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.
The crystalloid fluid of choice in sepsis remains debatable. We aimed to perform a comprehensive meta-analysis to compare the effect of balanced crystalloids (BC) vs. normal saline (NS) in adults with sepsis. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Sciences databases through 22 January 2022, was performed for studies that compared BC vs. NS in adults with sepsis. Our outcomes included mortality and acute kidney injury (AKI), need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), and ICU length of stay (LOS). Pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained using a random-effect model. Fifteen studies involving 20,329 patients were included. Overall, BC showed a significant reduction in the overall mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81–0.96), 28/30-day mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79–0.95), and AKI (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77–0.93) but similar 90-day mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90–1.03), need for RRT (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76–1.08), and ICU LOS (MD −0.25 days, 95% CI −3.44, 2.95), were observed between the two groups. However, subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed no statistically significant differences in overall mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82–1.02), AKI (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47–1.06), and need for RRT (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.36–1.41). Our meta-analysis demonstrates that overall BC was associated with reduced mortality and AKI in sepsis compared to NS among patients with sepsis. However, subgroup analysis of RCTs showed no significant differences in both overall mortality and AKI between the groups. There was no significant difference in the need for RRT or ICU LOS between BC and NS. Pending further data, our study supports using BC over NS for fluid resuscitation in adults with sepsis. Further large-scale RCTs are necessary to validate our findings.
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.
Fat embolism syndrome is a relatively infrequent presentation in sickle cell thalassemia patients. It most commonly occurs in long bone fractures in the setting of trauma. However, nonorthopedic trauma and nontraumatic cases have been reported to contribute to fat embolism. The fat embolic syndrome is an underdiagnosed, life-threatening, and debilitating complication of sickle-β-thalassemia–related hemoglobinopathies. It is primarily seen in milder versions of sickle cell disease, including HbSC and sickle cell β-thalassemia, with the mild prior clinical course without complications; hence, diagnosis can be easily missed. Pathogenesis of fat embolic syndrome is a combination of mechanical obstruction from fat globules released into systemic circulation at the time of bone marrow necrosis and direct tissue toxicity from fatty acids and inflammatory cytokines released from fat globules. Prompt diagnosis and early initiation of treatment can reduce morbidity and mortality and result in better outcomes and prognosis. Red cell exchange transfusion is the mainstay of therapy with mortality benefits. Overall mortality and neurological sequelae continue to be high despite increased red cell exchange transfusion in the last few years. In this article, we discussed a case of a 34-year-old male patient with a history of sickle cell thalassemia and avascular necrosis of the hip, who presented with fever, hypoxia, encephalopathy, and generalized body aches, found to have thrombocytopenia and punctate lesions on magnetic resonance imaging brain, which led to the diagnosis of the fat embolism syndrome. Only a few sickle cell β-thalassemia with fat embolic syndrome cases have been reported.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.