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.

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.

No abstract