Background and aims Micronutrient supplements such as vitamin D, vitamin C, and zinc have been used in managing viral illnesses. However, the clinical significance of these individual micronutrients in patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. We conducted this meta-analysis to provide a quantitative assessment of the clinical significance of these individual micronutrients in COVID-19. Methods We performed a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases through December 5th, 2021. All individual micronutrients reported by ≥3 studies and compared with standard-of-care (SOC) were included. The primary outcome was mortality. The secondary outcomes were intubation rate and length of hospital stay (LOS). Pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the random-effects model. Results We identified 26 studies (10 randomized controlled trials and 16 observational studies) involving 5633 COVID-19 patients that compared three individual micronutrient supplements (vitamin C, vitamin D, and zinc) with SOC. Nine studies evaluated vitamin C in 1488 patients (605 in vitamin C and 883 in SOC). Vitamin C supplementation had no significant effect on mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.62-1.62, P=1.00), intubation rate (RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.56-5.56, P=0.33), or LOS (MD 0.64; 95% CI -1.70, 2.99; P=0.59). Fourteen studies assessed the impact of vitamin D on mortality among 3497 patients (927 in vitamin D and 2570 in SOC). Vitamin D did not reduce mortality (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49-1.17, P=0.21) but reduced intubation rate (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.97, P=0.04) and LOS (MD -1.26; 95% CI -2.27, -0.25; P=0.01). Subgroup analysis showed that vitamin D supplementation was not associated with a mortality benefit in patients receiving vitamin D pre or post COVID-19 diagnosis. Five studies, including 738 patients, compared zinc intake with SOC (447 in zinc and 291 in SOC). Zinc supplementation was not associated with a significant reduction of mortality (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.60-1.03, P=0.08). Conclusions Individual micronutrient supplementations, including vitamin C, vitamin D, and zinc, were not associated with a mortality benefit in COVID-19. Vitamin D may be associated with lower intubation rate and shorter LOS, but vitamin C did not reduce intubation rate or LOS. Further research is needed to validate our findings.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is increasingly used to treat esophageal achalasia, but is associated with a high rate of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The aim of our meta-analysis was to compare short and standard POEM in terms of clinical success and postoperative GERD. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared POEM using short myotomy with standard myotomy. The primary outcome was clinical success. Secondary outcomes were postoperative GERD, perioperative complications, operation time, and length of hospital stay. A random-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD), and confidence intervals (CI). A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results We included 5 studies involving 474 esophageal achalasia patients. Short and standard myotomies were similar in terms of clinical success (RR 1.02, 95%CI 0.97-1.09), perioperative complications (RR 0.68, 95%CI 0.26-1.75), and length of hospital stay (MD 0.25 days, 95%CI -0.14-0.63). Operation time was shorter for short myotomy (MD -15.01 mins, 95%CI -20.34 - -9.67). Although reflux symptoms were similar (RR 0.94, 95%CI 0.51-1.74), short myotomy had a lower risk of reflux esophagitis on endoscopy (RR 0.61, 95%CI 0.39-0.98), and pathologic acid exposure on pH monitoring (RR 0.58, 95%CI 0.36-0.94). Conclusions POEM using a shorter myotomy is comparable with standard myotomy in terms of efficacy and safety in the short-term setting. A short myotomy requires a shorter operation time and might reduce the occurrence of postoperative GERD.

Biologics have emerged as an effective treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, there is a significant proportion of patients who fail to respond to biologics. Identifying the predictors that affect the response to biologics remains challenging. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted through May 1, 2022. We included all studies that used a multivariate model to assess for the predictors of remission in RA patients treated with biologics. We calculated pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for risk factors reported in ≥ 3 studies using a random-effects model. A total of 16,934 patients with RA who were treated with biologics were included in twenty-one studies. Our study showed that old age (OR 0.98 (0.97, 0.99), P < 0.00001), female gender (OR 0.66 (0.56, 0.77), P < 0.00001), smoking history (OR 0.86 (0.75, 0.99), P 0.04), obesity (OR 0.95 (0.91, 0.99), P 0.02), poor functional status (OR 0.62 (0.48, 1.27), P < 0.00001), high disease activity (OR 0.90 (0.85, 0.96), P 0.0005), and elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (OR 0.99 (0.98, 1.00), P 0.009) were poor predictors of remission. On the other hand, positive anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (OR 2.52 (1.53, 4.12), P 0.0003) was associated with high remission rate. Old age, female gender, obesity, smoking history, poor functional status, high disease activity, and elevated ESR at the time of diagnosis have been associated with poor response to biologics. Our findings could help establish a risk stratification model for predicting the remission rate in RA patients receiving biologics.