In-person versus virtual administration of the American College of Rheumatology gold standard cognitive battery in systemic lupus erythematosus: Are they interchangeable?

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many research studies were adapted, including our longitudinal study examining cognitive impairment (CI) in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Cognitive testing was switched from in-person to virtual. This analysis aimed to determine if the administration method (in-person vs. virtual) of the ACR-neuropsychological battery (ACR-NB) affected participant cognitive performance and classification. METHODS: Data from our multi-visit, SLE CI study included demographic, clinical, and psychiatric characteristics, and the modified ACR-NB. Three analyses were undertaken for cognitive performance: (1) all visits, (2) non-CI group visits only and (3) intra-individual comparisons. A retrospective preferences questionnaire was given to participants who completed the ACR-NB both in-person and virtually. RESULTS: We analysed 328 SLE participants who had 801 visits (696 in-person and 105 virtual). Demographic, clinical, and psychiatric characteristics were comparable except for ethnicity, anxiety and disease-related damage. Across all three comparisons, six tests were consistently statistically significantly different. CI classification changed in 11/71 (15%) participants. 45% of participants preferred the virtual administration method and 33% preferred in-person. CONCLUSIONS: Of the 19 tests in the ACR-NB, we identified one or more problems with eight (42%) tests when moving from in-person to virtual administration. As the use of virtual cognitive testing will likely increase, these issues need to be addressed - potentially by validating a virtual version of the ACR-NB. Until then, caution must be taken when directly comparing virtual to in-person test results. If future studies use a mixed administration approach, this should be accounted for during analysis.

Clinical experience with the Teflo disposable membrane oxygenator.

A simple, inexpensive, highly efficient disposable membrane oxygenator with low priming volume and a microporous membrane recently has become available. Animal and clinical investigations of its use have been most satisfactory, and clinical experience now has been extended to include 285 patients. Its primary advantage has been the ability to control oxygenation and carbon dioxide separately. Disadvantages have included the somewhat increased complexity of the system as compared with bubble oxygenator systems, the necessity of converting pumps for its use, and excessive condensation of water vapor in the gas phase of the oxygenator unless certain precautions are followed.