admission. This proportion could already be greater in some parts of the country and may increase if referrals of cases of self-poisoning increase faster than the facilities for their assessment and management. The provision of social work and psychiatric expertise in casualty departments may be one means of preventing unnecessary medical admissions without risk to the patients. Dr Blake's and Dr Bramble's figures do not demonstrate, however, that any advantage would attach to medical teams taking over assessment from psychiatrists except that, by implication, assessments would be completed sooner by staff working on the ward full time. What the figures actually suggest is that if assessment of overdoses were left to house doctors there would be an increase in admissions to psychiatric units (by 19°U), outpatients (by 5O°'), and referrals to social services (by 140o). So for house doctors to assess overdoses would provide no economy for the psychiatric or social services. The study does not tell us what the consequences would have been for the six patients who the psychiatrists would have admitted but to whom the house doctors would have offered outpatient appointments. E J SALTER

Vitamin D deficiency.

Summary Background Since December, 2019, Wuhan, China, has experienced an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 have been reported but risk factors for mortality and a detailed clinical course of illness, including viral shedding, have not been well described. Methods In this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included all adult inpatients (≥18 years old) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital (Wuhan, China) who had been discharged or had died by Jan 31, 2020. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data, including serial samples for viral RNA detection, were extracted from electronic medical records and compared between survivors and non-survivors. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods to explore the risk factors associated with in-hospital death. Findings 191 patients (135 from Jinyintan Hospital and 56 from Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital) were included in this study, of whom 137 were discharged and 54 died in hospital. 91 (48%) patients had a comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common (58 [30%] patients), followed by diabetes (36 [19%] patients) and coronary heart disease (15 [8%] patients). Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with older age (odds ratio 1·10, 95% CI 1·03–1·17, per year increase; p=0·0043), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5·65, 2·61–12·23; p Interpretation The potential risk factors of older age, high SOFA score, and d-dimer greater than 1 μg/mL could help clinicians to identify patients with poor prognosis at an early stage. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future. Funding Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences; National Science Grant for Distinguished Young Scholars; National Key Research and Development Program of China; The Beijing Science and Technology Project; and Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development.

Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Disease severity and mortality rates due to COVID-19 infection are greater in the elderly and chronically ill patients, populations at high risk for vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin D plays an important role in immune function and inflammation. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses the impact of vitamin D status and supplementation on COVID-19 related mortality and health outcomes. METHODS: We searched four databases until December 18th 2020, and trial registries until January 20th 2021. Two reviewers screened the studies, collected data, assessed the risk of bias, and graded the evidence for each outcome across studies, independently and in duplicate. Pre-specified outcomes of interest were mortality, ICU admission, invasive and non-invasive ventilation, hospitalization, time of hospital stay, disease severity and SARS-CoV-2 positivity. We only included data from peer-reviewed articles in our primary analyses. RESULTS: We identified 31 peer-reviewed observational studies. In our primary analysis, there was a positive trend between serum 25(OH)D level <20â¯ng/ml and an increased risk of mortality, ICU admission, invasive ventilation, non-invasive ventilation or SARS-CoV-2 positivity. However, these associations were not statistically significant. Mean 25(OH)D levels was 5.9â¯ng/ml (95% CI [-9.5, -2.3]) significantly lower in COVID-19 positive, compared to negative patients. The certainty of the evidence was very low. We identified 32 clinical trial protocols, but only three have published results to-date. The trials administer vitamin D doses of 357 to 60,000â¯IU/day, from one week to 12â¯months. Eight megatrials investigate the efficacy of vitamin D in outpatient populations. A pilot trial revealed a significant decrease in ICU admission with calcifediol, compared to placebo (ORâ¯=â¯0.003), but the certainty of the evidence was unclear. Another small trial showed that supplementation with cholecalciferol, 60,000â¯IU/day, decreased fibrinogen levels, but did not have an effect on D-dimer, procalcitonin and CRP levels, compared to placebo. The third trial did not find any effect of vitamin D supplementation on COVID-19 related health outcomes. CONCLUSION: While the available evidence to-date, from largely poor-quality observational studies, may be viewed as showing a trend for an association between low serum 25(OH)D levels and COVID-19 related health outcomes, this relationship was not found to be statistically significant. Calcifediol supplementation may have a protective effect on COVID-19 related ICU admissions. The current use of high doses of vitamin D in COVID-19 patients is not based on solid evidence. It awaits results from ongoing trials to determine the efficacy, desirable doses, and safety, of vitamin D supplementation to prevent and treat COVID-19 related health outcomes.

The link between COVID-19 and VItamin D (VIVID): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment for COVID-19 has been a subject of considerable discussion. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of vitamin D supplementation for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether vitamin D supplementation is effective and safe for the treatment of COVID-19 in comparison to an active comparator, placebo, or standard of care alone, and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 11 March 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies investigating preventive effects, or studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following prioritised outcome categories: individuals with moderate or severe COVID-19: all-cause mortality, clinical status, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events, and for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease: all-cause mortality, development of severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three RCTs with 356 participants, of whom 183 received vitamin D. In accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) clinical progression scale, two studies investigated participants with moderate or severe disease, and one study individuals with mild or asymptomatic disease. The control groups consisted of placebo treatment or standard of care alone. Effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease We included two studies with 313 participants. Due to substantial clinical and methodological diversity of both studies, we were not able to pool data. Vitamin D status was unknown in one study, whereas the other study reported data for vitamin D deficient participants. One study administered multiple doses of oral calcifediol at days 1, 3 and 7,  whereas the other study gave a single high dose of oral cholecalciferol at baseline. We assessed one study with low risk of bias for effectiveness outcomes, and the other with some concerns about randomisation and selective reporting. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge (313 participants) We found two studies reporting data for this outcome. One study reported no deaths when treated with vitamin D out of 50 participants, compared to two deaths out of 26 participants in the control group (Risk ratio (RR) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.13). The other study reported nine deaths out of 119 individuals in the vitamin D group, whereas six participants out of 118 died in the placebo group (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.04]. We are very uncertain whether vitamin D has an effect on all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (very low-certainty evidence). Clinical status assessed by the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (237 participants) We found one study reporting data for this outcome. Nine out of 119 participants needed invasive mechanical ventilation when treated with vitamin D, compared to 17 out of 118 participants in the placebo group (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.13). Vitamin D supplementation may decrease need for invasive mechanical ventilation, but the evidence is uncertain (low-certainty evidence). Quality of life We did not find data for quality of life. Safety of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease We did not include data from one study, because assessment of serious adverse events was not described and we are concerned that data might have been inconsistently measured. This study reported vomiting in one out of 119 participants immediately after vitamin D intake (RR 2.98, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.30). We are very uncertain whether vitamin D supplementation is associated with higher risk for adverse events (very low-certainty). Effectiveness and safety of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and asymptomatic or mild disease We found one study including 40 individuals, which did not report our prioritised outcomes, but instead data for viral clearance, inflammatory markers, and vitamin D serum levels. The authors reported no events of hypercalcaemia, but recording and assessment of further adverse events remains unclear. Authors administered oral cholecalciferol in daily doses for at least 14 days, and continued with weekly doses if vitamin D blood levels were > 50 ng/mL. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment of COVID-19. The evidence for the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation for the treatment of COVID-19 is very uncertain. Moreover, we found only limited safety information, and were concerned about consistency in measurement and recording of these outcomes. There was substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity of included studies, mainly because of different supplementation strategies, formulations, vitamin D status of participants, and reported outcomes. There is an urgent need for well-designed and adequately powered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with an appropriate randomisation procedure, comparability of study arms and preferably double-blinding. We identified 21 ongoing and three completed studies without published results, which indicates that these needs will be addressed and that our findings are subject to change in the future. Due to the living approach of this work, we will update the review periodically.

Vitamin D supplementation for the treatment of COVID-19: a living systematic review.

Purpose To analyze the associations between cholecalciferol or calcifediol supplementation, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) levels and COVID-19 outcomes in a large population. Methods All individuals ≥ 18 years old living in Barcelona-Central Catalonia (n = 4.6 million) supplemented with cholecalciferol or calcifediol from April 2019 to February 2020 were compared with propensity score-matched untreated controls. Outcome variables were SARS-CoV2 infection, severe COVID-19 and COVID-19 mortality occuring during the first wave of the pandemic. Demographical data, comorbidities, serum 25OHD levels and concomitant pharmacological treatments were collected as covariates. Associations between cholecalciferol or calcifediol use and outcome variables were analyzed using multivariate Cox proportional regression. Results Cholecalciferol supplementation (n = 108,343) was associated with slight protection from SARS-CoV2 infection (n = 4352 [4.0%] vs 9142/216,686 [4.2%] in controls; HR 0.95 [CI 95% 0.91-0.98], p = 0.004). Patients on cholecalciferol treatment achieving 25OHD levels ≥ 30 ng/ml had lower risk of SARS-CoV2 infection, lower risk of severe COVID-19 and lower COVID-19 mortality than unsupplemented 25OHD-deficient patients (56/9474 [0.6%] vs 96/7616 [1.3%]; HR 0.66 [CI 95% 0.46-0.93], p = 0.018). Calcifediol use (n = 134,703) was not associated with reduced risk of SARS-CoV2 infection or mortality in the whole cohort. However, patients on calcifediol treatment achieving serum 25OHD levels ≥ 30 ng/ml also had lower risk of SARS-CoV2 infection, lower risk of severe COVID-19, and lower COVID-19 mortality compared to 25OHD-deficient patients not receiving vitamin D supplements (88/16276 [0.5%] vs 96/7616 [1.3%]; HR 0.56 [CI 95% 0.42-0.76], p Conclusions In this large, population-based study, we observed that patients supplemented with cholecalciferol or calcifediol achieving serum 25OHD levels ≥ 30 ng/ml were associated with better COVID-19 outcomes.

/pdf/vitamin-d-supplementation-and-covid-19-risk-a-population-1h5nwji0gc.pdf

Vitamin D supplementation and COVID-19 risk: a population-based, cohort study.

There is still limited evidence regarding the influence of vitamin D in people with COVID-19. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we analyze the association between vitamin D deficiency and COVID-19 severity, via an analysis of the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency in people with the disease. Five online databases-Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and pre-print Medrevix were searched. The inclusion criteria were observational studies measuring serum vitamin D in adult and elderly subjects with COVID-19. The main outcome was the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in severe cases of COVID-19. We carried out a meta-analysis with random effect measures. We identified 1542 articles and selected 27. Vitamin D deficiency was not associated with a higher chance of infection by COVID-19 (OR = 1.35; 95% CI = 0.80-1.88), but we identified that severe cases of COVID-19 present 64% (OR = 1.64; 95% CI = 1.30-2.09) more vitamin D deficiency compared with mild cases. A vitamin D concentration insufficiency increased hospitalization (OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.41-2.21) and mortality from COVID-19 (OR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.06-2.58). We observed a positive association between vitamin D deficiency and the severity of the disease.

Vitamin D deficiency aggravates COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dear editor,We updated the results of our previously published study (Pereira et al. 2020). We identified three spurious reports (Alipio 2020; El James Glicio et al.; Raharusun et al. 2020) include...

Addendum to vitamin D deficiency aggravates COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis.

We discuss the quality of the article evidence on the association between vitamin D deficiency and COVID-19, as well as updating the statistics in response to the letter to the editor regarding the same paper. Our review included 22 studies with data available in 23 articles. Using crude OR data, we observed that the chance of hospitalization was 2.16 (CI 95% = 1.42 - 2.89;) for vitamin-deficient individuals compared to non-deficient ones. However, when using the adjusted OR, it was possible to obtain a chance of 1.78 (CI 95% = 1.36-2.20). For the outcome vitamin D deficiency and death in patients with COVID-19 infection the crude association value was 1.38 (OR =1.38; CI 95% = 1.08 - 1.68) and the adjusted OR with the two studies was 1.08 (CI 95% = 0.82- 1.34). This new analyzes don't substantially alter our results. Vitamin D remains associated with severity COVID-19.

Tarcio de Almeida Oliveira

Papers

Vitamin D deficiency aggravates COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Addendum to vitamin D deficiency aggravates COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Vitamin D deficiency aggravates COVID-19: discussion of the evidence.