Context. Calcifediol has been proposed as a potential treatment for COVID-19 patients. Objective: To compare the administration or not of oral calcifediol on mortality risk of patients hospitalized because of COVID-19. Design: Retrospective, multicenter, open, non-randomized cohort study. Settings: Hospitalized care. Patients: Patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between 5 February and 5 May 2020 in five hospitals in the South of Spain. Intervention: Patients received calcifediol (25-hydroxyvitamin D₃) treatment (0.266 mg/capsule, 2 capsules on entry and then one capsule on day 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28) or not. Main Outcome Measure: In-hospital mortality during the first 30 days after admission. Results: A total of 537 patients were hospitalized with COVID-19 (317 males (59%), median age, 70 years), and 79 (14.7%) received calcifediol treatment. Overall, in-hospital mortality during the first 30 days was 17.5%. The OR of death for patients receiving calcifediol (mortality rate of 5%) was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.61) compared to patients not receiving such treatment (mortality rate of 20%; p < 0.01). Patients who received calcifediol after admission were more likely than those not receiving treatment to have comorbidity and a lower rate of CURB-65 score for pneumonia severity ≥ 3 (one point for each of confusion, urea > 7 mmol/L, respiratory rate ≥ 30/min, systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤ 60 mm Hg, and age ≥ 65 years), acute respiratory distress syndrome (moderate or severe), c-reactive protein, chronic kidney disease, and blood urea nitrogen. In a multivariable logistic regression model, adjusting for confounders, there were significant differences in mortality for patients receiving calcifediol compared with patients not receiving it (OR = 0.16 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.80). Conclusion: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, treatment with calcifediol, compared with those not receiving calcifediol, was significantly associated with lower in-hospital mortality during the first 30 days. The observational design and sample size may limit the interpretation of these findings.

The COVID-19 pandemic is the greatest challenge facing modern medicine and public health systems. The viral evolution of SARS-CoV-2, with the emergence of new variants with in-creased infectious potential, is a cause for concern. In addition, vaccination coverage remains in-sufficient worldwide. Therefore, there is a need to develop new therapeutic options, and/or to optimize the repositioning of drugs approved for other indications for COVID-19. This may include the use of calcifediol, the prohormone of the vitamin D endocrine system (VDES) as it may have potential useful effects for the treatment of COVID-19. We review the aspects associating COVID-19 with VDES and the potential use of calcifediol in COVID-19. VDES/VDR stimulation may enhance innate antiviral effector mechanisms, facilitating the induction of antimicrobial peptides/autophagy, with a critical modulatory role in the subsequent host reactive hyperinflammatory phase during COVID-19: By decreasing the cytokine/chemokine storm, regulating the renin–angiotensin–bradykinin system (RAAS), modulating neutrophil activity and maintaining the integrity of the pulmonary epithelial barrier, stimulating epithelial repair, and directly and indirectly decreasing the increased coagulability and prothrombotic tendency associated with severe COVID-19 and its complications. Available evidence suggests that VDES/VDR stimulation, while maintaining optimal serum 25OHD status, in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection may significantly reduce the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and severe COVID-19, with possible beneficial effects on the need for mechanical ventilation and/or intensive care unit (ICU) admission, as well as deaths in the course of the disease. The pharmacokinetic and functional characteristics of calcifediol give it superiority in rapidly optimizing 25OHD levels in COVID-19. A pilot study and several observational intervention studies using high doses of calcifediol (0.532 mg on day 1 and 0.266 mg on days 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28) dramatically decreased the need for ICU admission and the mortality rate. We, therefore, propose to use calcifediol at the doses described for the rapid correction of 25OHD deficiency in all patients in the early stages of COVID-19, in association, if necessary, with the new oral antiviral agents.

Calcifediol is the prohormone of the vitamin D endocrine system (VDES). It requires hydroxylation to move to 1,25(OH)2D3 or calcitriol, the active form that exerts its functions by activating the vitamin D receptor (VDR) that is expressed in many organs, including the lungs. Due to its rapid oral absorption and because it does not require first hepatic hydroxylation, it is a good option to replace the prevalent deficiency of vitamin D (25 hydroxyvitamin D; 25OHD), to which patients with respiratory pathologies are no strangers. Correcting 25OHD deficiency can decrease the risk of upper respiratory infections and thus improve asthma and COPD control. The same happens with other respiratory pathologies and, in particular, COVID-19. Calcifediol may be a good option for raising 25OHD serum levels quickly because the profile of inflammatory cytokines exhibited by patients with inflammatory respiratory diseases, such as asthma, COPD or COVID-19, can increase the degradation of the active metabolites of the VDES. The aim of this narrative revision is to report the current evidence on the role of calcifediol in main respiratory diseases. In conclusion, good 25OHD status may have beneficial effects on the clinical course of respiratory diseases, including COVID-19. This hypothesis should be confirmed in large, randomized trials. Otherwise, a rapid correction of 25(OH)D deficiency can be useful for patients with respiratory disease.

Medical treatment of coronavirus 19 disease (COVID-19) is a therapeutic challenge. The available data strongly suggest that calcifediol treatment may reduce the severity of COVID-19, and corticosteroids are the treatment of choice worldwide for severe COVID-19. Both have a very similar action profile, and their combined use in patients may modify the contribution of each administered compound. Objective: To evaluate how treatment with calcifediol and/or corticosteroids in medical practice modified the need for ICU admission, death, or poor prognosis of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the first outbreaks. Design, patients and setting: A retrospective observational cohort study of patients admitted for COVID-19 to the Pneumology Unit of the Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía (Córdoba, Spain). Interventions: Patients were treated with calcifediol or/and corticosteroids with the best available therapy and standard care, according to clinical practice guidelines. Measurements: Admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) or death during hospitalization and poor prognosis. Results: Seven hundred and twenty-eight patients were included. According to the treatment received, they were included in four groups: calcifediol (n = 68), glucocorticoids (n = 112), both (n = 510), or neither (n = 38). Of the 578 patients treated with calcifediol, 88 were admitted to the ICU (15%), while of the 150 not treated with calcifediol, 39 required ICU admission (26%) (p < 0.01). Among the patients taking calcifediol without glucocorticoids, only 4 of 68 (5.8%) required ICU admission, compared to 84 of 510 (16.5%) treated with both (p = 0.022). Of the 595 patients who had a good prognosis, 568 (82.01%) had received treatment with calcifediol versus the 133 patients with a poor prognosis, of whom 90 (67.66%) had received calcifediol (p < 0.001). This difference was not found for corticosteroids. Interpretation: The treatment of choice for hospitalized patients with moderate or mild COVID-19 could be calcifediol, not administering corticosteroids, until the natural history of the disease reaches a stage of hyperinflammation.

Background: TAI is a proved method to measure adhesion to inhale therapy (Plaza V et al. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2016; 29: 142-152). Aims and Objectives: Compare if estimated adhesion through TAI is correlated to e-register of drug’s dispensation. Methods: Prospective and transversal study. We included 87 patients (60 women, 27 men) diagnosed with asthma and prescribed treatment with inhaled glucocorticoids +and a second controller, at least one year before. All of them under TAI and ACT. Dispensation compliance: real / theoretical (%). Good compliance: ³80%. Results: TAI (47.77 +3.04). Good compliance 43 (70.67%), medium 26 (62.02%), bad 18 (52.79%). ACT (20 +4.08). Control: Complete 13 (14.94%), Good 42 (48.28%), partial 22 (25.29%), bad 10 (11.49%). Medication: theoretical medium dose 12.36 +4.74 devices. Real dose dispensed: 7.52 +3.96 devices. Average rate of compliance: 64.41% +29.38. Good compliance patients (TAI 50, n = 43) showed a significant higher percentage of drug’s dispensed: 70.67 +28.37 vs58.24 +29.37 (p=0.048). Among 43 patients who achieve a score of 50 on TAI, 22 of them (51.16%) had not bought at least 80% of medication. Therewere significative association between complete control and good compliance (p=0.006). Conclusions: 51.16% of patients, who achieve a maximum punctuation on TAI, had not bought at least 80% of medication. TAI is a good method to measure a bad compliance, in case of achieve a maximum punctuation, it is necessary to check it with e-register of drug’s dispensation.