5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Exercise against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19): Does workout intensity matter? (A mini review of some indirect evidence related to obesity)

      letter

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) is a new virus causing respiratory illness outbreak. Nowadays, COVID-19 has spread to several countries around the world and is presently a major global concern. It appears that no certain effective pharmaceutical agent is currently available for it. It seems that obesity is one of the biggest risk factors related to COVID-19 hospitalization and critical illness. The strengthening of the body systems by non-drug ways is very important especially in obese people. On the basis of some indirect evidence, it seems that moderate physical activity can be recommended as a non-pharmacological, inexpensive, and viable way to cope with corona. On the other hand, recommending higher intensity exercise needs further consideration to make final decision in this regard.

          Graphical abstract

          Highlights

          • There is some indirect evidence to take a conservative approach in which high intensity exercise is not recommended against COVID-19 virus.

          • On the basis of indirect evidence, it seems that moderate intensity exercise can be recommended as a way to cope with COVID-19.

          • The 'open window' theory and 'J curve' concept explain the effect of exercise intensity on immune system.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Breadth of concomitant immune responses prior to patient recovery: a case report of non-severe COVID-19

          To the Editor — We report the kinetics of immune responses in relation to clinical and virological features of a patient with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that required hospitalization. Increased antibody-secreting cells (ASCs), follicular helper T cells (TFH cells), activated CD4+ T cells and CD8+ T cells and immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG antibodies that bound the COVID-19-causing coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 were detected in blood before symptomatic recovery. These immunological changes persisted for at least 7 d following full resolution of symptoms. A 47-year-old woman from Wuhan, Hubei province, China, presented to an emergency department in Melbourne, Australia. Her symptoms commenced 4 d earlier with lethargy, sore throat, dry cough, pleuritic chest pain, mild dyspnea and subjective fevers (Fig. 1a). She traveled from Wuhan to Australia 11 d before presentation. She had no contact with the Huanan seafood market or with known COVID-19 cases. She was otherwise healthy and was a non-smoker taking no medications. Clinical examination revealed a temperature of 38.5 °C, a pulse rate of 120 beats per minute, a blood pressure of 140/80 mm Hg, a respiratory rate of 22 breaths per minute, and oxygen saturation 98% while breathing ambient air. Lung auscultation revealed bi-basal rhonchi. At presentation on day 4, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in a nasopharyngeal swab specimen by real-time reverse-transcriptase PCR. SARS-CoV-2 was again detected at days 5–6 in nasopharyngeal, sputum and fecal samples, but was undetectable from day 7 (Fig. 1a). Blood C-reactive protein was elevated at 83.2, with normal counts of lymphocytes (4.3 × 109 cells per liter (range, 4.0 × 109 to 12.0 × 109 cells per liter)) and neutrophils (6.3 × 109 cells per liter (range, 2.0 × 109 to 8.0 × 109 × 109 cells per liter)). No other respiratory pathogens were detected. Her management was intravenous fluid rehydration without supplemental oxygenation. No antibiotics, steroids or antiviral agents were administered. Chest radiography demonstrated bi-basal infiltrates at day 5 that cleared on day 10 (Fig. 1b). She was discharged to home isolation on day 11. Her symptoms resolved completely by day 13, and she remained well at day 20, with progressive increases in plasma SARS-CoV-2-binding IgM and IgG antibodies from day 7 until day 20 (Fig. 1c and Extended Data Fig. 1). The patient was enrolled through the Sentinel Travelers Research Preparedness Platform for Emerging Infectious Diseases novel coronavirus substudy (SETREP-ID-coV) and provided written informed consent before the study. Patient care and research were conducted in compliance with the Case Report guidelines and the Declaration of Helsinki. Experiments were performed with ethics approvals HREC/17/MH/53, HREC/15/MonH/64/2016.196 and UoM#1442952.1/#1443389.4. Fig. 1 Emergence of immune responses during non-severe symptomatic COVID-19. a, Timeline of COVID-19, showing detection of SARS-CoV-2 in sputum, nasopharyngeal aspirates and feces but not urine, rectal swab or whole blood. SARS-CoV-2 was quantified by rRT-PCR; cycle threshold (Ct) is shown. A higher Ct value means lower viral load. Dashed horizontal line indicates limit of detection (LOD) threshold (Ct = 45). Open circles, undetectable SARS-CoV-2. b, Anteroposterior chest radiographs on days 5 and 10 following symptom onset, showing radiological improvement from hospital admission to discharge. c, Immunofluorescence antibody staining, repeated twice in duplicate, for detection of IgG and IgM bound to SARS-CoV-2-infected Vero cells, assessed with plasma (diluted 1:20) obtained at days 7–9 and 20 following symptom onset. d–f, Frequency (left set of plots) of CD27hiCD38hi ASCs (gated on CD3–CD19+ lymphocytes) and activated ICOS+PD-1+ TFH cells (gated on CD4+CXCR5+ lymphocytes) (d), activated CD38+HLA-DR+ CD8+ or CD4+ T cells (e), and CD14+CD16+ monocytes and activated HLA-DR+ natural killer (NK) cells (gated on CD3–CD14–CD56+ cells) (f), detected by flow cytometry of blood collected at days 7–9 and 20 following symptom onset in the patient and in healthy donors (n = 5; median with interquartile range); gating examples at right. Bottom right histograms and line graphs, staining of granzyme A (GZMA (A)), granzyme B (GZMB (B)), granzyme K (GZMK (K)), granzyme M (GZMM (M)) and perforin (Prf) in parent CD8+ and CD4+ T cells and activated CD38+HLA-DR+ CD8+ and CD4+ T cells. Gating and experimental details are in Extended Data Fig. 3. Source data We analyzed the kinetics and breadth of immune responses associated with clinical resolution of COVID-19. As ASCs are key for the rapid production of antibodies following infection with Ebola virus 1,2 and infection with and vaccination against influenza virus 2,3 , and activated circulating TFH cells (cTFH cells) are concomitantly induced following vaccination against influenza virus 3 , we defined the frequency of CD3–CD19+CD27hiCD38hi ASC and CD4+CXCR5+ICOS+PD-1+ cTFH cell responses before symptomatic recovery. ASCs appeared in the blood at the time of viral clearance (day 7; 1.48%) and peaked on day 8 (6.91%). The emergence of cTFH cells occurred concurrently in blood at day 7 (1.98%), increasing on day 8 (3.25%) and day 9 (4.46%) (Fig. 1d). The peak of both ASCs and cTFH cells was markedly higher in the patient with COVID-19 than in healthy control participants (0.61% ± 0.40% and 1.83% ± 0.77%, respectively (average ± s.d.); n = 5). Both ASCs and cTFH cells were prominently present during convalescence (day 20) (4.54% and 7.14%, respectively; Fig. 1d). Thus, our study provides evidence on the recruitment of both ASCs and cTFH cells in this patient’s blood while she was still unwell and 3 d before the resolution of symptoms. Since co-expression of CD38 and HLA-DR is the key phenotype of the activation of CD8+ T cells in response to viral infections, we analyzed co-expression of CD38 and HLA-DR. As per reports for Ebola and influenza 1,4 , co-expression of CD38 and HLA-DR on CD8+ T cells (assessed as the frequency of CD38+HLA-DR+ CD8+ T cells) rapidly increased in this patient from day 7 (3.57%) to day 8 (5.32%) and day 9 (11.8%), then decreased at day 20 (7.05%) (Fig. 1e). Furthermore, the frequency of CD38+HLA-DR+ CD8+ T cells was much higher in this patient than in healthy individuals (1.47% ± 0.50%; n = 5). CD38+HLA-DR+ T cells were also recently documented in a patient with COVID-19 at one time point 5 . Similarly, co-expression of CD38 and HLA-DR on CD4+ T cells (assessed as the frequency of CD38+HLA-DR+ CD4+ T cells) increased between day 7 (0.55%) and day 9 (3.33%) in this patient, relative to that of healthy donors (0.63% ± 0.28%; n = 5), although at lower levels than that of CD8+ T cells. CD38+HLA-DR+ T cells, especially CD8+ T cells, produced larger amounts of granzymes A and B and perforin (~34–54% higher) than did their parent cells (CD8+ or CD4+ populations; Fig. 1e). Thus, the emergence and rapid increase in activated CD38+HLA-DR+ T cells, especially CD8+ T cells, at days 7–9 preceded the resolution of symptoms. Details on data reproducibility are in the Life Sciences Reporting Summary. Analysis of CD16+CD14+ monocytes, which are related to immunopathology, showed lower frequencies of CD16+CD14+ monocytes in the blood of this patient at days 7, 8 and 9 (1.29%, 0.43% and 1.47%, respectively) than in that of healthy control donors (9.03% ± 4.39%; n = 5) (Fig. 1f), possibly indicative of the efflux of CD16+CD14+ monocytes from the blood to the site of infection. No differences in activated HLA-DR+CD3–CD56+ natural killer cells were found. As pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines are predictive of severe clinical outcomes for influenza 6 , we quantified 17 pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines in plasma. We found low levels of the chemokine MCP-1 (CCL2) in the patient’s plasma (Extended Data Fig. 2a), although this was comparable to results obtained for healthy donors (22.15 ± 13.81; n = 5), patients infected with influenza A virus or influenza B, assessed at days 7–9 (33.85 ± 30.12; n = 5), and a patient infected with the human coronavirus HCoV-229e (40.56). Thus, in contrast to severe avian H7N9 disease, which had elevated cytokines IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, MIP-1β and IFN-γ 6 , minimal pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines were found in this patient with COVID-19, even while she was symptomatic at days 7–9. As the single-nucleotide polymorphism rs12252-C/C in the gene IFITM3 (which encodes interferon-induced transmembrane protein 3) is linked to severe influenza 6,7 , we analyzed IFITM3-rs12252 in the patient with COVID-19 and found the ‘risk’ IFITM3-rs12252-C/C variant (Extended Data Fig. 2b). As the prevalence of IFITM3-rs12252-C/C in the Chinese population is 26.5% (the 1000 Genomes Project) 6 , further investigation of the IFITM3-rs12252-C/C allele in larger cohorts of people with COVID-19 is worth pursuing. Collectively, our study provides novel contributions to the understanding of the breadth and kinetics of immune responses during a non-severe case of COVID-19. This patient did not experience complications of respiratory failure or acute respiratory distress syndrome, did not require supplemental oxygenation, and was discharged within a week of hospitalization, consistent with non-severe but symptomatic disease. We have provided evidence on the recruitment of immune cell populations (ASCs, TFH cells and activated CD4+ and CD8+ T cells), together with IgM and IgG SARS-CoV-2-binding antibodies, in the patient’s blood before the resolution of symptoms. We propose that these immune parameters should be characterized in larger cohorts of people with COVID-19 with different disease severities to determine whether they could be used to predict disease outcome and evaluate new interventions that might minimize severity and/or to inform protective vaccine candidates. Furthermore, our study indicates that robust multi-factorial immune responses can be elicited to the newly emerged virus SARS-CoV-2 and, similar to the avian H7N9 disease 8 , early adaptive immune responses might correlate with better clinical outcomes. Reporting Summary Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. Online content Any methods, additional references, Nature Research reporting summaries, source data, extended data, supplementary information, acknowledgements, peer review information; details of author contributions and competing interests; and statements of data and code availability are available at 10.1038/s41591-020-0819-2. Supplementary information Reporting Summary
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Debunking the Myth of Exercise-Induced Immune Suppression: Redefining the Impact of Exercise on Immunological Health Across the Lifespan

            Epidemiological evidence indicates that regular physical activity and/or frequent structured exercise reduces the incidence of many chronic diseases in older age, including communicable diseases such as viral and bacterial infections, as well as non-communicable diseases such as cancer and chronic inflammatory disorders. Despite the apparent health benefits achieved by leading an active lifestyle, which imply that regular physical activity and frequent exercise enhance immune competency and regulation, the effect of a single bout of exercise on immune function remains a controversial topic. Indeed, to this day, it is perceived by many that a vigorous bout of exercise can temporarily suppress immune function. In the first part of this review, we deconstruct the key pillars which lay the foundation to this theory—referred to as the “open window” hypothesis—and highlight that: (i) limited reliable evidence exists to support the claim that vigorous exercise heightens risk of opportunistic infections; (ii) purported changes to mucosal immunity, namely salivary IgA levels, after exercise do not signpost a period of immune suppression; and (iii) the dramatic reductions to lymphocyte numbers and function 1–2 h after exercise reflects a transient and time-dependent redistribution of immune cells to peripheral tissues, resulting in a heightened state of immune surveillance and immune regulation, as opposed to immune suppression. In the second part of this review, we provide evidence that frequent exercise enhances—rather than suppresses—immune competency, and highlight key findings from human vaccination studies which show heightened responses to bacterial and viral antigens following bouts of exercise. Finally, in the third part of this review, we highlight that regular physical activity and frequent exercise might limit or delay aging of the immune system, providing further evidence that exercise is beneficial for immunological health. In summary, the over-arching aim of this review is to rebalance opinion over the perceived relationships between exercise and immune function. We emphasize that it is a misconception to label any form of acute exercise as immunosuppressive, and, instead, exercise most likely improves immune competency across the lifespan.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Q&A: The novel coronavirus outbreak causing COVID-19

              What is COVID-19, and what do we know so far about its clinical presentation? The virus responsible for COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, is in the species SARS-like corona viruses. At 125 nm, it is slightly larger than influenza, SARS and MERS viruses. It is almost certainly a descendant from a bat corona virus of which there are many. The closest is a virus that originated from the Rhinolophus bat which is > 96% homologous with the current SARS-CoV-2 virus. It is only 79% homologous with the original SARS CoV [1]. The near identical gene sequences of 90 analysed cases from outside of China suggests it has likely emerged after a solitary species jump in early December 2019 from an unknown (likely mammalian) intermediate host [2]. Pangolins are an endangered ant-eating mammal from which scientists in Guangzhou have shown a coronavirus with 99% homology, with a receptor binding domain identical to that of SARS-CoV-2. However, this has not been confirmed, and, in addition, the pangolin's rarity means this may not be the only mammal involved. The symptoms of COVID-19 are fever, dry cough, fatigue, nasal congestion, sore throat and diarrhoea. On February 14th, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) published the first details of 44,672 confirmed cases, in the biggest study since the outbreak began [3]. Their findings show that COVID-19 was mild for 81% of patients and had an overall case fatality rate of 2.3%. Of those confirmed cases, only 2.2% were under 20 years old. Compared to adults, children generally present with much milder clinical symptoms. It is likely that future serological studies will show much asymptomatic disease in children. As opposed to H1N1, pregnant women do not appear to be at higher risk of severe disease. The severity of the disease appears to be associated with age, with the elderly most at risk; those over 80 years of age had a Case Fatality Rate (CFR) of 14.8%. The CFR was also increased in those with comorbidities including cardiovascular, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, hypertension, and cancer. The cause of death is respiratory failure, shock or multiple organ failure. How are infected people being treated? There is no proven treatment at this early stage but we will doubtless have more information about this soon. It can be assumed that non-pharmacologic approaches are effective such as fluid support, oxygen and ventilatory support. Most recently the national data suggests that 17.7%, 10.4% and 7.0% of all cases have disease requiring respiratory support in Wuhan, Hubei (not including Wuhan) and the rest of China (respectively). About a quarter of all require ventilation while 75% require oxygen support only. The variation in severity rates probably reflects the outcomes in an overwhelmed health system. Extra Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) is potentially of benefit and we will know more particularly when cities with higher technology health systems become affected and ECMO is truly tested in the most severely ill. ECMO is currently being used in China, however, its effectiveness is yet to be determined. Antiviral drugs as well as a variety of other putative treatments are typically being prescribed for deteriorating patients on a compassionate basis. Clinicians would be well aware of such situations but assurance is required that their safety and efficacy are being scientifically assessed so that meaning is brought to bear quickly. Coordination of clinical trials to avoid duplication and ensure that results are rapidly available will be a challenge but the case numbers should facilitate rapid definitive results. (see What is in the pipeline for vaccine development and/or therapeutics?). Why is the World Health Organization (WHO) so concerned about it? As a novel virus newly emerged in humans, the world’s population is completely immune-naïve and therefore vulnerable. There is clear human-to-human transmission in family clusters in China and beyond, transmission from close face-to-face social contact, especially in small enclosed spaces, and transmission from failed infection prevention and control measures in health facilities. In addition, the experience in Wuhan shows that transmission can be massive in a short period of time with thousands of new patients diagnosed daily. The current aim of the global response is to flatten the epidemic curve so that transmission is slowed, and to interrupt transmission where possible. While there is clearly a mortality linked to the virus, the most concerning problem will be if a health system is overwhelmed in the wake of rapid transmission so that affected patients cannot receive the care they need. Furthermore, patients with other urgent medical conditions are at risk of not obtaining their necessary care. Countries with vulnerable health systems are particularly of concern. Recently, there have been outbreaks in newly affected countries including Italy and Iran where the index case is unidentified. Furthermore affected countries have very large clusters emerging such as Korea and Japan. There is no reason to believe that the global community is ready for this emerging pandemic; ready in a way that can see drastic public health intervention implemented within days, including aggressive and massive contact tracing, monitoring (or quarantine) and early detection and isolation in an attempt to slow the progression. How are health agencies reacting? There is uncertainty regarding transmissibility and severity – more information is emerging about the spectrum of disease, especially mild disease, which is not identified using many current case definitions, and about the ease of transmission from person to person. Health agencies are unsure how to model this and estimates vary depending on the variables being used. For instance, SARS was essentially spread later in the disease from patients with more significant clinical pictures, and it was contained by infection control measures particularly in hospitals. The limited spread to family members of health workers and the community was contained by usual outbreak control measures including early identification and management of persons with infection, tracing of contacts with monitoring for onset of fever and/or symptoms, and active engagement of communities. Most modelling suggests that the severity of illness is more like influenza than SARS, and there is concern among the public health community because the transmissibility of COVID-19 is not yet fully understood, and the potential for it to become endemic like other respiratory pathogens is unknown. Because of the many unknowns, the initial reaction by health agencies is still valid: to brace for the first wave as the virus reaches a completely naïve population and to make maximum effort to interrupt transmission [4, 5]. Experience with managing this outbreak will be very heterogenous across the world. Countries closely connected with China, such as Singapore, will be ahead in this regard. As the outbreak moves across regions, there is opportunity to support those affected later both in terms of readiness and response. Mechanisms available to outbreak response organisations, particularly through the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), can be valuable in skills- and knowledge-sharing. Therefore, there should be a deliberate effort to utilise knowledge from early affected countries in later affected countries. What measures are likely to be successful in curbing its further spread? On January 23rd, Hubei province in Central China was locked down with all movement in and out of the province blocked. Travel across China was discouraged and the number of scheduled flights and train journeys available considerably reduced to perhaps 10% of previous activity. Commercial and social activities became negligible, with schools, restaurants, other entertainment spots and most shops closed. Migrant workers were prevented from returning to work after the extended Chinese New Year Holiday. Frequent hand hygiene when in public and staying at home became the norm. This unprecedented public health effort by China has afforded the rest China and the world a lead time to prepare. The lockdown resulted in a downward trend in national and provincial epidemic curves, however, these measures are not sustainable and eventually there will be a strategy to return to normality. Should this result in a second wave of cases, and more international spread, countries around the world must be prepared. Early identification, and isolation or cohorting of positive cases to designated sites is at the core. In order to achieve this, hospitals, quarantine services, laboratories, together with epidemiology and communication teams will need to be scaled up to provide effective and efficient care. What is in the pipeline for vaccine development and/or therapeutics? It appears that no vaccine will be available for at least one year, likely a little longer. Phase 1 trials for safety and immunogenicity in human populations are likely within 3 months. In terms of therapeutics there is no known effective pharmaceutical agent. There are over 200 registered clinical trials registered in China alone. Putative agents include antivirals; Griffithsin, a spike protein inhibitor, nucleoside analogues eg. remdesivir, ribavirin and protease inhibitors such as lopinavir/ritonavir. Immunomodulatory and other host targeted agents include interferon, chloroquine and immunoglobulins. Corticosteroids will potentially have benefit for immune mediated lung damage late in the course of disease [6]. Much of the theory stems from what we have learnt from limited trials in other corona viruses [7].
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Obes Med
                Obes Med
                Obesity Medicine
                Elsevier Ltd.
                2451-8476
                27 April 2020
                27 April 2020
                : 100245
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Physical Education, Pardis Branch, Islamic Azad University, Pardis, Iran
                [2 ]Exercise Biochemistry Division, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Mazandaran, Iran
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Department of Physical Education, Pardis Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran Province, Bumehen Highway, Pardis, Iran, Post Office Box: 1658174583, salehrahmati@ 123456pardisiau.ac.ir
                Article
                S2451-8476(20)30065-8 100245
                10.1016/j.obmed.2020.100245
                7184978
                32342019
                3b77c641-1b0b-4cca-be25-44c8fcee26ba
                © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 17 April 2020
                : 23 April 2020
                : 24 April 2020
                Categories
                Article

                high-intensity exercise,moderate-intensity exercise,obesity,sars- cov-2 (covid-19)

                Comments

                Comment on this article