Vitamin D and COVID-19-Revisited.

Vitamin D, when activated to 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, is a steroid hormone that induces responses in several hundred genes, including many involved in immune responses to infection. Without supplementation, people living in temperate zones commonly become deficient in the precursor form of vitamin D, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, during winter, as do people who receive less sunlight exposure or those with darker skin pigmentation. Studies performed pre-COVID-19 have shown significant but modest reduction in upper respiratory infections in people receiving regular daily vitamin D supplementation. Vitamin D deficiency, like the risk of severe COVID-19, is linked with darker skin colour and also with obesity. Greater risk from COVID-19 has been associated with reduced ultraviolet exposure. Various studies have examined serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, either historical or current, in patients with COVID-19. The results of these studies have varied but the majority have shown an association between vitamin D deficiency and increased risk of COVID-19 illness or severity. Interventional studies of vitamin D supplementation have so far been inconclusive. Trial protocols commonly allow control groups to receive low-dose supplementation that may be adequate for many. The effects of vitamin D supplementation on disease severity in patients with existing COVID-19 are further complicated by the frequent use of large bolus dose vitamin D to achieve rapid effects, even though this approach has been shown to be ineffective in other settings. As the pandemic passes into its third year, a substantial role of vitamin D deficiency in determining the risk from COVID-19 remains possible but unproven.

Perspective: Vitamin D supplementation prevents rickets and acute respiratory infections when given as daily maintenance but not as intermittent bolus: implications for COVID-19.

The value of vitamin D supplementation in the treatment or prevention of various conditions is often viewed with scepticism as a result of contradictory results of randomised trials. It is now becoming apparent that there is a pattern to these inconsistencies. A recent large trial has shown that high-dose intermittent bolus vitamin D therapy is ineffective at preventing rickets - the condition that is most unequivocally caused by vitamin D deficiency. There is a plausible biological explanation since high-dose bolus replacement induces long-term expression of the catabolic enzyme 24-hydroxylase and fibroblast growth factor 23, both of which have vitamin D inactivating effects. Meta-analyses of vitamin D supplementation in prevention of acute respiratory infection and trials in tuberculosis and other conditions also support efficacy of low dose daily maintenance rather than intermittent bolus dosing. This is particularly relevant during the current COVID-19 pandemic given the well-documented associations between COVID-19 risk and vitamin D deficiency. We would urge that clinicians take note of these findings and give strong support to widespread use of daily vitamin D supplementation.

Randomized Trial of Ciprofloxacin Doxycycline and Hydroxychloroquine Versus Budesonide in Active Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Increased mucosa-associated E. coli are present in Crohn's disease, but their role in pathogenesis is uncertain. AIMS: To assess efficacy and safety of an antibiotic/hydroxychloroquine combination effective against E. coli inside macrophages. METHODS: Adults with moderately active disease (CDAI > 220-450 plus C reactive protein ≥ 5 mg/l and/or fecal calprotectin > 250 µg/g) were randomized to receive (open-label) oral budesonide (Entocort CR 9 mg/day 8 weeks, 6 mg/day 2 weeks, 3 mg/day 2 weeks) or oral ciprofloxacin 500 mg bd, doxycycline 100 mg bd, hydroxychloroquine 200 mg tds for 4 weeks, followed by doxycycline 100 mg bd and hydroxychloroquine 200 mg tds for 20 weeks. Primary endpoints were remission (CDAI ≤ 150) at 10 weeks, remission maintained to 24 weeks, and remission maintained to 52 weeks. Patients not responding (CDAI fall by > 70) by 10 weeks were invited to crossover onto the alternative therapy. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were recruited across 8 sites. Including crossover, 39 patients received antibiotics/hydroxychloroquine and 39 received budesonide. At 10 weeks, 24 weeks, and 52 weeks on initial therapy, only 2/27, 2/27, and 1/27 were in remission on antibiotics/hydroxychloroquine compared with 8/32, 1/32, and 1/32 on budesonide (P = 0.092 at 10 weeks). Withdrawals by 10 weeks due to adverse events were seen in 15 receiving antibiotics/hydroxychloroquine and 6 budesonide. Results including crossover were more promising with 9/24 patients receiving antibiotics/hydroxychloroquine per protocol in remission by 24 weeks. No correlation was seen between response to antibiotics/hydroxychloroquine and ASCA/OmpC antibody status or disease location. CONCLUSION: Overall results with this antibiotic/hydroxychloroquine combination were unimpressive, but long-term remission is seen in some patients and justifies further study.

Preventing vitamin D deficiency during the COVID-19 pandemic: UK definitions of vitamin D sufficiency and recommended supplement dose are set too low.

There is growing evidence linking vitamin D deficiency with risk of COVID-19. It is therefore distressing that there is major disagreement about the optimal serum level for 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) and appropriate supplement dose. The UK Scientific Advisory Committee for Nutrition has set the lowest level for defining sufficiency (10 ng/ml or 25 nmol/L) of any national advisory body or scientific society and consequently recommends supplementation with 10 micrograms (400 IU) per day. We have searched for published evidence to support this but not found it. There is considerable evidence to support the higher level for sufficiency (20 ng/ml or 50 nmol/L) recommended by the European Food Safety Authority and the American Institute of Medicine and hence greater supplementation (20 micrograms or 800 IU per day). Serum 25(OH)D concentrations in the UK typically fall by around 50% through winter. We believe that governments should urgently recommend supplementation with 20-25 micrograms (800-1,000 IU) per day.

Comparative effectiveness of ustekinumab or vedolizumab after one year in 130 patients with anti-TNF-refractory Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents are effective in Crohn's disease but some patients lose response and require alternative biologic therapy. There are few data on comparative effectiveness of vedolizumab and ustekinumab in this setting. AIM: To compare the effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab in anti-TNF-refractory Crohn's disease over 12 months. METHODS: Patients commencing ustekinumab or vedolizumab for anti-TNF-refractory Crohn's disease with minimum follow-up of 12 months were included. The primary outcome measure was the difference in steroid-free remission rates at end of induction (2 months) and at 12 months. We also assessed rates of clinical response and remission, treatment persistence, surgery and adverse events in both groups. We performed logistic regression analysis to assess factors associated with steroid-free remission and clinical response and remission. RESULTS: We included 85 patients commencing vedolizumab and 45 commencing ustekinumab. In an unadjusted model, rates of steroid-free and clinical remission were significantly higher among ustekinumab-treated patients. After adjusting for confounders, steroid-free remission was higher among ustekinumab-treated patients at 2 months (odds ratio, OR 2.79, 95% confidence interval, CI 1.06-7.39, P = 0.038) and 12 months (OR 2.01, 95% CI 0.89-4.56, P = 0.095). More patients treated with ustekinumab remained on therapy at the end of 12 months (84.4% vs 61.5%, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Ustekinumab appeared more effective in treating anti-TNF-refractory Crohn's disease and more patients persisted with therapy.

Is Peer Support in Group Clinics as Effective as Traditional Individual Appointments? The First Study in Patients With Celiac Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Celiac disease (CD) is common, affecting approximately 1% of the population. The cornerstone of management is a gluten-free diet, with dietetic advice being the key to aiding implementation. The aim of the study was to assess group clinics in comparison with traditional individual appointments. METHODS: Patients with a new diagnosis of CD, confirmed histologically, were prospectively recruited over 18 months in Sheffield, United Kingdom. Patients received either a group clinic or traditional one-to-one appointment, led by a dietitian. Quality-of-life questionnaires were completed at baseline, as well as biochemical parameters being recorded. Patients were followed up at 3 months, where adherence scores were assessed as well as biochemical parameters and quality of life questionnaires being completed. RESULTS: Sixty patients with CD were prospectively recruited and received either an individual (n = 30) or group clinic (n = 30). A statistically significant reduction in tissue transglutaminase was noted following group clinics (mean 58.5, SD 43.4 U/mL vs mean 13.2, SD 5.7 U/mL, P < 0.01). No significant differences in baseline and follow-up biochemical parameters between one-to-one and group clinics were noted. At follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference between mean gluten-free diet adherence scores (mean 3.1, SD 0.4 vs mean 3.1, SD 0.7, P = 0.66) between one-to-one and group clinics. DISCUSSION: This first study assessing group clinics in CD demonstrates they are as effective as traditional one-to-one clinics, with the added benefits of peer support and greater efficiency, with an estimated 54% reduction of dietetic resources.

Vitamin D and COVID-19: evidence and recommendations for supplementation.

Vitamin D is a hormone that acts on many genes expressed by immune cells. Evidence linking vitamin D deficiency with COVID-19 severity is circumstantial but considerable-links with ethnicity, obesity, institutionalization; latitude and ultraviolet exposure; increased lung damage in experimental models; associations with COVID-19 severity in hospitalized patients. Vitamin D deficiency is common but readily preventable by supplementation that is very safe and cheap. A target blood level of at least 50 nmol l-1, as indicated by the US National Academy of Medicine and by the European Food Safety Authority, is supported by evidence. This would require supplementation with 800 IU/day (not 400 IU/day as currently recommended in UK) to bring most people up to target. Randomized placebo-controlled trials of vitamin D in the community are unlikely to complete until spring 2021-although we note the positive results from Spain of a randomized trial of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 (25(OH)D3 or calcifediol) in hospitalized patients. We urge UK and other governments to recommend vitamin D supplementation at 800-1000 IU/day for all, making it clear that this is to help optimize immune health and not solely for bone and muscle health. This should be mandated for prescription in care homes, prisons and other institutions where people are likely to have been indoors for much of the summer. Adults likely to be deficient should consider taking a higher dose, e.g. 4000 IU/day for the first four weeks before reducing to 800 IU-1000 IU/day. People admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 should have their vitamin D status checked and/or supplemented and consideration should be given to testing high-dose calcifediol in the RECOVERY trial. We feel this should be pursued with great urgency. Vitamin D levels in the UK will be falling from October onwards as we head into winter. There seems nothing to lose and potentially much to gain.

A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group, Pilot Study of Cannabidiol-rich Botanical Extract in the Symptomatic Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis.

Background: Cannabidiol (CBD) exhibits anti-inflammatory properties that could improve disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease. This proof-of-concept study assessed efficacy, safety and tolerability of CBD-rich botanical extract in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients. Methods: Patients aged 18 years or older, with left-sided or extensive UC, Mayo scores of 4-10 (endoscopy scores ≥1), and on stable 5-aminosalicylic acid dosing, were randomized to 10-weeks' CBD-rich botanical extract or placebo capsules. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients in remission after treatment. Statistical testing was 2-sided, using a 10% significance level. Results: Patients were less tolerant of CBD-rich botanical extract compared with placebo, taking on average one-third fewer capsules, and having more compliance-related protocol deviations (principally insufficient exposure), prompting identification of a per protocol (PP) analysis set. The primary endpoint was negative; end of treatment remission rates were similar for CBD-rich botanical extract (28%) and placebo (26%). However, PP analysis of total and partial Mayo scores favoured CBD-rich botanical extract (P = 0.068 and P = 0.038, respectively). Additionally, PP analyses of the more subjective physician's global assessment of illness severity, subject global impression of change, and patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes were improved for patients taking CBD-rich botanical extract (P = 0.069, P = 0.003, and P = 0.065, respectively). Adverse events (AEs) were predominantly mild/moderate with many in the CBD-rich botanical extract group potentially attributable to the ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol content. A greater proportion of gastrointestinal-related AEs, indicative of UC worsening, was seen on placebo. Conclusion: Although the primary endpoint was not reached, several signals suggest CBD-rich botanical extract may be beneficial for symptomatic treatment of UC.

Short article: Successful faecal coliform sensitivity-based oral ertapenem therapy for chronic antibiotic-refractory pouchitis: a case series.

Pouchitis is a common complication of restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis, and a proportion of patients develop a refractory course. The treatment of chronic antibiotic-refractory pouchitis (CARP) is challenging, and treatment failure is often a cause of pouch excision. We report on a series of three patients with CARP who were treated with oral ertapenem following faecal coliform sensitivity testing. There was an improvement in the pouchitis disease activity index in all three patients [pretreatment pouch disease activity index, median 13 (range: 10-14); post-treatment pouch disease activity index, median 1 (range: 1-3)]. Identification of faecal coliform sensitivity and treatment with oral ertapenem might be helpful in patients with CARP.