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. 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. 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). 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: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused significant mortality and mortality worldwide. There is limited information describing the outcomes of COVID-19 in cancer patients. Methods: We utilized the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2020 database to collect information on cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in the United States. Using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) coding system, adult (≥18 years) patients with COVID-19 were identified. Adjusted analyses were performed to assess for mortality, morbidity, and resource utilization among cancer patients. Results: A total of 1,050,045 patients were included. Of them, 27,760 had underlying cancer. Cancer patients were older and had more comorbidities. The all-cause in-hospital mortality rate in cancer patients was 17.58% vs. 11% in non-cancer. After adjusted logistic regression, cancer patients had a 21% increase in the odds of all-cause in-hospital mortality compared with those without cancer (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.21, 95%CI 1.12–1.31, p-value < 0.001). Additionally, an increased odds in acute respiratory failure rate was found (aOR 1.14, 95%CI 1.06–1.22, p-value < 0.001). However, no significant differences were found in the odds of septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and mechanical ventilation between the two groups. Additionally, no significant differences in the mean length of hospital stay and the total hospitalization charges between cancer and non-cancer patients. Conclusion: Cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 had increased odds of all-cause in hospital mortality and acute respiratory failure compared with non-cancer patients.

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 I² 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 = 0.16, I² = 62%), mechanical ventilation (RR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.45–1.19, P = 0.21, I² = 0%), and mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI, 0.37–1.22, P = 0.19, I² = 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.

Introduction: Inhaled pulmonary vasodilators (IPVD) have been previously studied in patients with non-coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The use of IPVD has been shown to improve the partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO₂), reduce fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) requirements, and ultimately increase PaO₂/FiO₂ (P/F) ratios in ARDS patients. However, the role of IPVD in COVID-19 ARDS is still unclear. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the role of IPVD in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases from inception through April 22, 2022 was performed for all published studies that utilized IPVD in COVID-19 ARDS patients. The single arm studies and case series were combined for a 1-arm meta-analysis, and the 2-arm studies were combined for a 2-arm meta-analysis. Primary outcomes for the 1-arm and 2-arm meta-analyzes were change in pre- and post-IPVD P/F ratios and mortality, respectively. Secondary outcomes for the 1-arm meta-analysis were change in pre- and post-IPVD positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and lung compliance, and for the 2-arm meta-analysis the secondary outcomes were need for endotracheal intubation and hospital length of stay (LOS). Results: 13 single arm retrospective studies and 5 case series involving 613 patients were included in the 1-arm meta-analysis. 3 studies involving 640 patients were included in the 2-arm meta-analysis. The pre-IPVD P/F ratios were significantly lower compared to post-IPVD, but there was no significant difference between pre- and post-IPVD PEEP and lung compliance. The mortality rates, need for endotracheal intubation, and hospital LOS were similar between the IPVD and standard therapy groups. Conclusion: Although IPVD may improve oxygenation, our investigation showed no benefits in terms of mortality compared to standard therapy alone. However, randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our findings.

Systemic steroids are associated with reduced mortality in hypoxic patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). However, there is no consensus on the doses of steroid therapy in these patients. Several studies showed that pulse dose steroids (PDS) could reduce the progression of COVID‐19 pneumonia. However, data regarding the role of PDS in COVID‐19 is still unclear. Therefore, we performed this meta‐analysis to evaluate the role of PDS in COVID‐19 patients compared to nonpulse steroids (NPDS). Comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception through February 10, 2022 was performed for all published studies comparing PDS to NPDS therapy to manage hypoxic patients with COVID‐19. Primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes were the need for endotracheal intubation, hospital length of stay (LOS), and adverse events in the form of superimposed infections. A total of 10 observational studies involving 3065 patients (1289 patients received PDS and 1776 received NPDS) were included. The mortality rate was similar between PDS and NPDS groups (risk ratio [RR]: 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92–1.65, p = 0.16). There were no differences in the need for endotracheal intubation (RR: 0.71, 95%: CI 0.37–1.137, p = 0.31), LOS (mean difference: 1.93 days; 95% CI: −1.46–5.33; p = 0.26), or adverse events (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.56–1.57, p = 0.80) between the two groups. Compared to NPDS, PDS was associated with similar mortality rates, need for endotracheal intubation, LOS, and adverse events. Given the observational nature of the included studies, randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our findings.