Importance: Low levels of vitamin D are associated with elevated blood pressure (BP) and future cardiovascular events. Whether vitamin D supplementation reduces BP and which patient characteristics predict a response remain unclear.Objective: To systematically review whether supplementation with vitamin D or its analogues reduce BP.Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and http://www.ClinicalTrials.com augmented by a hand search of references from the included articles and previous reviews. Google was searched for gray literature (ie, material not published in recognized scientific journals). No language restrictions were applied. The search period spanned January 1, 1966, through March 31, 2014.Study Selection: We included randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials that used vitamin D supplementation for a minimum of 4 weeks for any indication and reported BP data. Studies were included if they used active or inactive forms of vitamin D or vitamin D analogues. Cointerventions were permitted if identical in all treatment arms.Data Extraction and Synthesis: We extracted data on baseline demographics, 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, systolic and diastolic BP (SBP and DBP), and change in BP from baseline to the final follow-up. Individual patient data on age, sex, medication use, diabetes mellitus, baseline and follow-up BP, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were requested from the authors of the included studies. For trial-level data, between-group differences in BP change were combined in a random-effects model. For individual patient data, between-group differences in BP at the final follow up, adjusted for baseline BP, were calculated before combining in a random-effects model.Main Outcomes and Measures: Difference in SBP and DBP measured in an office setting.Results: We included 46 trials (4541 participants) in the trial-level meta-analysis. Individual patient data were obtained for 27 trials (3092 participants). At the trial level, no effect of vitamin D supplementation was seen on SBP (effect size, 0.0 [95% CI, −0.8 to 0.8] mm Hg; P = .97; I² = 21%) or DBP (effect size, −0.1 [95% CI, −0.6 to 0.5] mm Hg; P = .84; I² = 20%). Similar results were found analyzing individual patient data for SBP (effect size, −0.5 [95% CI, −1.3 to 0.4] mm Hg; P = .27; I² = 0%) and DBP (effect size, 0.2 [95% CI, −0.3 to 0.7] mm Hg; P = .38; I² = 0%). Subgroup analysis did not reveal any baseline factor predictive of a better response to therapy.Conclusions and Relevance: Vitamin D supplementation is ineffective as an agent for lowering BP and thus should not be used as an antihypertensive agent.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is to date the most common chronic liver disease in clinical practice and, consequently, a major health problem worldwide. It affects approximately 30% of adults in the general population and up to 70% of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Despite the current knowledge of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and natural history of NAFLD, no specific pharmacological therapies are until now approved for this disease and, consequently, general strategies have been proposed to manage it. They include: (a) lifestyle change in order to promote weight loss by diet and physical activity, (b) control of the main cardiometabolic risk factors, (c) correction of all modifiable risk factors leading the development and progression of advanced forms of NAFLD, and (d) prevention of hepatic and extra-hepatic complications. In the last decade, several potential agents have been widely investigated for the treatment of NAFLD and its advanced forms—shedding some light but casting a few shadows. They include some glucose-lowering drugs (such as pioglitazone, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors), antioxidants (such as vitamin E), statins or other lipid lowering agents, bile and non-bile acid farnesoid X activated receptor (FXR) agonists, and others. This narrative review discusses in detail the different available approaches with the potential to prevent and treat NAFLD and its advanced forms.

Objective: Pulmonary thrombosis is observed in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pneumonia. Aim was to investigate whether subpopulations of platelets were programmed to procoagulant and inflammatory activities in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with pneumonia, without comorbidities predisposing to thromboembolism. Approach and Results: Overall, 37 patients and 28 healthy subjects were studied. Platelet-leukocyte aggregates, platelet-derived microvesicles, the expression of P-selectin, and active fibrinogen receptor on platelets were quantified by flow cytometry. The profile of 45 cytokines, chemokines, and growth factors released by platelets was defined by immunoassay. The contribution of platelets to coagulation factor activity was selectively measured. Numerous platelet-monocyte (mean±SE, 67.9±4.9%, n=17 versus 19.4±3.0%, n=22; P <0.0001) and platelet-granulocyte conjugates (34.2±4.04% versus 8.6±0.7%; P <0.0001) were detected in patients. Resting patient platelets had similar levels of P-selectin (10.9±2.6%, n=12) to collagen-activated control platelets (8.7±1.5%), which was not further increased by collagen activation on patient platelets (12.4±2.5%, P =nonsignificant). The agonist-stimulated expression of the active fibrinogen receptor was reduced by 60% in patients ( P <0.0001 versus controls). Cytokines (IL [interleukin]-1α, IL-1β, IL-1RA, IL-4, IL-10, IL-13, IL, 17, IL-27, IFN [interferon]-α, and IFN-γ), chemokines (MCP-1/CCL2 [monocyte chemoattractant protein 1]), and growth factors (VEGF [vascular endothelial growth factor]-A/D) were released in significantly larger amounts upon stimulation of COVID-19 platelets. Platelets contributed to increased fibrinogen, VWF (von Willebrand factor), and factor XII in COVID-19 patients. Patients (28.5±0.7 s, n=32), unlike controls (31.6±0.5 s, n=28; P <0.001), showed accelerated factor XII–dependent coagulation. Conclusions: Platelets in COVID-19 pneumonia are primed to spread proinflammatory and procoagulant activities in systemic circulation.

Background: The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has emerged as a relevant threat for humans worldwide. Abnormality in liver function tests (LFTs) has been commonly observed in patients with COVID‐19, but there is controversy on its clinical significance. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence, the characteristics and the clinical impact of abnormal LFTs in hospitalized, non‐critically ill patients with COVID‐19.Methods: In this multicentre, retrospective study, we collected data about 565 inpatients with COVID‐19. Data on LFTs were collected at admission and every 7 ± 2 days during the hospitalization. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of death or transfer to intensive care unit (ICU).Results: Upon admission 329 patients (58%) had LFTs abnormality. Patients with abnormal LFTs had more severe inflammation and higher degree of organ dysfunction than those without. During hospitalization, patients with abnormal LFTs had a higher rate of transfer to ICU (20% vs 8%; P < .001), acute kidney injury (22% vs 13%, P = .009), need for mechanical ventilation (14% vs 6%; P = .005) and mortality (21% vs 11%; P = .004) than those without. In multivariate analysis, patients with abnormal LFTs had a higher risk of the composite endpoint of death or transfer to ICU (OR = 3.53; P < .001). During the hospitalization, 86 patients developed de novo LFTs abnormality, which was associated with the use of tocilizumab, lopinavir/ritonavir and acetaminophen and not clearly associated with the composite endpoint.Conclusions: LFTs abnormality is common at admission in patients with COVID‐19, is associated with systemic inflammation, organ dysfunction and is an independent predictor of transfer to ICU or death.