The comparison of Kardia Mobile and Hartmann Veroval 2 in 1 in detecting first diagnosed atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the leading cause of stroke. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) advises opportunistic AF screening among patients aged ≥ 65 years. Considering this, the aim herein, was compare the feasibility of two different systems of smartphone-based electrocardiogram (ECG) recordings to identify AF among those without a previous arrhythmia history. METHODS: Prospective AF screening was conducted at six pharmacies using Kardia Mobile and Hartmann Veroval 2 in 1. A single-lead ECG was acquired by the placement of fingers on the pads. A cardiologist evaluated findings from both devices. RESULTS: Atrial fibrillation was identified in 3.60% and previously unknown AF was detected in 1.92% of the study participants. Sensitivity and specificity of the Kardia application in detecting AF were 66.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 38.4-88.2%) and 98.5% (95% CI 96.7-99.5%), and for Veroval 10.0% (95% CI 0.23-44.5%) and 94.96% (95% CI 92.15-96.98%), accordingly. Inter-rater agreement was k = 0.088 (95% CI 1.59-16.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Mobile devices can detect AF, but each finding must be verified by a professional. The Kardia application appeared to be more user-friendly than Veroval. Cardiovascular screening using mobile devices is feasible at pharmacies. Hence it might be considered for routine use.

Facebook as a source of access to medicines.

Over the last decade, we've observed an enormous social media development, which have recently become commercial services. Hence, we aimed to verify if Facebook might be considered as a source of access to medicines. We also intended to identify prescription (Rx) and over the counter (OTC) medicines if available on that platform. The study was conducted from January 2019 to July 2020. We investigated offers of pharmaceuticals posted on Facebook (individual posts and communities) between 2016 and 2019. Medicines were divided into Rx and OTC brands and in accordance with their possible therapeutic use. We verified whether the medicines were for sale, to exchange, or available for free. Posts and groups were investigated for example, by entering the phrase "for free," followed by a city in Poland. Out of 409 offers, 380 (92.91%) concerned Rx brands and 29 (7.09%) OTC brands. 315 (77.02%) medications were available "for free". In 47 (11.49%) cases, an "exchange" was expected, and 47 (11.49%) announcements were marked as "for sale". Cardiovascular medicines (n = 125; 30.56%) were the most popular. There were also antidiabetics (n = 38; 9.29%) and antipsychotics (n = 28; 6.84%). We also found clear candidates for misuse. These were opioids (n = 7; 1.71%), benzodiazepines (n = 2; 0.48%), clomifene (n = 1; 0.24%), and letrozole (n = 1; 0.24%). Facebook provides the possibility of uncontrolled access to medicines. The majority of offers concerned Rx brands, including opioids and benzodiazepines. Medicines offered on Facebook were mainly accessible for free. The scope and the number of medications offered on Facebook should make this issue a hazardous phenomenon.