Foreign body aspiration in Israeli children during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Since the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there has been a decline in pediatric emergency department visits. Our aim was to assess the pattern of pediatric foreign body aspiration (FBA) during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, in comparison to the prior years. METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter study, we compared the number of children who presented with FBA during the COVID-19 year (March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021) to the annual average of the years 2016-2019. We also compared the lockdown periods to the postlockdown periods, and the percentage of missed FBA, proven FBA, and flexible bronchoscopy as the removal procedure. RESULTS: A total of 345 children with FBA from six centers were included, 276 in the pre-COVID-19 years (average 69 per year) and 69 in the COVID-19 year. There was no difference in the prevalence of FBA between the COVID-19 year and any of the prior 4 years. Examining the lockdown effect, the monthly incidence of FBA dropped from a pre-COVID-19 average of 5.75 cases to 5.1 cases during lockdown periods and increased to 6.3 cases in postlockdown periods. No difference in the percentage of missed FB or proven FB was observed. There was a significant rise in the usage of flexible bronchoscopy as the removal procedure (average of 15.4% vs. 30.4%, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: There were fewer cases of pediatric FBA during lockdown periods, compared to post-lockdown periods, presumably related to better parental supervision, with no difference in the prevalence of FBA during the COVID-19 year.

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) revealed a protective effect of this intervention. We aimed to examine the link between vitamin D supplementation and prevention of ARIs in an updated meta-analysis. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for studies listed from database inception to May 1, 2020. Double-blind RCTs of vitamin D3, vitamin D2, or 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) supplementation for any duration, with a placebo or low-dose vitamin D control, were eligible if they had been approved by a research ethics committee, and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and prespecified as an efficacy outcome. Studies reporting results of long-term follow-up of primary RCTs were excluded. Aggregated study-level data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration and age, were obtained from study authors. Using the proportion of participants in each trial who had one or more ARIs, we did a random-effects meta-analysis to obtain pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs to estimate the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs (primary outcome) compared with placebo. Subgroup analyses were done to estimate whether the effects of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25(OH)D concentration (<25 nmol/L vs 25·0-49·9 nmol/L vs 50·0-74·9 nmol/L vs >75·0 nmol/L), vitamin D dose (daily equivalent of <400 international units [IU] vs 400-1000 IU vs 1001-2000 IU vs >2000 IU), dosing frequency (daily vs weekly vs once per month to once every 3 months), trial duration (≤12 months vs >12 months), age at enrolment (<1·00 years vs 1·00-15·99 years vs 16·00-64·99 years vs ≥65·00 years), and presence versus absence of airway disease (ie, asthma only, COPD only, or unrestricted). Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020190633. FINDINGS: We identified 1528 articles, of which 46 RCTs (75 541 participants) were eligible. Data for the primary outcome were obtained for 48 488 (98·1%) of 49 419 participants (aged 0-95 years) in 43 studies. A significantly lower proportion of participants in the vitamin D supplementation group had one or more ARIs (14 332 [61·3%] of 23 364 participants) than in the placebo group (14 217 [62·3%] of 22 802 participants), with an OR of 0·92 (95% CI 0·86-0·99; 37 studies; I2=35·6%, pheterogeneity=0·018). No significant effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs was observed for any of the subgroups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects of supplementation were observed in trials in which vitamin D was given in a daily dosing regimen (OR 0·78 [95% CI 0·65-0·94]; 19 studies; I2=53·5%, pheterogeneity=0·003), at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (0·70 [0·55-0·89]; ten studies; I2=31·2%, pheterogeneity=0·16), for a duration of 12 months or less (0·82 [0·72-0·93]; 29 studies; I2=38·1%, pheterogeneity=0·021), and to participants aged 1·00-15·99 years at enrolment (0·71 [0·57-0·90]; 15 studies; I2=46·0%, pheterogeneity=0·027). No significant interaction between allocation to the vitamin D supplementation group versus the placebo group and dose, dose frequency, study duration, or age was observed. In addition, no significant difference in the proportion of participants who had at least one serious adverse event in the vitamin supplementation group compared with the placebo group was observed (0·97 [0·86-1·07]; 36 studies; I2=0·0%, pheterogeneity=0·99). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. INTERPRETATION: Despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials, vitamin D supplementation was safe and overall reduced the risk of ARI compared with placebo, although the risk reduction was small. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU for up to 12 months, and age at enrolment of 1·00-15·99 years. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires further investigation. FUNDING: None.

The effect of the COVID-19 lockdown on children with asthma-related symptoms: A tertiary care center experience.

BACKGROUND: Acute asthma exacerbations are a common cause for emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations in children. Since the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the education system closure/total lockdown in Israel on March 2020, we have noticed a decrease in pediatric ED visits and an increase in hospitalizations of asthma exacerbations. OBJECTIVE: to examine the patterns of ED visits for asthma exacerbations during COVID-19 outbreak, in comparison to the previous year. METHODS: A retrospective study comparing asthma related ED visits and hospitalizations among children aged 2-18 years at a tertiary center in southern Israel. Three time periods were selected: 2020 A (prelockdown, 2/1/20 to 3/14/20), 2020 B (lockdown, 3/15/20 to 5/15/20) and 2020 C (postlockdown, 5/16/20 to 6/30/20) and compared to the three parallel time periods in 2019. Data regarding demographics, number of ED visits and clinical severity parameters were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Five hundred and twelve children visited the ED for asthma exacerbation: 273 children during 2019 and 239 children during 2020. Lockdown period in 2020 revealed significantly fewer ED visits per day compared to the parallel calendar period in 2019 (1.8 vs. 1.43, p < .001). Significantly higher hospitalization rate (47.1% vs. 33.7%, p = .05) and longer length of stay (3.15 vs. 1.9 days, p = .03) were observed during the lockdown. CONCLUSION: Lockdown is associated with fewer ED visits for asthma exacerbation, probably due to; reduced exposure to viral infections and environmental allergens, decreased availability of primary physicians and families' reluctance to arrive to the ED. ED visits during lockdown were characterized by higher hospitalization rate and longer LOS.

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections revealed a protective effect of the intervention. Since then, 20 new RCTs have been completed. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D for ARI prevention using a random effects model. Pre-specified sub-group analyses were done to determine whether effects of vitamin D on risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentration or dosing regimen. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry from inception to 1st May 2020. Double-blind RCTs of supplementation with vitamin D or calcidiol, of any duration, were eligible if they were approved by a Research Ethics Committee and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and pre-specified as an efficacy outcome. Aggregate data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration, were obtained from study authors. The study was registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42020190633). FINDINGS: We identified 45 eligible RCTs (total 73,384 participants). Data were obtained for 46,331 (98.0%) of 47,262 participants in 42 studies, aged 0 to 95 years. For the primary comparison of vitamin D supplementation vs. placebo, the intervention reduced risk of ARI overall (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; P for heterogeneity 0.01). No statistically significant effect of vitamin D was seen for any of the sub-groups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects were seen for trials in which vitamin D was given using a daily dosing regimen (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93); at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89); and for a duration of ≤12 months (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.93). No significant interaction was seen between allocation to vitamin D vs. placebo and dose frequency, dose size, or study duration. Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. A funnel plot showed left-sided asymmetry (P=0.008, Egger's test). INTERPRETATION: Vitamin D supplementation was safe and reduced risk of ARI, despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU vitamin D for up to 12 months. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires investigation. FUNDING: None.