Efficacy of telemedicine for the management of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine has been increasingly integrated into chronic disease management through remote patient monitoring and consultation, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting effectiveness of telemedicine interventions for the management of patients with cardiovascular conditions. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library from database inception to Jan 18, 2021. We included randomised controlled trials and observational or cohort studies that evaluated the effects of a telemedicine intervention on cardiovascular outcomes for people either at risk (primary prevention) of cardiovascular disease or with established (secondary prevention) cardiovascular disease, and, for the meta-analysis, we included studies that evaluated the effects of a telemedicine intervention on cardiovascular outcomes and risk factors. We excluded studies if there was no clear telemedicine intervention described or if cardiovascular or risk factor outcomes were not clearly reported in relation to the intervention. Two reviewers independently assessed and extracted data from trials and observational and cohort studies using a standardised template. Our primary outcome was cardiovascular-related mortality. We evaluated study quality using Cochrane risk-of-bias and Newcastle-Ottawa scales. The systematic review and the meta-analysis protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021221010) and the Malaysian National Medical Research Register (NMRR-20-2471-57236). FINDINGS: 72 studies, including 127 869 participants, met eligibility criteria, with 34 studies included in meta-analysis (n=13 269 with 6620 [50%] receiving telemedicine). Combined remote monitoring and consultation for patients with heart failure was associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular-related mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0·83 [95% CI 0·70 to 0·99]; p=0·036) and hospitalisation for a cardiovascular cause (0·71 [0·58 to 0·87]; p=0·0002), mostly in studies with short-term follow-up. There was no effect of telemedicine on all-cause hospitalisation (1·02 [0·94 to 1·10]; p=0·71) or mortality (0·90 [0·77 to 1·06]; p=0·23) in these groups, and no benefits were observed with remote consultation in isolation. Small reductions were observed for systolic blood pressure (mean difference -3·59 [95% CI -5·35 to -1·83] mm Hg; p<0·0001) by remote monitoring and consultation in secondary prevention populations. Small reductions were also observed in body-mass index (mean difference -0·38 [-0·66 to -0·11] kg/m2; p=0·0064) by remote consultation in primary prevention settings. INTERPRETATION: Telemedicine including both remote disease monitoring and consultation might reduce short-term cardiovascular-related hospitalisation and mortality risk among patients with heart failure. Future research should evaluate the sustained effects of telemedicine interventions. FUNDING: The British Heart Foundation.

Mobile health applications: awareness, attitudes, and practices among medical students in Malaysia.

BACKGROUND: The popularity of mobile health (mHealth) applications (or apps) in the field of health and medical education is rapidly increasing, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to assess awareness, attitudes, practices, and factors associated with the mHealth app usage among medical students. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study involving medical students at a government university in Sarawak, Malaysia, from February to April 2021. Validated questionnaires were administered to all consenting students. These questionnaires included questions on basic demographic information as well as awareness, attitude toward, and practices with mHealth apps concerned with medical education, health and fitness, and COVID-19 management. RESULTS: Respondents had favorable attitudes toward mHealth apps (medical education [61.8%], health and fitness [76.3%], and COVID-19 management [82.7%]). Respondents' mean attitude scores were four out of five for all three app categories. However, respondents used COVID-19 management apps more frequently (73.5%) than those for medical education (35.7%) and fitness (39.0%). Usage of all three app categories was significantly associated with the respondent's awareness and attitude. Respondents in the top 20% in term of household income and study duration were more likely to use medical education apps. The number of respondents who used COVID-19 apps was higher in the top 20% household income group than in the other income groups. The most common barrier to the use of apps was uncertainty regarding the most suitable apps to choose. CONCLUSION: Our study highlighted a discrepancy between awareness of mHealth apps and positive attitudes toward them and their use. Recognition of barriers to using mHealth apps by relevant authorities may be necessary to increase the usage of these apps.

Diagnostic accuracy of fresh drooled saliva for SARS-CoV-2 in travelers.

BACKGROUND: The standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis is RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs. Major airports require COVID-19 screening, and saliva has the potential as a substitute specimen for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. We investigated the utility of fresh drooled saliva against NPS for COVID-19 screening of travelers. METHODS: We recruited 81 travelers and 15 non-travelers (including ten controls) prospectively within a mean of 3·22 days of RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19. Each study participant provided 2 mls of early morning fresh drooled whole saliva separately into a sterile plastic container and GeneFiX™ saliva collection kit. The saliva specimens were processed within 4 h and tested for SARS-CoV-2 genes (E, RdRP, and N2) and the results compared to paired NPS RT-PCR for diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Majority of travellers were asymptomatic (75·0%) with a mean age of 34·26 years. 77 travelers were RT-PCR positive at the time of hospitalization whilst three travelers had positive contacts. In this group, the detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 with NPS, whole saliva, and GeneFiX™ were comparable (89·3%, 50/56; 87·8%, 43/49; 89·6%, 43/48). Both saliva collection methods were in good agreement (Kappa = 0·69). There was no statistical difference between the detection rates of saliva and NPS (p > 0·05). Detection was highest for the N2 gene whilst the E gene provided the highest viral load (mean = 27·96 to 30·10, SD = 3·14 to 3·85). Saliva specimens have high sensitivity (80·4%) and specificity (90·0%) with a high positive predictive value of 91·8% for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Saliva for SARS-CoV-2 screening is a simple accurate technique comparable with NPS RT-PCR.