Consensus and Controversial Aspects of Vitamin D and COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: This work aims to review and discuss controversial topics in the field of vitamin D, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and COVID-19. METHODS: The International Conferences "Controversies in Vitamin D" are a series of workshops that started in 2017 featuring international experts and leaders in vitamin D research and clinical practice. The fifth annual conference was held in Stresa, Italy, September 15 to 18, 2021. EVIDENCE: Before the event, participants reviewed available studies on their assigned topic, drafted a related abstract, and presented their findings at the time of the conference. Relevant literature that became available since was also discussed within the panel and updated accordingly. CONSENSUS: Before the event, the drafted abstracts had been merged to prepare a preliminary document. After the conference presentations, in-depth discussions in open sessions led to consensus. The document was subsequently modified according to discussions and up-to-date literature inclusion. CONCLUSIONS: There is quite consistent evidence for an association between low 25 OH vitamin D (25(OH)D) levels and poor COVID-19 outcomes, despite heterogeneous publications of variable quality. However, the low vitamin D status in COVID-19 patients might also reflect reverse causality. Vitamin D supplementation might have a positive role in COVID-19 prevention. The evidence supporting a beneficial effect of vitamin D treatment in decreasing the risk of COVID-19 complications is conflicting. Conclusive statements regarding the beneficial effect of vitamin D in this context await high-quality, randomized controlled trials.

Sex steroid hormones are associated with mortality in COVID-19 patients: Level of sex hormones in severe COVID-19.

ABSTRACT: In patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), men are more severely affected than women. Multiple studies suggest that androgens might play a role in this difference in disease severity. Our objective was to assess the association between sex hormone levels and mortality in patients with severe COVID-19.We selected patients from the Amsterdam University Medical Centers COVID-19 Biobank, in which patients admitted to hospital in March and April 2020, with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction proven severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 infection, were prospectively included. Specifically, we included postmenopausal women (>55 years) and age-matched men, with a mortality of 50% in each group. Residual plasma samples were used to measure testosterone, estradiol, sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG), and albumin. We investigated the association of the levels of these hormones with mortality in men and women.We included 16 women and 24 men in March and April 2020 of whom 7 (44%) and 13 (54%), respectively, died. Median age was 69 years (interquartile range [IQR] 64-75). In men, both total and free testosterone was significantly lower in deceased patients (median testosterone 0.8 nmol/L [IQR 0.4-1.9] in deceased patients vs 3.2 nmol/L [IQR 2.1-7.5] in survivors; P < .001, and median free testosterone 33.2 pmol/L [IQR 15.3-52.2] in deceased patients vs 90.3 pmol/L [IQR 49.1-209.7] in survivors; P = .002). SHBG levels were significantly lower in both men and women who died (18.5 nmol/L [IQR 11.3-24.3] in deceased patients vs 34.0 nmol/L [IQR 25.0-48.0] in survivors; P < .001). No difference in estradiol levels was found between deceased and surviving patients.Low SHBG levels were associated with mortality rate in patients with COVID-19, and low total and free testosterone levels were associated with mortality in men. The role of testosterone and SHBG and potential of hormone replacement therapy needs further exploration in COVID-19.

Head-to-head validation of six immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may help to diagnose COVID-19. Head-to-head validation of different types of immunoassays in well-characterized cohorts of hospitalized patients remains needed. METHODS: We validated three chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs) (Liaison, Elecsys, and Abbott) and one single molecule array assay (SIMOA) (Quanterix) for automated analyzers, one rapid immunoassay RIA (AllTest), and one ELISA (Wantai) in parallel in first samples from 126 PCR confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized patients and 158 pre-COVID-19 patients. Specificity of the AllTest was also tested in 106 patients with confirmed parasitic and dengue virus infections. Specificity of the Wantai assay was not tested due to limitations in sample volumes. RESULTS: Overall sensitivity in first samples was 70.6 % for the Liaison, 71.4 % for the Elecsys, 75.4 % for the Abbott, 70.6 % for the Quanterix, 77.8 % for the AllTest, and 88.9 % for the Wantai assay, respectively. Sensitivity was between 77.4 % (Liaison) and 94.0 % (Wantai) after 10 dpso. No false positive results were observed for the Elecsys and Abbott assays. Specificity was 91.1 % for the Quanterix, 96.2 % for the Liaison, and 98.1 % for the AllTest assay, respectively. CONCLUSION: We conclude that low sensitivity of all immunoassays limits their use early after onset of illness in diagnosing COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. After 10 dpso, the Wantai ELISA has a relatively high sensitivity, followed by the point-of-care AllTest RIA that compares favorably with automated analyzer immunoassays.