How come only scientists?
From ‘brain fog’ to heart damage, COVID-19’s lingering problems alarm scientists
To evaluate associations of plasma 25(OH)D status with the likelihood of coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) infection and hospitalization.
The study population included the 14,000 members of Leumit Health Services who were tested for COVID‐19 infection from February 1st to April 30th 2020, and who had at least one previous blood test for plasma 25(OH)D level. “Suboptimal” or “low” plasma 25(OH)D level was defined as plasma 25‐hydroxyvitamin D, or 25(OH)D, concentration below the level of 30 ng/mL.
Of 7,807 individuals, 782 (10.1%) were COVID‐19‐positive, and 7,025 (89.9%) COVID‐19‐negative. The mean plasma vitamin D level was significantly lower among those who tested positive than negative for COVID‐19 [19.00 ng/mL (95% confidence interval [CI] 18.41‐19.59) vs . 20.55 (95% CI 20.32‐20.78)]. Univariate analysis demonstrated an association between low plasma 25(OH)D level and increased likelihood of COVID‐19 infection [crude odds ratio (OR) of 1.58 (95% CI 1.24‐2.01, p<0.001)], and of hospitalization due to the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus [crude OR of 2.09 (95% CI 1.01‐ 4.30, p<0.05)]. In multivariate analyses that controlled for demographic variables, and psychiatric and somatic disorders, the adjusted OR of COVID‐19 infection [1.45 (95% CI 1.08‐1.95, p<0.001)], and of hospitalization due to the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus [1.95 (95% CI 0.98‐4.845, p=0.061)] were preserved. In the multivariate analyses, age over 50 years, male gender and low‐medium socioeconomic status were also positively associated with the risk of COVID‐19 infection; age over 50 years was positively associated with the likelihood of hospitalization due to COVID‐19.
Low plasma 25(OH)D level appears to be an independent risk factor for COVID‐19 infection and hospitalization.
Cross State Travel Counties 072420 – Modified 072720.xlsx
Background Evidence on preventing Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is challenging to interpret due to varying study designs with heterogeneous endpoints and credibility. We completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence with prospective designs to propose evidence-based suggestions on AD prevention.
Methods Electronic databases and relevant websites were searched from inception to 1 March 2019. Both observational prospective studies (OPSs) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The multivariable-adjusted effect estimates were pooled by random-effects models, with credibility assessment according to its risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. Levels of evidence and classes of suggestions were summarised.
Results A total of 44 676 reports were identified, and 243 OPSs and 153 RCTs were eligible for analysis after exclusion based on pre-decided criteria, from which 104 modifiable factors and 11 interventions were included in the meta-analyses. Twenty-one suggestions are proposed based on the consolidated evidence, with Class I suggestions targeting 19 factors: 10 with Level A strong evidence (education, cognitive activity, high body mass index in latelife, hyperhomocysteinaemia, depression, stress, diabetes, head trauma, hypertension in midlife and orthostatic hypotension) and 9 with Level B weaker evidence (obesity in midlife, weight loss in late life, physical exercise, smoking, sleep, cerebrovascular disease, frailty, atrial fibrillation and vitamin C). In contrast, two interventions are not recommended: oestrogen replacement therapy (Level A2) and acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (Level B).
Interpretation Evidence-based suggestions are proposed, offering clinicians and stakeholders current guidance for the prevention of AD.