RESUMO
Background: Vitamin C has been used as an antioxidant and has been proven effective in boosting immunity in different diseases, including coronavirus disease (COVID-19). An increasing awareness was directed to the role of intravenous vitamin C in COVID-19. Methods: In this study, we aimed to assess the safety of high-dose intravenous vitamin C added to the conventional regimens for patients with different stages of COVID-19. An open-label clinical trial was conducted on patients with COVID-19. One hundred four patients underwent high-dose intravenous administration of vitamin C (in addition to conventional therapy), precisely 10 g in 250 cc of saline solution in slow infusion (60 drops/min) for three consecutive days. At the same time, 42 patients took the standard-of-care therapy. Results: This study showed the safety of high-dose intravenous administration of vitamin C. No adverse reactions were found. When we evaluated the renal function indices and estimated the glomerular filtration rate (eGRF, calculated with the CKD-EPI Creatinine Equation) as the main side effect and contraindication related to chronic renal failure, no statistically significant differences between the two groups were found. High-dose vitamin C treatment was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in mortality and admission to the intensive care unit, even if the result was bound to the statistical significance. On the contrary, age was independently associated with admission to the intensive care unit and in-hospital mortality as well as noninvasive ventilation (N.I.V.) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.41-3.35; OR 7.50, 95% CI 1.97-28.54; OR 8.84, 95% CI 2.62-29.88, respectively). When considering the length of hospital stay, treatment with high-dose vitamin C predicts shorter hospitalization (OR -4.95 CI -0.21--9.69). Conclusions: Our findings showed that an intravenous high dose of vitamin C is configured as a safe and promising therapy for patients with moderate to severe COVID-19.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Peripheral lymphedema represents a debilitating condition affecting the lymphatic system of the limbs resulting from impaired drainage and excessive lymphatic fluid accumulation in the interstitial spaces. Lymphoscintigraphy is the imaging modality of first choice to investigate patients with peripheral lymphedema. Nevertheless, in recent times, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques have also been applied to assess patients with lymphedema. OBJECTIVE: The present systematic review aims to appraise the evidence by providing a head-to-head comparison between lymphoscintigraphy and MRI techniques in peripheral lymphedema. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using the PubMed database and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The eligibility criteria for the articles to be included in the qualitative synthesis were: 1) a study cohort or a subset of patients with a clinical diagnosis of peripheral lymphedema (either upper or lower limb); 2) execution of both MR imaging and lymphoscintigraphy in the same subset of patients. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by an investigator using the "Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies" tool, v. 2 (QUADAS-2). RESULTS: Overall, 11 studies were ultimately included in the quantitative analysis. No meta-analysis was performed due to the heterogeneous patient samples, the different study aims of the retrieved literature, and the limited number of available articles. In the diagnosis of upper limb extremity lymphedema, the sensitivity of MRI techniques appears superior to that of lymphoscintigraphy. Comparative studies in the lower limbs are still scarce but suggest that MRI may increase the diagnostic accuracy for lymphedema. CONCLUSION: The available literature on patients with lymphedema evaluated with both lymphoscintigraphy and MRI does not allow definite conclusions on the superiority of one imaging technique over the other. Further studies, including well-selected patient samples, are still necessary to compare the accuracy of these imaging modalities. Since MRI techniques seem to provide complementary findings to lymphoscintigraphy, it would be conceivable to acquire both imaging exams in patients with peripheral lymphedema. Furthermore, studies evaluating the clinical impact of adding MRl to the diagnostic workup are warranted.
