ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

Aim: There are limited data on the negative effects of exercise in athletes with acute infective illness. The aim of this study was to determine whether a recently diagnosed prerace acute illness in runners affects the ability to finish a race. Methods: Runners were prospectively evaluated in the 3 days before the race for acute infective illness and then received participation advice using clinical criteria based on systemic or localised symptoms/signs. We compared the did-not-start and the did-not-finish frequencies of ill runners (Ill=172: localised=58.7%; systemic=41.3%) with that of a control group of runners (Con=53 734). Results: Runners with a systemic illness were 10.4% more likely not to start compared with controls (29.6% vs 19.2%) (p=0.0073). The risk difference of not starting the race in runners who were advised not to run the race compared with controls was 37.3% (56.5% vs 19.2%, p<0.0001). Compared with controls, runners with illness had a significantly (p<0.05) greater risk (any illness (5.2% vs 1.6%), systemic illness (8.0% vs 1.6%), illness <24 hours before the race (11.1% vs 1.6%)) and relative risk (prevalence risk ratio) (any illness=3.4, systemic illness=4.9, systemic illness <24 hours before the race=7.0) of not finishing the race. Conclusions: Runners with prerace acute systemic illness, and particularly those diagnosed <24 hours before race day, are less likely to finish the race, indicating a reduction in race performance.
1 of 6
GordonL, etal. Br J Sports Med 2017;51:1295–1300. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096964
ABSTRACT
Aim There are limited data on the negative effects
of exercise in athletes with acute infective illness. The
aim of this study was to determine whether a recently
diagnosed prerace acute illness in runners affects the
ability to finish a race.
Methods Runners were prospectively evaluated in the
3 days before the race for acute infective illness and then
received participation advice using clinical criteria based
on systemic or localised symptoms/signs. We compared
the did-not-start and the did-not-finish frequencies of
ill runners (Ill=172: localised=58.7%; systemic=41.3%)
with that of a control group of runners (Con=53 734).
Results Runners with a systemic illness were 10.4%
more likely not to start compared with controls (29.6%
vs 19.2%) (p=0.0073). The risk difference of not starting
the race in runners who were advised not to run the
race compared with controls was 37.3% (56.5% vs
19.2%, p<0.0001). Compared with controls, runners
with illness had a significantly (p<0.05) greater risk (any
illness (5.2% vs 1.6%), systemic illness (8.0% vs 1.6%),
illness <24 hours before the race (11.1% vs 1.6%))
and relative risk (prevalence risk ratio) (any illness=3.4,
systemic illness=4.9, systemic illness <24 hours before
the race=7.0) of not finishing the race.
Conclusions Runners with prerace acute systemic
illness, and particularly those diagnosed <24 hours
before race day, are less likely to finish the race,
indicating a reduction in race performance.
INTRODUCTION
Is it safe for an athlete with recent or current symp-
toms of an acute illness to train or compete? This
remains a challenging clinical decision for any Sport
and Exercise Medicine (SEM) physician. There are
only a small number of studies with evidence-based
return-to-play (RTP) guidelines to assist SEM physi-
cians in providing safe participation advice to an
athlete with an acute illness.1 2 This is surprising,
given that there are many studies showing that acute
illness, particularly respiratory tract (RT) illness,
is the most common reason for medical consul-
tations in SEM clinics,3 as well as in tournament
settings.4–14 RT symptoms may not always be due
to an infection and it is important to consider other
factors such as allergy.15–19 Risk factors for acute
illness, particularly RT illness in athletes, include
training load,19–23 environment,5 travel to a distant
country23 24 and allergy.15 25 26
The current RTP guidelines for athletes with
acute RT illness are an adaptation of a clinical
tool known as the ‘neck check,’ which was first
proposed in 199327 and subsequently adapted by
others.28–31 This tool is based on localised (above
the neck) versus systemic (below the neck) symp-
toms and signs, but limited research data support
its use.1 2 In particular, we are not aware of any
data where localised or systemic symptoms of acute
illness affect exercise performance. We showed in a
recent study that runners with self-reported symp-
toms of prerace acute illness, who started a race,
had a higher did-not-finish (DNS) frequency (2.1%)
compared with controls (1.3%) (p=0.0346), partic-
ularly runners with systemic symptoms (2.4%;
risk ratio=1.90).32 However, in this, and other
previous studies,15 20 32 33 the diagnosis of pre-event
acute illness was based on self-reported symptoms
only.
The aims of this study were to (1) document
the type of acute illness in runners presenting to a
Pre-Race acute Illness Medical Assessment (PRIMA)
facility in the 3 days before a race; (2) determine if
runners with acute illness advised to not start the
race, did start; and (3) determine if runners with
acute illness, who decided to start the race, finished
the race.
METHODS
Type of study
This was a prospective cohort study.
Study participants
All the runners who registered for the 56 km or
the 21.1 km races in the 2013 and/or the 2014
Old Mutual Two Oceans Marathon in Cape
Town, South Africa (n=53 976) were considered
as possible study participants. Runners who were
concerned about symptoms of acute illness in the 3
days before the race had the opportunity of a free
medical assessment at a PRIMA facility—part of the
‘Medical Village’ at the compulsory prerace regis-
tration venue. We advertised the PRIMA facility
in educational health emails sent out to all regis-
tered runners in the 3 months before the race, as
well as on the event website and magazine. In 2013,
a prerace email invited runners concerned about
acute illness to the medical facility before the race,
and in 2014 runners also received text messages
6 and 4 days before the race. The main sponsor’s
stall, providing complimentary wellness checks
(including blood pressure, cholesterol and glucose),
referred several runners with symptoms of acute
illness to the PRIMA medical facility. The PRIMA
Recent acute prerace systemic illness in runners
increases the risk of not finishing the race: SAFER
studyV
Leigh Gordon,1 Martin Schwellnus,2,3 Sonja Swanevelder,4 Esme Jordaan,4
Wayne Derman5
Original article
To cite: GordonL,
SchwellnusM, SwanevelderS,
etal. Br J Sports Med
2017;51:1295–1300.
Additional material is
published online only. To view
please visit the journal online
(http:// dx. doi. org/ 10. 1136/
bjsports- 2016- 096964).
1Department of Human Biology,
UCT Research Unit for Exercise
Science and Sports Medicine,
Faculty of Health Sciences,
University of Cape Town, Cape
Town, South Africa
2Sport, Exercise Medicine and
Lifestyle Institute (SEMLI),
University of Pretoria, Faculty of
Health Sciences, Pretoria, South
Africa
3IOC Research Centre, Pretoria,
South Africa
4Biostatistics Unit, Medical
Research Council, Parow, South
Africa
5Institute of Sport and Exercise
Medicine, Stellenbosch
University, Stellenbosch, South
Africa
Correspondence to
Professor Martin Schwellnus,
Institute for Sport, Exercise
Medicine and Lifestyle Research,
University of Pretoria, Faculty
of Health Sciences, South
Street, Sports Campus, Hatfield,
Pretoria 0028, South Africa;
mschwell@ iafrica. com
Accepted 10 March 2017
Published Online First
12April2017
group.bmj.com on August 22, 2017 - Published by http://bjsm.bmj.com/Downloaded from
2 of 6 GordonL, etal. Br J Sports Med 2017;51:1295–1300. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096964
Original article
facility was open for the duration of the Registration Expo in the
3 days prior to the race.
PRIMA: history and examination
We recorded all the data, including demographic informa-
tion (name, gender and unique race number) and the race for
which they were registered, on electronic tablets (Galaxy Tab
2 V.10.1; Samsung, Korea). PRIMA staff (SEM physicians in
2013 and either nurses or SEM physicians in 2014) obtained
a medical history, referring runners with any one (or more)
of the following symptoms of an acute illness for a physical
examination:
any systemic symptoms of infection: fever, myalgia,
general body aches, excessive fatigue, malaise, arthralgia or
headaches;
any lower RT symptoms of infection: productive or non-
productive cough, wheezing, ‘tight’ chest, chest pain or
shortness of breath;
gastrointestinal symptoms: abdominal pain, cramps, nausea,
vomiting or diarrhoea;
any symptoms suggestive of cardiac disease: chest pain,
shortness of breath or palpitations;
a sore throat;
any runners requesting a physical examination.
A SEM physician conducted the general and specific phys-
ical examination in a private cubicle after informed consent
by the runner. A nurse (in 2014) recorded vital sign investiga-
tions: tympanic thermometry (Braun Thermoscan, IRT 4520),
resting blood pressure and resting heart rate. The SEM physi-
cian conducted a general and specific systemic examination
of the following systems: ear, nose and throat; respiratory,
cardiac, abdominal, neurological or musculoskeletal systems. We
recorded and securely stored all clinical data, including the final
working diagnosis and secondary diagnoses.
Diagnostic groups
Two clinicians assessed the clinical data of all runners with any
upper or lower RT symptoms, gastrointestinal symptoms or
systemic symptoms of illness (fever, fatigue, malaise, myalgia,
arthralgia, general body aches, headaches) to identify possible
acute infection. Tympanic temperature and heart rate were
considered in cases where the diagnosis of an infection was
unclear. We considered a tympanic temperature ≥37.5°C in
men, and ≥37.1°C in women to be above normal,34 and we used
a resting HR of >75 beats/min as an indicator of possible infec-
tion, in the context of appropriate symptoms and clinical signs.
A sinus bradycardia (<60 beats/min) is seen in up to 80% of
trained endurance athletes35 and the resting HR can increase by
10–15 beats/min with infection.36
We assigned diagnostic codes to categorise illness in runners
as localised or systemic as follows. We defined a localised illness
as either a localised upper respiratory tract illness (URTI) that
included rhinitis (infected or not infected), pharyngitis, laryn-
gitis, sinusitis (congestion) or any other localised illness. In the
absence of an exudate or any systemic features, we classified
cervical lymphadenopathy with localised throat erythema as
a localised pharyngitis. In cases where clinicians recorded two
diagnoses of localised illness in a runner, we categorised the
illness as a localised illness.
We defined systemic infective illness as an URTI with systemic
features, other systemic infective illness (mostly ‘influenza’-like
illnesses), suspected myopericarditis, lower respiratory tract
illness (LRTI) and gastroenteritis. In the case where a runner
presented with symptoms and signs of both a ‘localised’ illness
and a systemic illness, we categorised the illness as systemic.
Advice given to runners reporting to the PRIMA facility
On completion of the medical assessment at the PRIMA facility,
medical staff gave runners advice regarding participation on race
day. In the illness group, we based advice on the current RTP
clinical guidelines using the differentiation between a localised
illness and a systemic illness (see online supplementary table 1).
Race day data: race starting and finishing
We tracked all runners during race day with an electronic ‘Cham-
pion-chip’ attached to one of the runner’s shoes. The runners
crossed mats at the starting line, along the route and at the finish
line, allowing the chip data to be identified and recorded. We
categorised runners as ‘non-starters’ (DNS; did-not-start) if any
of the course mats (at the start, on the course or at the finish)
captured no data, and ‘non-finishers’ if the mat at the finish line
captured no data.
Main measures of outcome
the prevalence (%) of runners with symptoms, a clinical
diagnosis and the diagnostic category (localised vs systemic)
of runners in the illness group;
the frequency (%) of runners who were given advice not to
run;
the absolute and relative risk of runners with illness not
starting the race (DNS);
the absolute and relative risk of runners with illness not
finishing the race (DNF).
Research ethics and informed consent
Research ethics approval for this study was obtained from the
Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Health Sciences of
the University of Cape Town prior to starting the study (REC:
441/2012). The Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of
Health Science at the University of Pretoria (433/2015) also
approved the study.
Statistical analysis of data
We used a Poisson regression model using a robust error esti-
mator (log link function) to analyse each individual symptom
group and subgroups. This cohort consists of correlated data,
which we accounted for by using an unstructured correlation
matrix. We estimated the prevalence risk ratio (PRR), risk differ-
ence (RD) and 95% CI by a modified Poisson regression using
robust error variances and considered p values of <0.05 as
statistically significant. In addition, we report both absolute risk
(%) and RD (% difference) between groups.
RESULTS
Demographics of the study population
We assessed a total of 242 runners in the 2 years of the study
and excluded 70 runners diagnosed with a non-infective illness.
Therefore, a total of 172 runners had symptoms and signs sugges-
tive of acute infective illness and this comprised the illness study
cohort (0.3% of all race registrants). The remaining runners who
did respond to the PRIMA facility at registration (n=53 734)
were the control group of runners for this study. We compared
outcome variables for the illness group (main cohort) and that of
the control group.
The sex distribution in the illness group was similar to that
of the control group in both the 56 km and the 21.1 km races.
group.bmj.com on August 22, 2017 - Published by http://bjsm.bmj.com/Downloaded from
3 of 6
GordonL, etal. Br J Sports Med 2017;51:1295–1300. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096964
Original article
Of the 66 runners in the 56 km illness cohort, 52 (78.8%) were
male and 14 were female (21.2%). Of the 21 343 runners in the
control group that registered for the 56 km race, 15 508 (72.7%)
were male and 5835 (27.3%) were female. Among the 106
runners in the 21.1 km illness cohort, 48 (45.3%) were male and
58 (54.7%) were female. Of the 32 391 runners in the control
group that registered for the 21.1 km race, 15 932 (49.2%) were
male and 16 459 (50.8%) were female.
Prevalence of symptoms, clinical diagnosis and diagnostic
category (localised vs systemic) of runners in the illness
group
Some of the 172 runners in the illness group reported up to
eight symptoms. Sinus congestion (40.1%) followed by cough
(38.4%, and divided evenly between productive and non-pro-
ductive types), sore throat (37.8%), runny nose (25.6%), fever
(13.4%) and fatigue (12.8%) were the most common symptoms
(suffered by >10% of runners in the illness group).
We based the final diagnosis on clinical assessment, and 11
runners were assessed by medical history only, while 161 were
assessed by medical history and physical examination. Of the
172 runners in the illness group, 101 (58.7%) had a localised
illness and 71 (41.3%) a systemic illness (table 1).
The proportions of runners in the illness subgroups varied
on the different days that runners were evaluated before the
race. Almost half (49.4%) of runners with illness (85 of the 172
runners with illness) were evaluated in the 24 hours before the
race started, during which the largest proportion of runners with
systemic illness was seen (46.5%) (33 of the 71 runners with
systemic illness).
Advice given to runners with acute illness
We provided educational information to 143 of the 172 runners
(83.1%) of the illness group, and 11 runners that we assessed
after a medical history only were in this group. We advised 23
runners (13.4%) with a suspected systemic illness not to run,
based on a clinical diagnosis (medical history and physical exam-
ination). Of these runners, 12 had a LRTI, 6 a generalised URTI,
4 a systemic illness and in 1, we suspected a myopericarditis.
Absolute and relative risk of not starting the race
Absolute and relative risk of not starting the race in all runners
Of all the 53 976 runners who registered for the race in 2013
and 2014, a total of 10 358 (19.2 %) did not start the race. In
the control group of 53 734 runners, 10 309 were non-starters
(19.2%). Within the illness group of 172 runners, 38 did not
start (22.1%). Runners in the illness group did not have a signifi-
cantly higher absolute risk (RD=−3.5%, 95% CI –9.7 to 2.7)
(p=0.2630) or relative risk (PRR=1.16, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.52)
(p=0.2693) of not starting the race (adjusted for the demo-
graphic variables of year of race, gender and race type (21.1 km
vs 56 km)).
Absolute and relative risk of not starting the race in the control and
illness groups and the illness subgroups based on advice given
The DNS frequencies, PRR and RD (adjusted for the demo-
graphic variables of year of race, gender and race type (21.1 km
vs 56 km)) in the control group and the illness group, based on
advice given, are depicted in table 2.
Within the illness group, 13 of the 23 runners (56.5%) who
were advised not to run did not start the race. The absolute
and relative risk of not starting the race was not different in
the subgroup of runners who received information only or
other advice, compared with the control group. However, the
absolute risk (PRR=3.1, 95% CI 2.2 to 4.3; p<0.0001) and
relative risk (RD=40.0%, 95% CI 19.7 to 60.3; p=0.0001) of
not starting the race were significantly higher in the subgroup
of runners who were advised not to run, compared with the
control group. With respect to athlete compliance, these data
indicate that 43.5% of runners in this group were non-adherent
to advice.
Table 1 The final clinical diagnosis in the illness group (n=172)
Clinical diagnosis n
% of
illness
group
Localised illness
(n=101)
Localised URTI All localised URTI 99 57.6
Sinusitis 36 20.9
Pharyngitis 30 17.4
Rhinitis (non-infective) 28 16.3
Laryngitis 3 1.7
Rhinitis (infective) 2 1.2
Other localised infective illness 2 1.2
Systemic illness
(n=71)
URTI with systemic symptoms 39 22.7
LRTI 18 10.5
Infective gastroenteritis 9 5.2
Other systemic infective illness 4 2.3
Suspected myopericarditis 1 0.6
LRTI,lower respiratory tract illness; URTI, upper respiratory tract illness.
Table 2 TheDNS frequencies, RD and PRR in the control and illness groups, based on advice given
Starters DNS RD (%) versus control* p Value†
PRR versus control‡
(95% CI) pValue§
N % N % %
Control group (n=53,734) 43425 80.8 10309 19.2
Illness group (n=172) 134 77.9 38 22.1 −3.5 (−9.5to2.7) 0.2630 1.16 (0.89 to 1.52) 0.2693
Information (n=143) 119 83.2 24 16.8 −1.9 (−8.1to4.3) 0.5493 0.88 (0.62 to 1.25) 0.4679
Advised not to run (n=23) 10 43.5 13 56.5 40.0 (19.7–60.3) 0.0001 3.07 (2.18 to 4.32) <0.0001
Other advice (n=6) 5 83.3 1 16.7 0.94 (0.19 to 4.54) 0.9387
*RD—adjusted for demographic variables: year of race, race type (21.1 km and 56 km), gender.
†pvalue: pairwise versus control group for RD.
‡PRR—adjusted for demographic variables: year of race, race type (21.1 km and 56 km),gender.
§pValue: pairwise versus control group for PRR.
DNS, did-not-start; PRR, prevalence risk ratio; RD, risk difference.
group.bmj.com on August 22, 2017 - Published by http://bjsm.bmj.com/Downloaded from
4 of 6 GordonL, etal. Br J Sports Med 2017;51:1295–1300. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096964
Original article
Absolute and relative risk of not starting the race in the control and
illness subgroups with either localised or systemic illness
Of the 172 runners in the illness group, 101 (58.7%) had
a localised illness and 71 (41.3%) had a systemic illness. The
absolute risk (RD) and relative risk (PRR) (adjusted for year
of race, race type and gender) of not starting the race in the
subgroup of runners with localised illness and systemic illness
reported >24 hours before the race were not different from that
in the control group (table 3).
The absolute and relative risk of not starting the race was
significantly higher in the subgroup of runners with systemic
illness, compared with the control group. Similarly, compared
with the control group, the absolute risk and relative risk of not
starting the race were significantly higher in the subgroup of
runners who reported systemic illness <24 hours before the race.
However, these data should be interpreted with some caution as
the numbers of non-starters in these subgroups were small.
Absolute and relative risk of not finishing the race
The DNF frequencies and PRR (adjusted for year of race,
race type and gender) in the control group, illness group and
subgroups of the illness group (localised or systemic illness) are
depicted in table 4. The absolute risk could not be calculated due
to small numbers of non-finishers and non-convergence.
In the 84 starters who had localised illness, 3 did not finish
(3.6%), 2 of whom were evaluated the day before the race. In
the 50 runners who started the race despite having a systemic
illness, 4 did not finish (8.0%). Two of these non-finishers were
among the 32 runners who were evaluated >24 hours before the
race (6.3%) and the remaining 2 non-finishers were among the
18 runners evaluated within 24 hours of the race start (11.1%).
The absolute risk (unadjusted DNF) (% runners) of not
finishing the race was 1.6% in the control group and 5.2% in the
illness group. In the systemic illness group, 8.0% of runners did
not finish the race, and this was 6.3% and 11.1%, respectively,
for runners with systemic symptoms >24 hours, and <24 hours
before the race. As a result of the small sample size in the illness
subgroups, the adjusted absolute risk (RD) for the DNF groups
could not be obtained.
The relative risk (PRR) of not finishing the race in the
subgroup of runners with localised illness was not different
from that in the control group, but was significantly higher in
the illness group and subgroup of runners with systemic illness
compared with the control group. Similarly, compared with the
control group, the relative risk of not finishing the race was
significantly higher in the subgroup of runners who reported
systemic illness >24 hours and <24 hours before the race. These
data should be interpreted with some caution as the numbers of
runners in these subgroups were small.
DISCUSSION
This study investigated the race outcomes (DNS, DNF) based
on diagnosis and adherence to advice given by healthcare prac-
titioners of runners presenting with acute illness in the 3 days
before an endurance race (21.1 km and 56 km). Our main find-
ings were: (1) 43.5% of the runners in the illness group were
non-adherent to advice given and started the race—including
29.6% of runners with systemic illness; (2) runners with
Table 3 The DNS frequencies, RD and PRR in the control and illness groups (and subgroups of localised vs systemic illness) diagnosed in two time
periods before the race
Starters DNS RD (%) versus control* p Value†
PRR versus control‡
(95% CI) pValue§
N % % % %
Control group (n=53,734) 43425 80.8 10309 19.2
Illness group (n=172) 134 77.9 38 22.1 −3.5 (−9.5to2.7) 0.2630 1.16 (0.89 to 1.52) 0.2693
Localised illness (n=101) 84 83.2 17 16.8 −2.0 (−9.4to5.4) 0.6046 0.87 (0.57 to 1.33) 0.5265
Systemic illness (n=71) 50 70.4 21 29.6 11.6 (1.1–22.2) 0.0309 1.59 (1.13 to 2.23) 0.0073
>24 hours before race (n=38) 32 84.2 6 15.8 −1.6 (−13.6to10.5) 0.8005 0.89 (0.46 to 1.74) 0.7403
<24 hours before race (n=33) 18 54.5 15 45.5 27.1 (10.4–43.8) 0.0015 2.38 (1.67 to 3.41) <0.0001
*RD—adjusted for demographic variables: year of race, race type (21.1 km and 56 km), gender.
†pValue: pairwise versus control group for RD.
‡PRR—adjusted for demographic variables: year of race, race type (21.1 km and 56 km), gender.
§pValue: pairwise versus control group for PRR.
DNS, did-not-start; PRR, prevalence risk ratio; RD, risk difference.
Table 4 TheDNF frequencies and PRR in the control and illness groups (and subgroups of localised vs systemic illness) diagnosed in two time
periods before the race
Starters
Finishers DNF
PRR versus control*
(95% CI) pValue†
N % N %
Control group (n=43,425) 42,750 98.4 675 1.6
Illness group (n=134) 127 94.8 7 5.2 3.40 (1.76 to 6.58) 0.0003
Localised illness (n=84) 81 96.4 3 3.6 2.45 (0.85 to 7.07) 0.0986
Systemic illness (n=50) 46 92.0 4 8.0 4.87 (2.20 to 10.75) <0.0001
>24 hours before race (n=32) 30 93.7 2 6.3 3.73 (1.20 to 11.65) 0.0233
<24 hours before race (n=18) 16 88.9 2 11.1 7.03 (2.37 to 20.83) 0.0004
*PRR —adjusted for demographic variables: year of race, race type (21.1 km and 56 km), gender.
†pValue: pairwise versus control group for PRR.
DNF, did-not-finish; PRR, prevalence risk ratio.
group.bmj.com on August 22, 2017 - Published by http://bjsm.bmj.com/Downloaded from
5 of 6
GordonL, etal. Br J Sports Med 2017;51:1295–1300. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096964
Original article
localised illness started and finished the race in a similar propor-
tion to control runners; and (3) runners in the illness group had
a significantly higher risk of not finishing the race, and this was
highest in runners with systemic illness in the 24 hours preceding
the race start. This last finding needs to be interpreted with some
caution because of the small numbers.
In our study, the DNS frequency for the total race popula-
tion (19.2%) is lower than that previously reported in the
literature,37 38 but higher than our more recently reported
DNS frequency of 6.6%.32 We educated runners on the impor-
tance of monitoring symptoms as these could change over time
(particularly those that we saw >24 hours before the race). We
emphasised that runners can make an informed decision about
their fitness to compete on race day, based on their symptoms.
In our illness group, we used the frequency of not starting the
race as a measure of ‘adherence to advice’ given to the runners.
We do acknowledge that acute illness may not have been the
only reason for not starting the race and that a number of other
factors could affect the decision to start the race.
In our study, 43.5% of runners with acute illness were non-ad-
herent to our advice and started the race. Runners with systemic
illness were significantly less likely to start than runners in the
control group, or runners with localised illness. This difference
was even larger in runners we evaluated <24 hours before the
race, and we attribute this to the minimal time for improve-
ment of their clinical condition. Of interest was that some of
the 56 km runners we advised against running expressed a wish
to participate in the 21.1 km race instead, perceiving it as less
‘risky.’ This is in keeping with the observations reported during
the Aberdeen marathon, where a third of the ‘drop-out’ respon-
dents indicated they would have entered a half marathon if given
the option.38 Finally, we are not aware of any data exploring the
concept of adherence to advice by athletes who have evidence of
acute illness, and we suggest that further research be conducted
to explore this area.
In this study, not finishing the race is used as a proxy for the
impact of an acute illness on race performance. Our results show
that 3.6% of runners with localised illness did not finish the race
compared with 1.6% in the control group, and these data are
similar to the 1.9% runners with self-reported prerace local-
ised symptoms that we reported from our recently published
data.32 These two studies are, to the best of our knowledge,
the first clinical data from prospective studies to indicate that
the RTP criteria, if only localised symptoms and signs present,
are a useful and valid clinical tool to advise athletes with acute
illness on RTP. However, we encourage further research in this
area, particularly with more specific diagnoses and larger sample
sizes, and more accurate measures of performance (eg, split and
finishing times compared with previous or personal best running
times).
However, we also show that, compared with runners in the
control group, 5.2% of runners in the illness group, and 8% of
runners in the systemic illness group, did not finish the race (rela-
tive risks of 3.4 and 4.9, respectively). These findings are also
similar to the DNF frequencies we recently reported for runners
with any self-reported illness (2.1%) and self-reported systemic
symptoms (2.4%).32 However, a novel finding in this study was
that 11.1% of runners with clinically diagnosed systemic illness
in the 24 hours period just before the race did not finish the
race (relative risk of 7.03 higher than control; p=0.0004). This
finding has important clinical implications and suggests that
recent clinically diagnosed systemic illness (<24 hours before
exercise) significantly affects exercise performance. However, it
is important to note that these findings should be interpreted
with some caution due to the small numbers of participants in
these subgroups, and further studies with larger sample sizes are
needed.
Our study also has several limitations including: (1) runners
who presented to the PRIMA facility were self-selected; (2) the
prevalence of acute illness in the entire race population is not
known; (3) reasons for not starting or finishing are not known;
and (4) the sample sizes in subgroups of runners are too small
to conduct a detailed analysis. We suggest further investigations
to determine whether there is a link between acute illness and
medical complications during exercise.
CONCLUSION
Among runners with a clinically diagnosed prerace acute infec-
tive illness, symptoms are mostly localised to the upper RT, but
a significant number of runners have an URTI with generalised
symptoms. Of the runners with acute illness who were advised
not to run, 43.5% ran anyway. In runners with illness, and
subgroups of runners with systemic illness or systemic illness
less than 24 hours before the race, who ran anyway, the risk of
not finishing the race was 3.6%, 8.0% and 11.1%, respectively,
compared with controls (1.6%). Therefore, runners with systemic
illness, and particularly those diagnosed <24 hours before race
day, were less likely to finish the race, indicating a reduction
in race performance. These data are important to improve the
medical care of runners (and other athletes) presenting with
acute illness before training and competition.
What are the findings?
43.5% of runners with an acute infective illness, clinically
diagnosed in the 3 days before a race, were non-adherent to
advice not to run the race.
Runners with systemic illness who elected to start the race
despite being advised not to had an 8% chance of not
finishing the race, compared with runners in the control
group of 1.6% (relative risk of 4.9).
If diagnosed with an acute systemic illness within
24 hours of the race, 11.1% of runners do not finish the
race compared with 1.6% of runners in the control group
(relative risk of 7.0).
How might itimpact on clinical practice in the future?
Sport and Exercise Medicine physicians can expect that only
about 50% of recently diagnosed acutely ill runners will
adhere to advice about not participating in a race.
Runners with systemic symptoms and signs of acute prerace
illness have an increased risk of not completing the race—
more so if systemic symptoms and signs are present in the
24 hours before a race.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the Two Oceans
organising committee for permission to conduct the research study, the athletes for
participating in the study and Dr Jill Borresen for edits and preparation of the final
manuscript.
Contributors LG: study planning, data collection, data interpretation,
manuscript drafting and editing. MS: responsible for the overall content as
guarantor, study concept, study planning, data collection, data interpretation,
manuscript (first draft), manuscript editing, facilitating funding. WD: study
planning, data collection, data interpretation, manuscript editing. SS: study
planning, data analysis including statistical analysis, data interpretation,
manuscript editing. EJ: study planning, data analysis including statistical analysis,
data interpretation, manuscript editing.
group.bmj.com on August 22, 2017 - Published by http://bjsm.bmj.com/Downloaded from
6 of 6 GordonL, etal. Br J Sports Med 2017;51:1295–1300. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096964
Original article
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Obtained.
Ethics approval Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Health Sciences
of the University of Cape Town prior to starting the study (REC: 441/2012). The
Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Health Science at the University of
Pretoria (433/2015) also approved the study.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the
article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise
expressly granted.
RefeRences
1 Weidner TG, Gehlsen G, Dwyer GB, et al. Effects of viral upper respiratory illness on
running gait.. J Athl Train 1997;32:309–14.
2 Weidner TG, Cranston T, Schurr T, et al. The effect of exercise training on the
severity and duration of a viral upper respiratory illness. Med Sci Sports Exerc
1998;30:1578–83.
3 Spence L, Brown WJ, Pyne DB, et al. Incidence, etiology, and symptomatology of upper
respiratory illness in elite Athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007;39:577–86.
4 Alonso J-M, Tscholl PM, Engebretsen L, et al. Occurrence of injuries and
illnesses during the 2009 IAAF world athletics championships. Br J Sports Med
2010:44:1100–5.
5 Engebretsen L, Steffen K, Alonso JM, et al. Sports injuries and illnesses during the
winter olympic games 2010. Br J Sports Med 2010:44:772–80.
6 Schwellnus M, Derman W, Jordaan E, et al. Factors associated with illness in Athletes
participating in the London 2012 paralympic games: a prospective cohort study
involving 49 910 athlete-days. Br J Sports Med 2013:47:433–40.
7 Schwellnus M, Derman W, Page T, et al. Illness during the 2010 super 14 rugby
union tournament-a prospective study involving 22 676 player days. Br J Sports Med
2012:46:499–504.
8 Mountjoy M, Junge A, Alonso JM, et al. Sports injuries and illnesses in the 2009 FINA
world championships (Aquatics). Br J Sports Med 2010:44:522–7.
9 Mountjoy M, Junge A, Benjamen S, et al. Competing with injuries: injuries prior to
and during the 15th FINA world championships 2013 (aquatics). Br J Sports Med
2015:49:37–43.
10 Derman W, Schwellnus M, Jordaan E, et al. Illness and injury in Athletes during
the competition period at the London 2012 paralympic games: development and
implementation of a web-based surveillance system (WEB-IISS) for team medical staff.
Br J Sports Med 2013;47:420–5.
11 Engebretsen L, Soligard T, Steffen K, et al. Sports injuries and illnesses during the
London summer olympic games 2012. Br J Sports Med 2013:47:407–14.
12 Ruedl G, Schobersberger W, Pocecco E, et al. Sport injuries and illnesses during
the first winter youth Olympic games 2012 in Innsbruck, Austria. Br J Sports Med
2012:46:1030–7.
13 Alonso J-M, Edouard P, Fischetto G, et al. Determination of future prevention
strategies in elite track and field: analysis of daegu 2011 IAAF championships injuries
and illnesses surveillance. Br J Sports Med 2012:46:505–14.
14 Dvorak J, Junge A, Derman W, et al. Injuries and illnesses of football players during the
2010 FIFA world cup. Br J Sports Med e 2011.
15 Robson-Ansley P, Howatson G, Tallent J, et al. Prevalence of allergy and upper
respiratory tract symptoms in runners of the London marathon. Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise 2012:44:999–1004.
16 Cox AJ, Gleeson M, Pyne DB, et al. Clinical and laboratory evaluation of upper
respiratory symptoms in elite Athletes. Clin J Sport Med 2008;18:438–45.
17 Schwellnus MP, Kiessig M, Derman W, et al. Fusafungine reduces symptoms of upper
respiratory tract infections (URTI) in runners after a 56km race.. Med Sci Sports Exerc
1997;29 (5 Suppl):S296.
18 Schwellnus MP, Tune M, Derman EW, et al. Post ultra-marathon upper respiratory tract
symptoms are not caused by an infection. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
2002;34:S168.
19 Spence L, Brown WJ, Pyne DB, et al. Incidence, etiology, and symptomatology of
upper respiratory illness in elite Athletes. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
2007:39:577–86.
20 Nieman DC, Johanssen LM, Lee JW, et al. Infectious episodes in runners before and
after the Los Angeles marathon. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1990:30:316–28.
21 Nieman DC. Exercise, upper respiratory tract infection, and the immune system. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 1994;26:128–39.
22 Peters EM, Bateman ED. Ultramarathon running and upper respiratory tract infections.
an epidemiological survey.. S Afr Med J 1983;64:582–4.
23 Schwellnus M, Soligard T, Alonso J-M, et al. How much is too much? (Part 2)
International Olympic Committee consensus statement on load in sport and risk of
illness. Br J Sports Med 2016:50:1043–52.
24 Schwellnus MP, Derman WE, Jordaan E, et al. Elite Athletes travelling to international
destinations >5 time zone differences from their home country have a 2–3-fold
increased risk of illness. Br J Sports Med 2012;46:816–21.
25 Schwellnus ML, M; Derman EW. Respiratory tract symptoms in endurance Athletes
- A review of causes and consequences. Current Allergy Clinical Immunology
2010;23:52–7.
26 Derman EH, D; Schwellnus MP. Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in Athletes - Mechanisms
of impaired performance and implications for management. Current Allergy Clinical
Immunology 2010;23:59–62.
27 Eichner ER. Infection, immunity, and exercise: what to tell patients. Phys Sports Med
1993;21:125–35.
28 Gleeson M, Bishop N, Oliveira M, et al. Respiratory infection risk in Athletes:
association with antigen-stimulated IL-10 production and salivary IgA secretion.
Scand J Med Sci Sports 2012:22:410–7.
29 Friman G, Wesslen L. Special feature for the olympics: effects of exercise on the
immune system: infections and exercise in high-performance Athletes. ImmunolCell
Biol 2000;78:510–22.
30 Walsh NP, Gleeson M, Shephard RJ, et al. Position statement. part one: immune
function and exercise.. Exerc Immunol Rev 2011;17:6–63.
31 Scharhag J, Meyer T. Return to play after acute infectious disease in football players. J
Sports Sci 2014;32:1237–42.
32 Van Tonder A, Schwellnus M, Swanevelder S, et al. A prospective cohort study of 7031
distance runners shows that 1 in 13 report systemic symptoms of an acute illness
in the 8-12 day period before a race, increasing their risk of not finishing the race
1.9 times for those runners who started the race: SAFER study IV. Br J Sports Med
2016;50:939–45.
33 Ekblom B, Ekblom O, Malm C. Infectious episodes before and after a marathon race.
Scand J Med Sci Sports 2006;16:287–93.
34 Sund-Levander M, Forsberg C, Wahren LK. Normal oral, rectal, tympanic and axillary
body temperature in adult men and women: a systematic literature review. Scand J
Caring Sci 2002:16:122–8.
35 Drezner JA, Fischbach P, Froelicher V, et al. Normal electrocardiographic findings:
recognising physiological adaptations in athletes. Br J Sports Med 2013:47:125–36.
36 Hellard P, Guimaraes F, Avalos M, et al. Modeling the association between HR
variability and illness in elite swimmers. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
2011:43:1063–70.
37 Fletcher KP, Eadie D. Pre-race drop-out from the glasgow marathon. Br J Sports Med
1986:20:74–6.
38 Clough PJ, Shepherd J, Maughan RJ, et al. And pre-race drop-outs.. Br J Sports Med
1989;23:97–101.
group.bmj.com on August 22, 2017 - Published by http://bjsm.bmj.com/Downloaded from
race: SAFER study V therunners increases the risk of not finishing
Recent acute prerace systemic illness in
and Wayne Derman
Leigh Gordon, Martin Schwellnus, Sonja Swanevelder, Esme Jordaan
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096964
2017 2017 51: 1295-1300 originally published online April 12,Br J Sports Med
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/17/1295
Updated information and services can be found at:
These include:
References #BIBLhttp://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/17/1295
This article cites 37 articles, 16 of which you can access for free at:
service
Email alerting box at the top right corner of the online article.
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the
Collections
Topic Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections
(344)Editor's choice
Notes
http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
To request permissions go to:
http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform
To order reprints go to:
http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
To subscribe to BMJ go to:
group.bmj.com on August 22, 2017 - Published by http://bjsm.bmj.com/Downloaded from
... During a common cold infection, the person may be exercising. Nevertheless, the decrease in exercise performance after a viral upper respiratory tract infection can last 2-4 days [17,35]. On the contrary, during the febrile period of an infection and a few days after, exercise should be interrupted [22]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Most epidemiological and clinical studies suggest that systematic physical activity increases the body's immune capacity against infections. On the contrary, much evidence suggests that prolonged vigorous exercise training favors the development of infections, particularly viral ones. This twoway exercise effect is described as a “paradox” of exercise. Some theories have been developed about these adverse effects of exhaustive exercise on cellular and humoral immunity, such as open window theory, the J-curve, and the S-curve. However, some questions remain regarding the prevalence of these mechanisms, and the level of the exercise that leads to immunosuppression. Other factors favoring the onset of viral infections in athletes are stress, climatic conditions, incorrect nutrition, crowding, etc. The most common infections are viral infections of the upper respiratory tract, influenza, infection from the Epstein Barr virus. There is no information available to correlate the volume of physical stress with COVID-19 infection. The best preventive measures are to avoid exercising during a febrile infection, vaccination, adequate nutrition, and reduce stress..
... Studies conducted during major winter events suggest that competing during a respiratory viral infection does not increase its duration or severity [45,46]. On the other hand, acute infective illness may reduce performance [67]. A viral illness may provoke myocarditis. ...
Article
Full-text available
Upper respiratory tract infections (“common cold”) are the most common acute illnesses in elite athletes. Numerous studies on exercise immunology have proposed that intense exercise may increase susceptibility to respiratory infections. Virological data to support that view are sparse, and several fundamental questions remain. Immunity to respiratory viral infections is highly complex, and there is a lack of evidence that minor short- or long-term alterations in immunity in elite athletes have clinical implications. The degree to which athletes are infected by respiratory viruses is unclear. During major sport events, athletes are at an increased risk of symptomatic infections caused by the same viruses as those in the general population. The symptoms are usually mild and self-limiting. It is anecdotally known that athletes commonly exercise and compete while having a respiratory viral infection; there are no virological studies to suggest that such activity would affect either the illness or the performance. The risk of myocarditis exists. Which simple mitigation procedures are crucial for effective control of seasonal respiratory viral infections is not known.
... In training for trail running races, training loads will often increase in preparation for the extreme conditions trail runners will face, which subsequently may increase the trail runner's susceptibility to illness [25]. Among road runners, an existing pre-race acute systemic illness was associated with unsuccessful attempts to finish a race [26]. Distressed road runners that cannot further continue with running, can easily be reached by medical staff compared to trail runners participating in remote regions. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Background Trail running (TR) is characterised by uneven varying running surfaces, with large elevation gains/losses. Therefore, the injury and illness profiles of TR may differ compared to road running. Limited information is available on injury and illness among trail runners (TRs) to help develop interventions towards injury prevention. Objective Systematically review data on TR injury and illness. Design Systematic review. Setting MEDLINE Ovid, PubMed, Scopus, SportsDiscus, CINAHL, Health Source: Nursing/Academic, Health Source: Consumer Ed. and Cochrane were searched from inception to February 2019. Methodological quality was assessed using an adapted Downs and Black assessment tool. Patients (or Participants) N/A (systematic review abstract). Interventions (or Assessment of Risk Factors) Studies were included if they investigated injury and/or illness among TRs participating in training/racing and full-text available in English/French. Studies were excluded on biomarkers of injury/illness in the absence of participants reporting injury/illness, or if no clear evidence was found of investigating TR. Main Outcome Measurements TR injury (incidence, prevalence, anatomical site, tissue type, specific diagnosis, severity) and illness (incidence, prevalence, symptoms, specific diagnosis, body system, severity). Results Fourteen studies with 3094 participants were included. Six studies investigated injuries and illnesses, 3 studies investigated only injuries and 5 studies only illnesses. Twelve studies investigated race-related injury and/or illness and 2 studies included training-related injuries. Different study designs, injury and illness definitions, race distances, and surfaces, made pooling of results difficult. The foot, knee, ankle and thigh are the most common anatomical sites of TR injury, with lacerations/abrasions, blisters, muscle strains, cramping and ankle sprains most commonly diagnosed. TR illness involved the gastrointestinal tract (GIT), metabolic and cardiovascular body systems. Symptoms of nausea and vomiting related to GIT distress and dehydration are commonly reported. Conclusions Injury and illness are common among TRs participating in TR races. Limited evidence is available on training-related injury and illness in TR specific.
... Risk factors for medical encounters have been investigated and include: less experienced runners, slower running pace and older females 7,8 . Pre-race acute illness has also been associated with adverse events in two studies 9,10 . ...
Article
Background: Limited data support pre-race medical screening to identify risk factors for not finishing an endurance running race. The aim of the study was to determine risk factors associated with not finishing an ultramarathon. Methods: A prospective, cross-sectional study of Two Oceans ultramarathon (56km) race starters who completed a pre-race medical screening questionnaire. Race day environmental conditions were recorded on race day. Univariate analyses of risk factors associated with the did-not-finish (DNF) included race day factors and pre-race medical screening history. Results: Risk factors for DNF amongst 23996 starters during the 56km race included older age and being female (p<0.0001). After adjusting for age and sex, the following were significant univariate risk factors: fewer years of running (p<0.0001), less previous race experience (p<0.0001), less training / racing per week (p=0.0002), lower average weekly training distance (p=0.0016), slower race vs. training speed (p<0.0001), lack of allergies (p=0.0100) and average wet-bulb globe temperature (p<0.0001). Conclusions: Females, older age, training-related factors (less training / racing, average weekly training distance, race vs. training speed) and average wet-bulb temperature, were risk factors for not finishing an ultramarathon. The results may not only assist runners and coaches in race preparation, but also have clinical implications for the medical planning prior to races.
... The new trend is changing our profession into personal trainer or psychologist; but performing hundreds of 'squats' per day, posting one systematic review per week or studying genes is not enough to make a physiotherapist a good clinician [42]. Let's face it: Exercise is one of the most powerful medicines and protective factors [43]; but at the same time is a risk factor for death when its dosage is not appropriate [44][45][46]. It sounds quirky how most consider exercises immune from placebo, contextual and psychological factors compared to manual therapy [47]. ...
Article
Full-text available
2020 A.D.; although there was a solid base under the scientific method to suggest that the Planet Earth was a globe, thousands stoke something impossible to prove: The Flat Earth Theory. Based on this raw theory, self-styled influencers took advantage of media approval. This cognitive tendency to interpret, favor, and recall information in order to strengthen one’s personal beliefs, is known as ‘confirmation bias’ [1]. We aim to point out this continuously propagated bias in physiotherapy clinical practice. Physiotherapy is one of the most growing professions worldwide, although relatively young compared to other medical and health-care professions [2–4]. We have plenty of examples of how this growth deeply impacts clinical research and therapeutic principles. Physiotherapy is continuously modified based mainly on contexts and trends accepting theoretical paradigms, too often unsupported by solid scientific evidence.
Article
Full-text available
Endurance athletes offer unique physiology and metabolism compared to sedentary individuals. Athletes training at high intensities for prolonged periods are at risk for gastrointestinal disturbances. An important factor in endurance performance is the integrity and function of the gut barrier, which primarily depends on heavily O-glycosylated mucins. Emerging evidence shows a complex bidirectional dialogue between glycans on mucins and gut microorganisms. This review emphasizes the importance of the crosstalk between the gut microbiome and host mucus mucins and some of the mechanisms underlying this symbiosis. The contribution of mucin glycans to the composition and functionality of the gut microbiome is discussed, as well as the persuasive impact of the gut microbiome on mucin composition, thickness, and immune and metabolic functions. Lastly, we propose natural and synthetic glycans supplements to improve intestinal mucus production and barrier function, offering new opportunities to enhance endurance athletes’ performance and gut health.
Article
Background: Gastrointestinal tract illness (GITill) in rugby players is underreported. The incidence, severity (% time loss illness, days lost per illness) and burden of GITill with/without systemic symptoms and signs in professional South African male rugby players during the Super Rugby tournament (2013-2017) are reported. Methods: Team physicians completed daily illness logs of players (N.=537; 1141 player-seasons, 102738 player-days). The incidence (illnesses/1000 player-days, 95% CI), severity (% ≥1-day time-loss; days until return-to-play [DRTP]/single illness [mean: 95% CI]) and illness burden (IB: days lost to illness/1000 player-days) for the subcategories of GITill with/without systemic symptoms and signs (GITill+ss; GITill-ss), and gastroenteritis with/without systemic symptoms and signs (GE+ss; GE-ss) are reported. Results: The incidence of all GITill was 1.0 (0.8-1.2). Incidence was similar for GITill+ss 0.6 (0.4-0.8) and GITill-ss 0.4 (0.3-0.5; P=0.0603). Incidence of GE+ss 0.6 (0.4-0.7) was higher than GE-ss 0.3 (0.2-0.4; P=0.0045). GITill caused ≥1-day time-loss in 62% of cases (GE+ss 66.7%; GE-ss 53.6%). GITill caused an average of 1.1 DRTP/single GITill, which was similar for subcategories. IB of GITill+ss was higher than GITill-ss (IB Ratio: 2.1 [1.1-3.9; P=0.0253]). IB for GITill+ss is 2 times higher than GITill-ss (IB Ratio: 2.1 [1.1-3.9]; P=0.0253); and GE+ss >3 times higher than GE-ss (IB Ratio: 3.0 [1.6-5.8]; P=0.0007). Conclusions: GITill accounted for 21.9% of all illnesses during the Super Rugby tournament, with >60% of GITill resulting in time-loss. The average DRTP/single illness was 1.1. GITill+ss and GE+ss resulted in higher IB. Targeted interventions to reduce the incidence and severity of GITill+ss and GE+ss should be developed.
Article
Acute respiratory infections (ARinf) are common in athletes, but their effects on exercise and sports performance remain unclear. This systematic review aimed to determine the acute (short‐term) and longer‐term effects of ARinf, including SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, on exercise and sports performance outcomes in athletes. Data sources searched included PubMed, Web of Science and EBSCOhost, from January 1990 to 31 December 2021. Eligibility criteria included original research studies published in English, measuring exercise and/or sports performance outcomes in athletes/physically active/military aged 15–65 years with ARinf. Information regarding the study cohort, diagnostic criteria, illness classification and quantitative data on the effect on exercise/sports performance were extracted. Database searches identified 1707 studies. After full‐text screening, 17 studies were included ( n = 7793). Outcomes were acute or longer‐term effects on exercise (cardiovascular or pulmonary responses), or sports performance (training modifications, change in standardised point scoring systems, running biomechanics, match performance or ability to start/finish an event). There was substantial methodological heterogeneity between studies. ARinf was associated with acute decrements in sports performance outcomes (four studies) and pulmonary function (three studies), but minimal effects on cardiorespiratory endurance (seven studies in mild ARinf). Longer‐term detrimental effects of ARinf on sports performance (six studies) were divided. Training mileage, overall training load, standardised sports performance‐dependent points and match play can be affected over time. Despite few studies, there is a trend towards impairment in acute and longer‐term exercise and sports outcomes after ARinf in athletes. Future research should consider a uniform approach to explore relationships between ARinf and exercise/sports performance. PROSPERO (CRD42020159259)
Article
Full-text available
Objective To determine the incidence of acute respiratory illness (ARill) in athletes and by method of diagnosis, anatomical classification, ages, levels of performance and seasons. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Electronic databases: PubMed-Medline, EbscoHost and Web of Science. Eligibility criteria Original research articles published between January 1990 and July 2020 in English reporting the incidence of ARill in athletes, at any level of performance (elite/non-elite), aged 15–65 years. Results Across all 124 studies (n=1 28 360 athletes), the incidence of ARill, estimated by dividing the number of cases by the total number of athlete days, was 4.7 (95% CI 3.9 to 5.7) per 1000 athlete days. In studies reporting acute respiratory infections (ARinf; suspected and confirmed) the incidence was 4.9 (95% CI 4.0 to 6.0), which was similar in studies reporting undiagnosed ARill (3.7; 95% CI 2.1 to 6.7). Incidences of 5.9 (95% CI 4.8 to 7.2) and 2.8 (95% CI 1.8 to 4.5) were found for studies reporting upper ARinf and general ARinf (upper or lower), respectively. The incidence of ARinf was similar across the different methods to diagnose ARinf. A higher incidence of ARinf was found in non-elite (8.7; 95% CI 6.1 to 12.5) vs elite athletes (4.2; 95% CI 3.3 to 5.3). Summary/conclusions These findings suggest: (1) the incidence of ARill equates to approximately 4.7 per athlete per year; (2) the incidence of upper ARinf was significantly higher than general (upper/lower) ARinf; (3) elite athletes have a lower incidence of ARinf than non-elite athletes; (4) if pathogen identification is not available, physicians can confidently use validated questionnaires and checklists to screen athletes for suspected ARinf. For future studies, we recommend that a clear diagnosis of ARill is reported. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020160472.
Article
Full-text available
The modern-day athlete participating in elite sports is exposed to high training loads and increasingly saturated competition calendar. Emerging evidence indicates that inappropriate load management is a significant risk factor for acute illness and the overtraining syndrome. The IOC convened an expert group to review the scientific evidence for the relationship of load—including rapid changes in training and competition load, competition calendar congestion, psychological load and travel—and health outcomes in sport. This paper summarises the results linking load to risk of illness and overtraining in athletes, and provides athletes, coaches and support staff with practical guidelines for appropriate load management to reduce the risk of illness and overtraining in sport. These include guidelines for prescription of training and competition load, as well as for monitoring of training, competition and psychological load, athlete well-being and illness. In the process, urgent research priorities were identified.
Article
Full-text available
Background Data on the prevalence of acute illness in the period prior to a distance running race are limited. Currently, the presence of systemic symptoms (failed ‘neck check’) is used to advise athletes on participation. Aim To determine (1) the period prevalence of pre-race acute illness symptoms before a distance running event, (2) if symptomatic runners receiving educational material on acute illness did not start (DNS) the race and (3) if symptomatic runners who chose to start the race, did not finish (DNF) the race. Methods 7031 runners completed an online pre-race acute illness questionnaire in the 3–5 day period prior to a race. Symptomatic runners received educational information on exercise and acute illness. Runners were followed prospectively to determine DNS and DNF risk. Results 1338 runners (19.0%) reporting symptoms (7.5% reporting systemic symptoms—failed ‘neck check’) and receiving educational information had a higher DNS frequency (11.0%) compared to controls (6.6%)(p=0.0002). Symptomatic runners who started the race had a higher DNF frequency (2.1%) compared to controls (1.3%) (p=0.0346), particularly runners with systemic symptoms (2.4%; RR=1.90). Conclusions In summary, 19% (1 in 5) runners reported pre-race acute illness symptoms, with 7.5% (1 in 13) reporting systemic symptoms. Although runner education reduced the percentage symptomatic race starters, the majority of them still chose to race, resulting in a two times higher risk of not finishing in those with systemic symptoms. Pre-race acute illness symptoms are common; an educational intervention affects an athlete's decision to compete yet most symptomatic runners still competed, and systemic symptoms negatively affect performance, with possible health implications.
Article
Full-text available
It is well established that medical conditions can be associated with endurance physical activities and that respiratory tract symptoms (RTS) is one of the more common medical conditions that is encountered in these athletes. RTS are particularly during intense training and immediately after competition. There are many studies documenting that alterations in immune parameters occur in athletes undergoing intense training and competition. It is a common assumption that RTS in endurance athletes are as a result of infections during periods where there are known alterations in immune parameters. However, there are no studies directly linking alterations in immune parameters in response to training and documented evidence of infections in athletes. Allergic conditions, in particular allergic rhinitis, are also common in endurance athletes, and there is some overlap in the symptomatology of upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) and allergic rhinitis. Chronic allergic rhinitis may also predispose to the development of URTI. The infective hypothesis, the allergic hypothesis and alternate hypotheses to explain the high prevalence of RTS in endurance athletes require further investigation. Current clinical guidelines for the management of RTS in athletes are mainly based on the assumption that RTS in athletes are only as a result of an infective cause. If other causes for RTS in athletes are documented, these guidelines may require modification.
Article
Full-text available
Background Injury and illness surveillance is the foundation for the development of prevention strategies. Objective To examine injuries among the aquatic disciplines in the 4 weeks prior to and during the 2013 FINA World Championships. Methods The study was comprised of two components: (1) a retrospective athlete survey recording injuries in the 4 weeks prior to the Championships and (2) a prospective recording of injuries and illnesses by the medical teams of the participating countries and the local host medical team. Results One-third of the 1116 responding athletes reported an injury/physical complaint in the 4 weeks prior to the Championships. Significantly more women (36.7%) than men (28.6%) reported injuries. Divers reported the highest rate of injury/physical complaints (55.7%). At the start of the Championships, 70% of injured respondents (n=258) were still symptomatic; however, full participation was expected by 76%. During the Championships, 186 new injuries were reported (8.3/100 registered athletes) with the highest injury incidence rate in water polo (15.3/100 registered athletes). The most common injured body part was the shoulder (21%). A total of 199 illnesses were reported during the Championships (9.0/100 registered athletes) with the most common diagnosis of illness being gastrointestinal infection. Environmental exposure (allergy, otitis and jellyfish stings) was responsible for 27% of all illnesses in open water swimming. Conclusions Injuries pose a significant health risk for elite aquatic athletes. A prospective study would improve understanding of out-of-competition injuries. Future injury and illness surveillance at FINA World Championships is required to direct and measure the impact of prevention strategies.
Article
Full-text available
Allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis are the most common clinical manifestations of allergic disorders in the athletic population, and are probably under-diagnosed and under-treated in athletes. While some of the manifestations of allergic rhinitis are not difficult to diagnose, the signs and symptoms in athletes can be quite subtle. The more subtle clinical presentation in athletes might include poor quality sleep, fatigue or reduced exercise performance; the mechanisms underlying these effects are explained. While the diagnosis of allergic rhinitis in the athlete is primarily made on the grounds of the history and physical examination alone, assessment of specific IgE through skin or laboratory tests is an important tool in the diagnosis and should be considered part of the periodic health assessment of the athlete. Prevention and management strategies should be used by the medical team working with elite athletes and are discussed; however care should be taken to consider the World Anti-Doping Agency Code when managing elite level athletes.
Article
Full-text available
Background: In this study we describe (1) the implementation of a novel web-based injury and illness surveillance system (WEB-IISS) for use by a team of physicians at multisport events and (2) the incidence and characteristics of injuries and illness in athletes during the London 2012 Paralympic Games. Methods: Overall, 3565 athletes from 160 of the 164 participating countries were followed daily over a 14-day period, consisting of a precompetition period (3 days), and a competition period (11 days) (49 910 athlete-days). Daily injury and illness data were obtained from teams with their own medical support (78 teams, 3329 athletes) via the WEB-IISS, and without their own medical support through the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games database (82 teams and 236 athletes). Results: There were no differences between incidence rates (IR) of injury and illness, or between the precompetition and competition periods. The IR of injury during the competition period was 12.1/1000 athlete-days, with an incidence proportion (IP) of 11.6% (95% CI 11.0% to 13.3%). Upper limb injuries (35%), particularly of the shoulder (17%) were most common. The IR of illness during the competition period was 12.8/1000 athlete-days (95% CI 12.18 to 1421), with an IP of 10.2%. The IP was highest in the respiratory system (27.4%), skin (18.3%) and the gastrointestinal (14.5%) systems. Conclusions: During the competition period, the IR and IP of illness and injury at the Games were similar and comparable to the observed rates in other elite competitions. In Paralympic athletes, the IP of upper limb injuries is higher than that of lower limb injuries and non-respiratory illnesses are more common.
Article
Full-text available
Background The incidence and factors associated with illness in Paralympic athletes have not been documented. Aim To determine the factors associated with illness in athletes participating in the London 2012 Paralympic Games. Methods A cohort of 3565 athletes from 160 of the 164 participating countries in the London 2012 Paralympic Games were followed over a 14-day period (precompetition period=3 days, competition period=11 days; 49 910 athlete-days). Daily illness data were obtained from (1) teams with their own medical support who completed a daily illness log (78 teams, 3329 athletes) on a novel web-based system and (2) teams without their own medical support through the local organising committee database (82 teams, 236 athletes). Illness information from all athletes included age, gender, type of sport and the main system affected. Main outcome measurement Incidence rate (IR) of illness (illness per 1000 athlete-days) and factors associated with IR (time period, gender, age and sport). Results The IR of illness was 13.2 (95% CI 12.2 to 14.2). The highest IR of illness was in the respiratory system, followed by the skin, digestive, nervous and genitourinary systems. The IR in the precompetition period was similar to that in the competition period, but the IR was significantly higher in athletics compared with other sports. Age and gender were not independent predictors of illness. Conclusions Illness is common in Paralympic athletes and the main factor associated with higher IR of illness was the type of sport (athletics).
Article
Full-text available
Background: The Olympic Movement Medical Code encourages all stakeholders to ensure that sport is practised without danger to the health of the athletes. Systematic surveillance of injuries and illnesses is the foundation for developing preventive measures in sport. Aim: To analyse the injuries and illnesses that occurred during the Games of the XXX Olympiad, held in London in 2012. Methods: We recorded the daily occurrence (or non-occurrence) of injuries and illnesses (1) through the reporting of all National Olympic Committee (NOC) medical teams and (2) in the polyclinic and medical venues by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games' (LOCOG) medical staff. Results: In total, 10 568 athletes (4676 women and 5892 men) from 204 NOCs participated in the study. NOC and LOCOG medical staff reported 1361 injuries and 758 illnesses, equalling incidences of 128.8 injuries and 71.7 illnesses per 1000 athletes. Altogether, 11% and 7% of the athletes incurred at least one injury or illness, respectively. The risk of an athlete being injured was the highest in taekwondo, football, BMX, handball, mountain bike, athletics, weightlifting, hockey and badminton, and the lowest in archery, canoe slalom and sprint, track cycling, rowing, shooting and equestrian. 35% of the injuries were expected to prevent the athlete from participating during competition or training. Women suffered 60% more illnesses than men (86.0 vs 53.3 illnesses per 1000 athletes). The rate of illness was the highest in athletics, beach volleyball, football, sailing, synchronised swimming and taekwondo. A total of 310 illnesses (41%) affected the respiratory system and the most common cause of illness was infection (n=347, 46%). Conclusions: At least 11% of the athletes incurred an injury during the games and 7% of the athletes' an illness. The incidence of injuries and illnesses varied substantially among sports. Future initiatives should include the development of preventive measures tailored for each specific sport and the continued focus among sport bodies to institute and further develop scientific injury and illness surveillance systems.
Article
Abstract Acute infectious diseases are common in athletes and can impair their ability to train and to compete. Furthermore, continuing exercise during infectious diseases may lead to prolongation or aggravation of illness with severe acute or chronic organ manifestations. Therefore, even simple infectious diseases require a sufficient period of convalescence and recovery, during which exercise may be not allowed. Nowadays, especially in professional football with high pressures on players, staff and clubs due to broad public interests as well as financial constraints, the return-to-play decision is of utmost significance. Based on previous suggestions and our own experience within amateur and professional athletes and football players, this article aims to give a short overview on return-to-play decisions after common acute infectious diseases in football players.