The 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee indicated that magnesium was a shortfall nutrient that was underconsumed relative to the Estimated Ave

Reduced magnesium (Mg) intake is a frequent cause of deficiency with age together with reduced absorption, renal wasting, and polypharmacotherapy. Chronic Mg deficiency may result in increased oxidative stress and low-grade inflammation, which may be linked to several age-related diseases, including higher predisposition to infectious diseases. Mg might play a role in the immune response being a cofactor for immunoglobulin synthesis and other processes strictly associated with the function of T and B cells. Mg is necessary for the biosynthesis, transport, and activation of vitamin D, another key factor in the pathogenesis of infectious diseases. The regulation of cytosolic free Mg in immune cells involves Mg transport systems, such as the melastatin-like transient receptor potential 7 channel, the solute carrier family, and the magnesium transporter 1 (MAGT1). The functional importance of Mg transport in immunity was unknown until the description of the primary immunodeficiency XMEN (X-linked immunodeficiency with Mg defect, Epstein–Barr virus infection, and neoplasia) due to a genetic deficiency of MAGT1 characterized by chronic Epstein–Barr virus infection. This and other research reporting associations of Mg deficit with viral and bacterial infections indicate a possible role of Mg deficit in the recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its complications. In this review, we will discuss the importance of Mg for the immune system and for infectious diseases, including the recent pandemic of COVID-19.

Certainly, there was a mistake in the first publication [1]; however, consistently all analyses and results using the triglyceride and glucose (TyG) index have been performed with the following formula: Ln [fasting triglycerides (mg/dL) × fasting glucose (mg/dL)]/2. Several studies have used other formula, dividing by 2 the product of triglycerides and glucose, and after division, calculating the Ln. Obviously, the range of TyG values is different; however, they have consistently reported that TyG index is a reliable biomarker of insulin resistance. Regarding the usefulness of the TyG index in comparison with its components alone, a previous cohort study involving 43,197.32 person years revealed that TyG index exhibit a higher area under the curve (AUC = 0.75, 95% CI 0.70-0.81) than fasting plasma glucose (AUC = 0.66, 95% CI 0.60-0.72) and triglyceride levels (AUC = 0.71, 95% CI 0.65-0.77), resulting in a better predictor for the development of type 2 diabetes [2]. Additionally, another cohort study of 10-year follow-up demonstrated that TyG index is a better predictor for incident diabetes than triglycerides and fasting plasma glucose [3]. Evidence suggest that TyG index is a more effective biomarker than its separate components to identify glucose metabolism abnormalities; hence, the TyG index has been recommended as a screening tool of subjects at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes [2, 3].