Vitamin D supplementation to treat SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. Evidence from meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Vitamin D is a likely candidate for treatment as its immune modulating characteristics have effects on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. It was sought herein, to summarize the studies published to date regarding the vitamin D supplementation to treat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive patients.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The primary outcome were 14-day and in-hospital mortality reported as an odds ratio (OR) with the associated 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Eight articles were included in the review with a combined total of 2,322 individual patients, 786 in the vitamin D supplementation group and 1,536 in the control group. The use of vitamin D compared to the group without vitamin D supplementation was associated with a lower 14-day mortality (18.8% vs. 31.3%, respectively; OR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.12-2.19; p = 0.36), a lower in-hospital mortality (5.6% vs. 16.1%; OR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.23-1.37; I2 = 74%; p = 0.20), the rarer intensive care unit admission (6.4% vs. 23.4%; OR = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.06-0.54; I2 = 77%; p = 0.002) as well as rarer mechanical ventilation (6.5% vs. 18.9%; OR = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.16-0.80; I2 = 0.48; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Vitamin D supplementation in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients has the potential to positively impact patients with both mild and severe symptoms. As several high-quality randomized control studies have demonstrated a benefit in hospital mortality, vitamin D should be considered a supplemental therapy of strong interest. Should vitamin D prove to reduce hospitalization rates and symptoms outside of the hospital setting, the cost and benefit to global pandemic mitigation efforts would be substantial.

Impact of diabetes mellitus on in-hospital mortality in adult patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide since the beginning of 2020, placing the heavy burden on the health systems all over the world. The population that particularly has been affected by the pandemic is the group of patients suffering from diabetes mellitus. Having taken the public health in considerations, we have decided to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus on in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane) including all published clinical trials or observational studies published till December 10, 2020, was performed using following terms "diabetes mellitus" OR "diabetes" OR "DM" AND "survival" OR "mortality" AND "SARS-CoV-2" OR "COVID-19".

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were included out of the 7327 initially identified studies. Mortality of DM patients vs non-DM patients was 21.3 versus 6.1%, respectively (OR = 2.39; 95%CI: 1.65, 3.64; P < 0.001), while severe disease in DM and non-DM group varied and amounted to 34.8% versus 22.8% (OR = 1.43; 95%CI: 0.82, 2.50; P = 0.20). In the DM group, the complications were observed far more often when compared with non-DM group, both in acute respiratory distress (31.4 vs. 17.2%; OR = 2.38; 95%CI:1.80, 3.13; P < 0.001), acute cardiac injury (22.0% vs. 12.8%; OR = 2.59; 95%CI: 1.81, 3.73; P < 0.001), and acute kidney injury (19.1 vs. 10.2%; OR = 1.97; 95%CI: 1.36, 2.85; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings, we shall conclude that diabetes is an independent risk factor of the severity of COVID-19 in-hospital settings; therefore, patients with diabetes shall aim to reduce the exposure to the potential infection of COVID-19.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of effect of vitamin D levels on the incidence of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a disease primarily affecting the respiratory tract, however due to the nature of the pathogenesis it is able to affect the whole body. So far, no causative treatment has been found and the main strategy when dealing with COVID-19 relies on widespread vaccination programs and symptomatic treatment. Vitamin D due to its ability to modulate the immunological system has been proposed as a factor playing role in the organism response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Therefore, we decided to perform this meta-analysis which aimed to establish a connection between vitamin D status and COVID-19 infection.

METHODS

Study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Collaboration Databases and Scopus electronic databases were searched for relevant studies from database inception to May 10th, 2021. Mean differences (MDs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies providing data for 14,485 participants met the inclusion criteria. Mean vitamin D levels in SARS-CoV-2 negative patients was 17.7 ± 6.9 ng/mL compared to SARS-CoV-2 positive patients 14.1 ± 8.2 ng/mL (MD = 3.93; 95% CI 2.84-5.02; I2 = 99%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Low serum vitamin D levels are statistically significantly associated with the risk of COVID-19 infection. Supplementation of vitamin D especially in the deficiency risk groups is indicated.

Efficacy and Safety of Tranexamic Acid in Emergency Trauma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In trauma patients, bleeding can lead to coagulopathy, hemorrhagic shock, and multiorgan failure, and therefore is of fundamental significance in regard to early morbidity. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid (TXA) in civil and military settings and its impact on in-hospital mortality (survival to hospital discharge or 30-day survival), intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, incidence of adverse events (myocardial infarct and neurological complications), and volume of blood product transfusion. The systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic review of the literature using PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register and Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database was conducted from inception to 10 January 2021. In-hospital mortality was reported in 14 studies and was 15.5% for the TXA group as compared with 16.4% for the non-TXA group (OR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.62-1.06, I2 = 83%, p = 0.12). In a civilian TXA application, in-hospital mortality in the TXA and non-TXA groups amounted to 15.0% and 17.1%, respectively (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.51-0.93, p = 0.02, I2 = 78%). A subgroup analysis of the randomized control trial (RCT) studies showed a statistically significant reduction in in-hospital mortality in the TXA group (14.3%) as compared with the non-TXA group (15.7%, OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.83-0.96, p = 0.003, I2 = 0%). To summarize, TXA used in civilian application reduces in-hospital mortality. Application of TXA is beneficial for severely injured patients who undergoing shock and require massive blood transfusions. Patients who undergo treatment with TXA should be monitored for clinical signs of thromboembolism, since TXA is a standalone risk factor of a thromboembolic event and the D-dimers in traumatic patients are almost always elevated.