Background Evidence recommends that vitamin D might be a crucial supportive agent for the immune system, mainly in cytokine response regulation against COVID‐19. Hence, we carried out a systematic review and meta‐analysis in order to maximise the use of everything that exists about the role of vitamin D in the COVID‐19. Methods A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science up to December 18, 2020. Studies focused on the role of vitamin D in confirmed COVID‐19 patients were entered into the systematic review. Results Twenty‐three studies containing 11 901 participants entered into the meta‐analysis. The meta‐analysis indicated that 41% of COVID‐19 patients were suffering from vitamin D deficiency (95% CI, 29%‐55%), and in 42% of patients, levels of vitamin D were insufficient (95% CI, 24%‐63%). The serum 25‐hydroxyvitamin D concentration was 20.3 ng/mL among all COVID‐19 patients (95% CI, 12.1‐19.8). The odds of getting infected with SARS‐CoV‐2 are 3.3 times higher among individuals with vitamin D deficiency (95% CI, 2.5‐4.3). The chance of developing severe COVID‐19 is about five times higher in patients with vitamin D deficiency (OR: 5.1, 95% CI, 2.6‐10.3). There is no significant association between vitamin D status and higher mortality rates (OR: 1.6, 95% CI, 0.5‐4.4). Conclusion This study found that most of the COVID‐19 patients were suffering from vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency. Also, there is about three times higher chance of getting infected with SARS‐CoV‐2 among vitamin‐D‐deficient individuals and about five times higher probability of developing the severe disease in vitamin‐D‐deficient patients. Vitamin D deficiency showed no significant association with mortality rates in this population.

Background: Following emerge of a novel coronavirus from Wuhan, China, in December 2019, it has affected the whole world and after months of efforts by the medical communities, there is still no specific approach for prevention and treatment against the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Evidence recommends that vitamin D might be an important supportive agent for the immune system, mainly in cytokine response regulation against COVID-19. Hence, we carried out a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis along with an ecological investigation in order to maximize the use of everything that exists about the role of vitamin D in the COVID-19. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Google Scholar (intitle) as well as preprint database of medRxiv, bioRxiv, Research Square, preprints.org, search engine of ScienceDirect and a rapid search through famous journals up to May 26, 2020. Studies focused on the role of vitamin D in confirmed COVID-19 patients were entered into the systematic review. Along with our main aim, to find the second objective: correlation of global vitamin D status and COVID-19 recovery and mortality we carried out a literature search in PubMed database to identify the national or regional studies reported the vitamin D status globally. CMA v. 2.2.064 and SPSS v.16 were used for data analysis. Results: Out of nine studies entered into our systematic review, six studies containing 3,822 participants entered into the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis indicated that 46.5% of COVID-19 patients were suffering from vitamin D deficiency (95% CI, 28.2%-65.8%) and in 43.3% of patients, levels of vitamin D were insufficient (95% CI, 27.4%-60.8%). In regard to our ecological investigation on 51 countries including 408,748 participants, analyses indicated no correlation between vitamin D levels and recovery rate (r= 0.041) as well as mortality rate (r=−0.073) globally. However, given latitude, a small reverse correlation between mortality rate and vitamin D status was observed throughout the globe (r= −0.177). In Asia, a medium direct correlation was observed for recovery rate (r= 0.317) and a significant reveres correlation for mortality rate (r= −0.700) with vitamin D status in such patients. In Europe, there were no correlations for both recovery (r= 0.040) and mortality rate (r= −0.035). In Middle East, the recovery rate (r= 0.267) and mortality rate (r= −0.217) showed a medium correlation. In North and Sought America, surprisingly, both recovery and mortality rate demonstrated a direct correlation respectively (r= 1.000, r=0.500). In Oceania, unexpectedly, recovery (r= −1.000) and mortality (r= −1.000) rates were in considerable reverse correlation with vitamin D levels. Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis with an ecological approach, we found a high percentage of COVID-19 patients who suffer from vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency. Much more important, our ecological investigation resulted in substantial direct and reverse correlations between recovery and mortality rates of COVID-19 patients with vitamin D status in different countries. Considering latitudes, a small reverse correlation between vitamin D status and mortality rate was found globally. It seems that populations with lower levels of vitamin D might be more susceptible to the novel coronavirus infection. Nevertheless, due to multiple limitations, if this study does not allow to quantify a value of the Vitamin D with full confidence, it allows at least to know what the Vitamin D might be and that it would be prudent to invest in this direction through comprehensive large randomized clinical trials.

Risk factors for clinical outcomes of COVID-19 pneumonia have not yet been well established in patients with underlying liver diseases. Our study aimed to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 infection among patients with underlying liver diseases and determine the risk factors for severe COVID-19 among them. In a retrospective analytical study, 1002 patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia were divided into two groups: patients with and without underlying liver diseases. The admission period was from 5 March to 14 May 2020. The prevalence of underlying conditions, Demographic data, clinical parameters, laboratory data, and participants' outcomes were evaluated. Logistic regression was used to estimate the predictive factors. Eighty-one (8%) of patients had underlying liver diseases. The frequencies of gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhea and vomiting were significantly higher among patients with liver diseases (48% vs. 25% and 46.1% vs. 30% respectively, both P < 0.05). Moreover, ALT and AST were significantly higher among patients with liver diseases (54.5 ± 45.6 vs. 37.1 ± 28.4, P = 0.013 and 41.4 ± 27.2 vs. 29.2 ± 24.3, P = 0.028, respectively). Additionally, the mortality rate was significantly high in patients with liver disease (12.4% vs. 7%, P = 0.018). We also observed that the parameters such as neutrophil to leukocyte ratio [Odds Ratio Adjusted (ORAdj) 1.81, 95% CI 1.21–3.11, P = 0.011] and blood group A (ORAdj 1.59, 95% CI 1.15–2.11, P = 0.001) were associated with progression of symptoms of COVID-19. The presence of underlying liver diseases should be considered one of the poor prognostic factors for worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

Aim: The main assessment of this study is to analyze the efficiency of ultrasound-guided dextrose prolotherapy against corticosteroid injections for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. Materials & methods: A total of 54 patients with carpal tunnel syndrome were included. Patients who were assigned into the prolotherapy group were injected with 5cc 5% dextrose water under ultrasound guidance. Patients in the corticosteroid group received ultrasound-guided 1 ml triamcinolone 40 mg/ml injection. Results: The inter-group analysis revealed that dextrose prolotherapy has a similar efficacy as corticosteroid for improving pain intensity, functional limitation in daily life, electrophysiologic parameters and ultrasonographic outcomes. No remarkable difference was found between the two treatments until 3 months of follow-up. Conclusion: Dextrose 5% has similar efficacy as triamcinolone for improving pain intensity, functional limitation in daily life, electrophysiologic parameters and ultrasonographic outcomes.

No abstract