scholarly journals Prognostic and therapeutic role of vitamin D in COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis

Author(s):  
Harsha Anuruddhika Dissanayake ◽  
Nipun Lakshitha de Silva ◽  
Manilka Sumanatilleke ◽  
Sawanawadu Dilantha Neomal de Silva ◽  
Kavinga Kalhari Kobawaka Gamage ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose Vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency may increase the susceptibility to 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 CINHAL, Cochrane library, EMBASE, PubMED, Scopus, and Web of Science up to 30.05.2021 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 I  2 and sources were explored through pre-specified 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=1976099). Vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency increased the odds of developing COVID-19 (OR 1∙46, 95% CI 1∙28–1∙65, p<0∙0001, I  2=92%), severe disease (OR 1∙90, 95% CI 1∙52–2∙38, p<0.0001, I  2=81%) and death (OR 2∙07, 95% CI 1∙28–3∙35, p=0.003, I  2=73%). 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration were lower in individuals with COVID-19 compared to controls (mean difference [MD] -3∙85 ng/mL, 95% CI -5∙44,-2∙26, p=<0.0001), in patients with severe COVID-19 compared to controls with non-severe COVID19 (MD -4∙84 ng/mL, 95% CI -7∙32,-2∙35, p=0∙0001) and in non-survivors compared to survivors (MD -4∙80 ng/mL, 95%-CI -7∙89,-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 two 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.

Author(s):  
Xiang Zhang ◽  
Guo-Tao Pan ◽  
Zeng-Li Zhang ◽  
Shasha Tao

Background: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is one of the most prominent pathological microvascular complications in diabetes. A series of studies reported that vitamin D deficiency was associated with increased prevalence of retinopathy in diabetic patients but the results were inconsistent. In this study we focused on evaluating the relationship between vitamin D deficiency and DR by conducting a meta-analysis of observational studies. Methods: Systematic computerized searches were performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library for relevant original articles till November 20, 2016. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the associated value of vitamin D deficiency to the risk of DR. 9 studies including 6332 participants were subjected to final analysis. Results: The results indicated that vitamin D deficiency increases the risk of DR (OR = 1.57, 95% CI 1.32-1.87) with a little heterogeneity (I2 = 23%). In addition, the subgroup analysis demonstrated that there were obvious heterogeneities in T2DM (I2 = 47.8%). Sensitivity analysis showed that the results were relatively stable and reliable. Conclusion: our meta-analysis demonstrated that vitamin D deficiency could increase the risk of DR.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiao-Ce Dai ◽  
Zhuo-Yu An ◽  
Zi-Yang Wang ◽  
Zi-Zhen Wang ◽  
Yi-Ren Wang

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) share a target receptor with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The use of ACEIs/ARBs may cause angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor upregulation, facilitating the entry of SARS-CoV-2 into host cells. There is concern that the use of ACEIs/ARBs could increase the risks of severe COVID-19 and mortality. The impact of discontinuing these drugs in patients with COVID-19 remains uncertain. We aimed to assess the association between the use of ACEIs/ARBs and the risks of mortality and severe disease in patients with COVID-19. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and MedRxiv.org from December 1, 2019, to June 20, 2020. We also identified additional citations by manually searching the reference lists of eligible articles. Forty-two observational studies including 63,893 participants were included. We found that the use of ACEIs/ARBs was not significantly associated with a reduction in the relative risk of all-cause mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 0.87, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 0.75–1.00; I2 = 57%, p = 0.05]. We found no significant reduction in the risk of severe disease in the ACEI subgroup (OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.88–1.02, I2 = 50%, p = 0.18), the ARB subgroup (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.94–1.13, I2 = 62%, p = 0.48), or the ACEI/ARB subgroup (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.65–1.08, I2 = 67%, p = 0.16). Moreover, seven studies showed no significant difference in the duration of hospitalization between the two groups (mean difference = 0.33, 95% CI = −1.75 to 2.40, p = 0.76). In conclusion, the use of ACEIs/ARBs appears to not have a significant effect on mortality, disease severity, or duration of hospitalization in COVID-19 patients. On the basis of the findings of this meta-analysis, there is no support for the cessation of treatment with ACEIs or ARBs in patients with COVID-19.


2018 ◽  
Vol 100-B (2) ◽  
pp. 134-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. T. Hexter ◽  
S. M. Hislop ◽  
G. W. Blunn ◽  
A. D. Liddle

Aims Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Different bearing surface materials have different surface properties and it has been suggested that the choice of bearing surface may influence the risk of PJI after THA. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the rate of PJI between metal-on-polyethylene (MoP), ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP), and ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings. Patients and Methods Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) were searched for comparative randomized and observational studies that reported the incidence of PJI for different bearing surfaces. Two investigators independently reviewed studies for eligibility, evaluated risk of bias, and performed data extraction. Meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel–Haenzel method and random-effects model in accordance with methods of the Cochrane group. Results Our search strategy revealed 2272 studies, of which 17 met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. These comprised 11 randomized controlled trials and six observational studies. The overall quality of included studies was high but the observational studies were at high risk of bias due to inadequate adjustment for confounding factors. The overall cumulative incidence of PJI across all studies was 0.78% (1514/193 378). For each bearing combination, the overall incidence was as follows: MoP 0.85% (1353/158 430); CoP 0.38% (67/17 489); and CoC 0.53% (94/17 459). The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the three bearing combinations in terms of risk of PJI. Conclusion On the basis of the clinical studies available, there is no evidence that bearing choice influences the risk of PJI. Future research, including basic science studies and large, adequately controlled registry studies, may be helpful in determining whether implant materials play a role in determining the risk of PJI following arthroplasty surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:134–42.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. e000662 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nick Brown ◽  
Antti Juhani Kukka ◽  
Andreas Mårtensson

BackgroundDespite advances in vaccination and case management, pneumonia remains the single largest contributor to early child mortality worldwide. Zinc has immune-enhancing properties, but its role in adjunctive treatment of pneumonia in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) is controversial and research still active.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of zinc and placebo in pneumonia in children aged 2 to 60 months in LMICs. Databases included MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, LILACS, SciELO, the WHO portal, Scopus, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov. Inclusion criteria included accepted signs of pneumonia and clear measure of outcome. Risk of bias was independently assessed by two authors. ORs with 95% CI were used for calculating the pooled estimate of dichotomous outcomes including treatment failure and mortality. Time to recovery was expressed as HRs. Sensitivity analyses considering risk of bias and subgroup analyses for pneumonia severity were performed.ResultsWe identified 11 trials published between 2004 and 2019 fulfilling the a priori defined criteria, 7 from South Asia and 3 from Africa and 1 from South America. Proportional treatment failure was comparable in both zinc and placebo groups when analysed for all patients (OR 0.95 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.14)) and only for those with severe pneumonia (OR 0.93 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.14)). No difference was seen in mortality between zinc and placebo groups (OR 0.64 (95% CI 0.31 to 1.31)). Time to recovery from severe pneumonia did not differ between the treatment and control groups for patients with severe pneumonia (HR 1.01 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.14)). Removal of four studies with high risk of bias made no difference to the conclusions.ConclusionThere is no evidence that adjunctive zinc treatment improves recovery from pneumonia in children in LMICs.Trial registration numberCRD42019141602.


2016 ◽  
Vol 87 (2) ◽  
pp. 338-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guilherme Janson ◽  
Aron Aliaga-Del Castillo ◽  
Ana Niederberger

ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the changes in apical base sagittal relationship in Class II treatment with and without premolar extractions. Materials and Methods: Controlled studies evaluating ANB angle changes after Class II Division 1 malocclusion treatment with or without premolar extractions were considered. Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, Lilacs, and Google Scholar) without limitations regarding publication year or language were searched. Risk of bias was assessed with Risk Of Bias in Non-randomized Studies—of Interventions tool of the Cochrane Collaboration. Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated from the random-effects meta-analysis. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also performed. Results: Twenty-five studies satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. Eleven nonextraction and only one extraction Class II treatment studies presented untreated Class II control group. Therefore, meta-analysis was performed only for the nonextraction protocol. In treated Class II nonextraction patients, the average of the various effects was a reduction in the ANB angle of 1.56° (95% CI: 1.03, 2.09, P < .001) compared with untreated Class II subjects. Class II malocclusions treated with two maxillary-premolar extractions and four-premolar extractions produced estimated mean reductions in ANB of −1.88° and −2.55°, respectively. However, there is a lack of low-risk-of-bias studies. Conclusions: According to the existing low quality evidence, the apical base sagittal relationship in nonextraction, two-maxillary and four-premolar extractions Class II treatments decreases −1.56°, 1.88° and 2.55°, respectively. Further studies are necessary to obtain more robust information.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
bin Yi ◽  
Rui-han Lian ◽  
Ping-an Qi ◽  
Tao Yuan ◽  
Pei-jing Yan ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Current studies suggest that vitamin D deficiency during pregnancy can produce a certain effect for preterm birth, but there is no research showing whether vitamin D deficiency has a consistent effect in different pregnancies; thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 24 observational studies, grouping them according to the gestational age at the time of serum sampling, to investigate whether vitamin D deficiency in different periods of gestation has different effects on preterm birth and to provide an evidence-based basis for pregnant women to measure and supplement vitamin D. Methods: The databases PubMed-Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EBSCO, CBM, and CNKI were searched until July 2019. Two researchers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of studies, and STATA 12.0 software was used for meta-analysis. Result: Seven cohort studies, 13 case-control studies, and four cross-sectional studies were included from 2500 articles by inclusion and exclusion criteria. After adjusting for age, race, and other confounding factors, meta-analysis results showed that vitamin D deficiency in the first trimester, the second trimester and the third trimester did not increase the risk of preterm birth (odds ratio (OR) = 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.88, 1.16), P = 0.867; OR = 1.12, 95%CI (0.92, 1.37), P = 0.249; OR = 1.05, 95%CI (0.87, 1.27), P = 0.602). However, there was moderate heterogeneity in the study of vitamin D deficiency in the second trimester, and subgroup analysis suggested that vitamin D deficiency in the second trimester may increase the risk of preterm birth (OR = 1.33, 95%CI (1.15, 1.54), P = 0.000). A sensitivity analysis of the second trimester showed that excluding any one study did not significantly change the results. Conclusions: Vitamin D deficiency in early and late pregnancy may not be associated with preterm birth, while vitamin D deficiency in middle pregnancy is likely to have an important effect on preterm birth. Vitamin D levels should be measured in the second trimester of pregnancy, and vitamin D supplements should be provided if necessary.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huangling Zeng ◽  
Jian Chen ◽  
Yang Guo ◽  
Sheng Tan

Background: Spasticity is a common sequela of stroke. The incidence of poststroke spasticity (PSS) has not been systematically reviewed in recent years, and some risk factors remain debated. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the prevalence and risk factors for PSS.Methods: We searched electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, WANFANG and CBM) inception to May 12, 2020. Observational studies summarizing the incidence or risk factors for PSS were included. Only cohort studies were enrolled in meta-analysis. For risk factors examined in at least three different studies, we combined effects into odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).Results: One thousand four hundred sixty-seven studies were retrieved and 23 were involved in meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of spasticity after stroke was 25.3% and that after the first-ever stroke was 26.7%. The incidence of spasticity after the first-ever stroke with paresis was 39.5%. The prevalence of disabling or severe spasticity (MAS ≥ 3) in stroke patients with paresis was 9.4% (95% CI 0.056–0.133), and severe spasticity was 10.3% (95% CI 0.058–0.149). Moderate to severe paresis (OR = 6.573, 95% CI 2.579–16.755, I2 = 0.0%), hemorrhagic stroke (OR = 1.879, 95% CI 1.418–2.490, I2 = 27.3%) and sensory disorder were risk factors for PSS.Conclusions: The incidence of PSS was significantly higher in stroke patients with paresis. Patients with moderate to severe paresis and sensory disorder should be closely followed up. The role of hemorrhagic stroke in predicting PSS remains to be further explored.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Shan Guo ◽  
Reshef Tal ◽  
Haoyu Jiang ◽  
Tao Yuan ◽  
Ying Liu

Objective. Evidence suggests that vitamin D deficiency correlated with metabolic disorders in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of vitamin D supplementation alone on glucose, lipid, and androgen parameters and inflammation biomarkers in women with PCOS. Methods. Literature research was conducted in Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Clinical Trials, and Cochrane Library to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to March 2020. The effect of vitamin D supplementation alone on women with PCOS was compared with administration of placebo. The systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (Prospero) as number CRD42020157444. Results. Thirteen randomized controlled trials with 824 patients in total were included. Serum FPG, fasting insulin, HOMA-IR, and VLDL-C were significantly decreased in the vitamin D group versus placebo. Vitamin D supplementation group also showed a significantly elevated level of QUICKI. No significant impact was seen on serum triglyceride, total-C, LDL-C, HDL-C, total testosterone, DHEAS, SHBG, or hs-CRP. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that oral vitamin D intake had significantly decreased serum triglyceride and total-C level in women with PCOS who have vitamin D deficiency (serum vitamin D < 20 ng/ml). Conclusion. The findings of the present meta-analysis indicate that vitamin D supplementation exerted favorable effects among women with PCOS on glucose metabolism and lipid metabolism, especially in vitamin D deficient women, but had no significant effect on the androgenic profile or inflammation status.


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e026920
Author(s):  
Jinzhu Huang ◽  
Xiaohong Chen ◽  
Haiyan Xing ◽  
Lin Chen ◽  
Zhaolu Xie ◽  
...  

IntroductionPre-eclampsia is an important cause of death and complication for pregnant women and perinatal infant. Low-dose aspirin has been most commonly used to prevent pre-eclampsia in high-risk pregnant women. Recently, heparins have also been used alone or in combination with aspirin to prevent pre-eclampsia. However, the optimal doses and combination therapy of aspirin and heparins are not well established. Therefore, we aim to compare aspirin, heparins and their combination to prevent pre-eclampsia in a network meta-analysis.Methods and analysisWe will search the following electronic databases from the date of database establishment to 8 January 2019: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ProQuest. We will also search additional studies manually. There will be no restriction on the language of publications. Only randomised clinical trials will be eligible in our network meta-analysis. We will include pregnant women who have been recommended for aspirin according to the standard of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, or were designated as high risk in some recent studies. We will include studies comparing the effects of any single or combination of aspirin and heparins with placebo or observation or another intervention in pregnancy. We will include studies that reported one of the following outcomes: pre-eclampsia, severe pre-eclampsia, preterm delivery, perinatal death and full-term pre-eclampsia with delivery at ≥37 weeks. Traditional pairwise meta-analysis will be performed initially, and then network meta-analysis will be performed using frequency analysis method. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings.Ethics and disseminationThis network meta-analysis does not require ethical certification. An overview and information on the prevention of pre-eclampsia in high-risk pregnant women will be provided by this network meta-analysis.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018084248.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document