No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundAdministration of intermittent high doses of vitamin D3 is increasingly used as a strategy for rapid normalization of low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) blood concentrations in patients with vitamin D deficiency. Here, we describe the pharmacokinetics of an accidental single oral overdose of 2,000,000 IU of vitamin D3 in two elderly nursing home patients and discuss safety issues.Case presentationTwo patients, a Caucasian 90-year old man and a 95-year old woman, were monitored from 1 h up to 3 months after intake for clinical as well as biochemical signs of vitamin D intoxication. Blood vitamin D3 concentrations showed a prompt increase with the highest peak area already hours after the dose, followed by a rapid decrease to undetectable levels after day 14. Peak blood 25(OH)D3 concentrations were observed 8 days after intake (527 and 422 nmol/L, respectively (ref: 50–200 nmol/L)). Remarkably, plasma calcium levels increased only slightly up to 2.68 and 2.73 mmol/L, respectively (ref: 2.20–2.65 mmol/L) between 1 and 14 days after intake, whereas phosphate and creatinine levels remained within the reference range. No adverse clinical symptoms were noted.ConclusionA single massive oral dose of 2,000,000 IU of vitamin D3 does not cause clinically apparent toxicity requiring hospitalization, with only slightly elevated plasma calcium levels in the first 2 weeks. Toxicity in the long term cannot be excluded as annual doses of 500,000 IU of vitamin D3 for several years have shown an increase in the risk of fractures. This means that plasma calcium levels may not be a sensitive measure of vitamin D toxicity in the long term in the case of a single high overdose. To prevent a similar error in the future, the use of multiple-dose bottles need to be replaced by smaller single-unit dose formulations.

Importance: Healthcare workers (HCWs), including those with mild symptoms, may be an important source of COVID-19 within elderly care. Objective: To gain insight into the spread of SARS-CoV-2 among HCWs working in elderly care settings. Design: Cross-sectional study among HCWs working in elderly care in the South-East of the Netherlands, testing for SARS-CoV-2, between March 31 and April 17, 2020. Setting: HCWs working in geriatric rehabilitation, somatic and psychogeriatric wards or small-scale living groups and district nursing, with a total of 5245 HCWs within 4 organisations. Participants: 621 HCWs with mild respiratory symptoms. Main Outcomes: Number of HCWs testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 in pharyngeal swabs, using real-time reverse-transcriptase PCR targeting the SARS-CoV-2 E-gene, N-gene, and RdRP. HCWs filled out a survey to collect information on symptoms and possible sources of infection. Results: 133/615 (21.6%) HCWs tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, ranging from 15.6 to 44.4% per elderly care organisation, and from 0 to 64.3% per separate location of the organizations, respectively. 74.6% of tested HCWs were nursing staff, 1.7% elderly care physicians, 20.3% other HCWs with patient contact and 3.4% HCWs without patient contact. In the univariate analysis, fever, runny or stuffy nose, anosmia, general malaise, myalgia, headache and ocular pain were associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity, while gastro-intestinal symptoms and respiratory symptoms, other than runny or stuffy nose were not. Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 positivity were contact with patients or colleagues with suspected or proven COVID-19. Whole genome sequencing of 22 samples in 2 facilities strongly suggests spread within facilities. Conclusions and Relevance: We found a high SARS-CoV-2 prevalence among HCWs in nursing homes and district nursing, supporting the hypothesis of undetected spread within elderly care facilities. Structural testing of elderly care HCWs, including track and trace of contacts, should be performed to control this spread, even when only mild symptoms are present.

No abstract