Low-dose Whole-lung Irradiation for COVID-19 Pneumonia: What is the Optimal Dose? Final Results of a Pilot Study (preprint)

Purpose: Novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is the current global concern. Radiotherapy (RT), commonly employed in cancer management, has been considered one of the potential treatments for COVID-19 pneumonia. Here, we present the final report of the pilot trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of low-dose whole-lung irradiation (LD-WLI) in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods and Materials: We enrolled patients with moderate COVID-19 pneumonia who were older than 60 years. Participants were treated with LD-WLI in a single fraction of 0.5 or 1.0Gy along with the national protocol of COVID-19. The primary endpoints were improvement of SpO2, the number of hospital/ICU stay days, and the number of intubations after RT and the secondary endpoints were alterations of the c-reactive peptide, interleukin-6, ferritin, procalcitonin, and D-dimer. The response rate (RR) was defined as a rise in SpO2 upon RT with rising or constant trend in the next two days, and clinical recovery (CR) included patients who were discharged from the hospital or acquired SpO2 ≥93% on room air. Results: Between 21 May 2020 and 2 July 2020, ten patients were enrolled. The median age was 75 years, 80% were male, and 80% had comorbidities. The first five patients received a single 0.5Gy-WLI, and others received 1.0Gy. Patients were followed for 2-14 days (median 5.5 days). Following one day, nine patients experienced an improvement in SpO2. Five patients were discharged (median 6th day, range 2nd-14th day), and four patients died (median 7th day, range 3rd-10th day). Overall, the RR and CR were 60.0% and 55.5%, respectively. The RR and CR rates of 0.5- and 1.0Gy group were 80% vs 40% and 75% vs 40%, respectively. No acute radiation-induced toxicity was recorded. Conclusions: LD-WLI with a single 0.5Gy fraction seems to be a more appropriate dose to warrant further evaluation in a large-scale, randomized trial.

The Role of Vitamin D in The Age of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Along with an Ecological Approach (preprint)

Background: Following emerge of a novel coronavirus from Wuhan, China, in December 2019, it has affected the whole world and after months of efforts by the medical communities, there is still no specific approach for prevention and treatment against the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Evidence recommends that vitamin D might be an important supportive agent for the immune system, mainly in cytokine response regulation against COVID-19. Hence, we carried out a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis along with an ecological investigation in order to maximize the use of everything that exists about the role of vitamin D in the COVID-19. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Google Scholar (intitle) as well as preprint database of medRxiv, bioRxiv, Research Square, preprints.org, search engine of ScienceDirect and a rapid search through famous journals up to May 26, 2020. Studies focused on the role of vitamin D in confirmed COVID-19 patients were entered into the systematic review. Along with our main aim, to find the second objective: correlation of global vitamin D status and COVID-19 recovery and mortality we carried out a literature search in PubMed database to identify the national or regional studies reported the vitamin D status globally. CMA v. 2.2.064 and SPSS v.16 were used for data analysis. Results: Out of nine studies entered into our systematic review, six studies containing 3,822 participants entered into the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis indicated that 46.5% of COVID-19 patients were suffering from vitamin D deficiency (95% CI, 28.2%-65.8%) and in 43.3% of patients, levels of vitamin D were insufficient (95% CI, 27.4%-60.8%). In regard to our ecological investigation on 51 countries including 408,748 participants, analyses indicated no correlation between vitamin D levels and recovery rate (r= 0.041) as well as mortality rate (r=-0.073) globally. However, given latitude, a small reverse correlation between mortality rate and vitamin D status was observed throughout the globe (r= -0.177). In Asia, a medium direct correlation was observed for recovery rate (r= 0.317) and a significant reveres correlation for mortality rate (r= -0.700) with vitamin D status in such patients. In Europe, there were no correlations for both recovery (r= 0.040) and mortality rate (r= -0.035). In Middle East, the recovery rate (r= 0.267) and mortality rate (r= -0.217) showed a medium correlation. In North and Sought America, surprisingly, both recovery and mortality rate demonstrated a direct correlation respectively (r= 1.000, r=0.500). In Oceania, unexpectedly, recovery (r= -1.000) and mortality (r= -1.000) rates were in considerable reverse correlation with vitamin D levels. Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis with an ecological approach, we found a high percentage of COVID-19 patients who suffer from vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency. Much more important, our ecological investigation resulted in substantial direct and reverse correlations between recovery and mortality rates of COVID-19 patients with vitamin D status in different countries. Considering latitudes, a small reverse correlation between vitamin D status and mortality rate was found globally. It seems that populations with lower levels of vitamin D might be more susceptible to the novel coronavirus infection. Nevertheless, due to multiple limitations, if this study does not allow to quantify a value of the Vitamin D with full confidence, it allows at least to know what the Vitamin D might be and that it would be prudent to invest in this direction through comprehensive large randomized clinical trials.

Hydroxychloroquine Versus COVID-19: A Rapid Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (preprint)

Background: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a major global issue with rising the number of infected individuals and mortality in recent months. Among all therapeutic approaches, arguments have raised about hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) efficacy in the treatment of COVID-19. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis overcome the controversies regarding the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar and medRxiv pre-print database using all available MeSH terms for COVID-19 and hydroxychloroquine up to July 19, 2020. Studies focused on the effectiveness of HCQ with/without azithromycin (AZM) in confirmed COVID-19 patients were entered into the study. Two researchers have independently evaluated quality assessment of the studies and abstracted data for data extraction. Extracted data were analyzed using CMA v. 2.2.064. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I-squared (I2) test, and fixed/random-effects model was used when appropriate for pooling of studies. Results: Out of 26 studies entered into our systematic review, 21 studies including 14 comparative studies with control group and seven observational studies containing 103,486 participants have entered into the meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis on comparative studies indicated no significant clinical effectiveness (negative in RT-PCR evaluation) for HCQ regimen in the treatment of COVID-19 in comparison to control group (RR: 1.03, 95% CI, 0.79-1.34). The same result was observed for the combination of HCQ+azithromycin (RR: 1.26, 95% CI, 0.91-1.74). No significant differences were found for both HCQ (RR: 0.92, 95% CI, 0.72-1.16) and HCQ+AZM (RR: 1.72, 95% CI, 0.86-3.42) mortality rate; however, mortality was affected by age differences according to meta-regression analysis (P<0.000001). No substantial difference was observed for disease exacerbation (RR: 1.23, 95% CI, 0.65-2.30) between HCQ group and controls. Also, radiological findings significantly improved in the HCQ group (OR: 0.32, 95% CI, 0.11-0.98). Odds of known HCQ adverse effects (diarrhea, vomiting, blurred vision, rash, headache, etc.) occurred in the HCQ regimen group was approximately 3.5 times of control group (OR: 3.40, 95% CI, 1.65-6.98), but no substantial differences were found regarding intubation odds between HCQ group and control group (OR: 2.11, 95% CI, 0.31-14.03). Meta-analysis indicated no significant prophylactic effects for HCQ (OR: 0.40, 95% CI, 0.04-3.65) Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis showed no clinical benefits regarding HCQ treatment with/without azithromycin for COVID-19 patients. Although mortality rate was not significantly different between cases and controls, frequency of adverse effects was substantially higher in HCQ regimen group. However, due to that most of the studies were non-randomized and results were not homogenous, selection bias was unavoidable and further large randomized clinical trials following comprehensive meta-analysis should be taken into account in order to achieve more reliable findings. Also, it is worth mentioning that if this work does not allow to quantify a "value" of the HCQ, it allows at least to know what is not the HCQ and that it would be prudent not to continue investing in this direction.