Vitamin D: The Missing Nutrient Behind the Two Deadly Pandemics, COVID-19 and Cardiovascular Diseases.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is claiming millions of lives and creating an additional burden on health care, which is already affected by the rise of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The scientific community, on the other side, is enormously engaged with studies to best identify the characteristics of the virus and minimize its effect while supporting the fight to contain NCDs, mainly cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), which are contributing hugely to the global death toll. Hence, the roles of vitamin D in COVID-19 immunity and cardiovascular health are gaining traction recently.  This literature review will mainly focus on summarizing pertinent studies and scientific publications which highlight the association of vitamin D levels with the various outcomes of COVID-19 and CVDs. It will also address how low vitamin D correlates with the epidemiology of CVDs and the inflammatory mechanisms attributed to COVID-19 severity. We believe that our review may open up hindsight perspectives and further discussions among the physicians in tapping the potential of vitamin D supplementation to tackle the morbidity, mortality, and health care cost of the two deadly diseases, COVID-19 and CVDs.

COVID-19 Management Missteps.

In December 2019, the first case of a novel coronavirus infectious disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), was identified in the province of Wuhan, China. Since the initial identification on March 11, 2020, by the World Health Organization (WHO), COVID-19 had rapidly spread all over the world, leading to the declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic. In response to the exponential trend of reported confirmed cases, national governments worked quickly to devise plans to combat the spread and to soften the consequences which were to follow. Two primary approaches included limiting the spread of the virus and increasing hospital capacity. The implementation of these strategies, however, varied greatly among different governments and their respective populations. Countries developed similar guidelines in response to COVID-19, but with a variation. Many of these guidelines were similar in that they fell under the same general topics such as the use of facial masks, social distancing, and online learning. The effect of COVID-19 on public health was more reliant on the implementation of these recommendations rather than the recommendations themselves.  The medical therapies used to treat the widespread COVID-19 disease are flourishing and evolving rapidly. Ongoing research shows that the spectrum of treatment for COVID-19 varies from pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic interventions. Some of the treatments that are being used in clinical practice include supportive care, antiviral drugs, immunomodulatory agents, convalescent plasma transfusion, and monoclonal antibody treatments. In addition, the most promising approach thus far is the COVID-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and most recently Johnson & Johnson. Overall, as various treatment approaches are being explored and administered to people globally, it is important to acknowledge that there is currently no definite cure or any evidence-based treatment for COVID-19.  COVID-19 infections caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have brought devastating consequences to the lives of millions of people through their health effects and the failure of global initiatives to contain it. A review of many missteps that potentially could have altered the landscape for this virus to affect the lives of many is discussed with hope for a better approach going forward.

A qualitative analysis of dental professionals' beliefs and concerns about providing aerosol generating procedures early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme (SDCEP) initiated a rapid review of the evidence related to the generation and mitigation of aerosols in dental practice. To support this review, a survey was distributed to better understand the provision of aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) in dentistry. METHODS: An online questionnaire was distributed to dental professionals asking about their current practice and beliefs about AGPs. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Analysis revealed confusion and uncertainty regarding mitigation of AGPs. There was also frustration and scepticism over the risk of SARS-COV-2 transmission within dental settings, the evidence underpinning the restrictions and the leadership and guidance being provided, as well as concern over financial implications and patient and staff safety. DISCUSSION: The frustration and concerns expressed by respondents mirrored findings from other recent studies and suggest there is a need for reflection within the profession so that lessons can be learned to better support staff and patients. CONCLUSION: Understanding the profession's views about AGP provision contributed to the SDCEP rapid review and provides insights to help inform policymakers and leaders in anticipation not only of future pandemics but in considering the success of any large scale and/or rapid organisational change.

Applying the WHO ICF Framework to the Outcome Measures Used in the Evaluation of Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Coronavirus Outbreaks.

(1) Objective: The World Health Organization's (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) classification is a unified framework for the description of health and health-related states. This study aimed to use the ICF framework to classify outcome measures used in follow-up studies of coronavirus outbreaks and make recommendations for future studies. (2) Methods: EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were systematically searched for original studies assessing clinical outcomes in adult survivors of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (SARS), middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS) and coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) after hospital discharge. Individual items of the identified outcome measures were linked to ICF second-level and third-level categories using ICF linking rules and categorized according to an ICF component. (3) Results: In total, 33 outcome measures were identified from 36 studies. Commonly used (a) ICF body function measures were Pulmonary Function Tests (PFT), Impact of event scale (IES-R) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS); (b) ICF activity was 6-Minute Walking Distance (6MWD); (c) ICF participation measures included Short Form-36 (SF-36) and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). ICF environmental factors and personal factors were rarely measured. (4) Conclusions: We recommend future COVID-19 follow-up studies to use the ICF framework to select a combination of outcome measures that capture all the components for a better understanding of the impact on survivors and planning interventions to maximize functional return.

Breath Is Life.

This painting memorializes the lives of people who died in the COVID-19 pandemic and people who have died from police brutality.

Long-term clinical outcomes in survivors of severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus outbreaks after hospitalisation or ICU admission: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine long-term clinical outcomes in survivors of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus infections after hospitalization or intensive care unit admission. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, and PsycINFO were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Original studies reporting clinical outcomes of adult SARS and MERS survivors 3 months after admission or 2 months after discharge were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were graded using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2009 Level of Evidence Tool. Meta-analysis was used to derive pooled estimates for prevalence/severity of outcomes up to 6 months after hospital discharge, and beyond 6 months after discharge. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 1,169 identified studies, 28 were included in the analysis. Pooled analysis revealed that common complications up to 6 months after discharge were: impaired diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (prevalence 27%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 15­45%); and reduced exercise capacity (mean 6-min walking distance 461 m, CI 450­473 m). The prevalences of post-traumatic stress disorder (39%, 95% CI 31­47%), depression (33%, 95% CI 20­50%) and anxiety (30%, 95% CI 10­61) beyond 6 months after discharge were considerable. Low scores on Short-Form 36 were identified beyond 6 months after discharge. CONCLUSION: Lung function abnormalities, psychological impairment and reduced exercise capacity were common in SARS and MERS survivors. Clinicians should anticipate and investigate similar long-term outcomes in COVID-19 survivors.