IMPORTANCEThe efficacy of vitamin D 3 supplementation in coronavirus disease 2019 remains unclear.OBJECTIVE To investigate the effect of a single high dose of vitamin D 3 on hospital length of stay in patients with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 2 sites in Sao Paulo, Brazil. The study included 240 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who were moderately to severely ill at the time of enrollment from June 2, 2020, to August 27, 2020. The final follow-up was on October 7, 2020.INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned to receive a single oral dose of 200 000 IU of vitamin D 3 (n = 120) or placebo (n = 120). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was length of stay, defined as the time from the date of randomization to hospital discharge. Prespecified secondary outcomes included mortality during hospitalization; the number of patients admitted to the intensive care unit; the number of patients who required mechanical ventilation and the duration of mechanical ventilation; and serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, total calcium, creatinine, and C-reactive protein. RESULTSOf 240 randomized patients, 237 were included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 56.2 [14.4] years; 104 [43.9%] women; mean [SD] baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level, 20.9 [9.2] ng/mL). Median (interquartile range) length of stay was not significantly different between the vitamin D 3 (7.0 [4.0-10.0] days) and placebo groups (7.0 [5.0-13.0] days) (log-rank P = .59; unadjusted hazard ratio for hospital discharge, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.82-1.39]; P = .62). The difference between the vitamin D 3 group and the placebo group was not significant for in-hospital mortality (7.6% vs 5.1%; difference, 2.5% [95% CI, -4.1% to 9.2%]; P = .43), admission to the intensive care unit (16.0% vs 21.2%; difference, -5.2% [95% CI, -15.1% to 4.7%]; P = .30), or need for mechanical ventilation (7.6% vs 14.4%; difference, -6.8% [95% CI, -15.1% to 1.2%]; P = .09). Mean serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D significantly increased after a single dose of vitamin D 3 vs placebo (44.4 ng/mL vs 19.8 ng/mL; difference, 24.1 ng/mL [95% CI, 19.5-28.7]; P < .001). There were no adverse events, but an episode of vomiting was associated with the intervention.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a single high dose of vitamin D 3 , compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce hospital length of stay. The findings do not support the use of a high dose of vitamin D 3 for treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19.

Emerging data indicate a substantial decrease in global physical activity levels during the period of social isolation adopted worldwide to contain the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Confinement-induced decreases in physical activity levels and increases in sedentary behavior may provoke a rapid deterioration of cardiovascular health and premature deaths among populations with increased cardiovascular risk. Even short-term (1–4 wk) inactivity has been linked with detrimental effects in cardiovascular function and structure and increased cardiovascular risk factors. In this unprecedented and critical scenario, home-based physical activity programs arise as a clinically relevant intervention to promote health benefits to cardiac patients. Many studies have demonstrated the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of different models of home-based exercise programs in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases and major cardiovascular events among different populations. This body of knowledge can inform evidence-based policies to be urgently implemented to counteract the impact of increased physical inactivity and sedentary behavior during the COVID-19 outbreak, thereby alleviating the global burden of cardiovascular disease.

No abstract

Social distancing has been adopted worldwide to control severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission. Social isolation is likely to lead to a decline in physical activity, which could result in immune system dysfunction, thereby increasing infection susceptibility and exacerbating the pathophysiology of conditions that are common among older adults, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, and inflammatory disorders. Older adults and people living with these comorbidities are at a greater risk for complications during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this review, we discuss the negative impact of physical inactivity on immune function and showcase evidence that regular physical activity may be an effective strategy to counter some of the deleterious effects of social isolation. Furthermore, we briefly highlight key research questions in exercise immunology, with a focus on older adults in the context of COVID-19. Although it is worth emphasizing that there is no direct evidence that physical activity can prevent or treat COVID-19, promoting an active lifestyle is a key intervention to counteract the effects of social isolation, especially in older adults and other at-risk individuals, such as those living with chronic diseases associated with ageing and lifestyle.

Supplementing with creatine is very popular amongst athletes and exercising individuals for improving muscle mass, performance and recovery. Accumulating evidence also suggests that creatine supplementation produces a variety of beneficial effects in older and patient populations. Furthermore, evidence-based research shows that creatine supplementation is relatively well tolerated, especially at recommended dosages (i.e. 3-5 g/day or 0.1 g/kg of body mass/day). Although there are over 500 peer-refereed publications involving creatine supplementation, it is somewhat surprising that questions regarding the efficacy and safety of creatine still remain. These include, but are not limited to: 1. Does creatine lead to water retention? 2. Is creatine an anabolic steroid? 3. Does creatine cause kidney damage/renal dysfunction? 4. Does creatine cause hair loss / baldness? 5. Does creatine lead to dehydration and muscle cramping? 6. Is creatine harmful for children and adolescents? 7. Does creatine increase fat mass? 8. Is a creatine ‘loading-phase’ required? 9. Is creatine beneficial for older adults? 10. Is creatine only useful for resistance / power type activities? 11. Is creatine only effective for males? 12. Are other forms of creatine similar or superior to monohydrate and is creatine stable in solutions/beverages? To answer these questions, an internationally renowned team of research experts was formed to perform an evidence-based scientific evaluation of the literature regarding creatine supplementation.

Objective. To evaluate the effects of a low-load resistance training program associated with partial blood-flow restriction in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods. Forty-eight women with RA were randomized into 1 of 3 groups: high-load resistance training (HL-RT; 70% 1 repetition maximum [1RM]), low-load resistance training (30% 1RM) with partial blood-flow restriction training (BFRT), and a control group. Patients completed a 12-week supervised training program and were assessed for lower-extremity 1RM, quadriceps cross-sectional area (CSA), physical function (timed-stands test [TST], timedup-and-go test [TUG], and Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ]), and quality of life (Short Form 36 health survey ) at baseline and after the intervention.Results. BFRT and HL-RT were similarly effective in increasing maximum dynamic strength in both leg press (22.8% and 24.2%, respectively; P < 0.0001 for all) and knee extension (19.7% and 23.8%, respectively; P < 0.0001 for all). Quadriceps CSA was also significantly increased in both BFRT and HL-RT (9.5% and 10.8%, respectively; P < 0.0001 for all). Comparable improvements in TST (11.2% and 14.7%; P < 0.0001 for all) and TUG (-6.8% [P < 0.0053] and -8.7% [P < 0.0001]) were also observed in BFRT and HL-RT, respectively. Improvements in both groups were significantly greater than those of the control group (P < 0.05 for all). SF-36 role physical and bodily pain and HAQ scores were improved only in BFRT (45.7%,22.5%, and -55.9%, respectively; P < 0.05 for all). HL-RT resulted in 1 case of withdrawal and several cases of exercise-induced pain, which did not occur in BFRT.Conclusion. BFRT was effective in improving muscle strength, mass, function, and health-related quality of life in patients with RA, emerging as a viable therapeutic modality in RA management.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01483157.

There is a robust and compelling body of evidence supporting the ergogenic and therapeutic role of creatine supplementation in muscle. Beyond these well-described effects and mechanisms, there is literature to suggest that creatine may also be beneficial to brain health (e.g., cognitive processing, brain function, and recovery from trauma). This is a growing field of research, and the purpose of this short review is to provide an update on the effects of creatine supplementation on brain health in humans. There is a potential for creatine supplementation to improve cognitive processing, especially in conditions characterized by brain creatine deficits, which could be induced by acute stressors (e.g., exercise, sleep deprivation) or chronic, pathologic conditions (e.g., creatine synthesis enzyme deficiencies, mild traumatic brain injury, aging, Alzheimer’s disease, depression). Despite this, the optimal creatine protocol able to increase brain creatine levels is still to be determined. Similarly, supplementation studies concomitantly assessing brain creatine and cognitive function are needed. Collectively, data available are promising and future research in the area is warranted.

Background Strength and muscle mass are predictors of relevant clinical outcomes in critically ill patients, but in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19, it remains to be determined. In this prospective observational study, we investigated whether muscle strength or muscle mass are predictive of hospital length of stay (LOS) in patients with moderate to severe COVID‐19 patients. Methods We evaluated prospectively 196 patients at hospital admission for muscle mass and strength. Ten patients did not test positive for SARS‐CoV‐2 during hospitalization and were excluded from the analyses. Results The sample comprised patients of both sexes (50% male) with a mean age (SD) of 59 (±15) years, body mass index of 29.5 (±6.9) kg/m2. The prevalence of current smoking patients was 24.7%, and more prevalent coexisting conditions were hypertension (67.7%), obesity (40.9%), and type 2 diabetes (36.0%). Mean (SD) LOS was 8.6 days (7.7); 17.0% of the patients required intensive care; 3.8% used invasive mechanical ventilation; and 6.6% died during the hospitalization period. The crude hazard ratio (HR) for LOS was greatest for handgrip strength comparing the strongest versus other patients (1.47 [95% CI: 1.07–2.03; P = 0.019]). Evidence of an association between increased handgrip strength and shorter hospital stay was also identified when handgrip strength was standardized according to the sex‐specific mean and standard deviation (1.23 [95% CI: 1.06–1.43; P = 0.007]). Mean LOS was shorter for the strongest patients (7.5 ± 6.1 days) versus others (9.2 ± 8.4 days). Evidence of associations were also present for vastus lateralis cross‐sectional area. The crude HR identified shorter hospital stay for patients with greater sex‐specific standardized values (1.20 [95% CI: 1.03–1.39; P = 0.016]). Evidence was also obtained associating longer hospital stays for patients with the lowest values for vastus lateralis cross‐sectional area (0.63 [95% CI: 0.46–0.88; P = 0.006). Mean LOS for the patients with the lowest muscle cross‐sectional area was longer (10.8 ± 8.8 days) versus others (7.7 ± 7.2 days). The magnitude of associations for handgrip strength and vastus lateralis cross‐sectional area remained consistent and statistically significant after adjusting for other covariates. Conclusions Muscle strength and mass assessed upon hospital admission are predictors of LOS in patients with moderate to severe COVID‐19, which stresses the value of muscle health in prognosis of this disease.