RESUMO
Background: The "infodemic" accompanying the SARS-CoV-2 virus pandemic has the potential to increase avoidable spread as well as engagement in risky health behaviors. Although social media platforms, such as YouTube, can be an inexpensive and effective method of sharing accurate health information, inaccurate and misleading information shared on YouTube can be dangerous for viewers. The confusing nature of data and claims surrounding the benefits of vitamin D, particularly in the prevention or cure of COVID-19, influences both viewers and the general "immune boosting" commercial interest. Objective: The aim of this study was to ascertain how information on vitamin D and COVID-19 was presented on YouTube in 2020. Methods: YouTube video results for the search terms "COVID," "coronavirus," and "vitamin D" were collected and analyzed for content themes and deemed useful or misleading based on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the content. Qualitative content analysis and simple statistical analysis were used to determine the prevalence and frequency of concerning content, such as confusing correlation with causation regarding vitamin D benefits. Results: In total, 77 videos with a combined 10,225,763 views (at the time of data collection) were included in the analysis, with over three-quarters of them containing misleading content about COVID-19 and vitamin D. In addition, 45 (58%) of the 77 videos confused the relationship between vitamin D and COVID-19, with 46 (85%) of 54 videos stating that vitamin D has preventative or curative abilities. The major contributors to these videos were medical professionals with YouTube accounts. Vitamin D recommendations that do not align with the current literature were frequently suggested, including taking supplementation higher than the recommended safe dosage or seeking intentional solar UV radiation exposure. Conclusions: The spread of misinformation is particularly alarming when spread by medical professionals, and existing data suggesting vitamin D has immune-boosting abilities can add to viewer confusion or mistrust in health information. Further, the suggestions made in the videos may increase the risks of other poor health outcomes, such as skin cancer from solar UV radiation.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: A proportion of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) have autoantibodies directed against intracellular targets. This study aimed to determine the relationship between serologic status, lung function decline and survival. METHODS: IPF patients assessed for antinuclear antibody (ANA) and related antigen-specific serology detected by addressable laser bead immunoassay (ALBIA) were included. Demographics, serial pulmonary function tests and survival were compared between patients with and without autoantibodies. Linear mixed models were used to estimate changes in forced vital capacity (FVC) and diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) over time. Cox-proportional hazards models were used to compare survival, adjusted for a composite score including age, sex and baseline lung function. RESULTS: Of 61 included patients, the mean baseline age was 70 years (SD = 9), 77% were male, and 87% were Caucasian. Either ANA or antigen-specific serology by ALBIA was positive in 25 (41%) during follow-up. ANA was detected in 23 (38%), and specific autoantibodies by ALBIA in 6 (10%). There was no difference in age, sex, race, smoking status, anti-fibrotic use or baseline FVC or DLCO in patients with and without autoantibodies. There was no association between autoantibody status and survival (HR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.61, 2.29), rate of decline in FVC or DLCO (difference in FVC = 4.2 mL/year, p = 0.82; difference in DLCO = 4.6*10-4â¯mL/min/mmHg/year, pâ¯=â¯0.20). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that autoantibodies are common in IPF and that patients with a subset of autoantibodies, but without features of autoimmunity, demonstrate similar disease behaviour to those without autoantibodies.
