Background: Gender affects the clinical presentation of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The classic OSA symptoms, such as sleepiness, snoring, and apnea, are not so frequent in women. Objectives: To evaluate possible gender differences in questionnaires used for OSA prediction, such as the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), STOP, STOP Bang (SB), Berlin Questionnaire (BQ), Athens Insomnia Scale (AIS), and Fatigue Scale (FS). Methods: 350 males were matched with 350 women referred to a sleep clinic, according to OSA severity. All responded to the questionnaires and underwent a sleep study. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients were separately analyzed. Results: ESS did not differ between genders. SB was higher in males, whereas STOP, BQ, AIS, and FS were higher in females. BQ presented the highest sensitivity in both genders, whereas STOP exhibited the highest specificity in males and ESS in females. AIS and FS were more sensitive and SB more specific in females, whereas BQ was more specific in males. For severe OSA, the predictive values of SB and BQ were almost similar for both genders; however AIS and FS were higher in women. CVD patients presented higher scores, independent of gender, except for AIS, which was higher in females. Conclusion: Gender-specific evaluation of questionnaires is necessary to prevent OSA under-diagnosis.

Background and objectives: During the last decade, conventional tobacco smoking is experiencing a decline and new smoking products have been introduced. IQOS (“I-Quit-Ordinary-Smoking”) is a type of “heat-not-burn” (HNB) tobacco product. The impact of IQOS on respiratory health is currently not defined. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the acute effects of IQOS on pulmonary function in non-smokers and current smokers. Materials and Methods: Fifty male healthy non-smokers and current smokers with no known co-morbidity underwent an exhaled CO measurement, oximetry (SaO2%), pulmonary function tests (flows, volumes and diffusion capacity), and a measurement of respiratory resistances with an impulse oscillometry system (IOS) before and immediately after IQOS use. Results: In the whole group of 50 participants, SaO2%, forced expiratory flow at 25% and 50% of vital capacity (FEF 25%, FEF 50%, respectively), peak expiratory flow (PEF), and diffusion lung capacity for carbon monoxide/VA (KCO) decreased significantly after IQOS use, whereas exhaled CO and airway resistance (R5 Hz, R10 Hz, r15 Hz, R20 Hz, R25 Hz, R35 Hz) increased. When the groups of smokers and non-smokers were compared, in both groups (all males, 25 smokers and 25 non-smokers), exhaled CO increased and SaO2% decreased after IQOS use (p < 0.001). In the group of non-smokers, PEF (pre 8.22 ± 2.06 vs. post 7.5 ± 2.16, p = 0.001) and FEF 25% (pre 7.6 ± 1.89 vs. 7.14 ± 2.06, p = 0.009) decreased significantly; respiratory resistances R20 Hz (pre 0.34 ± 0.1 vs. post 0.36 ± 0.09, p = 0.09) and R25 Hz (pre 0.36 ± 0.1 vs. post 0.38 ± 0.09, p = 0.08) increased almost significantly. In smokers, PEF (pre 7.69 ± 2.26 vs. post 7.12 ± 2.03, p = 0.007) and expiratory reserve volume (ERV) (pre 1.57 ± 0.76 vs. post1.23 ± 0.48, p = 0.03) decreased and R35 Hz (pre 0.36 ± 0.11 vs. post 0.39 ± 0.11, p = 0.047) increased. The differences in the changes after the use of IQOS did not differ between groups. Conclusions: IQOS had an impact on exhaled CO, SaO2%, and airways function immediately after use. Even though these changes were rather small to be considered of major clinical importance, they should raise concerns regarding the long-term safety of this product. Further research is needed for the short- and long-term effects of IQOS, especially in patients with respiratory disease.

Background: During the recent pandemic, Healthcare Professionals (HCPs) presented a significant prevalence of psychological health problems and sleep disturbances. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of COVID-19 on HCPs’ sleep and mental stress with a separate analysis for primary care HCPs. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study with an online anonymized, self-reported questionnaire was conducted in May 2020 (1st wave) and repeated in December 2020 (2nd wave). Patient health questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4), dimensions of anger reactions-5 (DAR-5) scale, 3-item UCLA loneliness scale (LS) and sleep condition indicator (SCI) were used. Results: Overall, 574 participants were included from the 1st wave, 514 from the 2nd and 469 were followed during both. Anxiety and depression were significantly higher during the 2nd wave vs. the 1st (32.8% vs. 12.7%, p < 0.001 and 37.7% vs. 15.8%, p < 0.001). During the 2nd wave, HCPs scored significantly higher in DAR-5 (9.23 ± 3.82 vs. 7.3 ± 3.3, p < 0.001) and LS (5.88 ± 1.90 vs. 4.9 ± 1.9, p < 0.001) with worse sleep quality SCI (23.7 ± 6.6 vs. 25.4 ± 3.2, p < 0.001). This was more evident in primary care HCPs. Significant correlations were found between SCI and PHQ4, DAR5 and LS. Conclusion: There is a need to support HCPs’ mental health and sleep, especially in those working in primary care.