Background and aims Micronutrient supplements such as vitamin D, vitamin C, and zinc have been used in managing viral illnesses. However, the clinical significance of these individual micronutrients in patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. We conducted this meta-analysis to provide a quantitative assessment of the clinical significance of these individual micronutrients in COVID-19. Methods We performed a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases through December 5th, 2021. All individual micronutrients reported by ≥3 studies and compared with standard-of-care (SOC) were included. The primary outcome was mortality. The secondary outcomes were intubation rate and length of hospital stay (LOS). Pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the random-effects model. Results We identified 26 studies (10 randomized controlled trials and 16 observational studies) involving 5633 COVID-19 patients that compared three individual micronutrient supplements (vitamin C, vitamin D, and zinc) with SOC. Nine studies evaluated vitamin C in 1488 patients (605 in vitamin C and 883 in SOC). Vitamin C supplementation had no significant effect on mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.62-1.62, P=1.00), intubation rate (RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.56-5.56, P=0.33), or LOS (MD 0.64; 95% CI -1.70, 2.99; P=0.59). Fourteen studies assessed the impact of vitamin D on mortality among 3497 patients (927 in vitamin D and 2570 in SOC). Vitamin D did not reduce mortality (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49-1.17, P=0.21) but reduced intubation rate (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.97, P=0.04) and LOS (MD -1.26; 95% CI -2.27, -0.25; P=0.01). Subgroup analysis showed that vitamin D supplementation was not associated with a mortality benefit in patients receiving vitamin D pre or post COVID-19 diagnosis. Five studies, including 738 patients, compared zinc intake with SOC (447 in zinc and 291 in SOC). Zinc supplementation was not associated with a significant reduction of mortality (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.60-1.03, P=0.08). Conclusions Individual micronutrient supplementations, including vitamin C, vitamin D, and zinc, were not associated with a mortality benefit in COVID-19. Vitamin D may be associated with lower intubation rate and shorter LOS, but vitamin C did not reduce intubation rate or LOS. Further research is needed to validate our findings.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Left ventricular thrombus (LVT) may develop in systolic heart failure or after acute myocardial infarction. The current recommendations support the use of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the treatment of LVT. Limited data exist regarding the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with LVT. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus VKAs for LVT. Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases through November 2020 for all studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus VKAs in patients with LVT. The primary outcomes were LVT resolution, overall thromboembolic events, and thromboembolic stroke. The secondary outcomes were major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained by the Mantel–Haenszel method within a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I 2 statistic. Results: A total of 11 studies including 2153 patients with LVT on anticoagulation (570 on DOACs vs. 1583 on VKAs) were included. LVT resolution was significantly higher in DOACs compared with VKAs [RR: 1.18 (95% CI: 1.04–1.35); P = 0.01, I 2 = 25%]. However, no significant difference existed between DOACs and VKAs regarding overall thromboembolic events [RR: 1.10 (95% CI: 0.75–1.62); P = 0.61, I 2 = 0%] and thromboembolic stroke [RR: 0.63 (95% CI: 0.39–1.02); P = 0.06, I 2 = 0%]. Major bleeding [RR: 1.00 (95% CI: 0.66–1.51); P = 0.99, I 2 = 4%] and all-cause mortality [RR: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.50–1.43); P = 0.53, I 2 = 0%] were similar between the 2 groups. Conclusions: DOACs seem to be more efficacious in achieving LVT resolution compared with VKAs. However, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in thromboembolic events, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Recent clinical trials have investigated the use of fluvoxamine in preventing clinical deterioration in nonhospitalized patients with acute COVID-19 infection via stimulation of sigma-1 receptors, which regulates cytokine production and functional inhibition of acid sphingomyelinase activity, which may prevent infection of epithelial cells with SARS-CoV-2. However, the role of fluvoxamine is currently unclear because of a paucity of studies, particularly because the drug is being repurposed as an immunomodulatory and antiviral agent.Study Question: Aim of our meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy of fluvoxamine in nonhospitalized patients with acute COVID-19 infection.Data Source: Comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, and Web of Science was performed from inception to February 10, 2022, for studies comparing fluvoxamine versus placebo for outpatient management of COVID-19.Study Design: The primary outcome of interest was rate of hospitalization. The secondary outcomes were rates of patients requiring mechanical ventilation and mortality. The random-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratios (RR) and confidence intervals (CI). A P value ,0.05 was considered statistically significant. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Higgins I 2 index.Results: Three studies (2 randomized controlled trials and one prospective cohort trial) involving 1762 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In patients who received fluvoxamine compared with placebo, there was no significant difference in rates of hospitalization (RR 0.26, 95% CI, 0.04-1.73, P 5 0.16, I 2 5 62%), mechanical ventilation (RR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.45-1.19, P 5 0.21, I 2 5 0%), and mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI, 0.37-1.22, P 5 0.19, I 2 5 0%).Conclusion: Current evidence does not indicate a significant effect of fluvoxamine on the rates of hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and mortality of patients with COVID-19 infection.