The COVID-19 pandemic and temporal change in metabolic risk factors for cardiovascular disease: A natural experiment within the HELIUS study.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, including the restrictive measures taken to reduce the spread of the virus, negatively affected people's health behavior. We explored whether the pandemic also had an effect on metabolic risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in women and men. We conducted a natural experiment, using data from 6962 participants without CVD at baseline (2011-2015) of six ethnic groups of the HELIUS study in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. We studied whether participants whose follow-up measurements were taken within the 11 months before the pandemic (control group) differed from those whose measurements were taken taken within 6 months after the first lockdown (exposed group). Using sex-stratified linear regressions with inverse probability weighting, we compared changes in baseline- and follow-up data between the control and exposed group in six metabolic risk factors: systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP), total cholesterol (TC), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Next, we explored the mediating effect of changes in body-mass index (BMI), alcohol, smoking, depressive symptoms and negative life events at follow-up. We observed less favorable changes in SBP (+1.12mmHg for women, +1.38mmHg for men), DBP (+0.85mmHg, +0.80mmHg) and FPG (only in women, +0.12 mmol/L) over time in the exposed group relative to the control group. Conversely, changes in HbA1c (-0.65 mmol/mol, -0.84 mmol/mol) and eGFR (+1.06 mL/min, +1.04 mL/min) were more favorable in the exposed compared to the control group, respectively. Changes in SBP, DBP, and FPG were partially mediated by changes in behavioral factors, in particular BMI and alcohol consumption. Concluding, the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular behavioral changes associated with restrictive lockdown measures, may have negatively affected several CVD risk factors, in both women and men.

The Roth score as a triage tool for detecting hypoxaemia in general practice: a diagnostic validation study in patients with possible COVID-19.

AIM: To validate the Roth score as a triage tool for detecting hypoxaemia. BACKGROUNDS: The virtual assessment of patients has become increasingly important during the corona virus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, but has limitations as to the evaluation of deteriorating respiratory function. This study presents data on the validity of the Roth score as a triage tool for detecting hypoxaemia remotely in potential COVID-19 patients in general practice. METHODS: This cross-sectional validation study was conducted in Dutch general practice. Patients aged ≥18 with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were asked to rapidly count from 1 to 30 in a single breath. The Roth score involves the highest number counted during exhalation (counting number) and the time taken to reach the maximal count (counting time).Outcome measures were (1) the correlation between both Roth score measurements and simultaneous pulse oximetry (SpO2) on room air and (2) discrimination (c-statistic), sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the Roth score for detecting hypoxaemia (SpO2 < 95%). FINDINGS: A total of 33 physicians enrolled 105 patients (52.4% female, mean age of 52.6 ± 20.4 years). A positive correlation was found between counting number and SpO2 (rs = 0.44, P < 0.001), whereas only a weak correlation was found between counting time and SpO2 (rs = 0.15, P = 0.14). Discrimination for hypoxaemia was higher for counting number [c-statistic 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85-0.96)] than for counting time [c-statistic 0.77 (95% CI: 0.62-0.93)]. Optimal diagnostic performance was found at a counting number of 20, with a sensitivity of 93.3% (95% CI: 68.1-99.8) and a specificity of 77.8% (95% CI: 67.8-85.9). A counting time of 7 s showed the best sensitivity of 85.7% (95% CI: 57.2-98.2) and specificity of 81.1% (95% CI: 71.5-88.6). CONCLUSIONS: A Roth score, with an optimal counting number cut-off value of 20, maybe of added value for signalling hypoxaemia in general practice. Further external validation is warranted before recommending integration in telephone triage.

Performance of popular pulse oximeters compared with simultaneous arterial oxygen saturation or clinical-grade pulse oximetry: a cross-sectional validation study in intensive care patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of direct-to-consumer pulse oximeters under clinical conditions, with arterial blood gas measurement (SaO2) as reference standard. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, validation study. SETTING: Intensive care. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients requiring SaO2-monitoring. INTERVENTIONS: The studied oximeters are top-selling in Europe/USA (AFAC FS10D, AGPTEK FS10C, ANAPULSE ANP 100, Cocobear, Contec CMS50D1, HYLOGY MD-H37, Mommed YM101, PRCMISEMED F4PRO, PULOX PO-200 and Zacurate Pro Series 500 DL). Directly after collection of a SaO2 blood sample, we obtained pulse oximeter readings (SpO2). SpO2-readings were performed in rotating order, blinded for SaO2 and completed <10 min after blood sample collection. OUTCOME MEASURES: Bias (SpO2-SaO2) mean, root mean square difference (ARMS), mean absolute error (MAE) and accuracy in identifying hypoxaemia (SaO2 ≤90%). As a clinical index test, we included a hospital-grade SpO2-monitor (Philips). RESULTS: In 35 consecutive patients, we obtained 2258 SpO2-readings and 234 SaO2-samples. Mean bias ranged from -0.6 to -4.8. None of the pulse oximeters met ARMS ≤3%, the requirement set by International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO)-standards and required for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 501(k)-clearance. The MAE ranged from 2.3 to 5.1, and five out of ten pulse oximeters met the requirement of ≤3%. For hypoxaemia, negative predictive values were 98%-99%. Positive predictive values ranged from 11% to 30%. Highest accuracy (95% CI) was found for Contec CMS50D1; 91% (86-94) and Zacurate Pro Series 500 DL; 90% (85-94). The hospital-grade SpO2-monitor had an ARMS of 3.0% and MAE of 1.9, and an accuracy of 95% (91%-97%). CONCLUSION: Top-selling, direct-to-consumer pulse oximeters can accurately rule out hypoxaemia, but do not meet ISO-standards required for FDA-clearance.

Reprocessing filtering facepiece respirators in primary care using medical autoclave: prospective, bench-to-bedside, single-centre study.

OBJECTIVE: There are widespread shortages of personal protective equipment as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Reprocessing filtering facepiece particle (FFP)-type respirators may provide an alternative solution in keeping healthcare professionals safe. DESIGN: Prospective, bench-to-bedside. SETTING: A primary care-based study using FFP-2 respirators without exhalation valve (3M Aura 1862+ (20 samples), Maco Pharma ZZM002 (14 samples)), FFP-2 respirators with valve (3M Aura 9322+ (six samples) and San Huei 2920V (16 samples)) and valved FFP type 3 respirators (Safe Worker 1016 (10 samples)). INTERVENTIONS: All masks were reprocessed using a medical autoclave (17 min at 121°C with 34 min total cycle time) and subsequently tested up to three times whether these respirators retained their integrity (seal check and pressure drop) and ability to filter small particles (0.3-5.0 µm) in the laboratory using a particle penetration test. RESULTS: We tested 33 respirators and 66 samples for filter capacity. All FFP-2 respirators retained their shape, whereas half of the decontaminated FFP-3 respirators showed deformities and failed the seal check. The filtering capacity of the 3M Aura 1862 was best retained after one, two and three decontamination cycles (0.3 µm: 99.3%±0.3% (new) vs 97.0±1.3, 94.2±1.3% or 94.4±1.6; p<0.001). Of the other FFP-2 respirators, the San Huei 2920 V had 95.5%±0.7% at baseline vs 92.3%±1.7% vs 90.0±0.7 after one-time and two-time decontaminations, respectively (p<0.001). The tested FFP-3 respirator (Safe Worker 1016) had a filter capacity of 96.5%±0.7% at baseline and 60.3%±5.7% after one-time decontamination (p<0.001). Breathing and pressure resistance tests indicated no relevant pressure changes between respirators that were used once, twice or thrice. CONCLUSION: This small single-centre study shows that selected FFP-2 respirators may be reprocessed for use in primary care, as the tested masks retain their shape, ability to retain particles and breathing comfort after decontamination using a medical autoclave.