ABSTRACT
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) produces severe respiratory symptoms such as bilateral pneumonia associated to a high morbidity and mortality, especially in patients of advanced age. Vitamin D deficiency has been reported in several chronic conditions associated with increased inflammation and dysregulation of the immune system. Vitamin D in modulates immune function too. Vitamin D receptor (VDR) is expressed by most immune cells, including B and T lymphocytes, monocytes, macrophages, and dendritic cells and the signalling of vitamin D and VDR together has an anti-inflammatory effect. Some studies have reported that vitamin D treatment could be useful for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 because vitamin D plays an important role as a modulator of immunocompetence. Over the last few months, some studies have hypothesized the possible beneficial effect of vitamin D supplementation in patients with COVID-19 in order to improve the immune balance and prevent the hyperinflammatory cytokine storm. Some preliminary studies have already shown promising results with vitamin D supplementation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Vitamin D should be administered daily until adequate levels are achieved due to vitamin D behaves as a negative acute phase reactant (APR). Despite the lack of evidence on specific doses of vitamin D to treat COVID-19 in older adults, authors consider it is necessary to standardize the use in clinical practice. These recommendations advice supplement vitamin D in a protocoled fashion based on expert opinions, level of evidence 5.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Cytokine Release Syndrome , Dietary Supplements , Geriatrics , Vitamin D Deficiency/therapy , Vitamin D/administration & dosage , Vitamins/administration & dosage , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cytokine Release Syndrome/prevention & control , Humans , Receptors, Calcitriol/metabolism , Societies, Medical , Spain , Vitamin D/immunology , Vitamin D Deficiency/complications , Vitamins/immunologyABSTRACT
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical impact of two intermediate care pathways. METHODS: A prospective, uncontrolled before-after study was carried out to compare two non-synchronic intermediate care frameworks in Spain. Participants in the control group were transferred to the intermediate care center by hospital request, whereas those in the intervention group (Badalona Integrated Care Model [BICM]) were transferred based on a territory approach considering the assessment of an intermediate care team. The clinical characteristics of study participants were assessed at admission and discharge. RESULTS: Compared with participants in the control group, those in the BICM group were significantly older (mean age 81.6 years [SD 10.3] vs 78.3 years [10.1], P < 0.001) and had a lower Barthel score (mean score 32.8 [SD 25.9] vs 39.9 [28.4]; P < 0.001), and a higher proportion of participants with total dependence (38.4% vs 32.2%; P = 0.001). The length of stay in intermediate care was similar in both groups; however, stay in acute care was significantly shorter in the BICM group than in the control group (mean 21 days [SD 19.5] vs 25 days [SD 23]; P < 0.001). No significant differences were found regarding the Barthel Index at discharge, although participants in the BICM group had significantly higher functional gain. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a territory-based integrated care pathway in an intermediate care center shifted the profile of admitted patients toward higher complexity. Despite this, patients managed under the integrated care model reduced their dependency and the referral rate to an acute unit during their stay in the intermediate care center. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2020; 20: 366-372.