Vitamin D3 and COVID-19 Outcomes: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

BACKGROUND: The immune system (innate and adaptive) is influenced by vitamin D3, which affects gene expression and inflammatory pathways. An umbrella review was conducted to evaluate the power and accuracy of data connecting vitamin D3 to the outcomes of COVID-19 infection and to appraise the proof provided by published meta-analyses. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to 31 May 2022. Meta-analyses of prospective or retrospective observational studies and randomized trials were included. Evidence of association was graded according to the established criteria: strong, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or not significant. RESULTS: From 74 publications, 27 meta-analyses described five associations between vitamin D3 levels and supplementation and COVID-19 outcomes. Low levels of vitamin D3 were significantly associated with severity (highly suggestive evidence; OR = 1.97 [95% CI, 1.55-2.51], p < 0.01; I2 = 77%, p < 0.01) and mortality risk due to COVID-19 disease (OR = 1.83 [95% CI, 1.55-2.16], p < 0.01; I2 = 50%, p < 0.01). Vitamin D3 supplementation, after a diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, was associated with significantly reduced infection severity (e.g., ICU admission) and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This umbrella review of the available evidence suggests that insufficient vitamin D3 may increase COVID-19 infection risk, severity, and mortality, in addition to showing a highly suggestive association between vitamin D3 supplementation and reduced severity and mortality among infected patients.

Third dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: A systematic review of 30 published studies.

We analyzed published studies on the efficacy and safety of the third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in various general population settings. We conducted systematic searches of PubMed and EMBASE for series published in the English language through November 15, 2021, using the search terms "third" or "booster" or "three" and "dose" and "COVID-19" or "SARS-CoV-2." All articles were selected according to the MOOSE guidelines. The seroconversion risk after third doses was descriptively expressed as a pooled rate ratio ([seroconversion rate after the third dose]/[seroconversion rate after the second dose]). The search returned 30 studies that included a total of 2 734 437 vaccinated subjects. In more than 2 700 000 Israeli patients extracted from the general population, the reduction in the risk of infection ranged from 88% to 92%. Conversion rates for IgG anti-spike ranged from 95% to 100%. In cancer or immunocompromised patients, mean IgG seroconversion was 39.4% before and 66.6% after third doses. A third dose seems necessary to protect against all COVID-19 infection, severe disease, and death risk.

Red blood cell transfusions and the survival in patients with cancer undergoing curative surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Allogenic red blood cell transfusions exert a potential detrimental effect on the survival when delivered to cancer patients undergoing surgery with curative intent. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between perioperative allogenic red blood cell transfusions and risk of death as well as relapse after surgery for localized solid tumors. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched from inception to March 2019 for studies reporting the outcome of patients receiving transfusions during radical surgery for non-metastatic cancer. Risk of death and relapse were pooled to provide an adjusted hazard ratio with a 95% confidence interval [hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval {CI})]. Mortality and relapse associated with perioperative transfusion due to cancer surgery were evaluated among participants (n = 123 studies). Overall, RBC transfusions were associated with an increased risk of death [HR = 1.50 (95% CI 1.42-1.57), p < 0.01] and relapse [HR = 1.36 (95% CI 1.26-1.46), p < 0.01]. The survival was reduced even in cancer at early stages [HR = 1.45 (1.36-1.55), p < 0.01]. In cancer patients undergoing surgery, red blood cell transfusions reduced the survival and increased the risk of relapse. Transfusions based on patients' blood management policy should be performed by applying a more restrictive policy, and the planned preoperative administration of iron, if necessary, should be pursued.

Chemotherapy plus lenalidomide versus autologous transplantation, followed by lenalidomide plus prednisone versus lenalidomide maintenance, in patients with multiple myeloma: a randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: High-dose melphalan plus autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard approach in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. Our aims were to compare consolidation with high-dose melphalan plus ASCT versus chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone) plus lenalidomide, and maintenance with lenalidomide plus prednisone versus lenalidomide alone. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 study at 59 centres in Australia, Czech Republic, and Italy. We enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed myeloma aged 65 years or younger. Patients received a common induction with four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg, days 1-21) and dexamethasone (40 mg, days 1, 8, 15, and 22) and subsequent chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide (3 g/m(2)) followed by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for stem-cell mobilisation and collection. Using a 2 × 2 partial factorial design, we randomised patients to consolidation with either chemotherapy plus lenalidomide (six cycles of cyclophosphamide [300 mg/m(2), days 1, 8, and 15], dexamethasone [40 mg, days 1, 8, 15, and 22], and lenalidomide [25 mg, days 1-21]) or two courses of high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m(2)) and ASCT. We also randomised patients to maintenance with lenalidomide (10 mg, days 1-21) plus prednisone (50 mg, every other day) or lenalidomide alone. A simple randomisation sequence was used to assign patients at enrolment into one of the four groups (1:1:1:1 ratio), but the treatment allocation was disclosed only when the patient reached the end of the induction and confirmed their eligibility for consolidation. Both the patient and the treating clinician did not know the consolidation and maintenance arm until that time. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by intention-to-treat. The trial is ongoing and some patients are still receiving maintenance. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01091831. FINDINGS: 389 patients were enrolled between July 6, 2009, and May 6, 2011, with 256 eligible for consolidation (127 high-dose melphalan and ASCT and 129 chemotherapy plus lenalidomide) and 223 eligible for maintenance (117 lenalidomide plus prednisone and 106 lenalidomide alone). Median follow-up was 52·0 months (IQR 30·4-57·6). Progression-free survival during consolidation was significantly shorter with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide compared with high-dose melphalan and ASCT (median 28·6 months [95% CI 20·6-36·7] vs 43·3 months [33·2-52·2]; hazard ratio [HR] for the first 24 months 2·51, 95% CI 1·60-3·94; p<0·0001). Progression-free survival did not differ between maintenance treatments (median 37·5 months [95% CI 27·8-not evaluable] with lenalidomide plus prednisone vs 28·5 months [22·5-46·5] with lenalidomide alone; HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·59-1·20; p=0·34). Fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events were recorded with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide than with high-dose melphalan and ASCT; the most frequent were haematological (34 [26%] of 129 patients vs 107 [84%] of 127 patients), gastrointestinal (six [5%] vs 25 [20%]), and infection (seven [5%] vs 24 [19%]). Haematological serious adverse events were reported in two (2%) patients assigned chemotherapy plus lenalidomide and no patients allocated high-dose melphalan and ASCT. Non-haematological serious adverse events were reported in 13 (10%) patients assigned chemotherapy plus lenalidomide and nine (7%) allocated high-dose melphalan and ASCT. During maintenance, adverse events did not differ between groups. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (nine [8%] of 117 patients assigned lenalidomide plus prednisone vs 14 [13%] of 106 allocated lenalidomide alone), infection (eight [8%] vs five [5%]), and systemic toxicities (seven [6%] vs two [2%]). Non-haematological serious adverse events were reported in 13 (11%) patients assigned lenalidomide plus prednisone versus ten (9%) allocated lenalidomide alone. Four patients died because of adverse events, three from infections (two during induction and one during consolidation) and one because of cardiac toxic effects. INTERPRETATION: Consolidation with high-dose melphalan and ASCT remains the preferred option in transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma, despite a better toxicity profile with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide. FUNDING: Celgene.

Role of a pre-existing neuropathy on the course of bortezomib-induced peripheral neurotoxicity.

We investigated a series of bortezomib-treated patients and correlated the course of bortezomib-induced peripheral neurotoxicity with the presence or absence of peripheral neuropathy at baseline. Forty-eight patients were examined with the total neuropathy score reduced version (TNSr), visual analogue score (VAS) for pain, and nerve conduction studies at baseline and after two and four cycles of chemotherapy. Twenty-three patients had a baseline TNSr = 0-2, and 25 patients had a baseline TNSr >2 (median = 6, range 3-13). The course of bortezomib-induced peripheral neurotoxicity was generally more severe in those patients with the highest baseline TNSr. However, among those subjects with a normal baseline TNSr, two patients developed a clinically relevant peripheral neuropathy with a marked increase in TNSr as early as after two cycles of bortezomib treatment (TNSr = 10 and 15, respectively), while after four cycles, three other patients with normal baseline TNSr had a TNSr of 11, 12, and 13. VAS reporting confirmed that painful neuropathy is frequent after bortezomib administration. Our results indicate that the course of bortezomib-induced peripheral neurotoxicity can be severe in subjects with normal neurological examination at baseline, and therefore, careful monitoring during treatment is suggested in these patients.