Background Ethnic minorities have higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 diagnoses, but little is known about ethnic differences in past exposure. We aimed to determine whether prevalence and determinants of SARS-CoV-2 exposure varied between six ethnic groups in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Methods Participants aged 25-79 years enrolled in a population-based prospective cohort were randomly selected within ethnic groups and invited to test for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies and answer COVID-19 related questions. We estimated prevalence and determinants of SARS-CoV-2 exposure within ethnic groups using survey-weighted logistic regression adjusting for age, sex and calendar time. Results Between June 24-October 9, 2020, we included 2497 participants. Adjusted SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was comparable between ethnic-Dutch (25/498; 5.5%, 95%CI=3.2-7.9), South-Asian Surinamese (22/451; 4.8%, 95%CI=2.1-7.5), African Surinamese (22/400; 8.2%, 95%CI=3.0-13.4), Turkish (30/408; 7.8%, 95%CI=4.3-11.2) and Moroccan (32/391; 7.0%, 95%CI=4.0-9.9) participants, but higher among Ghanaians (95/327; 26.5%, 95%CI=18.7-34.4). 57.1% of SARS-CoV-2-positive participants did not suspect or were unsure of being infected, which was lowest in African Surinamese (18.2%) and highest in Ghanaians (90.5%). Determinants of SARS-CoV-2 exposure varied across ethnic groups, while the most common determinant was having a household member suspected of infection. In Ghanaians, seropositivity was associated with older age, larger household sizes, living with small children, leaving home to work and attending religious services. Conclusions No remarkable differences in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence were observed between the largest ethnic groups in Amsterdam after the first wave of infections. The higher infection seroprevalence observed among Ghanaians, which passed mostly unnoticed, warrants wider prevention efforts and opportunities for non-symptom-based testing.

No abstract

No abstract

In a retrospective study from the Dutch Mononitrate Quality of Life (DUMQOL) Study Group, the authors found that patients with angina with concomitant diabetes or hypercholesterolemia derived more benefit from changing over to a once-daily nitrate treatment regimen than did patients without angina. The aim of this study was to assess this issue prospectively. In an open-label study, patients with stable angina pectoris from facilities in Germany, Portugal, and me Czech Republic were treated for 3 months with multiple daily doses and subsequently for 3 more months with once-daily isosorbide mononitrate/dinitrate. After the first and second 3-month periods, they were assessed by a validated QOL battery including domains for mobility, side effects, life satisfaction, anginal pain, and psychological distress. In the 1045 patients who participated in the study, the mean summary domain scores varied from 5 to 16 points and score improvements from 1.6 to 4.3 points. In the patients without concomitant hypertension and smokers, domain scores improved less than they did in the patients without, with differences in domain score improvements up to 1.0 points (P<0.001), which is substantial considering the range of improvement was between 1.6 and 4.3 points. In the patients with diabetes mellitus or hypercholesterolemia, a reverse pattern was observed with differences in domain score improvements up to 0.4 points (P<0.05). Patients with angina with diabetes or hypercholesterolemia derived more benefit from an asymmetric regimen of isosorbide mononitrate/dinitrate than did patients without. Patients with angina with hypertension and smokers benefited less. Differences in endothelial function may be involved.