-
1.
Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Serum Vitamin D Levels in People Under Age 18 Years: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Cui, X, Zhai, Y, Wang, S, Ding, K, Yang, Z, Tian, Y, Huo, T
Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research. 2022;:e935823
Abstract
BACKGROUND During the COVID-19 pandemic the implementation of a range of measures to suppress transmission, such as social distancing and home confinement resulted in limited sunlight exposure and physical inactivity in people under age 18 years, which can elevate the risk of vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency. The aim of this study was to systemically evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on serum vitamin D levels in people under age 18 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS Following the PRISMA recommendations, we searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database for trials from inception to November 3, 2021. All trials assessing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on serum vitamin D levels in people under age 18 years were included and analyzed. Mean differences (MDs) of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH] D) levels before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were calculated and pooled using a random-effects model. Risk differences were used to assess changes in the proportions of people under age 18 years with vitamin D deficiency. RESULTS Our analysis included 5 studies comprising 4141 people under age 18 years. The combined result MD of serum 25(OH)D levels before and during the COVID-19 pandemic as 3.28 ng/mL, 95% CI=0.95-5.62 ng/mL, P<0.01] indicated serum 25(OH)D levels were significantly lower during the COVID-19 pandemic. The decreased serum 25(OH)D level was not observed among infants (age under 1 year) (P=0.28). CONCLUSIONS During the COVID-19 pandemic, the serum vitamin D levels of people under age 18 years were significantly lower and vitamin D supplementation for people under age 18 years might reduce the risk of COVID-19. More research is needed to validate the present findings.
-
2.
The Relationship Between Hepcidin-Mediated Iron Dysmetabolism and COVID-19 Severity: A Meta-Analysis.
Peng, D, Gao, Y, Zhang, L, Liu, Z, Wang, H, Liu, Y
Frontiers in public health. 2022;:881412
Abstract
BACKGROUNDS Hepcidin has been identified as a systemic iron-regulatory hormone. Recent studies have suggested that iron metabolism disorders may be involved in the pathogenesis of acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiple organ dysfunction in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVES To re-evaluate the hepcidin-related iron metabolism parameters and explore the relationship between hepcidin-mediated iron dysmetabolism and COVID-19 severity. METHODS COVID-19 is classified as mild and moderate as non-severe, severe and critical as severe. A meta-analysis was conducted. Four bibliographic databases were comprehensively searched up to December 31st 2021. RESULTS Six unique studies with data from 477 COVID-19 patients were included. Compared to non-severe cases, severe cases had higher hepcidin (standardized mean difference (SMD), -0.39; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [-0.76, -0.03]; P = 0.03) and ferritin (SMD, -0.84; 95% CI [-1.30, -0.38]; P = 0.0004). In five out of six studies, a total of 427 patients were tested for serum iron, and there were significant differences in their levels between severe and non-severe cases (SMD, 0.22; 95% CI [0.02, 0.41]; P = 0.03). A total of 320 patients from four out of six studies were tested for transferrin saturation, and the statistical difference was not significant (SMD, 0.06; 95% CI [-0.17, 0.28]; P = 0.64). CONCLUSION Severe COVID-19 cases had higher serum levels of hepcidin and ferritin, and lower serum iron, without significant differences in transferrin saturation. Further studies are needed to verify whether targeting the hepcidin-mediated iron metabolism axis may influence the outcome and treatment of COVID-19.
-
3.
Vitamin D deficiency aggravates COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Pereira, M, Dantas Damascena, A, Galvão Azevedo, LM, de Almeida Oliveira, T, da Mota Santana, J
Critical reviews in food science and nutrition. 2022;(5):1308-1316
Abstract
There is still limited evidence regarding the influence of vitamin D in people with COVID-19. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we analyze the association between vitamin D deficiency and COVID-19 severity, via an analysis of the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency in people with the disease. Five online databases-Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and pre-print Medrevix were searched. The inclusion criteria were observational studies measuring serum vitamin D in adult and elderly subjects with COVID-19. The main outcome was the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in severe cases of COVID-19. We carried out a meta-analysis with random effect measures. We identified 1542 articles and selected 27. Vitamin D deficiency was not associated with a higher chance of infection by COVID-19 (OR = 1.35; 95% CI = 0.80-1.88), but we identified that severe cases of COVID-19 present 64% (OR = 1.64; 95% CI = 1.30-2.09) more vitamin D deficiency compared with mild cases. A vitamin D concentration insufficiency increased hospitalization (OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.41-2.21) and mortality from COVID-19 (OR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.06-2.58). We observed a positive association between vitamin D deficiency and the severity of the disease.
-
4.
Association of Glucose-Lowering Drugs With Outcomes in Patients With Diabetes Before Hospitalization for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
Zhu, Z, Zeng, Q, Liu, Q, Wen, J, Chen, G
JAMA network open. 2022;(12):e2244652
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Patients with COVID-19 have a high prevalence of diabetes, and diabetes and blood glucose control are determinants of intensive care unit admission and mortality. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association between COVID-19-related adverse outcomes and 8 antihyperglycemic drugs in patients with diabetes who were subsequently diagnosed and hospitalized with COVID-19. DATA SOURCES Data were retrieved and collected in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to September 5, 2022. STUDY SELECTION For this systematic review and network meta-analysis, randomized clinical trials and observational studies conducted among patients with diabetes while receiving glucose-lowering therapies for at least 14 days before the confirmation of COVID-19 infection were included after blinded review by 2 independent reviewers and consultations of disagreement by a third independent reviewer. Of 1802 studies initially identified, 31 observational studies met the criteria for further analysis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS This study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline. Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed with random effects. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES A composite adverse outcome, including the need for intensive care unit admission, invasive and noninvasive mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital death. RESULTS Thirty-one distinct observational studies (3 689 010 patients with diabetes hospitalized for COVID-19) were included. The sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) were associated with relatively lower risks of adverse outcomes compared with insulin (log of odds ratio [logOR], 0.91; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.57-1.26), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (logOR, 0.61; 95% CrI, 0.28-0.93), secretagogues (logOR, 0.37; 95% CrI, 0.02-0.72), and glucosidase inhibitors (logOR, 0.50; 95% CrI, 0.00-1.01). Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curves value, SGLT-2is were associated with the lowest probability for adverse outcomes (6%), followed by glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (25%) and metformin (28%). A sensitivity analysis revealed that the study was reliable. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These findings suggest that the use of an SGLT-2i before COVID-19 infection is associated with lower COVID-19-related adverse outcomes. In addition to SGLT-2is, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and metformin were also associated with relatively low risk of adverse outcomes.
-
5.
Vitamin D and SARS-CoV2 infection, severity and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
D'Ecclesiis, O, Gavioli, C, Martinoli, C, Raimondi, S, Chiocca, S, Miccolo, C, Bossi, P, Cortinovis, D, Chiaradonna, F, Palorini, R, et al
PloS one. 2022;(7):e0268396
Abstract
To assess the evidence on SARS-CoV2 infection and Covid-19 in relation to deficiency and supplementation of vitamin D, we conducted a systematic review up to April 2021. We summarised data from 38 eligible studies, which presented risk estimates for at least one endpoint, including two RCT and 27 cohort-studies: 205565 patients with information on 25OHD status and 2022 taking vitamin D supplementation with a total of 1197 admitted to the ICU or who needed invasive mechanical ventilation or intubation and hospital stay, and more than 910 Covid-19 deaths. Primary outcomes were severity and mortality and the main aim was to evaluate the association with vitamin D supplementation. Random effects models showed that supplementation was associated with a significant lower risk of both Covid-19 severe disease (SRR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20-0.72, 6 studies) and mortality (SRR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17-0.70, 8 studies). There were no statistically significant dose differences between studies: summary estimates with regular doses remain statistically significant, suggesting that higher doses are not necessary. For patients on vitamin D supplementation, a greater reduction in mortality risk emerged in older individuals and at higher latitudes. Regarding the quality of studies, assessed using the New Castle-Ottawa quality scale, the analysis revealed in most cases no statistically significant differences between low, medium or high quality studies. We found significant associations of vitamin D supplementation with Covid-19, encompassing risks of disease worsening and mortality, especially in seasons characterized by 25OHD deficiency and with not severe patients. Dedicated randomized clinical studies are encouraged to confirm these results.
-
6.
Meta-analysis of arbidol versus lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019.
Yu, M, Wang, DC, Li, S, Lei, YH, Wei, J, Huang, LY
Journal of medical virology. 2022;(4):1513-1522
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of arbidol and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using a meta-analysis method. METHODS The China Knowledge Network, VIP database, WanFang database PubMed database, Embase database, and Cochrane Library were searched for a collection of comparative studies on arbidol and lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. Meta-analysis was used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Arbidol and lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. RESULTS The results of the systematic review indicated that Arbidol had a higher positive-to-negative conversion rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid on Day 7 (p = 0.03), a higher positive-to-negative conversion rate of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid on Day 14 (p = 0.006), a higher improvement rate of chest computed tomography on Day 14 (p = 0.02), a lower incidence of adverse reactions (p = 0.002) and lower rate of mortality (p = 0.007). There was no difference in the rate of cough disappearance on Day 14 (p = 0.24) or the rate of severe/critical illness (p = 0.07) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Arbidol may be superior to lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. However, due to the small number of included studies and the number of patients, high-quality multicenter large-sample randomized double-blind controlled trials are still needed for verification.
-
7.
Ambient air pollution and COVID-19 risk: Evidence from 35 observational studies.
Zang, ST, Luan, J, Li, L, Yu, HX, Wu, QJ, Chang, Q, Zhao, YH
Environmental research. 2022;(Pt B):112065
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is severely threatening and challenging public health worldwide. Epidemiological studies focused on the influence of outdoor air pollution (AP) on COVID-19 risk have produced inconsistent conclusions. We aimed to quantitatively explore this association using a meta-analysis. METHODS We searched for studies related to outdoor AP and COVID-19 risk in the Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. No language restriction was utilized. The search date entries were up to August 13, 2021. Pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained with random-/fixed-effects models. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021244656. RESULTS A total of 35 articles were eligible for the meta-analysis. For long-term exposure to AP, COVID-19 incidence was positively associated with 1 μg/m3 increase in nitrogen dioxide (NO2; effect size = 1.042, 95% CI 1.017-1.068), particulate matter with diameter <2.5 μm (PM2.5; effect size = 1.056, 95% CI 1.039-1.072), and sulfur dioxide (SO2; effect size = 1.071, 95% CI 1.002-1.145). The COVID-19 mortality was positively associated with 1 μg/m3 increase in nitrogen dioxide (NO2; effect size = 1.034, 95% CI 1.006-1.063), PM2.5 (effect size = 1.047, 95% CI 1.025-1.1071). For short-term exposure to air pollutants, COVID-19 incidence was positively associated with 1 unit increase in air quality index (effect size = 1.001, 95% CI 1.001-1.002), 1 μg/m3 increase NO2 (effect size = 1.014, 95% CI 1.011-1.016), particulate matter with diameter <10 μm (PM10; effect size = 1.005, 95% CI 1.003-1.008), PM2.5 (effect size = 1.003, 95% CI 1.002-1.004), and SO2 (effect size = 1.015, 95% CI 1.007-1.023). CONCLUSIONS Outdoor air pollutants are detrimental factors to COVID-19 outcomes. Measurements beneficial to reducing pollutant levels might also reduce the burden of the pandemic.
-
8.
Vitamin A in children's pneumonia for a COVID-19 perspective: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 trials.
Li, R, Zhao, W, Wang, H, Toshiyoshi, M, Zhao, Y, Bu, H
Medicine. 2022;(42):e31289
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND To systematically review and meta-analyze the efficacy of vitamin A as an adjuvant therapy for pneumonia in children. METHODS We searched in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Database and Chongqing VIP information network from libraries building to March 2022, screening randomized controlled trials (RCT) about vitamin A combined with conventional therapy for pneumonia in children. Two researchers used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the quality of included studies dependently. Data analysis was conducted in the RevMan 5.3. RESULTS 15 trials involving 3496 patients (treated group: 1898; control group: 1598) were analyzed in this study. The Meta-analysis showed that vitamin A combined with conventional therapy improved clinical efficacy (P < .05), shortened the duration of fever and cough, negative time of chest X-ray, and the hospitalization, lung rale disappearance, choking milk disappearance, shortness of breath disappearance and perilabial cyanosis disappearance (P < .05). However, vitamin A combined with conventional therapy did not reduce the mortality of pneumonia in children (P > .05). CONCLUSION Vitamin A contributes to relieve the clinical symptoms and signs, and also shorten the hospitalization.
-
9.
The impact of facemask on patients with COPD: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Chen, X, Zhang, C, Ibrahim, S, Tao, S, Xia, X, Li, Y, Li, C, Yue, F, Wang, X, Bao, S, et al
Frontiers in public health. 2022;:1027521
Abstract
BACKGROUND Since the emergence of COVID-19, mandatory facemask wearing has been implemented around the world to prevent viral transmission, however, the impact of wearing facemasks on patients with COPD was unclear. METHODS The current study undertakes a systematic review and meta-analysis of a comprehensive literature retrieval from six databases, based on the pre-determined eligibility criteria, irrespective of language. The risk of bias was assessed using an established instrument. We primarily focused on analyzing ETCO2, SpO2, and heart and respiratory rates, and also considered the impacts on physiological and exercise performance. A descriptive summary of the data and possible meta-analysis was performed. Forest plots were generated to pool estimates based on each of the study outcomes. RESULTS Of the 3,751 publications considered, six publications were selected for a systematic review and two publications were included for meta-analysis, however, the quality of these six studies was relatively low overall. In the case of inactivity, the facemask wearing COPD cohort had higher respiratory rates than that of the non-facemask wearing cohort (MD = 1.00 and 95% CI 0.47-1.53, P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in ETCO2 (MD = 0.10 and 95% CI -1.57-1.78, P > 0.05) and heart rate (MD = 0.40 and 95% CI -3.59-4.39, P > 0.05) nor SpO2 (MD = -0.40 and 95% CI -0.84-0.04, P > 0.05) between the COPD patients with and without facemasks. Furthermore, it was observed that the only significant differences between the COPD patients with and without facemasks undertaking different activities were FEV1 (%) (MD = 3.84 and 95% CI 0.14-7.54, P < 0.05), FEV1/FVC (%) (MD = 3.25 and 95% CI 0.71-5.79, P < 0.05), and blood lactate (MD = -0.90 and 95% CI -1.73 to -0.07, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION Wearing facemasks decreased the exercise performance of patients with COPD, however, it had minimal impact on physiological indexes. Further investigations will be performed on the high-quality data from randomized control studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=326265, identifier: CRD42022326265.
-
10.
Serologic response following SARS-COV2 vaccination in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Sakuraba, A, Luna, A, Micic, D
Journal of hematology & oncology. 2022;(1):15
Abstract
PURPOSE Patients with cancer have an increased risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and an attenuated responses to various vaccines. This meta-analysis aims to assess the serologic response to COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer. METHODS Electronic databases were systematically searched on August 1, 2021 for studies that reported the serologic response to COVID-19 vaccine in cancer patients. Random effects models were used to achieve pooled serologic response rates and odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS We analyzed 16 observational studies with a total of 1453 patients with cancer. A majority of studies used mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273). The proportion of patients achieving a serologic response after a single and two doses of COVID-19 vaccine were 54.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 41.0-66.9) and 87.7% (95% CI 82.5-91.5), respectively. Patients with hematologic cancers had a lower response rate after the second dose of vaccine compared to those with solid organ cancers (63.7% vs. 94.9%), which was attributable to the low response rates associated with certain conditions (chronic lymphocytic leukemia, lymphoma) and therapies (anti-CD20, kinase inhibitors). A lower proportion of patients with cancer achieved a serologic response compared to control patients after one and two doses of vaccine (OR0.073 [95% CI 0.026-0.20] and 0.10 [95% CI 0.039-0.26], respectively). CONCLUSIONS Patients with cancer, especially those with hematologic B-cell malignancies, have a lower serologic response to COVID-19 vaccines. The results suggest that cancer patients should continue to follow safety measures including mask-wearing after vaccination and suggest the need for additional strategies for prophylaxis.