Dataset Information

Insufficient evidence for vitamin D use in COVID-19: A rapid systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to the increased severity of numerous viral infections.

Objective

To assess whether vitamin D supplementation is safe and effective for the treatment of COVID-19.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS and LOVE for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published up to 2 March evaluating the effects of vitamin D for the treatment of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Two authors selected the studies and analysed the data evidence following Cochrane Recommendations.

Results

We included three RCTs with a total of 385 participants. We found low certainty evidence indicating that hospitalised patients under calcifediol plus standard care (SC) treatment seem to present a significantly lower risk of being admitted to ICU but no difference in mortality. We found low to very low certainty evidence that the improvement in fibrinogen levels is slightly greater in mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic patients with COVID-19 that used cholecalciferol plus SC than in those treated with placebo plus SC (mean difference), and the patients who used cholecalciferol plus SC achieved more SARS-CoV-2 negativity, but not on d-dimer, c-reactive protein (CRP) or procalcitonin compared with the patients in the placebo plus SC group. We also found low to moderate certainty evidence that a single high dose of vitamin D does not seem to be effective for reducing mortality, length of hospital stay, ICU admissions and d-dimer or CRP levels when used in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19.

Conclusions

As a practical implication, the use of vitamin D associated with SC seems to provide some benefit to patients with COVID-19. However, the evidence is currently insufficient to support the routine use of vitamin D for the management of COVID-19, as its effectiveness seems to depend on the dosage, on the baseline vitamin D levels, and on the degree of COVID-19 severity.

SUBMITTER: da Rocha AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8420259 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimsDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permitted emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for vaccines/treatments with promising data. Eight treatments were issued EUAs by May 31, 2021; one of these was approved (Remdesivir for certain populations) and two were revoked (chloroquine phosphate/hydroxychloroquine and bamlanivimab) by September 30, 2021. The aim of this study is to find out what evidence the EUAs were based on and how many studies were published while they remained active (up to September 30, 2021).MethodsA review of published clinical studies for the 6 months before each EUA was issued, and the time after (until September 30, 2021, or until revoked). PubMed and the identified systematic reviews were the sources for identifying published literature.ResultsThe number of clinical studies published pre-EUA varied from a single case study (for chloroquine phosphate/hydroxychloroquine) to numerous studies of multiple types (for convalescent plasma). Four treatments had a single randomized controlled trial (RCT) as evidence (bamlanivimab monotherapy, REGN-COV, bamlanivimab + etesevimab, sotrovimab) and two also had other study types (remdesivir and baricitinib). The number of clinical studies published post-EUA (for those active on September 30, 2021) was widely varied. Eighteen RCTs were published for Convalescent plasma, while Remdesivir had eight. Baricitinib, REGN-COV, and bamlanivimab + etesevimab all had one, but none were published for sotrovimab.ConclusionThe number of trials for treatments with EUAs was limited in all cases before the EUA was issued, and in most cases for those with EUAs ongoing at the end of September 2021. The presence of EUAs may discourage participation in relevant clinical trials, which delays the widespread implementation of evidenced-based therapies. Large, robust RCTs should be completed, such as the RECOVERY trial in the United Kingdom, to quickly find the answers desperately required during a pandemic.

Project description:Background and objectives A flare-up in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases threatens the health of people, and though there is no proven pharmacological treatment, many analytical studies have suggested that interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels are elevated in cases of severe COVID-19 and that the anti-IL-6 biologic agent tocilizumab may be beneficial. This is a critical review of studies aiming to assess the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab as compared to the standard regimen in patients with COVID-19. Materials and methods Online databases (PubMed and Cochrane) were searched until June 29, 2020, for original articles investigating the immunological response in COVID-19 and its treatment with tocilizumab. Data on multiple baseline characteristics and pre-specified endpoints were extracted and pooled using a random effect model. We used Review Manager version 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014, Denmark) and Stata 11.0 (Stata Corporation LP, College Station, TX) for all analyses. Risk ratios (RR) and the weighted mean difference (WMD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Results From a total of 1,246 identified articles, 13 studies were included after duplicate removal and narrowing based on title and abstract. Of the 13 included studies, seven case-control studies were shortlisted for meta-analysis (quantitative) and six-single arm studies were used in the discussion (qualitative). These studies had 766 patients (351 in the tocilizumab arm and 414 in the control arm). Their pooled analysis demonstrated that mortality was significantly lower in the tocilizumab group (RR=0.56 [0.34, 0.92]; p=0.02; I2=76%), as was the need for artificial invasive ventilation (RR=0.34 [0.12, 0.99]; p=0.05; I2=0%) as compared to the control group. No significant differences were observed between tocilizumab and control group in intensive care unit admissions (RR=0.73 [0.15, 3.59]; p=0.70; I2=60%) and risks of post-drug infection (RR=1.29 [0.41, 4.04]; p=0.66; I2=88%). In terms of efficacy outcome, improved oxygen saturation (RR=1.13 [1.04, 1.65]; p=0.02; I2=0%) was reported to be markedly significant in tocilizumab patients when compared with the standard care group. Conclusions Our results based on pooled studies show tocilizumab to be safe and efficacious in reducing mortality among critically ill COVID-19 patients. However, due to the limited number of observational studies, the positive findings should be viewed cautiously and warrant further investigation.

Project description:IntroductionThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has intensified the urgency in addressing pressing global health access challenges and has also laid bare the pervasive structural and systemic inequities that make certain segments of society more vulnerable to the tragic consequences of the disease. This rapid systematic review analyses the barriers to COVID-19 health products in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). It does so from the canon of global health equity and access to medicines by proposing an access to health products in low-and middle-income countries framework and typology adapted to underscore the complex interactive and multiplicative nature and effects of barriers to health products and their root cause as they coexist across different levels of society in LMICs.MethodsModified versions of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) reviewers' manual for evidence synthesis of systematic reviews and the PRISMA-ScR framework were used to guide the search strategy, identification, and screening of biomedical, social science, and gray literature published in English between 1 January 2020 and 30 April 2021.ResultsThe initial search resulted in 5,956 articles, with 72 articles included in this review after screening protocol and inclusion criteria were applied. Thirty one percent of the articles focused on Africa. The review revealed that barriers to COVID-19 health products were commonly caused by market forces (64%), the unavailability (53%), inaccessibility (42%), and unaffordability (35%), of the products, incongruent donors' agenda and funding (33%) and unreliable health and supply systems (28%). They commonly existed at the international and regional (79%), health sectoral (46%), and national cross-sectoral [public policy] (19%) levels. The historical heritage of colonialism in LMICs was a commonly attributed root cause of the barriers to COVID-19 health products in developing countries.ConclusionThis review has outlined and elaborated on the various barriers to health products that must be comprehensively addressed to mount a successful global, regional, national and subnational response to present and future epidemics and pandemics in LMICs.