Vitamin D in patients with COVID-19: is there a room for it?

Vitamin-D receptors are found in a variety of cells with the potential to regulate many cellular functions. Higher COVID-19 severity has been reported in individuals, which are known to have lower vitamin-D levels. The relation between vitamin-D and COVID-19 has been analysed with a number of studies but only few met high standards. Studies revealed discordant findings. There is no data from interventional trials clearly indicating that vitamin-D supplementation may prevent against COVID-19. An increasing number of observational studies put forward the preventive feature of adequate vitamin-D status for COVID-19 mortality. Yet, there are again conflicting findings. This narrative review summarizes the current evidence and provides a practical advice to lessen the impact of COVID-19 by ensuring recommended vitamin-D intakes. This approach would not be harmful, but potentially useful. Vitamin-D is safe especially if it does not exceed the upper-tolerable-limit. Daily doses are recommended over the weekly or monthly higher doses. Mega-doses are not recommended because of its potential to lead adverse events. The target level of vitamin-D is proposed above 30 ng/mL in majority of the studies. Nonetheless, one should consider that the benefit is foreseen to be small, and some time (months) may be needed for such effect.

Potentially inappropriate medications based on TIME criteria and risk of in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between hospital admission potentially inappropriate medications use (PIM) and in-hospital mortality of COVID-19, considering other possible factors related to mortality. METHODS: The Turkish inappropriate medication use in the elderly (TIME) criteria were used to define PIM. The primary outcome of this study was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: We included 201 older adults (mean age 73.1±9.4, 48.9% females). The in-hospital mortality rate and prevalence of PIM were 18.9% (n=38) and 96% (n=193), respectively. The most common PIM according to TIME to START was insufficient vitamin D and/or calcium intake per day. Proton-pump inhibitor use for multiple drug indications was the most prevalent PIM based on TIME to STOP findings. Mortality was related to PIM in univariate analysis (p=0.005) but not in multivariate analysis (p=0.599). Older age (hazards ratio (HR): 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-1.13; p=0.005) and higher Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002) scores were correlated with in-hospital mortality (HR: 1.29; 95%CI 1.00-1.65; p=0.042). CONCLUSION: Mortality was not associated with PIM. Older age and malnutrition were related to in-hospital mortality in COVID-19.

Comparison of clinical characteristics and outcome measures of PCR-positive and PCR-negative patients diagnosed as COVID-19: Analyses focusing on the older adults.

PURPOSE: While the definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 relies on PCR confirmation of the virus, the sensitivity of this technique is limited. The clinicians had to go on with the clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 in selected cases. We aimed to compare PCR-positive and PCR-negative patients diagnosed as COVID-19 with a specific focus on older adults. METHODS: We studied 601 hospitalized adults. The demographics, co-morbidities, triage clinical, laboratory characteristics, and outcomes were noted. Differences between the PCR (+) and (-) cases were analyzed. An additional specific analysis focusing on older adults (≥65 years) (n = 184) was performed. RESULTS: The PCR confirmation was present in 359 (59.7 %). There was not any difference in terms of age, sex, travel/contact history, hospitalization duration, ICU need, the time between first symptom/hospitalization to ICU need, ICU days, or survival between PCR-positive and negative cases in the total study group and older adults subgroup. The only symptoms that were different in prevalence between PCR-confirmed and unconfirmed cases were fever (73.3 % vs. 64 %, p = 0.02) and fatigue/myalgia (91.1 % vs. 79.3 %, p = 0.001). Bilateral diffuse pneumonia was also more prevalent in PCR-confirmed cases (20 % vs. 13.3 %, p = 0.03). In older adults, the PCR (-) cases had more prevalent dyspnea (72.2 % vs. 51.4 %, p = 0.004), less prevalent fatigue/myalgia (70.9 % vs. 88.6 %, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The PCR (+) and (-) cases displayed very similar disease phenotypes, courses, and outcomes with few differences between each other. The presence of some worse laboratory findings may indicate a worse immune protective response in PCR (-) cases.

Symptomatology and imaging findings in early post-Covid period: A comparative study in older vs younger patients.

BACKGROUND: While there are substantial reports on the acute phase of Covid-19, the data on post-Covid phase are limited. AIM: To report the data on older post-Covid patients comparatively with the young adults. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, single-center study in post-Covid outpatient clinic. Clinical characteristics, laboratory examination, chest imagings were examined. RESULTS: 665 patients were included (median age, 46; 53 %, male; 10.5 %, aged ≥65). We assessed patients at 47th day (median) after recovery. 43.6 % were suffering from one or more ongoing symptomatology. The prevalence of symptoms or physical examination findings were not different between older and younger groups. Most prevalent ongoing symptom was dyspnea (14.3 % and 11.8 % older and younger group, respectively). Most common laboratory abnormality was high pro-BNP (12.2 %, in both age groups). Despite there was no differences regarding imaging findings at acute-phase, there were higher rates of control imaging abnormalities in older subgroup (35.7 % vs 19.4 %; p = 0.006). On admission 28.4 % younger patients had normal imaging, of whom 12.4 % developed some form of sequela; however, in older group, 40.0 % had normal imaging, of whom 25.0 % developed sequela. CONCLUSION: Complaints related to Covid-19 persisted in about half of the patients at about 1.5 months after Covid. More than 1/3 older post-Covid patients displayed pulmonary sequela in the post-acute period which was more prevalent than those in younger adults. Hence, compared to the younger counterparts, the clinicians should be alert in follow-up of older adults for subsequent pulmonary sequela, even among those that had normal imaging finding on initial presentation.

Protecting older patients with cardiovascular diseases from COVID-19 complications using current medications.

PURPOSE: In the pathogenesis of severe COVID-19 complications, derangements of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), vascular endothelial dysfunction leading to inflammation and coagulopathy, and arrhythmias play an important role. Therefore, it is worth considering the use of currently available drugs to protect COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular diseases. METHODS: We review the current experience of conventional cardiovascular drugs [angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, anticoagulants, acetosalicylic acid, antiarrhythmic drugs, statins] as well as some other drug classes (antidiabetic drugs, vitamin D and NSAIDs) frequently used by older patients with cardiovascular diseases. Data were sought from clinical databases for COVID-19 and appropriate key words. Conclusions and recommendations are based on a consensus among all authors. RESULTS: Several cardiovascular drugs have a potential to protect patients with COVID-19, although evidence is largely based on retrospective, observational studies. Despite propensity score adjustments used in many analyses observational studies are not equivalent to randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Ongoing RCTs include treatment with antithrombotics, pulmonary vasodilators, RAAS-related drugs, and colchicine. RCTs in the acute phase of COVID-19 may not, however, recognise the benefits of long term anti-atherogenic therapies, such as statins. CONCLUSIONS: Most current cardiovascular drugs can be safely continued during COVID-19. Some drug classes may even be protective. Age-specific data are scarce, though, and conditions which are common in older patients (frailty, comorbidities, polypharmacy) must be individually considered for each drug group.

Mannose binding lectin gene 2 (rs1800450) missense variant may contribute to development and severity of COVID-19 infection.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 followed a mortal course in some young patients without any underlying factors, however, it followed a very benign course in some very older individuals with multiple comorbidities. These observations question if some genetic factors may be related to the vulnerability and poor prognosis of the disease. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether MBL2 gene B variant at codon 54 (rs1800450) were related to the variabilities in clinical course of this infection. METHODS: 284 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients and 100 healthy controls were included in the study. COVID-19 patients were subdivided according to the clinical features and clinical characteristics were analyzed. DNAs of all patients and controls were examined for the codon 54 A/B (gly54asp: rs1800450) variation in exon 1 of the MBL2 gene. RESULTS: In univariate analysis, BB genotype of MBL2 gene was more common among COVID-19 cases compared with controls (10.9% vs 1.0%, respectively; OR = 12.1, 95%CI = 1.6-90.1, p = 0.001). Multivariate analyses, adjusted for age, sex and MBL genetic variants, revealed that when compared with the COVID-19 patients that had AA genotype (reference), the patients that had BB or AB genotypes suffered from a higher risk for severe disease (for BB genotype, odds ratio (OR) = 5.3, p < 0.001; for AB genotype, OR = 2.9, p = 0.001) and for ICU need (for BB genotype, OR = 19.6, p < 0.001; for AB genotype, OR = 6.9, p = 0.001). On the other hand, there was not any significant difference between the genotype variants in terms of mortality at 28 days or development of secondary bacterial infection. CONCLUSION: The B variants of MBL2 gene at codon 54, which were associated with lower MBL2 levels, were related to a higher risk for a more severe clinical course of COVID-19 infection in some respects. Our findings may have potential future implications, e.g. for use of MBL protein as potential therapeutics or prioritize the individuals with B variants during vaccination strategies.