvoxamine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that has been approved for the treatment of depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a variety of anxiety disorders; it is available as an oral preparation. Fluvoxamine has not been approved for the treatment of infections, but has been used in the early treatment of people with mild to moderate COVID-19. As there are only a few effective therapies for people with COVID-19 in the community, a thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine as an anti-inflammatory and possible anti-viral treatment for COVID-19, based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs), is needed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine in addition to standard care, compared to standard care (alone or with placebo), or any other active pharmacological comparator with proven efficacy for the treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on COVID-19 to identify completed and ongoing studies up to 1 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared fluvoxamine in addition to standard care (also including no intervention), with standard care (alone or with placebo), or any other active pharmacological comparator with proven efficacy in clinical trials for the treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, in both inpatients and outpatients. Co-interventions needed to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing fluvoxamine to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence to treat people with asymptomatic to severe COVID-19 for the primary outcomes including mortality, clinical deterioration, clinical improvement, quality of life, serious adverse events, adverse events of any grade, and suicide or suicide attempt.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two completed studies with a total of 1649 symptomatic participants. One study was conducted in the USA (study with 152 participants, 80 and 72 participants per study arm) and the other study in Brazil (study with 1497 high-risk participants for progression to severe disease, 741 and 756 participants per study arm) among outpatients with mild COVID-19. Both studies were double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in which participants were prescribed 100 mg fluvoxamine two or three times daily for a maximum of 15 days. We identified five ongoing studies and two studies awaiting classification (due to translation issues, and due to missing published data). We found no published studies comparing fluvoxamine to other pharmacological interventions of proven efficacy. We assessed both included studies to have an overall high risk of bias. Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19 in inpatients We did not identify any completed studies of inpatients. Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19 in outpatients Fluvoxamine in addition to standard care may slightly reduce all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.27; risk difference (RD) 9 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may reduce clinical deterioration defined as all-cause hospital admission or death before hospital admission (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.89; RD 57 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain regarding the effect of fluvoxamine on serious adverse events (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.03; RD 54 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or adverse events of any grade (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.37; RD 7 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the studies reported on symptom resolution (clinical improvement), quality of life or suicide/suicide attempt.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on a low-certainty evidence, fluvoxamine may slightly reduce all-cause mortality at day 28, and may reduce the risk of admission to hospital or death in outpatients with mild COVID-19. However, we are very uncertain regarding the effect of fluvoxamine on serious adverse events, or any adverse events. In accordance with the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials as they arise, to complete any gaps in the evidence.

Management and treatment of long COVID symptoms in general practices: An online-based survey

Independent from initial severity, many patients develop persistent symptoms after infection with SARS-CoV-2, described as long COVID syndrome. Most of these patients are treated by general practitioners (GPs). As evidence-based treatment recommendations are still sparse, GPs must make their therapy decisions under uncertainty. We investigated (1) the most frequently observed long COVID symptoms in general practices and (2) GPs' applied treatment and rehabilitation plans for these symptoms. In total, 143 German GPs participated in an online-based survey between 05/2021 and 07/2021. We found that each GP practice was treating on average 12 patients with long COVID symptoms. Most frequently seen symptoms were fatigue and reduced performance. Current therapy options were rated as poor and loss of smell and taste, fatigue, or lack of concentration were perceived to be especially difficult to treat. The use of drug and non-drug therapies and specialist referrals focused primarily on physiological and less on psychosomatic/psychological rehabilitation and followed guidelines of similar conditions. Our results provide first insights into how GPs approach a newly emerging condition in the absence of guidelines, evidence-based recommendations, or approved therapies, and might inform about GP preparedness in future pandemics. Our results also emphasize a gap between the current knowledge of the long COVID manifestation and knowledge about effective rehabilitation.

Administration of vitamin D and its metabolites in critically ill adult patients: an updated systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

The clinical significance of vitamin D administration in critically ill patients remains inconclusive. The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of vitamin D and its metabolites on major clinical outcomes in critically ill patients, including a subgroup analysis based on vitamin D status and route of vitamin D administration.

Methods

Major databases were searched through February 9, 2022. Randomized controlled trials of adult critically ill patients with an intervention group receiving vitamin D or its metabolites were included. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed to estimate the pooled risk ratio (dichotomized outcomes) or mean difference (continuous outcomes). Risk of bias assessment included the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials.

Results

Sixteen randomized clinical trials with 2449 patients were included. Vitamin D administration was associated with lower overall mortality (16 studies: risk ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.62–0.97, p = 0.03; I² = 30%), reduced intensive care unit length of stay (12 studies: mean difference − 3.13 days, 95% CI − 5.36 to − 0.89, n = 1250, p = 0.006; I² = 70%), and shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (9 studies: mean difference − 5.07 days, 95% CI − 7.42 to − 2.73, n = 572, p < 0.0001; I² = 54%). Parenteral administration was associated with a greater effect on overall mortality than enteral administration (test of subgroup differences, p = 0.04), whereas studies of parenteral subgroups had lower quality. There were no subgroup differences based on baseline vitamin D levels.

Conclusions

Vitamin D supplementation in critically ill patients may reduce mortality. Parenteral administration might be associated with a greater impact on mortality. Heterogeneity and assessed certainty among the studies limits the generalizability of the results.

Trial registration: PROSPERO international prospective database of systematic reviews (CRD42021256939—05 July 2021).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-04139-1.

Obesity, Hypovitaminosis D, and COVID-19: the Bermuda Triangle in Public Health

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged public health to a significant extent by markedly increasing morbidity and mortality. Evidence suggests that obesity and hypovitaminosis D constitute important risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection, severity of disease, and poor outcomes. Due to their high prevalence globally, obesity and hypovitaminosis D are considered pandemics. This review presents current epidemiologic and genetic data linking obesity, hypovitaminosis D, and COVID-19, highlighting the importance of the convergence of three pandemics and their impact on public health. We also briefly summarize potential mechanisms that could explain these links.

RECENT FINDINGS

Epidemiologic data have shown that obesity is an independent risk factor for COVID-19, severe disease and death, and genetic evidence has suggested a causal association between obesity-related traits and COVID-19 susceptibility and severity. Additionally, obesity is independently associated with hypovitaminosis D, which is highly prevalent in subjects with obesity. Hypovitaminosis D is independently associated with a higher risk for COVID-19, severity, hospitalization, infectious complications, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and poor outcomes. However, genome-wide association studies have not revealed any causal association between vitamin D levels and the risk for COVID-19, while there is no robust evidence for a beneficial role of vitamin D supplementation in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. In the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the epidemiologic impact of obesity and hypovitaminosis D is emphasized. Efforts to increase public awareness and reinforce preventive and therapeutic measures against obesity and hypovitaminosis D are strongly required.

Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19

Purpose

The systematic review aims to analyze and summarize the characteristics of living systematic review (LSR) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

Six databases including Medline, Excerpta Medica (Embase), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database and China Science, and Technology Journal Database (VIP), were searched as the source of basic information and methodology of LSR. Descriptive analytical methods were used to analyze the included COVID-19 LSRs, and the study characteristics of COVID-19 LSRs were further assessed.

Results

Sixty-four COVID-19 LSRs were included. Eighty-nine point one percent of LSRs were published on Science Citation Index (SCI) journals, and 64.1% publication with an impact factor (IF) >5 and 17.2% with an IF >15 among SCI journals. The first unit of the published LSRs for COVID-19 came from 19 countries, with the largest contribution from the UK (17.2%, 11/64). Forty point six percent of LSRs for COVID-19 were related to therapeutics topic which was considered the most concerned perspective for LSRs for COVID-19. Seventy-six point six percent of LSRs focused on the general population, with less attention to children, pregnant women and the elderly. However, the LSR for COVID-19 was reported incomplete on “living” process, including 40.6% of studies without search frequency, 79.7% of studies without screening frequency, 20.3% of studies without update frequency, and 65.6% of studies without the timing or criteria of transitioning LSR out of living mode.

Conclusion

Although researchers in many countries have applied LSRs to COVID-19, most of the LSRs for COVID-19 were incomplete in reporting on the “living” process and less focused on special populations. This could reduce the confidence of health-care providers and policy makers in the results of COVID-19 LSR, thereby hindering the translation of evidence on COVID-19 LSR into clinical practice. It was necessary to explicitly enact preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) to improve the reporting quality of LSR and support ongoing efforts of therapeutics research for special patients with COVID-19.

Impaired Vitamin D Metabolism in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

There is increasing data regarding the association between vitamin D and COVID-19. This study aimed to reveal the alterations of vitamin D metabolism in the setting of COVID-19. We examined 119 adult COVID-19 inpatients and 44 apparently healthy adult individuals with similar serum 25OH-D3 levels as a reference group. The assessment included serum biochemical parameters (total calcium, albumin, phosphorus, creatinine), parathyroid hormone (PTH), vitamin D-binding protein (DBP), vitamin D metabolites (25OH-D3, 25OH-D2, 1,25(OH)2D3, 3-epi-25OH-D3, 24,25(OH)2D3 and D3) and free 25OH-D. COVID-19 patients had in general very low vitamin D levels (median 25OH-D3 equals 10.8 ng/mL), accompanied by an increased production of the active vitamin D metabolite (1,25(OH)2D3), estimated as higher 1,25(OH)2D3 serum levels (61 [44; 81] vs. 40 [35; 50] pg/mL, p < 0.001) and lower 25OH-D3/1,25(OH)2D3 ratio (175 [112; 260] vs. 272 [200; 433], p < 0.001) which is presumably aimed at preventing hypocalcemia. Patients with COVID-19 also had elevated DBP (450 [386; 515] vs. 392 [311; 433] mg/L, p < 0.001) and low free 25OH-D levels ( Collapse

Key Words

• COVID-19
• SARS-CoV-2
• vitamin D
• vitamin D-binding protein

Collapse

MESH Headings Collapse

Grants

• 19-15-00243-P Russian Science Foundation

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Alexandra Povaliaeva Endocrinology Research Centre, 117292 Moscow, Russia; (V.B.); (E.P.); (L.D.); (N.K.); (N.M.); (V.I.); (L.N.); (L.R.); (N.M.)
Viktor Bogdanov
Ekaterina Pigarova
Larisa Dzeranova
Nino Katamadze
Natalya Malysheva
Vitaliy Ioutsi
Larisa Nikankina
Liudmila Rozhinskaya
Natalia Mokrysheva

Collapse

Conflict of Interests in the Scientific Production on Vitamin D and COVID-19: A Scoping Review

The use of scientific evidence to support the process of formulating and implementing public policies might be biased by studies funded by the pharmaceutical and food industry, which more often than not meet corporate interests. This review aimed to analyze the occurrence of conflict of interest (COI) in academic production regarding vitamin D and COVID-19, considering the facility offered during the pandemic for academic publications of heterogeneous quality. A scoping review of observational studies published in Medline, Lilacs, and Google Scholar databases was carried out. The selected studies were published between December 2019 and August 2021, focused on the relationship between vitamin D and prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in non-institutionalized individuals, with no language restrictions. Twenty-nine studies met eligibility criteria. COI was disclosed in five papers and further identified by review authors in eight other papers, meaning COI was present in thirteen papers (44.8%). Studies were funded by companies in the diagnostics, pharmaceutical and food sectors. Conclusions favorable to vitamin D supplementation were more prevalent in papers where COI was identified (9/13, 69.2%) than among papers where COI was not found (4/16, 25.0%). Omissions of disclosure of COI, funding source, and sponsor functions were observed. The identification of possible corporate political activities in scientific papers about vitamin D published during the COVID-19 pandemic signals a need for greater transparency and guideline development on the prevention of COI in scientific production.

Approach to the management of COVID-19 patients: When home care can represent the best practice

BACKGROUND

The pandemic that began around February 2020, caused by the viral pathogen SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), has still not completed its course at present in June 2022.

OBJECTIVE

The open research to date highlights just how varied and complex the outcome of the contagion can be.

METHOD

The clinical pictures observed following the contagion present variabilities that cannot be explained completely by the patient's age (which, with the new variants, is rapidly changing, increasingly affecting younger patients) nor by symptoms and concomitant pathologies (which are no longer proving to be decisive in recent cases) in relation to medium-to-long term sequelae. In particular, the functions of the vascular endothelium and vascular lesions at the pre-capillary level represent the source of tissue hypoxia and other damage, resulting in the clinical evolution of COVID-19.

RESULTS

Keeping the patient at home with targeted therapeutic support, aimed at not worsening vascular endothelium damage with early and appropriate stimulation of endothelial cells, ameliorates the glycocalyx function and improves the prognosis and, in some circumstances, could be the best practice suitable for certain patients.

CONCLUSION

Clinical information thus far collected may be of immense value in developing a better understanding of the present pandemic and future occurrences regarding patient safety, pharmaceutical care and therapy liability.

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms.  For this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection (outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life).

MAIN RESULTS

We excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non-randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID-19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID-19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled, and three were open-label. We assessed around 50% of the trial results as low risk of bias. We identified 31 ongoing trials. In addition, there are 28 potentially eligible trials without publication of results, or with disparities in the reporting of the methods and results, held in 'awaiting classification' until the trial authors clarify questions upon request. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate-to-severe disease We are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or clinical worsening, assessed by participants with new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may have little or no effect on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants discharged alive at day 28 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 trial, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.79; 3 trials, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial investigated quality of life at any time point. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and little or no effect on quality of life, measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence); on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence); on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for meta-analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low-certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this update, certainty of evidence increased through higher quality trials including more participants. According to this review's living approach, we will continually update our search.

Vitamin D for Recovery of COVID-19 in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease

The severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is determined not only by viral damage to cells but also by the immune reaction in the host. In addition to therapeutic interventions that target the viral infection, immunoregulation may be helpful in the management of COVID-19. Vitamin D exerts effects on both innate and adaptive immunity and subsequently modulates immune responses to bacteria and viruses. Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) frequently have vitamin D deficiency and increased susceptibility to infection, suggesting a potential role of vitamin D in this vulnerable population. In this paper, we review the alterations of the immune system, the risk of COVID-19 infections and mechanisms of vitamin D action in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 in CKD patients. Previous studies have shown that vitamin D deficiency can affect the outcomes of COVID-19. Supplementing vitamin D during treatment may be protective against COVID-19. Future studies, including randomized control trials, are warranted to determine the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the recovery from COVID-19 in CKD patients.

Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in-hospital) with any severity of COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid-19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID-19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID-19.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (up to day 28), all-cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in-hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non-COVID-19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non-pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low-flow oxygen, about 23% required high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending. Individuals with moderate to severe disease Four studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease We did not identify any trial for this population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19, moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low-certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Currently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised individuals).

Vitamin D: A Potential Mitigation Tool for the Endemic Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic?

The impact of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic and associated development of clinical symptoms of COVID-19 have presented an enormous global impact on our health care systems, public health and economy. To date several observational epidemiological studies consistently found that vitamin D deficiency, measured as low levels of circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D, is associated with cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, certain cancers, autoimmune diseases and many infectious diseases, including acute respiratory infections. Since vitamin D is not merely immunosuppressive but also acts as an immunomodulator in tolerance and homeostasis, many experts have considered a role of vitamin D in the prevalence and severity of immune mediated inflammatory diseases, such as SARS-CoV-2, adding to the evidence of the importance of vitamin D in the immune response against viral respiratory infections and reinforcing the need for targeted vitamin D supplementation, with a focus on high-risk populations and a high-dose supplementation treatment for COVID-19 hospitalized patients. The expected transition to endemicity of SARS-CoV-2 even further corroborates as a potential of vitamin D as an potential mitigation tool for the prevention of COVID-19. The aim of this paper is to analyse the current evidence regarding vitamin D and present a hypothesis of its potential role in the current COVID-19 pandemic and in the future as a potential preventive measurement in public health.

High-dose vitamin D versus placebo to prevent complications in COVID-19 patients: Multicentre randomized controlled clinical trial

Background

The role of oral vitamin D₃ supplementation for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remains to be determined. The study was aimed to evaluate whether vitamin D₃ supplementation could prevent respiratory worsening among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Methods and findings

We designed a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, sequential, placebo-controlled clinical trial. The study was conducted in 17 second and third level hospitals, located in four provinces of Argentina, from 14 August 2020 to 22 June 2021. We enrolled 218 adult patients, hospitalized in general wards with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed infection, mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and risk factors for disease progression. Participants were randomized to a single oral dose of 500 000 IU of vitamin D₃ or matching placebo. Randomization ratio was 1:1, with permuted blocks and stratified for study site, diabetes and age (≤60 vs >60 years). The primary outcome was the change in the respiratory Sepsis related Organ Failure Assessment score between baseline and the highest value recorded up to day 7. Secondary outcomes included the length of hospital stay; intensive care unit admission; and in-hospital mortality. Overall, 115 participants were assigned to vitamin D₃ and 105 to placebo (mean [SD] age, 59.1 [10.7] years; 103 [47.2%] women). There were no significant differences in the primary outcome between groups (median [IQR] 0.0 [0.0–1.0] vs 0.0 [0.0–1.0], for vitamin D₃ and placebo, respectively; p = 0.925). Median [IQR] length of hospital stay was not significantly different between vitamin D₃ group (6.0 [4.0–9.0] days) and placebo group (6.0 [4.0–10.0] days; p = 0.632). There were no significant differences for intensive care unit admissions (7.8% vs 10.7%; RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.70; p = 0.622), or in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 1.9%; RR 2.24; 95% CI 0.44 to 11.29; p = 0.451). There were no significant differences in serious adverse events (vitamin D₃ = 14.8%, placebo = 11.7%).

Conclusions

Among hospitalized patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and risk factors, a single high oral dose of vitamin D₃ as compared with placebo, did not prevent the respiratory worsening.

Trial registration

ClincicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04411446.

Vitamin D deficiency is associated with higher risks for SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity: a retrospective case-control study

Robust evidence of whether vitamin D deficiency is associated with COVID-19 infection and its severity is still lacking. The aim of the study was to evaluate the association between vitamin D levels and the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease in those infected. A retrospective study was carried out among members of Clalit Health Services (CHS), the largest healthcare organization in Israel, between March 1 and October 31, 2020. We created two matched case-control groups of individuals for which vitamin D levels and body mass index (BMI) were available before the pandemic: group (A), in which 41,757 individuals with positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests were matched with 417,570 control individuals without evidence of infection, and group (B), in which 2533 patients hospitalized in severe condition for COVID-19 were matched with 2533 patients who were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, but were not hospitalized. Conditional logistic models were fitted in each of the groups to assess the association between vitamin D levels and outcome. An inverse correlation was demonstrated between the level of vitamin D and the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection and of severe disease in those infected. Patients with very low vitamin D levels (< 30 nmol/L) had the highest risks for SARS-CoV-2 infection and also for severe COVID-19 when infected-OR 1.246 [95% CI 1.210-1.304] and 1.513 [95% CI 1.230-1.861], respectively. In this large observational population study, we show a significant association between vitamin D deficiency and the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection and of severe disease in those infected.

Factors associated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titres 3 months post-vaccination with the second dose of BNT162b2 vaccine: a longitudinal observational cohort study in western Greece

OBJECTIVES

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has been extensively deployed during COVID-19 pandemic. One efficient method to evaluate response to vaccination is the assessment of humoral immunity by measuring SARS-CoV-2 antibody titres. We investigated the association between anthropometric parameters (age, body mass index), smoking, diabetes, statin use, hypertension, levels of 25(OH)D and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS), and SARS-CoV-2 antibody titres after vaccination.

DESIGN

In this longitudinal observational cohort study, 712 subjects were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies 3 months after the second dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to identify which factors are associated with the antibody titres.

SETTING

Healthcare units of western Greece (University Hospital of Patras and "St Andrews" State General Hospital of Patras).

PARTICIPANTS

All adults receiving their second dose of BNT162b2 vaccine at the participating healthcare units were eligible to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria were SARS-CoV-2 infection or positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody titre at baseline. Patients who did not provide all necessary information were excluded from our analyses.

RESULTS

We found age to be negatively associated with antibody titre (-0.005; 95% CI -0.009 to -0.001, p=0.0073), as was male gender (-0.11; 95% CI -0.1738 to -0.04617, p=0.0008). The interaction of age and gender was significant (-0.01090; 95% CI -0.01631 to -0.005490, p<0.0001), highlighting that the rate of decline in antibody titre with increasing age tends to be higher in men rather than in women. No linear trend was found between DHEAS levels and antibody titres when the lower quartile of DHEAS levels was used as reference. Tobacco use was associated with low antibody titre (-0.1097; 95% CI -0.174 to -0.046, p=0.0008) but overweight, obese or underweight subjects had similar antibody responses to normal-weight individuals. Although subjects with diabetes and hypertension had numerically lower antibody titres, this association was not statistically significant. Vitamin D levels showed no clear relationships with antibody titres.

CONCLUSIONS

Age, male gender and tobacco use are negatively associated with antibody titres after COVID-19 vaccination, but our data showed no clear correlation with vitamin D levels.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04954651; Results.

Recommendations for the Outpatient Drug Treatment of Patients With COVID-19

BACKGROUND

One of the purposes of outpatient treatment for COVID-19 patients is to prevent severe disease courses and hospitalization. There is a need for evidence-based recommendations to be applied in primary care and specialized outpatient settings.

METHODS

This guideline was developed on the basis of publications that were retrieved by a systematic search for randomized controlled trials in the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry. The quality of evidence was assessed with GRADE, and structured consensus generation was carried out with MAGICapp.

RESULTS

Unvaccinated COVID-19 outpatients with at least one risk factor for a severe disease course may be treated in the early phase of the disease with sotrovimab, remdesivir, or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Molnupiravir may also be used for such patients if no other clinically appropriate treatment options are available. Immunosuppressed persons with COVID-19 who are at high risk, and whose response to vaccination is expected to be reduced, ought to be treated with sotrovimab. It should be noted, however, that the clinical efficacy of sotrovimab against infections with the omicron subtype BA.2 is uncertain at the currently used dose, as the drug has displayed reduced activity against this subtype in vitro. COVID-19 patients at risk of a severe course may be offered budesonide inhalation, according to an off-label recommendation of the German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians (other medical societies do not recommend either for or against this treatment). Thrombo - embolism prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin may be given to elderly patients or those with a pre-existing illness. No recommendation is made concerning fluvoxamine or colchicine. Acetylsalicylic acid, azithromycin, ivermectin, systemic steroids, and vitamin D should not be used for the outpatient treatment of COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

Drug treatment is now available for outpatients with COVID-19 in the early phase. Nearly all of the relevant trials have been conducted in unvaccinated subjects; this needs to be kept in mind in patient selection.

Comparison of the cardiovascular system, clinical condition, and laboratory results in COVID-19 patients with and without vitamin D insufficiency

BACKGROUND

Serum vitamin D levels may have a protective role against severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Studies have shown that deficiency in vitamin D may be a significant risk factor for poor outcomes. This study aims to compare the outcome and clinical condition of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 infection considering serum vitamin D levels.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 202 COVID-19 patients without known cardiovascular disease (reduced ejection fraction, uncontrolled arrhythmia, pericardial effusion, cardiac block, valvular disease, or hypertension) were included. Patients were divided into three groups of insufficient (< 30 ng/mL), normal (30 to 50 ng/mL), and high (> 50 ng/mL) serum vitamin D levels. Clinical outcome was defined as severe if invasive respiratory intervention and ICU admission was required.

RESULTS

The patients were divided into three groups based on their vitamin D level: 127 cases in the insufficient vitamin D group, 53 cases in the normal vitamin D group, and 22 cases in the high vitamin D group. The mean age of the population study was 56 years. Thirty-four patients had severe clinical outcomes. The distribution of this group was as follows: 21 patients in the insufficient vitamin D group (16.5%), eight patients in the normal vitamin D group (15.1%), and five patients in the high vitamin D group (22.7%); P = 0.74. No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of mortality rate (P = 0.46). Moreover, the mean of leukocytes (mean ± SD = 6873.5 ± 4236.2), ESR (mean ± SD = 38.42 ± 26.7), and CPK-MB (mean ± SD = 63 ± 140.7) were higher in the insufficient vitamin D group, but it was not statistically significant (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The finding of the present study showed that vitamin D could not make a significant difference in cardiovascular systems, laboratory results, and severity of the disease in COVID-19 patients.

An exploration of the political, social, economic and cultural factors affecting how different global regions initially reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic

Responses to the early (February-July 2020) COVID-19 pandemic varied widely, globally. Reasons for this are multiple but likely relate to the healthcare and financial resources then available, and the degree of trust in, and economic support provided by, national governments. Cultural factors also affected how different populations reacted to the various pandemic restrictions, like masking, social distancing and self-isolation or self-quarantine. The degree of compliance with these measures depended on how much individuals valued their needs and liberties over those of their society. Thus, several themes may be relevant when comparing pandemic responses across different regions. East and Southeast Asian populations tended to be more collectivist and self-sacrificing, responding quickly to early signs of the pandemic and readily complied with most restrictions to control its spread. Australasian, Eastern European, Scandinavian, some Middle Eastern, African and South American countries also responded promptly by imposing restrictions of varying severity, due to concerns for their wider society, including for some, the fragility of their healthcare systems. Western European and North American countries, with well-resourced healthcare systems, initially reacted more slowly, partly in an effort to maintain their economies but also to delay imposing pandemic restrictions that limited the personal freedoms of their citizens.

Clinical Practice in the Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of Vitamin D Deficiency: A Central and Eastern European Expert Consensus Statement

Vitamin D deficiency has a high worldwide prevalence, but actions to improve this public health problem are challenged by the heterogeneity of nutritional and clinical vitamin D guidelines, with respect to the diagnosis and treatment of vitamin D deficiency. We aimed to address this issue by providing respective recommendations for adults, developed by a European expert panel, using the Delphi method to reach consensus. Increasing the awareness of vitamin D deficiency and efforts to harmonize vitamin D guidelines should be pursued. We argue against a general screening for vitamin D deficiency but suggest 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) testing in certain risk groups. We recommend a vitamin D supplementation dose of 800 to 2000 international units (IU) per day for adults who want to ensure a sufficient vitamin D status. These doses are also recommended for the treatment of vitamin D deficiency, but higher vitamin D doses (e.g., 6000 IU per day) may be used for the first 4 to 12 weeks of treatment if a rapid correction of vitamin D deficiency is clinically indicated before continuing, with a maintenance dose of 800 to 2000 IU per day. Treatment success may be evaluated after at least 6 to 12 weeks in certain risk groups (e.g., patients with malabsorption syndromes) by measurement of serum 25(OH)D, with the aim to target concentrations of 30 to 50 ng/mL (75 to 125 nmol/L).

Pharmacological treatment of COVID-19: an opinion paper

The precocity and efficacy of the vaccines developed so far against COVID-19 has been the most significant and saving advance against the pandemic. The development of vaccines has not prevented, during the whole period of the pandemic, the constant search for therapeutic medicines, both among existing drugs with different indications and in the development of new drugs. The Scientific Committee of the COVID-19 of the Illustrious College of Physicians of Madrid wanted to offer an early, simplified and critical approach to these new drugs, to new developments in immunotherapy and to what has been learned from the immune response modulators already known and which have proven effective against the virus, in order to help understand the current situation.

Low-Molecular-Weight Synthetic Antioxidants: Classification, Pharmacological Profile, Effectiveness and Trends

Mounting research has been performed and published on natural antioxidants, more so than on synthetic ones, as key molecules that control oxidative damage and its pathway to disease. Since the discovery of vitamins, various fully synthetic or natural-identical compounds have been developed as stable small molecules translated into constantly active and completely controlled products which are widely exploited in the food and pharmaceutical industries. There is currently a debate within the literature about their mechanism of action, bioavailability, safety and real benefit for human health. Using a semiquantitative method and eligible criteria of selection, this review aimed to provide a very useful classification of antioxidants and a comprehensive cross-disciplinary description of 32 approved synthetic/natural-identical antioxidants, in terms of regulatory, antioxidant mechanism of action, safety issues, pharmacological properties, effectiveness in human health, timeline and future trends. Enriched interpretation of the data was obtained from summary bibliometrics, useful to portray the “good antioxidant” within the period 1966–2021 and, hopefully, to encourage further research.

Therapeutic Vitamin D Supplementation Following COVID-19 Diagnosis: Where Do We Stand?—A Systematic Review

Vitamin D has known immunomodulatory activity and multiple indications exist supporting its potential use against SARS-CoV-2 infection in the setting of the current pandemic. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the efficacy of vitamin D administered to adult patients following COVID-19 diagnosis in terms of length of hospital stay, intubation, ICU admission and mortality rates. Therefore, PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for original articles referring to the aforementioned parameters. Of the 1376 identified studies, eleven were finally included. Vitamin D supplements, and especially calcifediol, were shown to be useful in significantly reducing ICU admissions and/or mortality in four of the studies, but not in diminishing the duration of hospitalization of COVID-19 patients. Due to the large variation in vitamin D supplementation schemes no absolute conclusions can be drawn until larger randomized controlled trials are completed. However, calcifediol administered to COVID-19 patients upon diagnosis represents by far the most promising agent and should be the focus of upcoming research efforts.

Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors May Increase While Active Vitamin D May Decrease the Risk of Severe Pneumonia in SARS-CoV-2 Infected Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease on Maintenance Hemodialysis

The group most at risk of death due to COVID-19 are patients on maintenance hemodialysis (HD). The study aims to describe the clinical course of the early phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection and find predictors of the development of COVID-19 severe pneumonia in this population. This is a case series of HD nonvaccinated patients with COVID-19 stratified into mild pneumonia and severe pneumonia group according to the chest computed tomography (CT) pneumonia total severity score (TSS) on admission. Epidemiological, demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were obtained from hospital records. 85 HD patients with a mean age of 69.74 (13.19) years and dialysis vintage of 38 (14-84) months were included. On admission, 29.14% of patients had no symptoms, 70.59% reported fatigue followed by fever-44.71%, shortness of breath-40.0%, and cough-30.59%. 20% of the patients had finger oxygen saturation less than 90%. In 28.81% of patients, pulmonary parenchyma was involved in at least 25%. The factors associated with severe pneumonia include fever, low oxygen saturation and arterial partial pressure of oxygen, increased C-reactive protein and ferritin serum levels, low blood count of lymphocytes as well as chronic treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors; while the chronic active vitamin D treatment was associated with mild pneumonia. In conclusion, even though nearly one-third of the patients were completely asymptomatic, while the remaining usually reported only single symptoms, a large percentage of them had extensive inflammatory changes at diagnosis with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We identified potential predictors of severe pneumonia, which might help individualize pharmacological treatment and improve clinical outcomes.

Vitamin D Status and SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Cohort of Kidney Transplanted Patients

BACKGROUND

Recently the protective role of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) against viral infections has been hypothesized. We evaluated the association between vitamin D status and SARS-CoV-2 infection susceptibility and severity in a cohort of kidney transplanted patients (KTxp).

METHODS

A total of 61 KTxp with SARS-CoV-2 infection (COV+) were matched with 122 healthy KTxp controls (COV-). Main biochemical parameters at 1, 6, and 12 months before SARS-CoV-2 infection were recorded. Vitamin D status was considered as the mean of two 25(OH)D measures obtained 6 ± 2 months apart during the last year. The severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection was based on the need for hospitalization (HOSP+) and death (D+).

RESULTS

25(OH)D levels were lower in COV+ than in controls [19(12-26) vs. 23(17-31) ng/mL, p = 0.01]. No differences among the other biochemical parameters were found. The SARS-CoV-2 infection discriminative power of 25(OH)D was evaluated by ROC-curve (AUC 0.61, 95% CI 0.5-0.7, p = 0.01). 25(OH)D was not significantly different between HOSP+ and HOSP- [17(8-25) vs. 20(15-26) ng/mL, p = 0.19] and between D+ and D- [14(6-23) vs. 20(14-26) ng/mL, p = 0.22] and had no significant correlation with disease length.

CONCLUSIONS

During the year preceding the infection, 25(OH)D levels were lower in COV+ KTxp in comparison with controls matched for demographic features and comorbidities. No significant association between vitamin D status and SARS-CoV-2 infection related outcomes was found.

Critical Appraisal of Large Vitamin D Randomized Controlled Trials

As a consequence of epidemiological studies showing significant associations of vitamin D deficiency with a variety of adverse extra-skeletal clinical outcomes including cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and mortality, large vitamin D randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been designed and conducted over the last few years. The vast majority of these trials did not restrict their study populations to individuals with vitamin D deficiency, and some even allowed moderate vitamin D supplementation in the placebo groups. In these RCTs, there were no significant effects on the primary outcomes, including cancer, cardiovascular events, and mortality, but explorative outcome analyses and meta-analyses revealed indications for potential benefits such as reductions in cancer mortality or acute respiratory infections. Importantly, data from RCTs with relatively high doses of vitamin D supplementation did, by the vast majority, not show significant safety issues, except for trials in critically or severely ill patients or in those using very high intermittent vitamin D doses. The recent large vitamin D RCTs did not challenge the beneficial effects of vitamin D regarding rickets and osteomalacia, that therefore continue to provide the scientific basis for nutritional vitamin D guidelines and recommendations. There remains a great need to evaluate the effects of vitamin D treatment in populations with vitamin D deficiency or certain characteristics suggesting a high sensitivity to treatment. Outcomes and limitations of recently published large vitamin D RCTs must inform the design of future vitamin D or nutrition trials that should use more personalized approaches.

Predictors of Mortality in Hemodialyzed Patients after SARS-CoV-2 Infection

INTRODUCTION

The determinants of COVID-19 mortality are well-characterized in the general population. Less numerous and inconsistent data are among the maintenance hemodialysis (HD) patients, who are the population most at risk of an unfavorable prognosis.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study we included all adult HD patients from the Pomeranian Voivodeship, Poland, with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection hospitalized between 6 October 2020 and 28 February 2021, both those who survived, and also those who died. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data on admission, were extracted from the electronic medical records of the dedicated hospital and patients' dialysis unit, and compared between survivors and non-survivors. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods to explore the risk factors associated with 3-month all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

The 133 patients (53.38% males) aged 73.0 (67-79) years, with a median duration of hemodialysis of 42.0 (17-86) months, were included in this study. At diagnosis, the majority were considered to have a mild course (34 of 133 patients were asymptomatic, another 63 subjects presented mild symptoms), while 36 (27.07%) patients had low blood oxygen saturation and required oxygen supplementation. Three-month mortality was 39.08% including an in-hospital case fatality rate of 33.08%. Multivariable logistic regression showed that the frailty clinical index of 4 or greater (OR 8.36, 95%CI 1.81-38.6; p < 0.01), D-Dimer of 1500 ng/mL or greater (6.00, 1.94-18.53; p < 0.01), and CRP of >118 mg/L at admission (3.77 1.09-13.01; p = 0.04) were found to be predictive of mortality.

CONCLUSION

Very high 3-month all-cause mortality in hospitalized HD patients was determined mainly by frailty. High CRP and D-dimer levels upon admission further confer mortality risk.

COVID-19 and Vitamin D Misinformation on YouTube: Content Analysis

Background

The "infodemic" accompanying the SARS-CoV-2 virus pandemic has the potential to increase avoidable spread as well as engagement in risky health behaviors. Although social media platforms, such as YouTube, can be an inexpensive and effective method of sharing accurate health information, inaccurate and misleading information shared on YouTube can be dangerous for viewers. The confusing nature of data and claims surrounding the benefits of vitamin D, particularly in the prevention or cure of COVID-19, influences both viewers and the general "immune boosting" commercial interest.

Objective

The aim of this study was to ascertain how information on vitamin D and COVID-19 was presented on YouTube in 2020.

Methods

YouTube video results for the search terms "COVID," "coronavirus," and "vitamin D" were collected and analyzed for content themes and deemed useful or misleading based on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the content. Qualitative content analysis and simple statistical analysis were used to determine the prevalence and frequency of concerning content, such as confusing correlation with causation regarding vitamin D benefits.

Results

In total, 77 videos with a combined 10,225,763 views (at the time of data collection) were included in the analysis, with over three-quarters of them containing misleading content about COVID-19 and vitamin D. In addition, 45 (58%) of the 77 videos confused the relationship between vitamin D and COVID-19, with 46 (85%) of 54 videos stating that vitamin D has preventative or curative abilities. The major contributors to these videos were medical professionals with YouTube accounts. Vitamin D recommendations that do not align with the current literature were frequently suggested, including taking supplementation higher than the recommended safe dosage or seeking intentional solar UV radiation exposure.

Conclusions

The spread of misinformation is particularly alarming when spread by medical professionals, and existing data suggesting vitamin D has immune-boosting abilities can add to viewer confusion or mistrust in health information. Further, the suggestions made in the videos may increase the risks of other poor health outcomes, such as skin cancer from solar UV radiation.

COVID-19 Patient Management in Outpatient Setting: A Population-Based Study from Southern Italy

Evidence on treatments for early-stage COVID-19 in outpatient setting is sparse. We explored the pattern of use of drugs prescribed for COVID-19 outpatients' management in Southern Italy in the period February 2020-January 2021. This population-based cohort study was conducted using COVID-19 surveillance registry from Caserta Local Health Unit, which was linked to claims databases from the same catchment area. The date of SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis was the index date (ID). We evaluated demographic and clinical characteristics of the study drug users and the pattern of use of drugs prescribed for outpatient COVID-19 management. Overall, 40,030 patients were included in the analyses, with a median (IQR) age of 44 (27-58) years. More than half of the included patients were asymptomatic at the ID. Overall, during the study period, 720 (1.8%) patients died due to COVID-19. Azithromycin and glucocorticoids were the most frequently prescribed drugs, while oxygen was the less frequently prescribed therapy. The cumulative rate of recovery from COVID-19 was 84.2% at 30 days from ID and it was lower among older patients. In this study we documented that the drug prescribing patterns for COVID-19 treatment in an outpatient setting from Southern Italy was not supported from current evidence on beneficial therapies for early treatment of COVID-19, thus highlighting the need to implement strategies for improving appropriate drug prescribing in general practice.

Systematic reviews should be at the heart of continuing medical education

Today, keeping up with the fast evolving evidence is more challenging than ever for practising physicians. A huge number of studies are published every day, and it is no longer possible to read all the relevant individual studies. Many physicians prefer attending continuing medical education (CME) to reading international scientific publications. Consequently, it is critical that CME is based on the best available evidence and presented in an unbiased manner free of conflicts of interest. Systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews in particular can thus provide a valuable resource of up-to-date and high-quality information on health care questions for CME providers. Of note, systematic reviews might become outdated quickly. Furthermore, some systematic reviews are fraught with limitations such as poor methodology and conduct or incomplete and misleading reporting. This article provides a brief overview of systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews, outlines how systematic reviews can be “kept alive” using today’s digital opportunities and points to several common problems of systematic reviews with suggestions for solutions.

Real world evidence of calcifediol or vitamin D prescription and mortality rate of COVID-19 in a retrospective cohort of hospitalized Andalusian patients

COVID-19 is a major worldwide health problem because of acute respiratory distress syndrome, and mortality. Several lines of evidence have suggested a relationship between the vitamin D endocrine system and severity of COVID-19. We present a survival study on a retrospective cohort of 15,968 patients, comprising all COVID-19 patients hospitalized in Andalusia between January and November 2020. Based on a central registry of electronic health records (the Andalusian Population Health Database, BPS), prescription of vitamin D or its metabolites within 15-30 days before hospitalization were recorded. The effect of prescription of vitamin D (metabolites) for other indication previous to the hospitalization was studied with respect to patient survival. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and hazard ratios support an association between prescription of these metabolites and patient survival. Such association was stronger for calcifediol (Hazard Ratio, HR = 0.67, with 95% confidence interval, CI, of [0.50-0.91]) than for cholecalciferol (HR = 0.75, with 95% CI of [0.61-0.91]), when prescribed 15 days prior hospitalization. Although the relation is maintained, there is a general decrease of this effect when a longer period of 30 days prior hospitalization is considered (calcifediol HR = 0.73, with 95% CI [0.57-0.95] and cholecalciferol HR = 0.88, with 95% CI [0.75, 1.03]), suggesting that association was stronger when the prescription was closer to the hospitalization.

Vitamin D Actions: The Lung Is a Major Target for Vitamin D, FGF23, and Klotho

Vitamin D is well known for its role as a calcium regulator and in maintenance of phosphate homeostasis in musculoskeletal health, and fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23) and its coreceptor α-klotho are known for their roles as regulators of serum phosphate levels. However, apart from these classical actions, recent data point out a relevant role of vitamin D and FGF23/klotho in lung health. The expression of the vitamin D receptor by different cell types in the lung and the fact that those cells respond to vitamin D or can locally produce vitamin D indicate that the lung represents a target for vitamin D actions. Similarly, the presence of the four FGF receptor isoforms in the lung and the ability of FGF23 to stimulate pulmonary cells support the concept that the lung is a target for FGF23 actions, whereas the contribution of klotho is still undetermined. This review will give an overview on how vitamin D or FGF23/klotho may act on the lung and interfere positively or negatively with lung health. © 2021 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Effect of a Single High-Dose Vitamin D3 on the Length of Hospital Stay of Severely 25-Hydroxyvitamin D-Deficient Patients with COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

In this ancillary analysis of a multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we investigated the effect of a single high dose of vitamin D3 on the length of hospital stay of patients with severe 25-hydroxyvitamin D deficiency and COVID-19.

METHODS

The primary outcome was length of hospital stay, defined as the total number of days that patients remained hospitalized from the date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, mortality during hospitalization, number of patients admitted to the intensive care unit, and number of patients who required mechanical ventilation. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04449718.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were included in the study. The mean (SD) age was 58.5 (15.6) years, body mass index was 30.8 (8.6) kg/m2, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D level was 7.8 (1.6) ng/mL. No significant difference was observed in the median interquartile range of length of hospital stay between the vitamin D3 group (6.0 [4.0-18.0] days) versus placebo (9.5 [6.3-15.5] days) (log-rank p=0.74; hazard ratio, 1.13 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.53-2.40]; p=0.76). Vitamin D3 significantly increased serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in the vitamin D3 group compared with that in the placebo group (between-group difference, 23.9 ng/mL [95% CI, 17.7-30.1]; p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A dose of 200.000 IU of vitamin D3 did not significantly reduce the length of hospital stay of patients with severe 25-hydroxyvitamin D deficiency and COVID-19.

The Role of Herbal and Nutritional Treatments in the Fight against COVID-19 and Other Respiratory Tract Infections

With the growing spread of COVID-19 worldwide, the appeal to alternative and nutritional therapies in conjunction with medical therapies has been heightened. This article aims to review studies assessing the roles of Chinese traditional medicine and nutrition in upper respiratory infections, including COVID-19. Various Chinese herbal protocols have been shown to fight respiratory infections, with several having been tested on the novel coronavirus. Additionally, promising findings have been reported when medical treatments were complemented with nutritional interventions. Supplementation with vitamins C and D, Zinc and Selenium are discussed, in addition to certain phytochemicals and food that also possess immunoregulatory and antiviral properties. Further clinical studies are needed to establish these alternative treatments as part of the management of emerging respiratory infections.

Antibiotics for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The effect of antibiotics with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties are being investigated in clinical trials as treatment for COVID-19. The use of antibiotics follows the intention-to-treat the viral disease and not primarily to treat bacterial co-infections of individuals with COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of antibiotics as anti-viral treatments for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics compared to each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or any other active intervention with proven efficacy for treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 14 June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs were included that compared antibiotics with each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or another proven intervention, for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, treated in the in- or outpatient settings. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing antibiotics to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: 1. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as new need for intubation or death, clinical improvement defined as being discharged alive, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias; 2. to treat outpatients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as hospital admission or death, clinical improvement defined as symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies with 11,281 participants with an average age of 54 years investigating antibiotics compared to placebo, standard of care alone or another antibiotic. No study was found comparing antibiotics to an intervention with proven efficacy. All studies investigated azithromycin, two studies investigated other antibiotics compared to azithromycin. Seven studies investigated inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and four investigated mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. Eight studies had an open-label design, two were blinded with a placebo control, and one did not report on blinding. We identified 19 ongoing and 15 studies awaiting classification pending publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Of the 30 study results contributing to primary outcomes by included studies, 17 were assessed as overall low risk and 13 as some concerns of bias. Only studies investigating azithromycin reported data eligible for the prioritised primary outcomes. Azithromycin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies.  Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in inpatients We are very certain that azithromycin has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 compared to standard of care alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.06; 8600 participants; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). Azithromycin probably has little or no effect on clinical worsening or death at day 28 (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; 7311 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), on clinical improvement at day 28 (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 8172 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), on serious adverse events during the study period (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.40; 794 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiac arrhythmias during the study period (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; 7865 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard of care alone. Azithromycin may increase any adverse events slightly during the study period (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.57; 355 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to standard of care alone. No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in outpatients Azithromycin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care alone on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 1.00 ; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.69; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.94 ; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.56; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), and on symptom resolution at day 14 (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 138 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether azithromycin increases or reduces serious adverse events compared to placebo or standard of care alone (0 participants experienced serious adverse events; 454 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on adverse events, cardiac arrhythmias during the study period or quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to any other antibiotics in inpatients and outpatients One study compared azithromycin to lincomycin in inpatients, but did not report any primary outcome. Another study compared azithromycin to clarithromycin in outpatients, but did not report any relevant outcome for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are certain that risk of death in hospitalised COVID-19 patients is not reduced by treatment with azithromycin after 28 days. Further, based on moderate-certainty evidence, patients in the inpatient setting with moderate and severe disease probably do not benefit from azithromycin used as potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment for COVID-19 regarding clinical worsening or improvement. For the outpatient setting, there is currently low-certainty evidence that azithromycin may have no beneficial effect for COVID-19 individuals. There is no evidence from RCTs available for other antibiotics as antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment of COVID-19. With accordance to the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials to fill this evidence gap. However, in relation to the evidence for azithromycin and in the context of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics should not be used for treatment of COVID-19 outside well-designed RCTs.

Normal T and B Cell Responses Against SARS-CoV-2 in a Family With a Non-Functional Vitamin D Receptor: A Case Report

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has severely impacted daily life all over the world. Any measures to slow down the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and to decrease disease severity are highly requested. Recent studies have reported inverse correlations between plasma levels of vitamin D and susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity. Therefore, it has been proposed to supplement the general population with vitamin D to reduce the impact of COVID-19. However, by studying the course of COVID-19 and the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 in a family with a mutated, non-functional vitamin D receptor, we here demonstrate that vitamin D signaling was dispensable for mounting an efficient adaptive immune response against SARS-CoV-2 in this family. Although these observations might not directly be transferred to the general population, they question a central role of vitamin D in the generation of adaptive immunity against SARS-CoV-2.

Vitamin D and COVID-19: An Overview of Recent Evidence

The novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) has progressed rapidly from an outbreak to a global pandemic, with new variants rapidly emerging. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the disease resulting from SARS-CoV-2 infection, can lead to multiorgan damage. Due to the extremely contagious and fatal nature of the virus, it has been a priority of medical research to find effective means of treatment. Amid this search, the role of vitamin D in modulating various aspects of the innate and adaptive immune system has been discussed. This review aims to consolidate the research surrounding the role of vitamin D in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. While there are some conflicting results reported, the consensus is that vitamin D has a host of immunomodulatory effects which may be beneficial in the context of COVID-19 and that low levels of vitamin D can result in dysfunction of crucial antimicrobial effects, potentially contributing to poor prognosis. Studies also show that the effects of low vitamin D can be mitigated via supplementation, although the benefits of vitamin D supplementation in the treatment of COVID-19 remain controversial.