BackgroundOvertraining syndrome (OTS), functional (FOR) and non-functional overreaching (NFOR) are conditions diagnosed in athletes with decreased performance and fatigue, triggered by metabolic, immune, hormonal and other dysfunctions and resulted from an imbalance between training stress and proper recovery. Despite previous descriptions, there is a lack of a review that discloses all hormonal findings in OTS/FOR/NFOR. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate whether and which roles hormones play in OTS/FOR/NFOR.MethodsA systematic search up to June 15th, 2017 was performed in the PUBMED, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases following PRISMA protocol, with the expressions: (1)overtraining, (2)overreaching, (3)overtrained, (4)overreached, or (5)underperformance, and (plus) (a)hormone, (b)hormonal, (c)endocrine, (d)adrenal, (e)cortisol, (f)GH, (g)ACTH, (h)testosterone, (i)IGF-1, (j)TSH, (k)T4, (l)T3, (m)LH, (n)FSH, (o)prolactin, (p) IGFBP-3 and related articles.ResultsA total of 38 studies were selected. Basal levels of hormones were mostly normal in athletes with OTS/FOR/NFOR compared with healthy athletes. Distinctly, stimulation tests, mainly performed in maximal exercise conditions, showed blunted GH and ACTH responses in OTS/FOR/NFOR athletes, whereas cortisol and plasma catecholamines showed conflicting findings and the other hormones responded normally.ConclusionBasal hormone levels are not good predictor but blunted ACTH and GH responses to stimulation tests may be good predictors of OTS/FOR/NFOR.

BackgroundOvertraining syndrome (OTS) results from excessive training load without adequate recovery and leads to decreased performance and fatigue. The pathophysiology of OTS in athletes is not fully understood, which makes accurate diagnosis difficult. Previous studies indicate that alterations in the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis may be responsible for OTS; however, the data is not conclusive. This study aimed to compare, through gold standard and exercise-independent tests, the response of the HPA axis in OTS-affected athletes (OTS group) to healthy physically active subjects (ATL group) and healthy non-active subjects (NCS group).MethodsSelected subjects were evaluated for cortisol response to a 250-μg cosyntropin stimulation test (CST), cortisol and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) responses during an insulin tolerance test (ITT), and salivary cortisol rhythm (SCR).ResultsA total of 51 subjects were included (OTS, n = 14; ATL, n = 25; and NCS, n = 12). Cortisol response in the CST was similar among the three groups. Conversely, mean cortisol response during an ITT was significantly higher in ATL (21.7 μg/dL; increase = 9.2 μg/dL) compared to OTS (17.9 μg/dL; 6.3 μg/dL) and NCS (16.9 μg/dL; 6.0 μg/dL) (p ≤ 0.001; p = 0.01). Likewise, median ACTH response during an ITT was significantly higher in ATL (91.4 pg/mL; increase = 45.1 pg/mL) compared to OTS (30.3 pg/mL; 9.7 pg/mL) and NCS (51.4 pg/mL; 38.0 pg/mL) (p = 0.006; p = 0.004). For SCR, mean cortisol 30 min after awakening was significantly higher in ATL (500 ng/dL) compared to OTS (323 ng/dL) and NCS (393 ng/dL) (p = 0.004). We identified the following cutoffs that could help exclude or confirm OTS: cortisol level at 30 min after awakening (exclusion = > 530 ng/dL); cortisol response to ITT (exclusion = > 20.5 μg/dL; confirmation = < 17 μg/dL or increase < 9.5 μg/dL); and ACTH response (exclusion = > 106 pg/mL or increase > 70 pg/mL; confirmation = < 35 pg/mL and increase < 14.5 pg/mL).ConclusionThe findings of the present study showed that healthy athletes disclose adaptions to exercises that helped improve sport-specific performance, whereas this sort of hormonal conditioning was at least partially lost in OTS, which may explain the decrease in performance in OTS.

Overtraining syndrome (OTS) is caused by an imbalance between training, nutrition and resting, and leads to decreased performance and fatigue; however, the precise underlying triggers of OTS remain unclear. This study investigated the body composition, metabolism, eating, sleeping patterns and mood states among participants with OTS. Selected participants were divided into OTS-affected athletes (OTS, n = 14), healthy athletes (ATL, n = 25), and healthy non-physically active controls (NCS, n = 12). Compared to ATL, OTS showed decreased sleep quality (p = 0.004); increased duration of work or study (p < 0.001); decreased libido (p = 0.024); decreased calorie (p < 0.001), carbohydrate (p < 0.001) and protein (p < 0.001) intakes; decreased mood states (p < 0.001); decreased basal metabolic rate (p = 0.013) and fat burning (p < 0.001); increased body fat (p = 0.006); decreased muscle mass (p = 0.008); and decreased hydration (p < 0.001). Levels were similar between OTS and NCS, except for worsened fatigue (p < 0.001) and vigour (p = 0.001) in OTS. Reduced calorie intake, worsened sleep, and increased cognitive activity are likely OTS triggers. OTS appears to induce dehydration, increase body fat, decrease libido, and worsen mood.

The COVID‐19 pandemic has disproportionally affected men. 1 Men infected with SARS‐CoV‐2 are more than twice as likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). 2 This disparity in ICU admissions suggests the important role of androgens in COVID‐19 severity. 3 Previously, we reported that among 122 men hospitalized due to COVID‐19, 79% were diagnosed with androgenetic alopecia (AGA), 4 which is commonly treated with anti‐androgens. Anti‐androgens commonly used in the treatment of AGA such as finasteride, dutasteride, spironolactone, and bicalutamide could improve outcomes among men infected by SARS‐CoV‐2.

Background Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a multi-systemic infection caused by the novel Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), that has become a pandemic. Although its prevailing symptoms include anosmia, ageusia, dry couch, fever, shortness of brief, arthralgia, myalgia, and fatigue, regional and methodological assessments vary, leading to heterogeneous clinical descriptions of COVID-19. Aging, uncontrolled diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and exposure to androgens have been correlated with worse prognosis in COVID-19. Abnormalities in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) and the androgen-driven transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) have been elicited as key modulators of SARS-CoV-2. Main text While safe and effective therapies for COVID-19 lack, the current moment of pandemic urges for therapeutic options. Existing drugs should be preferred over novel ones for clinical testing due to four inherent characteristics: 1. Well-established long-term safety profile, known risks and contraindications; 2. More accurate predictions of clinical effects; 3. Familiarity of clinical management; and 4. Affordable costs for public health systems. In the context of the key modulators of SARS-CoV-2 infectivity, endocrine targets have become central as candidates for COVID-19. The only endocrine or endocrine-related drug class with already existing emerging evidence for COVID-19 is the glucocorticoids, particularly for the use of dexamethasone for severely affected patients. Other drugs that are more likely to present clinical effects despite the lack of specific evidence for COVID-19 include anti-androgens (spironolactone, eplerenone, finasteride and dutasteride), statins, N-acetyl cysteine (NAC), ACE inhibitors (ACEi), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), and direct TMPRSS-2 inhibitors (nafamostat and camostat). Several other candidates show less consistent plausibility. In common, except for dexamethasone, all candidates have no evidence for COVID-19, and clinical trials are needed. Conclusion While dexamethasone may reduce mortality in severely ill patients with COVID-19, in the absence of evidence of any specific drug for mild-to-moderate COVID-19, researchers should consider testing existing drugs due to their favorable safety, familiarity, and cost profile. However, except for dexamethasone in severe COVID-19, drug treatments for COVID-19 patients must be restricted to clinical research studies until efficacy has been extensively proven, with favorable outcomes in terms of reduction in hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and death.