1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for 'CFS'.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 19th August 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! Read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum.
    Dismiss Notice

Effects of physical training on coagulation parameters, IL-6, and ACE-2 in COVID-19 survivors, 2024, Binabaji et al.

Discussion in 'Long Covid research' started by SNT Gatchaman, Aug 18, 2024.

Tags:
  1. SNT Gatchaman

    SNT Gatchaman Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,270
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Effects of physical training on coagulation parameters, interleukin-6, and angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 in COVID-19 survivors
    Binabaji, Soheila; Rahimi, Mohammad; Rajabi, Hamid; Keshavarz, Mohsen; Rahimi, Rahimeh; Ahmadi, Azam; Gahreman, Daniel

    COVID-19 is a highly contagious virus that uses Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as a receptor to enter human cells. The virus leads to an increase in inflammatory cytokines (i.e. IL-6) and an impaired coagulation system, which can cause serious complications during and after the disease. Physical exercise has been shown to improve COVID-19 complications through various mechanisms, such as modulation of the immune and coagulation systems. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of 8 weeks of training on inflammatory, coagulation, and physical factors in patients with COVID-19 during the recovery phase.

    Twenty-seven male and female volunteers (age 20–45 years) who recently recovered from COVID-19 were assigned to the control (n = 13) or the training group (n = 14). Blood samples, aerobic capacity and muscle endurance were collected 24 h before the start of the interventions and 24 h after the final training session in week 4 and 48 h after the final training session in week 8. IL-6, ACE2, fibrinogen, and D-dimer were measured using ELISA.

    The training group showed a significant increase in muscle endurance (p = 0.004) and aerobic capacity (p = 0.009) compared to the control group. Serum levels of IL-6 and fibrinogen decreased in the training group but this decrease was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

    Despite a slight increase in the quality of life and sleep in the training group, no statistically significant difference was observed between the training and the control group. It appears that physical training has beneficial effects on the coagulation system, inflammatory factors, and sleep quality and can facilitate the recovery of COVID-19 patients.

    Link | PDF (Nature Scientific Reports) [Open Access]
     
    SNT Gatchaman, Aug 18, 2024
    #1
    boolybooly and Hutan like this.
  2. Eleanor

    Eleanor Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    173
    It is 2024 and this claims to be "the first study to implement exercise intervention for people recovering from COVID-19".
     
    Eleanor, Aug 18, 2024
    #2
    Michelle, SNT Gatchaman, Mij and 2 others like this.
  3. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    28,299
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    How can the authors write that as the conclusion of the abstract, having just told us that:
    • there was no significant decrease in IL-6 or fibrinogen, and presumably also no significant change in the other two molecules tested (ACE-2 and D-dimer).
    • there was no significant difference in quality of life or sleep
    • they started with people who had recovered from Covid-19
    All that seemed to happen as a result of their physical training regime was that the trained group got fitter, which isn't surprising.

    I mean, they can't come crying that their experiment was underpowered to find differences - they are the ones who thought that cohort sizes of 13 and 14 were adequate to answer the question they posed.

    It's gobsmacking in its brazenness. 'It appears that physical training has beneficial effects on ... sleep quality' and yet there was 'no statistically significant difference in sleep'.

    As for recovery from Covid-19, the abstract tells us that they selected 27 volunteers who had recently recovered from Covid-19. They were recovered at the start of the study. Then they tell us that their physical training regime facilitates recovery...

    This is in Nature Scientific Reports. Not good enough.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2024
    Hutan, Aug 18, 2024
    #3
    boolybooly, Wyva, Sean and 7 others like this.
  4. V.R.T.

    V.R.T. Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    209
    One thing that drives me insane is how high the threshold for quality evidence is for us and how insanely low it is for these people...
     
    V.R.T., Aug 18, 2024
    #4
    Wyva, Sean, Michelle and 5 others like this.
  5. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    28,299
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    If they want to get into claiming results that aren't statistically significant, they might want to talk about the mean D-dimer increasing in those who did the physical training. That didn't make it into the abstract. Increased d-dimer can be indicative of problems in the coagulation system (one of the things that the abstract claims was actually improved by the physical training). It is known that strenuous physical exercise increases d-dimer, and the levels reported here for both groups are not at pathological levels. But still, if you didn't care about statistical significance or pathological cut-off levels, you could actually claim that the control group ended up with, on average, a healthier coagulation status than the exercise group, rather than the opposite.

    The Discussion does not consider the increase in mean d-dimer, while continuing to claim improved coagulation profiles.

     
    Hutan, Aug 18, 2024
    #5
    Wyva, Sean, Michelle and 3 others like this.
  6. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,162
    Location:
    Canada
    Fits with the overall pattern of enshittification of medical research. Too much of the research itself is now mostly clickbait. Then the articles covering it are even worse clickbait. They money keeps pouring into it, and nothing comes out of it since it produces nothing. Evidence-based medicine has set the bar so low that no one even bothers to apply standards anymore.

    Why bother? It's harder, you don't get to claim interesting results out of the same old 'novel' BS. Why would anyone even bother to do high-quality research when the standard is set that you can fart in a general direction and call for more funding and even if you don't get it you can strut around claiming the BS and most of their peers will clap anyway?
     
    rvallee, Aug 18, 2024
    #6
    Sean, Michelle, Hutan and 1 other person like this.

Share This Page