No abstract

BackgroundSome studies suggested that adequate levels of vitamin D (VD) decrease the risk of severe COVID-19. Information about the effectiveness of VD supplementation in children is scarce.ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of VD supplementation compared to the standard of care in hospitalized children with COVID-19.Patients and methodsAn open-label randomized controlled single-blind clinical trial was carried out. We included patients from 1 month to 17 years, with moderate COVID-19, who required hospitalization and supplemental oxygen. They were randomized into two groups: the VD group, which received doses of 1,000 (children < 1 year) or 2,000 IU/day (from 1 to 17 years) and the group without VD (control). The outcome variables were the progression of oxygen requirement, the development of complications, and death.Statistical analysisFor comparison between groups, we used the chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test and the Mann–Whitney U test. Absolute risk reduction (ARR) and the number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated. p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsFrom 24 March 2020 to 31 March 2021, 87 patients were eligible to participate in the trial; 45 patients were randomized: 20 to the VD group and 25 to the control group. There was no difference in general characteristics at baseline, including serum VD levels (median 13.8 ng/ml in the VD group and 11.4 ng/ml in the control group).Outcomes2/20 (10%) in the VD group vs. 9/25 (36%) in the control group progressed to a superior ventilation modality (p = 0.10); one patient in the VD group died (5%) compared to 6 (24%) patients in the control group (p = 0.23). ARR was 26% (95% CI 8.8 to 60.2%) and NNT was 3 (2 to 11) for progression and ARR was 19% (95% CI −3.9 to 42.8%) and NNT was 6 (2 to 26) for death. None of the patients receiving VD had adverse effects. The trial was stopped for ethical reasons; since after receiving the results of the basal VD values, none of the patients had normal levels.ConclusionIn this trial, VD supplementation in pediatric patients seems to decrease the risk of COVID-19 progression and death. More studies are needed to confirm these findings.Clinical Trial RegistrationThis protocol was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with the registration number NCT04502667.

Background: The reference standard for the molecular diagnostic testing for COVID-19 is the use of nasopharyngeal or combined nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal (NP/OP) swabs. Saliva has been proposed as a minimally invasive specimen whose collection reduces the risks for health care personnel.Objective: To assess the suitability of saliva for COVID-19 diagnosis as a replacement of the reference standard NP/OP swab in the setting of a tertiary care pediatric unit.Study design: A paired study based in the prospective cohort design in patients suspected of having COVID-19.Methods: RT-PCR was used to detect SARS-CoV-2 in paired samples of saliva and NP/OP swab collected from May through August 2020 from 156 pediatric participants, of whom 128 has at least one comorbidity and 91 showed clinical symptoms related to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Additionally, we studied a group of 326 members of the hospital staff, of whom 271 had symptoms related to SARS-CoV-2 infection.Results: In the group of pediatric participants the sensitivity of the diagnostic test in saliva was 82.3% (95% CI 56.6–96.2) and the specificity 95.6% (95% CI 90.8–98.4). The prevalence of COVID-19 was 10.9% (17/156). In 6 of the 23 participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in at least one specimen type, the virus was detected in saliva but not in NP/OP swab, while in 3 participants the NP/OP swab was positive and saliva negative. In the group of adults, the sensitivity of the test in saliva was 77.8% (95% CI 67.2–86.3) and prevalence 24.8% (81/326). Discordant results between the two types of specimens showed a significant association with low viral load in the pharynx of adults but not of pediatric participants.Interpretation: In the context of a pediatric tertiary care hospital, the sensibility of the test in saliva is not high enough to replace the use of NP/OP swab for COVID-19 diagnosis. Neither NP/OP swab nor saliva could detect all the participants infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Sugary soft drinks modify salivary pH and favor bacterial proliferation and are associated with the development of caries. Information on the effects of consuming carbonated drinks without sucrose is limited. Methods: In this crossover clinical trial, salivary and dental biofilm pH were determined at 0, 5, 10, 15, 30, 45, and 60 min after the participants (n = 18) ingested a soft drink with sucrose, a soft drink with aspartame/acesulfame K, carbonated water, and plain water on different days. Dental biofilm cultures were conducted at 0- and 120-min. Results: Salivary pH decreased significantly after ingestion of the sucrose-containing soft drink when compared with the other types of beverages (median difference, −0.3–−0.4, p ≤ 0.05), and the greatest difference was found with mineral water. A greater bacterial proliferation (Colony Forming Units [CFU]) was observed after ingestion of the drink with sucrose (↑310 × 103 CFU, p ≤ 0.01), followed by the drink with aspartame/acesulfame K (↑160 × 103 CFU, p ≤ 0.01) and carbonated water (↑60 × 103 CFU, p ≤ 0.05). No significant changes in bacterial proliferation were observed after the consumption of natural water. Conclusions: Ingestion of sucrose-containing soft drinks favors the acidification of salivary pH and the bacterial proliferation of dental biofilm. Although to a lesser extent, soft drinks containing aspartame/acesulfame K also favor bacterial proliferation.