IMPORTANCEThe efficacy of vitamin D 3 supplementation in coronavirus disease 2019 remains unclear.OBJECTIVE To investigate the effect of a single high dose of vitamin D 3 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.INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned to receive a single oral dose of 200 000 IU of vitamin D 3 (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 D 3 (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 D 3 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 D 3 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 RELEVANCE Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a single high dose of vitamin D 3 , compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce hospital length of stay. The findings do not support the use of a high dose of vitamin D 3 for treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19.

Background The modulating effect of vitamin D on cytokine levels in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unknown. Objectives To investigate the effect of a single high-dose of vitamin D3 on cytokines, chemokines, and growth factor in hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. Methods This is a post-hoc, ancillary and exploratory analysis from a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04449718. Patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 were recruited from two hospitals in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Of 240 randomized patients, 200 were assessed in this study and randomly assigned to receive a single oral dose of 200 000 IU of vitamin D3 (n = 101) or placebo (n = 99). The primary outcome was hospital length of stay, that has been published in our previous study. The prespecified secondary outcomes were serum levels of interleukin-1β, interleukin-6, interleukin-10, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) and 25-hydroxyvitamin D. The post-hoc exploratory secondary outcomes were interleukin-4, interleukin-12p70, interleukin-17A, interferon gamma (IFN-γ), granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), interleukin-8, interferon-inducible protein-10 (IP-10), macrophage inflammatory protein-1 beta (MIP-1β), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), growth factor vascular endothelial (VEGF), and leukocytes count. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) for repeated measures, with Bonferroni's adjustment, were used for testing all outcomes. Results The study included 200 patients with a mean (SD) age 55.5 (14.3) years and body mass index (BMI) 32.2 (7.1) kg/m2, of which 109 (54.5%) were male. GM-CSF levels showed a significant group by time interaction effect (P = 0.04), although between-group difference at post-intervention after Bonferroni's adjustment was not significant. No significant effects were observed for the other outcomes. Conclusions The findings do not support the use of a single dose of 200 000 IU of vitamin D3, compared to placebo, for the improvement of cytokines, chemokines, and growth factor in hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04449718.

ObjectiveTo determine the immunogenicity of the third dose of CoronaVac vaccine in a large population of patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD) and the factors associated with impaired response.MethodsAdult patients with ARD and age-balanced/sex-balanced controls (control group, CG) previously vaccinated with two doses of CoronaVac received the third dose at D210 (6 months after the second dose). The presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG and neutralising antibodies (NAb) was evaluated previously to vaccination (D210) and 30 days later (D240). Patients with controlled disease suspended mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) for 7 days or methotrexate (MTX) for 2 weekly doses after vaccination.ResultsARD (n=597) and CG (n=199) had comparable age (p=0.943). Anti-S1/S2 IgG seropositivity rates significantly increased from D210 (60%) to D240 (93%) (p<0.0001) in patients with ARD. NAb positivity also increased: 38% (D210) vs 81.4% (D240) (p<0.0001). The same pattern was observed for CG, with significantly higher frequencies for both parameters at D240 (p<0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analyses in the ARD group revealed that older age (OR=0.98, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.0, p=0.024), vasculitis diagnosis (OR=0.24, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.53, p<0.001), prednisone ≥5 mg/day (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.77, p=0.003), MMF (OR=0.30, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.61, p<0.001) and biologics (OR=0.27, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.46, p<0.001) were associated with reduced anti-S1/S2 IgG positivity. Similar analyses demonstrated that prednisone ≥5 mg/day (OR=0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.90, p=0.011), abatacept (OR=0.39, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.74, p=0.004), belimumab (OR=0.29, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.67, p=0.004) and rituximab (OR=0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.30, p<0.001) were negatively associated with NAb positivity. Further evaluation of COVID-19 seronegative ARD at D210 demonstrated prominent increases in positivity rates at D240 for anti-S1/S2 IgG (80.5%) and NAb (59.1%) (p<0.0001).ConclusionsWe provide novel data on a robust response to the third dose of CoronaVac in patients with ARD, even in those with prevaccination COVID-19 seronegative status. Drugs implicated in reducing immunogenicity after the regular two-dose regimen were associated with non-responsiveness after the third dose, except for MTX.Trial registration numberNCT04754698.

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: &lt;10 ng/mL, 10 to &lt;20 ng/mL, 20 to &lt;30 ng/mL, and ≥30 ng/mL, and &lt;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 &lt;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 (&lt;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.

Background Creatine supplementation could be a nonexpensive, safe, and effective dietary intervention to counteract bone loss. The aim of this study was to investigate whether long-term creatine supplementation can improve bone health in older, postmenopausal women. Methods A double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, randomized trial was conducted between November 2011 and December 2017 in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Two hundred postmenopausal women with osteopenia were randomly allocated to receive either creatine monohydrate (3 g/d) or placebo for 2 years. At baseline and after 12 and 24 months, we assessed areal bone mineral density (aBMD; primary outcome), lean and fat mass (through dual X-ray absorptiometry), volumetric BMD and bone microarchitecture parameters, biochemical bone markers, physical function and strength, and the number of falls and fractures. Possible adverse effects were self-reported. Results Lumbar spine (p &lt; .001), femoral neck (p &lt; .001), and total femur aBMD (p = .032) decreased across time; however, no interaction effect was observed (all p &gt; .050). Bone markers, microarchitecture parameters, and the number of falls/fractures were not changed with creatine (all p &gt; .050). Lean mass and appendicular skeletal muscle mass increased throughout the intervention (p &lt; .001), with no additive effect of creatine (p = .731 and p = .397, respectively). Creatine did not affect health-related laboratory parameters. Conclusion Creatine supplementation more than 2 years did not improve bone health in older, postmenopausal women with osteopenia, nor did it affect lean mass or muscle function in this population. This refutes the long-lasting notion that this dietary supplement alone has osteogenic or anabolic properties in the long run. Clinical trial registry Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT: 01472393.