Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose unprecedented challenges to worldwide health. While vaccines are effective, additional strategies to mitigate the spread/severity of COVID-19 continue to be needed. Emerging evidence suggests susceptibility to respiratory tract infections in healthy subjects can be reduced by probiotic interventions; thus, probiotics may be a low-risk, low-cost, and easily implementable modality to reduce risk of COVID-19. METHODS In this initial study, we conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across the United States testing probiotic Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) as postexposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in 182 participants who had household exposure to someone with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosed within ≤7 days. Participants were randomized to receive oral LGG or placebo for 28 days. The primary outcome was development of illness symptoms within 28 days of COVID-19 exposure. Stool was collected to evaluate microbiome changes. RESULTS Intention-to-treat analysis showed LGG treatment led to a lower likelihood of developing illness symptoms versus placebo (26.4 % vs. 42.9 %, p = 0.02). Further, LGG was associated with a statistically significant reduction in COVID-19 diagnosis (log rank, p = 0.049) via time-to-event analysis. Overall incidence of COVID-19 diagnosis did not significantly differ between LGG and placebo groups (8.8 % vs. 15.4 %, p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS This data suggests LGG is associated with prolonged time to COVID-19 infection, reduced incidence of illness symptoms, and gut microbiome changes when used as prophylaxis ≤7 days post-COVID-19 exposure, but not overall incidence. This initial work may inform future COVID-19 prevention studies worldwide, particularly in developing nations where Lacticaseibacillus probiotics have previously been utilized to reduce other non-COVID infectious-morbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04399252, Date: 22/05/2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04399252.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION We investigated the effectiveness of a multidomain intervention to preserve cognitive function in older adults at risk for dementia in Germany in a cluster-randomized trial. METHODS Individuals with a Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Dementia (CAIDE) risk score ≥ 9 aged 60 to 77 years were recruited. After randomization of their general practitioner (GP), patients received a multidomain intervention (including optimization of nutrition and medication, and physical, social, and cognitive activity) or general health advice and GP treatment as usual over 24 months. Primary outcome was global cognitive performance (composite z score, based on domain-specific neuropsychological tests). RESULTS Of 1030 participants at baseline, n = 819 completed the 24-month follow-up assessment. No differences regarding global cognitive performance (average marginal effect = 0.010, 95% confidence interval: -0.113, 0.133) were found between groups at follow-up. Perceived restrictions in intervention conduct by the COVID-19 pandemic did not impact intervention effectiveness. DISCUSSION The intervention did not improve global cognitive performance. HIGHLIGHTS Overall, no intervention effects on global cognitive performance were detected. The multidomain intervention improved health-related quality of life in the total sample. In women, the multidomain intervention reduced depressive symptoms. The intervention was completed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abstract

Effect sizes from previously reported trials are often used to determine the meaningful change in weight in childhood obesity prevention interventions because information on clinically meaningful differences is lacking. Estimates from previous trials may be influenced by statistical significance; therefore, it is important that they have a low risk of type 1 error. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to report on the design of child obesity prevention randomized controlled trials and effectiveness according to risk of type 1 error. Eighty-four randomized controlled trials were identified. A large range of assumptions were applied in the sample size calculations. The most common primary outcome was BMI, with detectable effect size differences used in sample size calculations ranging from 0.25 kg/m2 (followed up at 2 years) to 1.1 kg/m2 (at 9 months) and BMI z-score ranging from 0.1 (at 4 years) to 0.67 (at 3 years). There was no consistent relationship between low risk of type 1 error and reports of higher or lower effectiveness. Further clarity of the size of a meaningful difference in weight in childhood obesity prevention trials is required to support evaluation design and decision-making for intervention and policy. Type 1 error risk does not appear to impact effect sizes in a consistent direction.

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 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

OBJECTIVES Current irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) treatments have limited efficacy and probiotics like Bacillus clausii (B. clausii) were found to be effective in the management of several gastrointestinal disorders. This phase III trial assessed the efficacy and safety of adding B. clausii (four strains: O/C, N/R, SIN, T), versus placebo, to conventional treatment of pediatric IBS in Mexico. METHODS Patients aged 6-17 years 11 months with IBS (Rome IV) for at least 2 months were randomized to receive either B. clausii (oral suspension, total dose 4 billion spores/day) or placebo once daily for 8 weeks. All patients also received conventional treatment. The primary endpoint was the difference in the proportion of patients with clinical improvements at Week 8 (Global Assessment Questions [GAQ]). Secondary endpoints included responders by Subject's Global Assessment of Relief for Children with IBS (SGARC); number/consistency of stools; abdominal distention/bloating; abdominal pain/intensity; and IBS behavior. RESULTS 73.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 67.3-80.0; B. clausii n = 129) and 78.5% (95% CI 72.5-84.4; placebo n = 130) of patients had symptom improvement (p = 0.8182). For Week 8 SGARC, 19.2% (B. clausii) and 20.9% (placebo) reported complete symptom relief. Stool evaluations, bloating, abdominal pain/intensity, and IBS behavior were similar between groups. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION No significant differences in efficacy between B. clausii and placebo were demonstrated in addition to conventional treatment. The sample size calculation was based on an expected placebo/conventional treatment response of 30-40%. However, the actual treatment response observed was 80% and, thus, a study with larger population would be warranted. In addition, this study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when such controlled social conditions may have resulted in better diet, greater family stability, less psychological stress, and lower risk of infections exacerbating IBS, thereby improving symptoms in both groups. EUDRACT NUMBER 2018-004519-31.

Abstract

Gut microbiota is believed to be a major determinant of health outcomes. We hypothesised that a novel oral microbiome formula (SIM01) can reduce the risk of adverse health outcomes in at-risk subjects during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In this single-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited subjects aged ≥65 years or with type two diabetes mellitus. Eligible subjects were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive three months of SIM01 or placebo (vitamin C) within one week of the first COVID-19 vaccine dose. Both the researchers and participants were blinded to the groups allocated. The rate of adverse health outcomes was significantly lower in the SIM01 group than the placebo at one month (6 [2.9%] vs. 25 [12.6], p < 0.001) and three months (0 vs. 5 [3.1%], p = 0.025). At three months, more subjects who received SIM01 than the placebo reported better sleep quality (53 [41.4%] vs. 22 [19.3%], p < 0.001), improved skin condition (18 [14.1%] vs. 8 [7.0%], p = 0.043), and better mood (27 [21.2%] vs. 13 [11.4%], p = 0.043). Subjects who received SIM01 showed a significant increase in beneficial Bifidobacteria and butyrate-producing bacteria in faecal samples and strengthened the microbial ecology network. SIM01 reduced adverse health outcomes and restored gut dysbiosis in elderly and diabetes patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abstract

BACKGROUND COVID-19 disease is a serious global health problem. Few treatments have been shown to reduce mortality and accelerate time to recovery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential effect of a food supplement (probiotics, prebiotics, vitamin D, zinc and selenium) in patients admitted with COVID-19. METHODS A prospective randomized non-blinded clinical trial was conducted in a sample of 162 hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 recruited over eight months. All patients received standard treatment, but the intervention group (n = 67) was given one food supplement stick daily during their admission. After collecting the study variables, a statistical analysis was performed comparing the intervention and control groups and a multivariate analysis controlling for variables that could act as confounding factors. RESULTS ROC curve analysis with an area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.840 (p < 0.001; 95%CI: 0.741-0.939) of the food supplement administration vs. recovery indicated good predictive ability. Moreover, the intervention group had a shorter duration of digestive symptoms compared with the control group: 2.6 ± 1.3 vs. 4.3 ± 2.2 days (p = 0.001); patients with non-severe disease on chest X-ray had shorter hospital stays: 8.1 ± 3.9 vs. 11.6 ± 7.4 days (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS In this trial, the administration of a food supplement (Gasteel Plus®) was shown to be a protective factor in the group of patients with severe COVID-19 and allowed early recovery from digestive symptoms and a shorter hospital stay in patients with a normal-mild-moderate chest X-ray at admission (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04666116).