No abstract

Background: The Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) is a questionnaire widely used in English speaking countries for assessment of subjective daytime sleepiness. Objective: Our purpose was to translate and validate the ESS for use in German-speaking countries. Methods: A German translation of the ESS was administered to 159 healthy German-speaking Swiss and to 174 patients with various sleep disorders. Results: The mean ± SD of ESS scores in normals was 5.7 ± 3.0, in patients it was 13.0 ± 5.1 (p < 0.001). Scores were not correlated with age or gender but with the percentage of time spent at an oxygen saturation <90% (R = 0.35, p < 0.001), and the respiratory disturbance index (R = 0.26, p < 0.001) in primary snorers and sleep apnea patients. Item analysis confirmed internal consistency of the scale (Cronbach α = 0.60 in normals, and 0.83 in patients). Follow-up scores in 25 sleep apnea patients on treatment showed a reduction by 7 ± 5 points (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Our data validate the ESS for application in German-speaking populations. The simplicity, reliability and the apparent lack of relevant influences of language and cultural background on performance of the ESS makes it a valuable tool for clinical management and research.

Our purpose was to compare the effectiveness and side effects of a novel, single-piece mandibular advancement device (OSA-Monobloc) for sleep apnea therapy with those of a two-piece appliance with lateral Herbst attachments (OSA-Herbst) as used in previous studies. An OSA-Monobloc and an OSA-Herbst with equal protrusion were fitted in 24 obstructive sleep apnea patients unable to use continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. After an adaptation period of 156 +/- 14 d (mean +/- SE), patients used the OSA-Monobloc, the OSA-Herbst, and no appliance in random order, using each appliance for 1 wk. Symptom scores were recorded and sleep studies were done at the end of each week. Several symptom scores were significantly improved with both appliances, but to a greater degree with the OSA-Monobloc. Epworth Sleepiness Scale scores were 8.8 +/- 0.7 with the OSA-Herbst, and 8.6 +/- 0.8 with the OSA-Monobloc devices, and 13.1 +/- 0.9 without therapy (p < 0.05 versus both appliances). The apnea/hypopnea index was 8.7 +/- 1.5/h with the OSA-Herbst and 7.9 +/- 1.6/h with the OSA-Monobloc device, and 22.6 +/- 3.1/h without therapy (p < 0.05 versus both appliances). Side effects were mild and of equal prevalence with both appliances. Fifteen patients preferred the OSA-Monobloc, eight patients had no preference, and one patient preferred the OSA-Herbst device (p < 0.008 versus OSA-Monobloc). We conclude that both the OSA-Herbst and the OSA-Monobloc are effective therapeutic devices for sleep apnea. The OSA-Monobloc relieved symptoms to a greater extent than the OSA-Herbst, and was preferred by the majority of patients on the basis of its simple application.

To differentiate between respiratory infections caused by SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogens during the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, we simultaneously tested for SARS-CoV-2 and pathogens associated with CAP to determine the incidence and impact of respiratory coinfections in COVID-19 patients. Patients and Methods: We included 250 patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19. RT-PCR was used to detect influenza A, influenza B and respiratory syncytial viruses. Chemiluminescence immunoassays were used to detect IgM antibodies for adenovirus, Chlamydia pneumoniae and Mycoplasma pneumoniae in the serum of patients. Based on these results, we divided the patients into two groups, the simple SARS-CoV-2-infected group and the coinfected SARS-COV-2 group. Coinfected patients were then further categorized as having a coinfection of viral pathogen (CoIV) or coinfection of atypical bacterial pathogen (CoIaB). Results: No statistically significant differences were found in age, gender, the time taken to return negative SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test results, length of hospital stays, and mortality between the simple SARS-CoV-2 infection group and the coinfection group. Of the 250 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 39 (15.6%) tested positive for at least one respiratory pathogen in addition to SARS-CoV-2. A third of these pathogens were detected as early as the 1st week after symptom onset and another third were identified after more than three weeks. The most detected CAP pathogen was C. pneumoniae (5.2%), followed by the respiratory syncytial virus (4.8%), M. pneumoniae (4.4%) and adenovirus (2.8%). Patients coinfected with viral pathogens (CoIV) (n=18) had longer hospital stays when compared to patients coinfected with atypical bacterial pathogens (CoIaB) (n=21). Except for one fatality, the remaining 38 coinfected patients all recovered with favourable outcomes. Conclusion: Coinfections in COVID-19 patients are common. The coinfecting pathogens can be detected at variable intervals during COVID-19 disease course and remain an important consideration in targeted treatment strategies for COVID-19 patients.