Dataset Information

Influence of vitamin D status on hospital length of stay and prognosis in hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19: a multicenter prospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Vitamin D acts as a mediator in the immune system regulating antiviral mechanisms and inflammatory processes. Vitamin D insufficiency has been suggested as a potential risk factor for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, although its impact on the prognosis of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear.

Objective

This multicenter prospective cohort study was designed to investigate whether serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration is associated with hospital length of stay and prognosis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Methods

Patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 (n = 220) were recruited from 2 hospitals in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Serum 25(OH)D concentrations were categorized as follows: <10 ng/mL, 10 to <20 ng/mL, 20 to <30 ng/mL, and ≥30 ng/mL, and <10 ng/mL and ≥10 ng/mL. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay and the secondary outcomes were the rate of patients who required invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality.

Results

There were no significant differences in hospital length of stay when the 4 25(OH)D categories were compared (P = 0.120). Patients exhibiting 25(OH)D <10 ng/mL showed a trend (P = 0.057) for longer hospital length of stay compared with those with 25(OH)D ≥10 ng/mL [9.0 d (95% CI: 6.4, 11.6 d) vs. 7.0 d (95% CI: 6.6, 7.4 d)]. The multivariable Cox proportional hazard models showed no significant associations between 25(OH)D and primary or secondary outcomes.

Conclusions

Among hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19, those with severe 25(OH)D deficiency (<10 ng/mL) exhibited a trend for longer hospital length of stay compared with patients with higher 25(OH)D concentrations. This association was not significant in the multivariable Cox regression model. Prospective studies should test whether correcting severe 25(OH)D deficiency could improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Reis BZ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8194634 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe efficacy of vitamin D3 supplementation in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear.ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of a single high dose of vitamin D3 on hospital length of stay in patients with COVID-19.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 2 sites in Sao Paulo, Brazil. The study included 240 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who were moderately to severely ill at the time of enrollment from June 2, 2020, to August 27, 2020. The final follow-up was on October 7, 2020.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to receive a single oral dose of 200 000 IU of vitamin D3 (n = 120) or placebo (n = 120).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was length of stay, defined as the time from the date of randomization to hospital discharge. Prespecified secondary outcomes included mortality during hospitalization; the number of patients admitted to the intensive care unit; the number of patients who required mechanical ventilation and the duration of mechanical ventilation; and serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, total calcium, creatinine, and C-reactive protein.ResultsOf 240 randomized patients, 237 were included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 56.2 [14.4] years; 104 [43.9%] women; mean [SD] baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level, 20.9 [9.2] ng/mL). Median (interquartile range) length of stay was not significantly different between the vitamin D3 (7.0 [4.0-10.0] days) and placebo groups (7.0 [5.0-13.0] days) (log-rank P = .59; unadjusted hazard ratio for hospital discharge, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.82-1.39]; P = .62). The difference between the vitamin D3 group and the placebo group was not significant for in-hospital mortality (7.6% vs 5.1%; difference, 2.5% [95% CI, -4.1% to 9.2%]; P = .43), admission to the intensive care unit (16.0% vs 21.2%; difference, -5.2% [95% CI, -15.1% to 4.7%]; P = .30), or need for mechanical ventilation (7.6% vs 14.4%; difference, -6.8% [95% CI, -15.1% to 1.2%]; P = .09). Mean serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D significantly increased after a single dose of vitamin D3 vs placebo (44.4 ng/mL vs 19.8 ng/mL; difference, 24.1 ng/mL [95% CI, 19.5-28.7]; P < .001). There were no adverse events, but an episode of vomiting was associated with the intervention.Conclusions and relevanceAmong hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a single high dose of vitamin D3, compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce hospital length of stay. The findings do not support the use of a high dose of vitamin D3 for treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04449718.

Project description:BackgroundAnaemia is frequently recorded during preoperative screening and has been suggested to affect outcomes after surgery negatively.ObjectivesThe objectives were to assess the frequency of moderate to severe anaemia and its association with length of hospital stay.DesignPost hoc analysis of the international observational prospective 'Local ASsessment of VEntilatory management during General Anaesthesia for Surgery' (LAS VEGAS) study.Patients and settingThe current analysis included adult patients requiring general anaesthesia for non-cardiac surgery. Preoperative anaemia was defined as a haemoglobin concentration of 11 g dl-1 or lower, thus including moderate and severe anaemia according to World Health Organisation criteria.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included hospital mortality, intra-operative adverse events and postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs).ResultsHaemoglobin concentrations were available for 8264 of 9864 patients. Preoperative moderate to severe anaemia was present in 7.7% of patients. Multivariable analysis showed that preoperative moderate to severe anaemia was associated with an increased length of hospital stay with a mean difference of 1.3 ((95% CI 0.8 to 1.8) days; P < .001). In the propensity-matched analysis, this association remained present, median 4.0 [IQR 1.0 to 5.0] vs. 2.0 [IQR 0.0 to 5.0] days, P = .001. Multivariable analysis showed an increased in-hospital mortality (OR 2.9 (95% CI 1.1 to 7.5); P = .029), and higher incidences of intra-operative hypotension (36.3 vs. 25.3%; P < .001) and PPCs (17.1 vs. 10.5%; P = .001) in moderately to severely anaemic patients. However, this was not confirmed in the propensity score-matched analysis.ConclusionsIn this international cohort of non-cardiac surgical patients, preoperative moderate to severe anaemia was associated with a longer duration of hospital stay but not increased intra-operative complications, PPCs or in-hospital mortality.Trial registrationThe LAS VEGAS study was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01601223.

Project description:ImportanceRandomized clinical trials have yielded conflicting results about the effects of remdesivir therapy on survival and length of hospital stay among people with COVID-19.ObjectiveTo examine associations between remdesivir treatment and survival and length of hospital stay among people hospitalized with COVID-19 in routine care settings.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used data from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to identify adult patients in 123 VHA hospitals who had a first hospitalization with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from May 1 to October 8, 2020. Propensity score matching of patients initiating remdesivir treatment to control patients who had not initiated remdesivir treatment by the same hospital day was used to create the analytic cohort.ExposuresRemdesivir treatment.Main outcomes and measuresTime to death within 30 days of remdesivir treatment initiation (or corresponding hospital day for matched control individuals) and time to hospital discharge with time to death as a competing event. Associations between remdesivir treatment and these outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression in the matched cohort.ResultsThe initial cohort included 5898 patients admitted to 123 hospitals, 2374 (40.3%) of whom received remdesivir treatment (2238 men [94.3%]; mean [SD] age, 67.8 [12.8] years) and 3524 (59.7%) of whom never received remdesivir treatment (3302 men [93.7%]; mean [SD] age, 67.0 [14.4] years). After propensity score matching, the analysis included 1172 remdesivir recipients and 1172 controls, for a final matched cohort of 2344 individuals. Remdesivir recipients and matched controls were similar with regard to age (mean [SD], 66.6 [14.2] years vs 67.5 [14.1] years), sex (1101 men [93.9%] vs 1101 men [93.9%]), dexamethasone use (559 [47.7%] vs 559 [47.7%]), admission to the intensive care unit (242 [20.7%] vs 234 [19.1%]), and mechanical ventilation use (69 [5.9%] vs 45 [3.8%]). Standardized differences were less than 10% for all measures. Remdesivir treatment was not associated with 30-day mortality (143 remdesivir recipients [12.2%] vs 124 controls [10.6%]; log rank P = .26; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.83-1.36). Results were similar for people receiving vs not receiving dexamethasone at remdesivir initiation (dexamethasone recipients: adjusted HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.64-1.35; nonrecipients: adjusted HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.84-1.69). Remdesivir recipients had a longer median time to hospital discharge compared with matched controls (6 days [interquartile range, 4-12 days] vs 3 days [interquartile range, 1-7 days]; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of US veterans hospitalized with COVID-19, remdesivir treatment was not associated with improved survival but was associated with longer hospital stays. Routine use of remdesivir may be associated with increased use of hospital beds while not being associated with improvements in survival.

Project description:Severe stroke patients are known to be associated with larger rehabilitation length of stay (LOS) but other factors besides severity may be contributing. We aim to identify LOS predictors within a population of mostly severe patients and analyze the impact of socioeconomic situation in functionality at admission.A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted including 172 inpatients admitted to a rehabilitation center between 2007 and 2019. Associations with LOS were examined among 30 potential predictor variables using bivariate correlations. Significantly correlated (P < .002, Bonferroni adjustment) variables were entered into 9 different multiple linear regression models.No mild participants were included, 63.37% severe and 36.63% moderate. Most significant LOS determinants were: 1) total functional independence measure (FIM) (P < .001) and hemiparesis (P = .0108) (adjusted R = 0.24), 2) cognitive FIM (P = .002) and severity (P = .001) (adjusted R = 0.22), and 3) home accessibility (P = .043) and hemiparesis (P = 0.032) (adjusted R = 0.19).Known LOS predictors (e.g., depression, ataxia) within the full stroke severities were not found significant in our dataset.Socioeconomic situation was found moderately correlated with total FIM (r = -0.32, P < .0001).When stratifying the patients' socioeconomic situation into mild, important, and severe social risk, their respective median total FIM at admission were 61.5, 50, and 41, with significant differences between the mild and important group (P < .001); also significant differences were found between mild and severe groups (P < .001).A few of the variables identified in the literature as significant predictors of LOS within the full stroke population were also significant for our dataset (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, FIM, home accessibility) explaining less than 25% of the LOS variance. Most of the 30 analyzed known predictors were not significant (e.g., depression, age, recurrent stroke, ataxia, orientation, verbal communication, etc) suggesting that factors outside functional, socioeconomic, medical, and demographics not included in this study (e.g., rehabilitation sessions intensity) have important influences on LOS for severe patients.Patients at mild social risk obtained significantly higher total FIM at admission than patients at important and severe social risk. The importance of socioeconomic situation has been scarcely studied in the literature in relation to functionality at admission; our results suggest that it requires to be considered.