Positive Effects of Vitamin D Supplementation in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

peer reviewedRetrospective studies showed a relationship between vitamin D status and COVID-19 severity and mortality, with an inverse relation between SARS-CoV-2 positivity and circulating calcifediol levels. The objective of this pilot study was to investigate the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the length of hospital stay and clinical improvement in patients with vitamin D deficiency hospitalized with COVID-19. The study was randomized, double blind and placebo controlled. A total of 50 subjects were enrolled and received, in addition to the best available COVID therapy, either vitamin D (25,000 IU per day over 4 consecutive days, followed by 25,000 IU per week up to 6 weeks) or placebo. The length of hospital stay decreased significantly in the vitamin D group compared to the placebo group (4 days vs. 8 days; p = 0.003). At Day 7, a significantly lower percentage of patients were still hospitalized in the vitamin D group compared to the placebo group (19% vs. 54%; p = 0.0161), and none of the patients treated with vitamin D were hospitalized after 21 days compared to 14% of the patients treated with placebo. Vitamin D significantly reduced the duration of supplemental oxygen among the patients who needed it (4 days vs. 7 days in the placebo group; p = 0.012) and significantly improved the clinical recovery of the patients, as assessed by the WHO scale (p = 0.0048). In conclusion, this study demonstrated that the clinical outcome of COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization was improved by administration of vitamin D

Efficacy and tolerability of sustained-release tramadolin the treatment of symptomatic osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Opioid analgesics may be a useful alternative in patients with osteoarthritis who have not responded to first-line treatment with acetaminophen and in whom nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are contraindicated, ineffective, or poorly tolerated. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of tramadol LP 200 mg, a new once-daily,sustained-release formulation, with those of placebo in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, patients withosteoarthritis of the hip or knee (European League Against Rheumatism criteria) were randomized to receive either tramadol LP 200 mg once daily or placebo for 14 days. The primary efficacy end point was the change from baseline to the end of the study in scores on the Huskisson visual analog scale for pain. Secondary end points were change in the Lequesne functional discomfort index, global efficacy assessed by the patient and the investigator, time to improvement, and use of acetaminophen as rescue analgesic medication. Global tolerability was assessed by both patients and investigators at the end of the study The number and severity of adverse events occurring during the study and for 2 weeks thereafter were also recorded. Two hundred thirty patients (167 women, 63 men) were evaluable for efficacy and safety Demographicdata for the tramadol and placebo groups were as follows: mean (SD) age, 67.1 (7.1) and 66.4 (92) years, respectively; female sex, 72.1% and 73.1%; and mean body weight, 74.7 (13.6) and 74.6 (14.8) kg. All patients were white. The completer analysis included 197 patients (85 tramadol, 112 placebo). Pain was significantly reduced in the tramadol LP group compared with the placebo group on day 7 (P = 0.002) and day 14 (P = 0.010). In the patient's assessment of global efficacy, 77.6% (66) of the tramadol LP group reported improvement by day 14, compared with 59.8% (67) of the placebo group; in the investigator's assessment, the efficacy of tramadol LP was rated very good or good for 612% (52) of patients, compared with 30.4% (34) for placebo. Improvement was reported before day 7 in 882% (75) of patients in the tramadol LP group, compared with 65.2% (73) in the placebo group (P = 0.021); the mean time from the initiation of treatment to reported improvement was 3 days for tramadol LP and 6 days for placebo (P < 0.001). Rates of response (defined as ≥30% pain reduction between days 0 and 14) were 64.7% (55) for tramadol LP and 50.0% (56) for placebo (P = 0.039); no rescue medication was used by 60.0% (51) of the tramadol LP group and 36.6% (41) of the placebo group (P - 0.001). One or more adverse event was reported by 45.0% (50) of the tramadol LP group, compared with 193% (23) of the placebo group (P < 0.001). As would be expected with an opiate agonist such as tramadol, the most common adverse events with this agent involved the gastrointestinal system (nausea, 22.5% [25] of patients; vomiting, 17.1% [19]) and the central nervous system (somnolence, 11.7% [13]). In this study, tramadol LP 200 mg was significantly more effective than placebo in alleviating pain in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. It appeared to be relatively well tolerated for an opioid compound. Copyright © 2004 Excerpta Medica, Inc.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Long-term tolerability of tramadol LP, a new once-daily formulation, in patients with osteoarthritis or low back pain

Introduction: Tramadol hydrochloride is a centrally acting analgesic, which possesses opioid agonist properties and activates monoaminergic spinal inhibition of pain. An oral, once a day, sustained release formulation of tramadol is thought to be advantageous compared with immediate release preparations as it prevents plasma peaks associated with increased side-effects of the drug. It may also improve compliance. The purpose of the study was to assess the long-term safety of a new sustained-release formulation of tramadol (tramadol LP) in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis and in patients with refractory low back pain. Study design: The design was a phase III, open, multicentre, international, tolerability study with tramadol LP at a dose titrated by the patient between 100 and 400 mg once daily, according to the intensity of pain. The treatment was administered for a continuous period of 4 weeks followed by an intermittent intake of 5 months in 204 patients. The safety criteria for evaluation were recording of adverse events, laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, radiography, global tolerability assessed by the patient and the investigators. Results: Long-term use of tramadol LP was reasonably well tolerated. Most of the reported adverse events were expected and occurred within the first month of treatment. Roughly half of the patients (49%) reported adverse events, of which 66% were related to treatment. Gastrointestinal events (nausea and vomiting) were the most frequent. Serious adverse events were reported in 6.4% of patients, from which only two cases were related to treatment. There was no sign of tolerance development and the percentage of patients presenting withdrawal symptoms after the end of treatment was low (6%). Conclusion: Long-term treatment with tramadol LP once daily is generally safe in patients with osteoarthritis or refractory low back pain. © 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.SCOPUS: ar.jFLWINinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

A Randomized Study to Compare a Monthly to a Daily Administration of Vitamin D(3) Supplementation.

We aimed to determine whether a cumulative dose of vitamin D(3) produces the same effects on the serum concentration of 25(OH)D(3) if it is given daily or monthly. This is a monocentric, two-armed, randomized, interventional, open, and parallel study conducted from November 2016 to March 2017 in Belgium. We randomized 60 subjects with vitamin D deficiency to receive 2000 IU vitamin D(3) daily or 50,000 IU monthly. The same cumulative dose of vitamin D(3) was given to each treatment group (150,000 IU). The 25(OH)D(3) serum concentrations from baseline to day 75 were 14.3 +/- 3.7 to 27.8 +/- 3.9 ng/mL in the monthly group and 14.1 +/- 3.4 to 28.8 +/- 5.4 ng/mL in the daily group. The mean change versus the baseline level was significantly different between the groups at day 2, 4, 7, and 14 and no longer different from day 25. One day after the intake of vitamin D(3), as expected, serum 25(OH)D(3) and 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) increased significantly in the monthly group, whereas they did not change significantly in the daily group. The median time to reach the 20 ng/mL target concentration was significantly different in the two groups, in favor of the monthly regimen (1 day versus 14 days; p = 0.02). In conclusion, a monthly administration of 50,000 IU vitamin D(3) provides an effective tool for a rapid normalization of 25(OH)D(3) in deficient subjects. A daily administration of the same cumulative dose is similarly effective but takes two weeks longer to reach the desirable level of 20 ng/mL

A Randomised, Cross-Over Study to Estimate the Influence of Food on the 25-Hydroxyvitamin D3 Serum Level after Vitamin D3 Supplementation

Vitamin D3 is known to be liposoluble and its release could be a factor limiting the rate of absorption. It was presumed that the presence of fat could favor absorption of vitamin D3. However, as bioavailability is related not only to the active molecules but also to the formulations and excipients used, the optimization of the pharmaceutical form of vitamin D3 is also important. The objective of this study was to evaluate if there is a food effect on absorption when a high dose of vitamin D3 is completely solubilized in an oily solution. In the present cross-over study, 88 subjects were randomized and received a single dose of 50,000 IU of vitamin D3 in fasting state or with a standardized high-fat breakfast. Assessment of serum concentrations of 25 hydroxyvitamin D3 (25(OH)D3) was performed three, five, seven, 14, 30 and 60 days after supplementation. In fed and fast conditions, the 25(OH)D3 serum concentrations were significantly higher than the baseline value three days after administration and remained significantly higher during the first month. No significant difference between fasting vs. fed conditions was observed. It is therefore concluded that the vitamin D3 absorption from an oily solution was not influenced by the presence or absence of a meal