Ethnic Differences in Response to Oral Vitamin D Supplementation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Individual variability in oral vitamin D supplement response hinders the understanding of its clinical impact, and while ethnicity has been implicated in this variability it has not been well described. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to systematically assess the impact of ethnicity on response to oral vitamin D supplementation. DATA SOURCE: The Web of Science and PubMed databases were searched for articles published from 1960 to the end of 2020. All trials in adults measuring 25(OH)D3 blood levels were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted the data from the eligible studies. The change in 25(OH)D3 blood levels (95% CI) and P values were extracted, and grouped according to ethnicity, then subjected to random-effects meta-analysis. The primary outcome measurement was mean serum 25(OH)D3 levels and the secondary outcome was dose-adjusted mean serum 25(OH)D3 levels, both compared with baseline. DATA ANALYSIS: A total of 18 studies were identified, and data from 1131 participants were extracted. Body mass index (BMI) and dose were significant covariates (Pearson correlation coefficient, P = .016 and .017) and were normalized in the meta-analysis to minimize heterogeneity, but latitude was not (P = .66). Meta-analysis showed an effect of ethnicity on dose and BMI-adjusted mean serum 25(OH)D3 levels compared with baseline (P < .00001, I2 = 98%). Asian and White study participants demonstrated a statistically higher increase in dose and BMI-adjusted 25(OH)D3 blood levels (183 nmol/L [95% CI, 163-203] and 173 nmol/L [95% CI, 152-194], respectively), compared with Arab and Black study participants (37 nmol/L [95% CI, 35-39] and 99 nmol/L [95% CI, 90-108]) using repeated t tests. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that these findings were not impacted by potential study bias or the inclusion of immigrant populations. CONCLUSION: Ethnicity had an impact on oral vitamin D response. Further prospective studies should examine if ethnicity-based dose stratification in both clinical practice and clinical trials is warranted. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42023410076.

Serum amyloid A-A potential therapeutic target for hyper-inflammatory syndrome associated with COVID-19.

Serum amyloid-A (SAA) is associated with inflammatory disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis, Familial Mediterranean Fever, sarcoidosis, and vasculitis. There is accumulating evidence that SAA is a reliable biomarker for these autoinflammatory and rheumatic diseases and may contribute to their pathophysiology. Hyperinflammatory syndrome associated with COVID-19 is a complex interaction between infection and autoimmunity and elevation of SAA is strongly correlated with severity of the inflammation. In this review we highlight the involvement of SAA in these different inflammatory conditions, consider its potential role and discuss whether it could be a potential target for treatment of the hyperinflammatory state of COVID-19 with many potential advantages and fewer adverse effects. Additional studies linking SAA to the pathophysiology of COVID-19 hyper-inflammation and autoimmunity are needed to establish the causal relationship and the therapeutic potential of inhibitors of SAA activity.

Ethics review of COVID-19 human challenge studies: A joint HRA/WHO workshop.

This report of a joint World Health Organization (WHO) and United Kingdom (UK) Health Research Authority (HRA) workshop discusses the ethics review of the first COVID-19 human challenge studies, undertaken in the midst of the pandemic. It reviews the early efforts of international and national institutions to define the ethical standards required for COVID-19 human challenge studies and create the frameworks to ensure rigorous and timely review of these studies. This report evaluates the utility of the WHO's international guidance document Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies (WHO Key Criteria) as a practical resource for the ethics review of COVID-19 human challenge studies. It also assesses the UK HRA's approach to these complex ethics reviews, including the formation of a Specialist Ad-Hoc Research Ethics Committee (REC) for COVID-19 Human Challenge Studies to review all current and future COVID-19 human challenge studies. In addition, the report outlines the reflections of REC members and researchers regarding the ethics review process of the first COVID-19 human challenge studies. Finally, it considers the potential ongoing scientific justification for COVID-19 human challenge studies, particularly in relation to next-generation vaccines and optimisation of vaccination schedules. Overall, there was broad agreement that the WHO Key Criteria represented an international consensus document that played a powerful role in setting norms and delineating the necessary conditions for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies. Workshop members suggested that the WHO Key Criteria could be practically implemented to support researchers and ethics reviewers, including in the training of ethics committee members. In future, a wider audience may be engaged by the original document and potential additional materials, informed by the experiences of those involved in the first COVID-19 human challenge studies outlined in this document.