Discussion thread V - COVID-19 (new coronavirus)

[gsgs]

New Study Finds Vitamin D Can Eliminate Coronavirus Hospitalizations

https://www.ibtimes.sg/new-study-fin...izations-51349

Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...764?via%3Dihub


76 consecutive patients hospitalized in Spain with COVID-19 infection
50 got oral calcifediol (0.532 mg), at admission and 0.266 mg on day 3 and 7,

Results: Of 50 patients treated with calcifediol, one required admission to the ICU (2%),
while of 26 untreated patients, 13 required admission (50%) p value X2 Fischer test
p<0.001. Univariate Risk Estimate Odds Ratio for ICU in patients with Calcifediol
treatment versus without Calcifediol treatment: 0.02 (95%CI 0.002-0.17). Multivariate
Risk Estimate Odds Ratio for ICU in patients with Calcifediol treatment vs Without
Calcifediol treatment ICU (adjusting by Hypertension and T2DM): 0.03 (95%CI: 0.003-
0.25). Of the patients treated with calcifediol, none died, and all were discharged, without
complications. The 13 patients not treated with calcifediol, who were not admitted to the
ICU, were discharged. Of the 13 patients admitted to the ICU, two died and the remaining
11 were discharged.


owest Calcidiol in Feb+Mar , highest in Aug,Sep

https://www.iofbonehealth.org/sites/...n_D_Europe.pdf

mean serum 25(OH)D levels of
20-30 S-European centres
40-50 N-Europe [3].

the high consumption of fatty fish and cod liver oil in N-Europe

43 in N-France
94 in SW-France

<25 in 8% of men in NL and 14% of women
similar in Switzerland

45 Italian women
<25 in 30% of Italian women

Very low levels in Spanish elderly and institutionalised persons

<25 in 47% in Greece in winter

<25 in 40% of non-western immgrants in NL

<30 in 1.7% in Brazil mean age =63 { but still the high COVID in Brazil ! }

below the detection limit in 22% of Turkish women

<50 in 40% in Germany 33% in summer

[JJackson]

gs
I had a look at the linked paper and some additional links re Vitamin D.
The p value (p < 0.001) in the paper is impressive but there are a few problems. The population in the area is know to have low levels of D, the small sample size (n=76) caused their randomisation to leave some troubling variations in possible confounding factors between the groups (Age - >60 control group 19%, < 60 treated 28% & Previous Diabetes mellitus - control 6%, treated 19%), they did not test baseline Vit D levels before treatment and both groups were also on HCQ and azithromycin. They noted that there are lower levels of D in late winter early spring, this study ran over May, June and July.

A better powered paper (n=10,933) in the BMJ https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj....apid-responses shows that at a population level vitamin D levels varied from 40 to 80nmol/l but that significant patient benefit occurred in those with < 25nmol/l baseline (used due to UK definition of being vitamin D deficient).

Subgroup analysis revealed a strong protective effect of vitamin D supplementation among those with baseline circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels less than 25 nmol/L (adjusted odds ratio 0.58, 0.40 to 0.82, NNT=8, 5 to 21; 538 participants in 14 studies; within subgroup P=0.002; see Cates plot, supplementary figure S1) and no statistically significant effect among those with baseline levels of 25 or more nmol/L (adjusted odds ratio 0.89, 0.77 to 1.04; 3634 participants in 19 studies; within subgroup P=0.15; P for interaction 0.01)

Based on this data it seems that testing baseline D levels on hospital admission would be worth doing with supplements given as needed to bring levels to >40nmol/l.

[gsgs]

the main problem is - if it were so easy (vitamin D) they should already have figured that out.
and we would have heard more about it
(makes sense ?)

[flatlander]

I was wondering if anyone has seen any roll up of data or a tracking source that monitors the CT values for the PCR tests being done. There is a lot of questioning happening now in trying to understand why some labs are running CT values >35 and driving community responses, etc. It would be nice if all labs used a standard value but it seems they do not. Any data you could send my way would be great.

[JJackson]

I am not sure you will find much outside of a research setting. The problem seems to relate to legislation - as far as the US is concerned. Not all RT PCR testing machines produce a CT value, q RT PCR machines (the q is for quantitative) does but individual labs, running non-identical hardware, may not give directly comparable scores. I have heard that diagnosticians requesting this data are told they are not permitted to supply CT values for this reason. From a clinical stand point approximate values, even varying by an order of magnitude (a little over +/- 3CTs), would be fine. They need to know if the score is around 20 or over 30 (the former having about 1000 times as much viral load as the latter). Big hospitals have their own q PCR and can see the values which, all coming from the same kit, are comparable.

[JJackson]

****! You can't re-edit an edit if it has a typo in "typo" - sorry, couldn't resist.

[flatlander]

Interesting. I wish they would see how the lack of information fuels distrust of scientists and Drs. I have seen recently some folks have managed to get this data, unfortunately it makes the testing look even worse when they show a CT of 45 vs. a <35. Many are now questioning the positives being posted for this very reason (are we chasing a ghost or non issue or is there a true concern still in play?). I see this also adding a variable to the data analysis of the increasing positive curves that are now not showing an correlating increasing death curve. I'm sure you have seen many of the theories such as the virus has changed/mutated(the term the media uses) to being less deadly, etc. to account for the shift in the curve. I see the test being a huge variable in this data.

[sharon sanders]

I have started to make the forum changes. I have started with the United States forum. I am going slowly because so much data is being moved. Please excuse the dust! Everything will be done by the end of this weekend.

You will find the new, current COVID-19 information easier to find as we move forward. Only the problems areas in the world will be highlighted as they occur. I like the Johns Hopkins map for daily totals link.

Please remember all numbers are now suspect. They are large enough to be some level of erroneous. There are many different methods of government reporting being utilized and many citizens in the world are not being tested.

Please use all counts for trends only. We will not know the real totals until retrospective studies are done in future years.

Stay safe.

Thanks!

[sharon sanders]

FluTrackers.com
@FluTrackers
?
3h
Hey everyone!

We are re-modeling the forum this weekend. Unfortunately COVID-19 is a world endemic situation. We will be keeping track by looking for unusual upsurges, etc.

We are primarily an early warning site & everyone knows about #coronavirus now.

Please stay tuned..


-------------------------------------------------------------


FluTrackers.com
@FluTrackers
?
2h
We understand there is a lot of controversy about #coronavirus in the northern hemisphere for the fall and winter.

No one knows what will happen.

Think about what you know about cold & flu season.

Be prepared just-in-case.

Re-visit your econ situation too.


--------------------------------------------------------


FluTrackers.com
@FluTrackers
?
2h
We are not going to debate #coronavirus numbers.

Actually - all of the numbers are inaccurate now. Look for major trends only.

Many people do not bother to get tested and many "natural" deaths are still not diagnosed with COVID-19 as being a major contributing factor.

[gsgs]

so, is it allowed here to speculate about the numbers and probable szenarios ?
"No one knows" for sure, but we still have probability estimates,
some outcomes are more likely. We must do our best to reasonably estimate
the risk

[flatlander]

I would add to this that it would be nice to keep a thread on known factors in the numbers reported. I only suggest this as an option to help in the future analysis of data, which will be looked at some point (also it is easier to document real time the questions/details on what made up those numbers, rather than dig thru past posts/articles). I think this could also be helpful in the determining of risks for the community.

[sharon sanders]

That is the problem. The factors are both known and unknown. It is a mess. There is no standard method. It is basically comparing apples, oranges, and watermelons. There are several countries where the numbers are just totally ridiculous.

[sharon sanders]

This thread is closed. Please continue here:

https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/the-pandemic-discussion-forum/892756-discussion-thread-vi-covid-19-new-coronavirus