Dataset Information

No independent associations between physical activity and clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Regular physical activity (PA) has been postulated to improve, or at least maintain, immunity across the life span. However, the link between physical (in)activity and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains to be established. This small-scale prospective cohort study is nested within a randomized controlled trial aimed to investigate the possible associations between PA levels and clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19.

Methods

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (mean age: 54.9 years) were recruited from the Clinical Hospital of the School of Medicine of the University of Sao Paulo (a quaternary referral teaching hospital) and from Ibirapuera Field Hospital, both located in Sao Paulo, Brazil. PA level was assessed using the Baecke Questionnaire of Habitual Physical Activity. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay. The secondary outcomes were mortality, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and mechanical ventilation requirement.

Results

The median hospital length of stay was 7.0 ± 4.0 days, median ± IQR; 3.3% of patients died, 13.8% were admitted to the ICU, and 8.6% required mechanical ventilation. Adjusted linear regression models showed that PA indices were not associated with hospital length of stay (work index: β = -0.57 (95% confidence interval (95%CI): -1.80 to 0.65), p = 0.355; sport index: β = 0.43 (95%CI: -0.94 to 1.80), p = 0.536; leisure-time index: β = 1.18 (95%CI: -0.22 to 2.59), p = 0.099; and total activity index: β = 0.20 (95%CI: -0.48 to 0.87), p = 0.563). None of the PA indices were associated with mortality, admission to the ICU, or mechanical ventilation requirement (all p > 0.050).

Conclusion

Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, PA did not independently associate with hospital length of stay or any other clinically relevant outcomes. These findings should be interpreted as meaning that, among already hospitalized patients with more severe forms of COVID-19, being active is a potential protective factor likely outweighed by a cluster of comorbidities (e.g., type 2 diabetes, hypertension, weight excess) and older age, suggesting that the benefit of PA against the worsening of COVID-19 may vary across stages of the disease.

SUBMITTER: Pinto AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8358114 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The role of the antiviral therapy in treatment of COVID-19 is still a matter to be investigated. Also efficacy and safety of antiviral regimens were not compared according severity of the disease. In this study the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine plus atazanavir/ritonavir was compared in patients with moderate and severe COVID-19. METHODS:We prospectively evaluated the clinical outcomes of 213 patients with COVID-19 during the hospitalization course and up to 56 days after the hospital discharge. The disease was categorized to moderate and severe based on the severity of pneumonia and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2). The patients received the national treatment protocol containing hydroxychloroquine (400 mg BD in first day and then 200 mg BD) plus atazanavir/ritonavir (300/100 mg daily) for 7 days. Main outcomes included discharge rates at day 7, 14 and 28, 28-day mortality, rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and intubation, length of hospital and ICU stay and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS:The mean (SD) age of patients was 60(14) years and 53% were male. According to WHO definition, 51.64% and 48.36% of the patients had moderate (SpO2???90%) and severe disease (SpO2?<?90%) at baseline, respectively. The discharge rate of the moderate group was significantly higher than the severe group at day 7, 14 and 28 (HR?=?0.49; 95% CI: 0.35-0.69, p?=?< 0.001 at day 7, HR?=?0.48; 95% CI: 0.35-0.66, p?=?< 0.001 at day 14 and HR?=?0.49; 95% CI: 0.36-0.67, p?=?< 0.001at day 28). The 28-day mortality of the severe group was six times higher than the moderate group (HR?=?6.00; 95% CI: 2.50-14.44), p?=?< 0.001). The need of admission in ICU for the severe group and the moderate group was 37.86% and 18.18% of the patients. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the moderate group in comparison with the severe group (5?±?4 vs. 8?±?6 days, p?<?0.001). Patients in the moderate group experienced the serious adverse events and complications less than the severe group. The discharged patients were followed up to 56 days after discharge. Some of the patients complained of symptoms such as exertional dyspnea, weakness and new-onset hair loss. CONCLUSION:Our study did not support the use of hydroxychloroquine plus atazanavir/ritonavir in patients who had SpO2?<?90% at the time of hospital admission. SpO2 was the only predictor of clinical outcomes (duration of hospital stay, discharge from the hospital and mortality) in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine plus atazanavir/ritonavir.

Project description:IntroductionThe effectiveness of umifenovir against COVID-19 is controversial; therefore, clinical trials are crucial to evaluate its efficacy.MethodsThe study was conducted as a single-center, randomized, open-label clinical trial. Eligible moderate-severe hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-Cov-2 infection were randomly segregated into intervention and control groups. The intervention group were treated with lopinavir/ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg bid for 10-14 days) + hydroxychloroquine (400 mg single dose) + interferon-β1a (Subcutaneous injections of 44 µg (12,000 IU) on days 1, 3, 5) + umifenovir (200 mg trice daily for 10 days), and the control group received lopinavir/ritonavir (same dose) + hydroxychloroquine (same dose) + interferon-β1a (same dose).ResultsOf 1180 patients with positive RT-PCRs and positive chest CT scans, 101 patients were finally included in the trial; 50 were assigned to receive IFNβ1a + hydroxychloroquine + lopinavir/ritonavir group and 51 were managed to treat with IFNβ1a + hydroxychloroquine + lopinavir/ritonavir + umifenovir. Since all patients received the intended treatment as scheduled, the analysis just included as the ITT population. Time to clinical improvement (TTCI) did not hold a statistically significant difference between intervention and control groups (median, 9 days for intervention group versus 7 days for the control group; P: 0.22). Besides, Hazard Ratio for TTCI in the Cox regression model was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.45-1.23, P:0.25) which also confirmed that there was no statistically significant difference between the treatment group and the control group. The mortality was not statistically significant between the two groups (38% in controls vs 33.3% treatment group).ConclusionsOur findings shed new lights on the facts that additional umifenovir has not been found to be effective in shortening the duration of SARS-CoV-2 in severe patients and improving the prognosis in non-ICU patients and mortality.Trial registrationThe trial was confirmed by the Ethics in Medical Research Committee of the Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. signed informed consents were obtained from all the participants or their legally authorized representatives. This trial has been registered as ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04350684.