Objective: To systematically evaluate the impact of vitamin D supplementation on mortality, ICU admission, and the rates of mechanical ventilation or intubation among COVID-19 patients.Data sources and study selection: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, VIP, and WanFang databases were searched from 1 December 2019 to 31 December 2022. The authors sought to identify randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that examined the relationship between vitamin D supplementation and mortality, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation or intubation rates among COVID-19 patients.Data extraction and synthesis: Two investigators independently searched the literature, extracted the data, and assessed the quality of the included studies. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to evaluate the quality of the evidence. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3, STATA 15.1, and R 4.1.3 software.Results: Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight cohort studies were included, involving 3359 COVID-19 patients. The pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials showed that vitamin D supplementation did not have a significant effect on reducing mortality (Relative Risk, RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.69–1.29, P = 0.7), while the results of cohort studies indicated that vitamin D supplementation had a positive impact on reducing mortality among COVID-19 patients (RR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.23–0.47, P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the rates of ICU admission (RCTs: RR = 0.64, 95%CI 0.38–1.08, P = 0.10; cohort studies: RR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.08–1.29, P = 0.109) or rates of mechanical ventilation or intubation (RCTs: RR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.58–1.02, P = 0.07; cohort studies: RR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.55–1.58, P = 0.789).Conclusion: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that vitamin D supplementation does not have a significant impact on reducing mortality, ICU admission, and the rates of mechanical ventilation or intubation among COVID-19 patients. However, due to the limited number and quality of the studies included, further high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.Systematic review registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk, identifier CRD42021299521.

Glycyrrhizin is the main active component of licorice. Licorice and glycyrrhizin induced hypertension has been widely reported, yet licorice and glycyrrhizin induced hypertensive crisis has been rarely known. The case of this report was a 47-year-old woman, who took 225 mg of glycyrrhizin daily for 3 years due to primary biliary cholangitis. She was found to have a dramatically elevated blood pressure of about 230/110 mmHg without a history of hypertension and was referred to the emergency department. Hypokalemia, hypertensive retinopathy, and nephropathy were found during the following work-up. Since no other risk factors of hypertension were identified, she was suspected to have glycyrrhizin induced pseudo-hyperaldosteronism. Glycyrrhizin was discontinued. Intravenous sodium nitroprusside was used during the first few days. Nifedipine and irbesartan were taken after discharge, and the dosage was reduced gradually under supervision. She stopped all the anti-hypertensive drugs 6 months since glycyrrhizin was stopped. Her blood pressure was about 110/60 mmHg after repetitive measurement. Her serum potassium and urine albumin/creatinine ratio were also normalized. Licorice and glycyrrhizin induced hypertension due to pseudo-hyperaldosteronism has been widely reported, yet only 3 cases reported that excessive consumption of licorice could lead to hypertensive emergencies. This is the first case that glycyrrhizin induced hypertensive crisis with target organ impairment. By presenting this case, we remind clinicians of glycyrrhizin induced hypertension, a condition which could lead to medical emergencies.

Rationale: Tumor-induced osteomalacia (TIO) is a rare, paraneoplastic syndrome featured with fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23) secretion primarily by benign mesenchymal tumors and sometimes by malignancies. TIO diagnosis and treatment is often delayed because TIO usually has nonspecific generalized bone pain and weakness, and location of TIO tumor is quite challenging. Very few TIO caused by sinonasal hemangiopericytoma have been reported in the literature. Patient concerns: A 40-year-old Chinese woman presented with diffuse bone pain for more than 1 year. Laboratory examination showed hypophosphatemia, hyperphosphaturia, hypocalcemia, an elevated serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level and bone-specific ALP level. Imaging studies revealed low bone mineral density (BMD) and multiple pseudofractures at the ribs. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography was negative in searching for tumors. Because no tumor was located, the patient was treated with oral phosphate, calcium, and alfacalcidol, and achieved great relief in her symptoms and improvement in BMD. Six years later, the patient had breast cancer surgery and received chemotherapy, and still had hypophosphatemia. During this time, nasopharyngo-fiberscope showed nasal mass in her left nasal cavity. Then she had her nasal polyps removed and surprisingly the serum phosphate became normal. Diagnoses and interventions: The patient had the nasal mass resected, and pathological diagnosis of the nasal mass was sinonasal hemangiopericytoma. Immunohistochemical analysis was positive for FGF23. Thus the final diagnosis was osteomalacia induced by sinonasal hemangiopericytoma. Phosphate supplementation and alfacalcidol were discontinued. Outcomes: The patient had normal serum phosphate after 6-month follow-up. Lessons: By presenting this case, we hope to remind clinicians that in patients with osteomalacia with undetermined reason and intranasal polypoid mass, sinonasal hemangiopericytoma should be suspected.