Real-time smart-digital stethoscope system for heart diseases monitoring

One of the major causes of death all over the world is heart disease or cardiac dysfunction. These diseases could be identified easily with the variations in the sound produced due to the heart activity. These sophisticated auscultations need important clinical experience and concentrated listening skills. Therefore, there is an unmet need for a portable system for the early detection of cardiac illnesses. This paper proposes a prototype model of a smart digital-stethoscope system to monitor patient’s heart sounds and diagnose any abnormality in a real-time manner. This system consists of two subsystems that communicate wirelessly using Bluetooth low energy technology: A portable digital stethoscope subsystem, and a computer-based decision-making subsystem. The portable subsystem captures the heart sounds of the patient, filters and digitizes, and sends the captured heart sounds to a personal computer wirelessly to visualize the heart sounds and for further processing to make a decision if the heart sounds are normal or abnormal. Twenty-seven t-domain, f-domain, and Mel frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC) features were used to train a public database to identify the best-performing algorithm for classifying abnormal and normal heart sound (HS). The hyper parameter optimization, along with and without a feature reduction method, was tested to improve accuracy. The cost-adjusted optimized ensemble algorithm can produce 97% and 88% accuracy of classifying abnormal and normal HS, respectively.Funding: This research was partially funded by Qatar National Research Foundation (QNRF), grant number UREP19-069-2-031 and UREP23-027-2-012 and Research University Grant AP-2017-008/1. The publication of this article was funded by the Qatar National Library.Scopu

SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections among vaccinated individuals with rheumatic disease : Results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance provider registry

Funding Information: members of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance and do not necessarily represent the views of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), EULAR, the UK National Health Service (NHS), the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the UK Department of Health or any other organisation. Competing interests KLH reports she has received non-personal speaker’s fees from AbbVie and grant income from BMS, UCB and Pfizer, all unrelated to this manuscript; KLH is supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. LG reports personal consultant fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Biogen, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB, and grants from Amgen, Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi and Galapagos, all unrelated to this manuscript. AS reports research grants from a consortium of 14 companies (among them AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius Funding Information: Kabi, Gilead/Galapagos, Lilly, Mylan/Viatris, Hexal, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB) supporting the German RABBIT register and personal fees from lectures for AbbVie, MSD, Roche, BMS, Lilly and Pfizer, all unrelated to this manuscript. LC has not received fees or personal grants from any laboratory, but her institute works by contract for laboratories among other institutions, such as AbbVie Spain, Eisai, Gebro Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme España, Novartis Farmaceutica, Pfizer, Roche Farma, Sanofi-Aventis, Astellas Pharma, Actelion Pharmaceuticals España, Grünenthal and UCB Pharma. EF-M reports personal consultant fees from Boehringer Ingelheim Portugal and that LPCDR received support for specific activities: grants from AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly Portugal, Sanofi, Grünenthal, MSD, Celgene, Medac, Pharmakern and GAfPA; grants and non-financial support from Pfizer; and non-financial support from Grünenthal, outside the submitted work. IB reports personal consultant fees from AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer and Janssen, all unrelated to this manuscript. JZ reports speaker fees from AbbVie, Novartis and Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, all unrelated to this manuscript. GR-C reports personal consultant fees from Eli Lilly and Novartis, all unrelated to this manuscript. JS is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (grant numbers: R01 AR077607, P30 AR070253 and P30 AR072577), and the R Bruce and Joan M Mickey Research Scholar Fund. JS has received research support from Amgen and Bristol Myers Squibb and performed consultancy for Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Janssen and Optum, unrelated to this work. LW receives speaker’s bureau fees from Aurinia Pharma, unrelated to this manuscript. SB reports no competing interests related to this work. He reports non-branded consulting fees for AbbVie, Horizon and Novartis (all <$10 000). MGM has no competing interests related to this work. She serves as a patient consultant for BMS, BI JNJ and Aurinia (all <$10 000). RG reports no competing interests related to this work. Outside of this work she reports personal and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and Cornerstones and travel assistance from Pfizer (all <$10 000). JH reports no competing interests related to this work. He is supported by grants from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and has salary support from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance. He has performed consulting for Novartis, Sobi and Biogen, all unrelated to this work (<$10 000). ESi reports non-financial support from Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, outside the submitted work. PS reports personal fees from the American College of Rheumatology/Wiley Publishing, outside the submitted work. ZW reports grant support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and performed consultancy for Viela Bio and MedPace, outside the submitted work. His work is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. PMM has received consulting/speaker’s fees from AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, all unrelated to this study. PMM is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). PCR reports no competing interests related to this work. Outside of this work PCR reports personal fees from AbbVie, Atom Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kukdong, Novartis, UCB, Roche and Pfizer; meeting attendance support from BMS, Pfizer and UCB; and grant funding from Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma (all <$10 000). JY reports no competing interests related to this work. Her work is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (K24 AR074534 and P30 AR070155). Outside of this work, she has received research grants or performed consulting for Gilead, BMS Foundation, Pfizer, Aurinia and AstraZeneca. Funding Information: Twitter Jean Liew @rheum_cat, Loreto Carmona @carmona_loreto, Pedro M Machado @pedrommcmachado and Philip C Robinson @philipcrobinson Contributors All authors contributed to the study design, data collection, interpretation of results and review/approval of the final submitted manuscript. JL and MG are guarantors for this manuscript. Funding MG reports grants from the National Institutes of Health, NIAMS, outside the submitted work. KLH is supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. JS is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (grant numbers: R01 AR077607, P30 AR070253 and P30 AR072577), and the R Bruce and Joan M Mickey Research Scholar Fund. JH is supported by grants from the Rheumatology Research Foundation. ZW is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. PMM is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). JY is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (K24 AR074534 and P30 AR070155). Publisher Copyright: ©Objective. While COVID-19 vaccination prevents severe infections, poor immunogenicity in immunocompromised people threatens vaccine effectiveness. We analysed the clinical characteristics of patients with rheumatic disease who developed breakthrough COVID-19 after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2.  Methods. We included people partially or fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 who developed COVID-19 between 5 January and 30 September 2021 and were reported to the Global Rheumatology Alliance registry. Breakthrough infections were defined as occurring ≥14 days after completion of the vaccination series, specifically 14 days after the second dose in a two-dose series or 14 days after a single-dose vaccine. We analysed patients' demographic and clinical characteristics and COVID-19 symptoms and outcomes. Results SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported in 197 partially or fully vaccinated people with rheumatic disease (mean age 54 years, 77% female, 56% white). The majority (n=140/197, 71%) received messenger RNA vaccines. Among the fully vaccinated (n=87), infection occurred a mean of 112 (±60) days after the second vaccine dose. Among those fully vaccinated and hospitalised (n=22, age range 36-83 years), nine had used B cell-depleting therapy (BCDT), with six as monotherapy, at the time of vaccination. Three were on mycophenolate. The majority (n=14/22, 64%) were not taking systemic glucocorticoids. Eight patients had pre-existing lung disease and five patients died. Conclusion. More than half of fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections requiring hospitalisation were on BCDT or mycophenolate. Further risk mitigation strategies are likely needed to protect this selected high-risk population.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Obstetric Outcomes in Women with Rheumatic Disease and COVID-19 in the Context of Vaccination Status

OBJECTIVE: To describe obstetric outcomes based on COVID-19 vaccination status, in women with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) who developed COVID-19 during pregnancy. METHODS: Data regarding pregnant women entered into the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry from 24 March 2020-25 February 2022 were analysed. Obstetric outcomes were stratified by number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received prior to COVID-19 infection in pregnancy. Descriptive differences between groups were tested using the chi -square or Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: There were 73 pregnancies in 73 women with RMD and COVID-19. Overall, 24.7% (18) of pregnancies were ongoing, while of the 55 completed pregnancies 90.9% (50) of pregnancies resulted in livebirths. At the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, 60.3% (n = 44) of women were unvaccinated, 4.1% (n = 3) had received one vaccine dose while 35.6% (n = 26) had two or more doses. Although 83.6% (n = 61) of women required no treatment for COVID-19, 20.5% (n = 15) required hospital admission. COVID-19 resulted in delivery in 6.8% (n = 3) of unvaccinated women and 3.8% (n = 1) of fully vaccinated women. There was a greater number of preterm births (PTB) in unvaccinated women compared with fully vaccinated 29.5% (n = 13) vs 18.2%(n = 2). CONCLUSION: In this descriptive study, unvaccinated pregnant women with RMD and COVID-19 had a greater number of PTB compared with those fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Additionally, the need for COVID-19 pharmacological treatment was uncommon in pregnant women with RMD regardless of vaccination status. These results support active promotion of COVID-19 vaccination in women with RMD who are pregnant or planning a pregnancy

Results From the Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry

Funding Information: We acknowledge financial support from the ACR and EULAR. The ACR and EULAR were not involved in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Authors. ACR Open Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.Objective: Some patients with rheumatic diseases might be at higher risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to develop a prediction model for COVID-19 ARDS in this population and to create a simple risk score calculator for use in clinical settings. Methods: Data were derived from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry from March 24, 2020, to May 12, 2021. Seven machine learning classifiers were trained on ARDS outcomes using 83 variables obtained at COVID-19 diagnosis. Predictive performance was assessed in a US test set and was validated in patients from four countries with independent registries using area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. A simple risk score calculator was developed using a regression model incorporating the most influential predictors from the best performing classifier. Results: The study included 8633 patients from 74 countries, of whom 523 (6%) had ARDS. Gradient boosting had the highest mean AUC (0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.88) and was considered the top performing classifier. Ten predictors were identified as key risk factors and were included in a regression model. The regression model that predicted ARDS with 71% (95% CI: 61%-83%) sensitivity in the test set, and with sensitivities ranging from 61% to 80% in countries with independent registries, was used to develop the risk score calculator. Conclusion: We were able to predict ARDS with good sensitivity using information readily available at COVID-19 diagnosis. The proposed risk score calculator has the potential to guide risk stratification for treatments, such as monoclonal antibodies, that have potential to reduce COVID-19 disease progression.publishersversionepub_ahead_of_prin

Associations of baseline use of biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs with COVID-19 severity in rheumatoid arthritis : Results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry

Funding Information: Competing interests JAS is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Funding Information: Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (grant numbers K23 AR069688, R03 AR075886, L30 AR066953, P30 AR070253 and P30 AR072577), the Rheumatology Research Foundation (K Supplement Award and R Bridge Award), the Brigham Research Institute, and the R Bruce and Joan M Mickey Research Scholar Fund. JAS has received research support from Amgen and Bristol-Myers Squibb and performed consultancy for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Janssen and Optum, unrelated to this work. ZSW reports grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/ Sanofi and performed consultancy for Viela Bio and MedPace, outside the submitted work. His work is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. MG is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (grant numbers K01 AR070585 and K24 AR074534; JY). KLH reports she has received speaker’s fees from AbbVie and grant income from BMS, UCB and Pfizer, all unrelated to this study. KLH is also supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. LC has not received fees or personal grants from any laboratory, but her institute works by contract for laboratories such as, among other institutions, AbbVie Spain, Eisai, Gebro Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme España, Novartis Farmaceutica, Pfizer, Roche Farma, Sanofi Aventis, Astellas Pharma, Actelion Pharmaceuticals España, Grünenthal and UCB Pharma. LG reports research grants from Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz and Sanofi; consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Biogen, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi Aventis and UCB, all unrelated to this study. EFM reports that LPCDR received support for specific activities: grants from AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly Portugal, Sanofi, Grünenthal, MSD, Celgene, Medac, Pharma Kern and GAfPA; grants and non-financial support from Pfizer; and non-financial support from Grünenthal, outside the submitted work. AS reports grants from a consortium of 13 companies (among them AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Lilly, Mylan, Hexal, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi Aventis and UCB) supporting the German RABBIT register, and personal fees from lectures for AbbVie, MSD, Roche, BMS and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. AD-G has no disclosures relevant to this study. His work is supported by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. KMD is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (T32-AR-007258) and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. NJP is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (T32-AR-007258). PD has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai and Pfizer, and performed consultancy for Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Sanofi, Pfizer, Chugai, Roche and Janssen, unrelated to this work. NS is supported by the RRF Investigator Award and the American Heart Association. MFU-G reports grant support from Janssen and Pfizer. SB reports no competing interests related to this work. He reports non-branded consulting fees for AbbVie, Horizon, Novartis and Pfizer (all <$10 000). RG reports no competing interests related to this work. Outside of this work she reports personal and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and Cornerstones, and travel assistance from Pfizer (all <$10 000). JH reports no competing interests related to this work. He is supported by grants from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance. He has performed consulting for Novartis, Sobi and Biogen, all unrelated to this work (<$10 000). JL has received research funding from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. ES is a Board Member of the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, a patient-run, volunteer-based organisation whose activities are largely supported by independent grants from pharmaceutical companies. PS reports no competing interests related to this work. He reports honorarium for doing social media for American College of Rheumatology journals (<$10 000). PMM has received consulting/speaker’s fees from AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, all unrelated to this study (all <$10 000). PMM is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). PCR reports no competing interests related to this work. Outside of this work he reports personal consulting and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, and travel assistance from Roche (all <$10 000). JY reports no competing interests related to this work. Her work is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. She has performed consulting for Eli Lilly and AstraZeneca, unrelated to this project. Publisher Copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Objective To investigate baseline use of biologic or targeted synthetic (b/ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods We analysed the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry (from 24 March 2020 to 12 April 2021). We investigated b/tsDMARD use for RA at the clinical onset of COVID-19 (baseline): abatacept (ABA), rituximab (RTX), Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), interleukin 6 inhibitors (IL-6i) or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi, reference group). The ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome was (1) no hospitalisation, (2) hospitalisation without oxygen, (3) hospitalisation with oxygen/ventilation or (4) death. We used ordinal logistic regression to estimate the OR (odds of being one level higher on the ordinal outcome) for each drug class compared with TNFi, adjusting for potential baseline confounders. Results Of 2869 people with RA (mean age 56.7 years, 80.8% female) on b/tsDMARD at the onset of COVID-19, there were 237 on ABA, 364 on RTX, 317 on IL-6i, 563 on JAKi and 1388 on TNFi. Overall, 613 (21%) were hospitalised and 157 (5.5%) died. RTX (OR 4.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 5.44) and JAKi (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.65) were each associated with worse COVID-19 severity compared with TNFi. There were no associations between ABA or IL6i and COVID-19 severity. Conclusions People with RA treated with RTX or JAKi had worse COVID-19 severity than those on TNFi. The strong association of RTX and JAKi use with poor COVID-19 outcomes highlights prioritisation of risk mitigation strategies for these people.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Large Scale Metabolic Profiling identifies Novel Steroids linked to Rheumatoid Arthritis

Recent metabolomics studies of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) reported few metabolites that were associated with the disease, either due to small cohort sizes or limited coverage of metabolic pathways. Our objective is to identify metabolites associated with RA and its cofounders using a new untargeted metabolomics platform. Moreover, to investigate the pathomechanism of RA by identifying correlations between RA-associated metabolites. 132 RA patients and 104 controls were analyzed for 927 metabolites. Metabolites were tested for association with RA using linear regression. OPLS-DA was used to discriminate RA patients from controls. Gaussian Graphical Models (GGMs) were used to identify correlated metabolites. 32 metabolites are identified as significantly (Bonferroni) associated with RA, including the previously reported metabolites as DHEAS, cortisol and androstenedione and extending that to a larger set of metabolites in the steroid pathway. RA classification using metabolic profiles shows a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 88%. Steroid levels show variation among the RA patients according to the corticosteroid treatment; lowest in those taking the treatment at the time of the study, higher in those who never took the treatment, and highest in those who took it in the past. Finally, the GGM reflects metabolite relations from the steroidogenesis pathway

Epidemiology and treatment patterns of rheumatoid arthritis in a large cohort of Arab patients.

OBJECTIVES:There is limited information on the epidemiology and treatment patterns of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) across the Arab region. We aim in this study to describe the demographic characteristics, clinical profile, and treatment patterns of patients of Arab ancestry with RA. METHODS:This is a cross sectional study of 895 patients with established rheumatoid arthritis enrolled from five sites (Jordan, Lebanon, Qatar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and United Arab Emirates). Demographic characteristics, clinical profile, and treatment patterns are compared between the five countries. RESULTS:The majority of our patients are women, have an average disease duration of 10 years, are married and non-smokers, with completed secondary education. We report a high (>80%) ever-use of methotrexate (MTX) and steroids among our RA population, while the ever-use of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and TNF-inhibitors average around 67% and 33%, respectively. There are variations in RA treatment use between the five country sites. Highest utilization of steroids is identified in Jordan and KSA (p-value < 0.001), while the highest ever-use of TNF-inhibitors is reported in KSA (p-value < 0.001). CONCLUSION:Disparities in usage of RA treatments among Arab patients are noted across the five countries. National gross domestic product (GDP), as well as some other unique features in each country likely affect these. Developing treatment guidelines specific to this region could contribute in delivering standardized therapies to RA patients

Correction: Epidemiology and treatment patterns of rheumatoid arthritis in a large cohort of Arab patients.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208240.]

Standards for structured reporting of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans: best practice recommendations by the Pan Arab Osteoporosis Society

Abstract Background Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is an important diagnostic test for bone mass status. The aim of this work was to set the standards for structured reporting of DXA measurements in adults within the context of fracture and fall risk assessment. Results Two rounds of Delphi were completed. The first Delphi round had a 68% response rate, while round two had a 100% response rate. After round 2, a total of 28 items were obtained, which were classified into three domains. The percentage of people who agreed with the recommendations (ranks 9–7) ranged from 76.5 to 100%. The wording of all 19 clinical standards determined by the scientific committee was agreed upon (i.e., 75% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed). Conclusion The DXA scan report is an independent document that contains sufficient information to enable optimal osteoporosis management advised by an experienced healthcare professional. Setting up quality standards for DXA scans not only supports healthcare professionals reporting/interpreting bone densitometry but also meets the parameters outlined in national as well as international guidelines or recommendations for the optimal management of osteoporosis and subsequent prevention of low trauma fractures