Parental Home-Based Pulse Oximetry Monitoring For Adults With Intellectual Disabilities At Risk Of Serious Respiratory Problems Including Covid-19: A Brief Report

BackgroundPeople with intellectual disabilities (ID) are at high risk of developing respiratory health issues. The COVID-19 pandemic has compounded this, with serious consequences, and for some, death. Despite home-based oxygen saturation monitoring being recommended for people with ID, there is a stark lack of evidence in the literature on its feasibility.MethodWe conducted 3-day baseline home-based oxygen saturation monitoring, using pulse oximeters, with eight parents of nine adults with ID in Scotland. Two eligible parents also completed a further 2 weeks of monitoring, and returned an evaluation questionnaire on its feasibility.ResultsBaseline mean readings for eight adults with ID were within the normal range (%Sp02 ≥ 95), and for another one 94%. Fluctuations over the 3-day assessment period were experienced by six of these individuals. However, these variations were within limits which are not dangerous (lowest reading 92%), implying that parental home-based pulse oximetry monitoring is likely to be safe for adults with ID. The two parents who completed the evaluation found home-based pulse oximetry monitoring to be easy/very easy to do, and effective/very effective.ConclusionsThis is the first research study, albeit with a very small sample, to report on the potential feasibility of parental home-based pulse oximetry monitoring for adults with ID. Home-based pulse oximetry monitoring appears to be safe in adults with ID at risk of developing serious respiratory problems, and not difficult for their parents to do. There is an urgent need to replicate this work, using a larger sample, to promote home-based respiratory health monitoring more widely for people with ID

Parental Home-Based Pulse Oximetry Monitoring For Adults With Intellectual Disabilities At Risk Of Serious Respiratory Problems Including Covid-19: A Brief Report

BackgroundPeople with intellectual disabilities (ID) are at high risk of developing respiratory health issues. The COVID-19 pandemic has compounded this, with serious consequences, and for some, death. Despite home-based oxygen saturation monitoring being recommended for people with ID, there is a stark lack of evidence in the literature on its feasibility.MethodWe conducted 3-day baseline home-based oxygen saturation monitoring, using pulse oximeters, with eight parents of nine adults with ID in Scotland. Two eligible parents also completed a further 2 weeks of monitoring, and returned an evaluation questionnaire on its feasibility.ResultsBaseline mean readings for eight adults with ID were within the normal range (%Sp02 ≥ 95), and for another one 94%. Fluctuations over the 3-day assessment period were experienced by six of these individuals. However, these variations were within limits which are not dangerous (lowest reading 92%), implying that parental home-based pulse oximetry monitoring is likely to be safe for adults with ID. The two parents who completed the evaluation found home-based pulse oximetry monitoring to be easy/very easy to do, and effective/very effective.ConclusionsThis is the first research study, albeit with a very small sample, to report on the potential feasibility of parental home-based pulse oximetry monitoring for adults with ID. Home-based pulse oximetry monitoring appears to be safe in adults with ID at risk of developing serious respiratory problems, and not difficult for their parents to do. There is an urgent need to replicate this work, using a larger sample, to promote home-based respiratory health monitoring more widely for people with ID

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Stimulation of the tibial nerve – a randomised trial for urinary problems associated with Parkinson’s - The STARTUP trial

Background: non-motor symptoms such as bladder dysfunction are common (80%) in people with Parkinson’s increasing the risk for falls with a negative impact on health-related costs and quality of life. We undertook STARTUP to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of using an adhesive electrode to stimulate the transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS) to treat bladder dysfunction in people with Parkinson’s disease (PD). Study design, materials and methods: STARTUP was a parallel two-arm, multi-centre, pragmatic, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Each participant attended one clinic visit to complete consent, be randomised using a computer-generated system and to be shown how to use the device. The trial had two co-primary outcome measures: International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). These were completed at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks. A bladder frequency chart and resource questionnaire were also completed. Results: two hundred forty two participants were randomised. About 59% of participants were male, the mean age was 69 years and mean time since diagnosis was 6 years. Questionnaire return rate was between 79 and 90%. There was a statistically significantly lower score in the active group at 6 weeks in the IPSS questionnaire (mean difference (Standard deviation, SD) 12.5 (6.5) vs 10.9 (5.5), effect size −1.49, 95% CI −2.72, −0.25). There was no statistically significant change in any other outcome. Conclusion: TTNS was demonstrated to be safe with a high level of compliance. There was a significant change in one of the co-primary outcome measures at the end of the treatment period (i.e. 6 weeks), which could indicate a benefit. Further fully powered RCTs are required to determine effective treatments

Effect of Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support–Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

International audienc