> In an Institutional Review Board approved study performed at a single, tertiary care academic medical center, the medical records of COVID-19 patients were retrospectively reviewed. Subjects were included for whom serum 25-hydroxycholecalcifoerol (25OHD) levels were determined. COVID-19-relevant data were compiled and analyzed. We determined the frequency of VDI among COVID-19 patients to evaluate the likelihood of a VDI-COVID-19 relationship. Results: Twenty COVID-19 patients with serum 25OHD levels were identified; 65.0% required ICU admission.The VDI prevalence in ICU patients was 84.6%, vs. 57.1% in floor patients. Strikingly, 100% of ICU patients less than 75 years old had VDI.
Does this mean they have checked 20 people, 13 (65%) of them were severe and all in the below-75 subset of these 13 people were deficient in vitamin D? Doesn't seem credible to me, I'd prefer some hundreds of people from completely different parts of the country.
By the way, isn't almost everybody deficient in vitamin D anyway? (see doi:10.1101/2020.04.24.20075838)
But they didn't even check the Vitamin D levels. They only checked patients that had Vitamin D levels checked by physicians. So presumably this was a different population that was more sick by definition, because their physicans were checking them for Vitamin D deficiency. There aren't many good inpatient indications for checking Vitamin D. It's check for not good reasons sometimes, but most likely these patients were being followed by an outpatient doctor who was looking for something to explain some symptom, test result or problem that they were having.
Does this mean they have checked 20 people, 13 (65%) of them were severe and all in the below-75 subset of these 13 people were deficient in vitamin D? Doesn't seem credible to me, I'd prefer some hundreds of people from completely different parts of the country.
By the way, isn't almost everybody deficient in vitamin D anyway? (see doi:10.1101/2020.04.24.20075838)