Abstract

PURPOSE Whether COVID-19 reduces male fertility remains requires further investigation. This meta-analysis and systematic review evaluated the impact of COVID-19 on male fertility. MATERIALS AND METHODS The literature in PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to January 01, 2022 was systematically searched, and a meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the effect of COVID-19 on male fertility. Totally 17 studies with a total of 1,627 patients and 1,535 control subjects were included in our meta-analysis. RESULTS Regarding sperm quality, COVID-19 decreased the total sperm count (p=0.012), sperm concentration (p=0.001), total motility (p=0.001), progressive sperm motility (p=0.048), and viability (p=0.031). Subgroup analyses showed that different control group populations did not change the results. It was found that during the illness stage of COVID-19, semen volume decreased, and during the recovery stage of COVID-19, sperm concentration and total motility decreased <90 days. We found that sperm concentration and total motility decreased during recovery for ≥90 days. Fever because of COVID-19 significantly reduced sperm concentration and progressive sperm motility, and COVID-19 without fever ≥90 days, the sperm total motility and progressive sperm motility decreased. Regarding disease severity, the moderate type of COVID-19 significantly reduced sperm total motility, but not the mild type. Regarding sex hormones, COVID-19 increased prolactin and estradiol. Subgroup analyses showed that during the illness stage, COVID-19 decreased testosterone (T) levels and increased luteinizing hormone levels. A potential publication bias may have existed in our meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS COVID-19 in men significantly reduced sperm quality and caused sex hormone disruption. COVID-19 had long-term effects on sperm quality, especially on sperm concentration and total motility. It is critical to conduct larger multicenter studies to determine the consequences of COVID-19 on male fertility.

Abstract

Testosterone levels in men appear to be prognostic of a number of disease outcomes, including severe COVID-19 disease. Testosterone levels naturally decline with age and are lower in individuals with a number of comorbidities and chronic conditions. Low testosterone may therefore be both a cause and a consequence of illness, including COVID-19 disease. The present project examines whether preexisting conditions for severe COVID-19 disease were themselves related to serum-free testosterone levels in men who had not been infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. A clinical risk score for severe COVID-19 disease was computed based on the results of previously published meta-analyses and cohort studies, and relationships between this score and testosterone levels were tested in 142 men ages 19 to 82 years. Greater burden of preexisting conditions for severe COVID-19 disease was related to lower testosterone levels among men younger than 40 years of age. In older men, the decrease in testosterone that accompanies aging attenuated the effect of the clinical risk score on free testosterone levels. Given that older age itself is a predictor of COVID-19 disease severity, these results together suggest that the presence of preexisting conditions may confound the relationship between testosterone levels and COVID-19 disease outcomes in men. Future research examining relationships among testosterone and outcomes related to infectious and chronic diseases should consider potential confounds, such as the role of preexisting conditions.

Abstract

PURPOSE Serum electrolyte imbalances are highly prevalent in COVID-19 patients. However, their associations with COVID-19 outcomes are inconsistent, and of unknown prognostic value. We aim to systematically clarify the associations and prognostic accuracy of electrolyte imbalances (sodium, calcium, potassium, magnesium, chloride and phosphate) in predicting poor COVID-19 clinical outcome. METHODS PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched. Odds of poor clinical outcome (a composite of mortality, intensive-care unit (ICU) admission, need for respiratory support and acute respiratory distress syndrome) were pooled using mixed-effects models. The associated prognostic sensitivity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR + , LR-) and predictive values (PPV, NPV; assuming 25% pre-test probability), and area under the curve (AUC) were computed. RESULTS We included 28 observational studies from 953 records with low to moderate risk-of-bias. Hyponatremia (OR = 2.08, 95% CI = 1.48-2.94, I2 = 93%, N = 8), hypernatremia (OR = 4.32, 95% CI = 3.17-5.88, I2 = 45%, N = 7) and hypocalcemia (OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.24-4.88, I2 = 25%, N = 6) were associated with poor COVID-19 outcome. These associations remained significant on adjustment for covariates such as demographics and comorbidities. Hypernatremia was 97% specific in predicting poor outcome (LR + 4.0, PPV = 55%, AUC = 0.80) despite no differences in CRP and IL-6 levels between hypernatremic and normonatremic patients. Hypocalcemia was 76% sensitive in predicting poor outcome (LR- 0.44, NPV = 87%, AUC = 0.71). Overall quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. CONCLUSION Hyponatremia, hypernatremia and hypocalcemia are associated with poor COVID-19 clinical outcome. Hypernatremia is 97% specific for a poor outcome, and the association is independent of inflammatory marker levels. Further studies should evaluate if correcting these imbalances help improve clinical outcome.

Abstract

AIMS/INTRODUCTION To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the glycemic control, eating habits, and body composition of people with diabetes mellitus; to identify the determinants of worsening glycemic control in people with diabetes mellitus. MATERIALS AND METHODS This retrospective, longitudinal observational study was performed in outpatients with diabetes mellitus who visited our hospital between April 2019 and March 2020 (pre-COVID-19 period) and continued for follow up from April 2020 to March 2021 (COVID-19 period). We compared the glycemic control, nutritional intakes, and body composition of people with diabetes mellitus between the two periods. The changes in the HbA1c values (ΔHbA1c) and other study variables were compared between the two periods. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with the increase of HbA1c levels. RESULTS A significant increase of HbA1c was observed during the COVID-19 period. The percent fat mass (FM) also increased, while the percent skeletal muscle mass (SMM) decreased during the COVID-19 period. After adjustments for age and sex, the ΔBMI (OR:2.33), ΔFM (OR:1.45), and ΔSMM (OR:0.51) were identified as being associated with elevated levels of HbA1c. CONCLUSIONS The COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on the glycemic control and body composition of people with diabetes mellitus. The increased body weight and FM and decreased SMM observed during the pandemic were associated with poor glycemic control in people with diabetes mellitus.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES This double-blind randomized controlled trial investigated raising serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25D) with extended-release calcifediol (ERC) on time to symptom resolution in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. METHODS COVID-19 outpatients received oral ERC (300 mcg on days 1-3 and 60 mcg on days 4-27) or placebo (NCT04551911). Symptoms were self-reported daily. Primary end points were raising 25D to ≥50 ng/mL and decreasing resolution time for five aggregated symptoms (three respiratory). RESULTS In all, 171 patients were randomized, 160 treated and 134 (65 ERC, 69 placebo) retained. The average age was 43 y (range 18-71), 59% were women. The mean baseline 25D was 37 ± 1 (SE) ng/mL. In the full analysis set (FAS), 81% of patients in the ERC group achieved 25D levels of ≥50 ng/mL versus 15% in the placebo group (P < 0.0001). In the per-protocol (PP) population, mean 25D increased with ERC to 82 ± 4 (SE) ng/mL (P < 0.0001) by day 7; the placebo group trended lower. Symptom resolution time was unchanged in the FAS by ERC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.983; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.695-1.390; P = 0.922). In the PP population, respiratory symptoms resolved 4 d faster when 25D was elevated above baseline level at both days 7 and 14 (median 6.5 versus 10.5 d; HR, 1.372; 95% CI, 0.945-1.991; P = 0.0962; Wilcoxon P = 0.0386). Symptoms resolved in both treatment groups to a similar extent by study end. Safety concerns including hypercalcemia were absent with ERC treatment. CONCLUSION ERC safely raised serum 25D to ≥50 ng/mL in outpatients with COVID-19, possibly accelerating resolution of respiratory symptoms and mitigating the risk for pneumonia. These findings warrant further study.

Abstract

Background: Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) frequently use healthy lifestyle behaviors, although their benefits are unclear. This study's aim was to investigate the effectiveness of hypnotherapy, fasting with diet adjustments, and exercise in AD patients. Methods: In a four-armed randomized controlled monocenter open explorative clinical trial, adult patients with mild-to-moderate severe AD underwent, over 16 weeks, a five-session hypnotherapy group program (HTP), a five-session intermittent fasting with diet adjustment group program (IFDP), a five-session exercise group program (EP), or no study intervention (control) as add-on to topical corticosteroid use if required. Endpoints included subjectively perceived itching on a visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-100 mm); disease severity by SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD); and adverse events (AEs). Endpoints were analyzed descriptively in the Full Analysis Set (FAS). Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, relevant changes to the study protocol included online in addition to "in-presence" group interventions, closing the study arm EP and premature trial termination before randomization of 120 intended patients. Results: During the COVID-19 pandemic, study recruitment was poor. The FAS included 20 patients (17 female) with 35.0 ± 12.1 (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) years of age. At baseline, mean ± SD for HTP (n = 6), IFDP (n = 4), EP (n = 1), and control (n = 9) were VAS itching 63.2 ± 18.0, 65.0 ± 13.9, 43.0 mm, 62.1 ± 17.3; SCORAD 43.0 ± 13.6, 47.0 ± 21.0, 60.3, 39.1 ± 15.6. After 16 weeks, endpoints were VAS itching 26.0 ± 16.4, 31.7 ± 9.9, 23.0 mm, 39.3 ± 27.0; SCORAD 24.1 ± 12.2, 29.1 ± 19.1, 49.1, 25.5 ± 14.4. No serious AEs related to the interventions were observed. Conclusion: Despite very small groups, study results indicated potential beneficial changes to baseline in perceived itching intensity, disease severity, and disease-specific quality of life for HTP and IFDP. Therefore, further clinical trials should be performed investigating the effectiveness and safety of all interventions. Clinical Trial Registration: January 31, 2020 German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): DRKS00020557, Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111-1247-1512.

Abstract

PURPOSE Androgen-regulated enzymes such as the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and the transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) are involved in the SARS-CoV-2 infection process. The expression of TMPRSS2 and its fusion gene, which are increased in the epithelium of the human prostate gland during prostate carcinogenesis, are regulated by androgens. Our goal was to assess the risk of the SARS-CoV-2 infection and the severity of the disease in PCa patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines. We queried PubMed and Web of Science databases on 1 July 2021. We used random- and/or fixed-effects meta-analytic models in the presence or absence of heterogeneity according to Cochrane's Q test and I2 statistic, respectively. RESULTS Six retrospective studies (n = 50,220 patients) were selected after considering inclusion and exclusion criteria for qualitative evidence synthesis. Four retrospective studies were included to assess the SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in PCa patients under ADT vs. no ADT and the summarized risk ratio (RR) was 0.8 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.44-1.47). Five retrospective studies were included to assess the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in PCa patients under ADT versus no ADT and the summarized RR was 1.23 (95% CI 0.9-1.68). CONCLUSION We found a non-significant association between the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity in PCa patients treated with ADT. However, our results suggest that during the COVID-19 pandemic PCa patients can safely undergo ADT as a cancer therapy without worsening COVID-19 risk and trajectory.

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Vitamin D supplementation plays a key effect in lowering cytokine storms among COVID-19 patients by influencing the activity of the renin-angiotensin system and the production of the angiotensin-2 converting enzyme. The study was conducted to explore the effect of high-dose intramuscular vitamin D in hospitalized adults infected with moderate-to-severe SARS-CoV-2 in comparison with the standard of care in the COVID-19 protocol. Materials and Methods: Two groups of patients were compared in this prospective randomized controlled trial as the vitamin D was administered orally to group 1 (alfacalcidol 1 mcg/day) and intramuscularly to group 2 (cholecalciferol 200,000 IU). One hundred and sixteen participants were recruited in total, with fifty-eight patients in each group. Following the Egyptian Ministry of Health's policy for COVID-19 management, all patients received the same treatment for a minimum of five days. Results: A significant difference was recorded in the length of hospital stay (8.6 versus 6.8 days), need for high oxygen or non-invasive mechanical ventilator (67% versus 33%), need for a mechanical ventilator (25% versus 75%), clinical improvement (45% versus 55%), the occurrence of sepsis (35% versus 65%), and in the monitored laboratory parameters in favor of high-dose vitamin D. Moreover, clinical improvement was significantly associated with the need for low/high oxygen, an invasive/non-invasive mechanical ventilator (MV/NIMV), and diabetes, while mortality was associated with the need for MV, ICU admission, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, and the occurrence of secondary infection. Conclusions: Our study showed that high-dose vitamin D was considered a promising treatment in the suppression of cytokine storms among COVID-19 patients and was associated with better clinical improvement and fewer adverse outcomes compared to low-dose vitamin D.

Abstract

Retrospective studies showed a relationship between vitamin D status and COVID-19 severity and mortality, with an inverse relation between SARS-CoV-2 positivity and circulating calcifediol levels. The objective of this pilot study was to investigate the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the length of hospital stay and clinical improvement in patients with vitamin D deficiency hospitalized with COVID-19. The study was randomized, double blind and placebo controlled. A total of 50 subjects were enrolled and received, in addition to the best available COVID therapy, either vitamin D (25,000 IU per day over 4 consecutive days, followed by 25,000 IU per week up to 6 weeks) or placebo. The length of hospital stay decreased significantly in the vitamin D group compared to the placebo group (4 days vs. 8 days; p = 0.003). At Day 7, a significantly lower percentage of patients were still hospitalized in the vitamin D group compared to the placebo group (19% vs. 54%; p = 0.0161), and none of the patients treated with vitamin D were hospitalized after 21 days compared to 14% of the patients treated with placebo. Vitamin D significantly reduced the duration of supplemental oxygen among the patients who needed it (4 days vs. 7 days in the placebo group; p = 0.012) and significantly improved the clinical recovery of the patients, as assessed by the WHO scale (p = 0.0048). In conclusion, this study demonstrated that the clinical outcome of COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization was improved by administration of vitamin D.

Abstract

PURPOSE Vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency may increase the susceptibility to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to determine the association between vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency and susceptibility to COVID-19, its severity, mortality, and role of vitamin D in its treatment. METHODS We searched CINAHL, Cochrane library, EMBASE, PubMED, Scopus, and Web of Science up to May 30, 2021, for observational studies on association between vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency and susceptibility to COVID-19, severe disease, and death among adults, and, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vitamin D treatment against standard care or placebo, in improving severity or mortality among adults with COVID-19. Risk of bias was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies and AUB-KQ1 Cochrane tool for RCTs. Study-level data were analyzed using RevMan 5.3 and R (v4.1.0). Heterogeneity was determined by I2 and sources were explored through prespecified sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses, and meta-regressions. RESULTS Of 1877 search results, 76 studies satisfying eligibility criteria were included. Seventy-two observational studies were included in the meta-analysis (n = 1 976 099). Vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency increased the odds of developing COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR] 1.46; 95% CI, 1.28-1.65; P < 0.0001; I2 = 92%), severe disease (OR 1.90; 95% CI, 1.52-2.38; P < 0.0001; I2 = 81%), and death (OR 2.07; 95% CI, 1.28-3.35; P = 0.003; I2 = 73%). The 25-hydroxy vitamin D concentrations were lower in individuals with COVID-19 compared with controls (mean difference [MD] -3.85 ng/mL; 95% CI, -5.44 to -2.26; P ≤ 0.0001), in patients with severe COVID-19 compared with controls with nonsevere COVID-19 (MD -4.84 ng/mL; 95% CI, -7.32 to -2.35; P = 0.0001) and in nonsurvivors compared with survivors (MD -4.80 ng/mL; 95% CI, -7.89 to -1.71; P = 0.002). The association between vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency and death was insignificant when studies with high risk of bias or studies reporting unadjusted effect estimates were excluded. Risk of bias and heterogeneity were high across all analyses. Discrepancies in timing of vitamin D testing, definitions of severe COVID-19, and vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency partly explained the heterogeneity. Four RCTs were widely heterogeneous precluding meta-analysis. CONCLUSION Multiple observational studies involving nearly 2 million adults suggest vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency increases susceptibility to COVID-19 and severe COVID-19, although with a high risk of bias and heterogeneity. Association with mortality was less robust. Heterogeneity in RCTs precluded their meta-analysis.