Dataset Information

Validity of the Use of Wrist and Forehead Temperatures in Screening the General Population for COVID-19: A Prospective Real-World Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We aimed to compare the accuracy of individuals' wrist and forehead temperatures with their tympanic temperature under different circumstances.

Methods

We performed a prospective observational study in a real-life population in Ningbo First Hospital in China. We consecutively recorded individuals' wrist and forehead temperatures in Celsius (°C) using a non-contact infrared thermometer (NCIT). We also measured individuals' tympanic temperature using a tympanic thermometer (IRTT) and defined fever as a tympanic temperature of ≥37.3 °C.

Results

We enrolled 528 participants, including 261 indoor and 267 outdoor participants. We grouped the outdoor participants into four groups according to their means of transportation to the hospital: by foot, by bicycle/electric vehicle, by car, or as a passenger in a car. Under different circumstances, the mean difference in the forehead measurement ranged from -1.72 to -0.56 °C across groups, and that in the wrist measurement ranged from -0.96 to -0.61°C. Both measurements had high fever screening abilities in indoor patients. (Wrist: AUC 0.790; 95% CI: 0.725-0.854, P<0.001; forehead: AUC 0.816; 95% CI: 0.757-0.876, P <0.001). The cut-off value of the wrist measurement for detecting a tympanic temperature of ≥37.3 °C was 36.2 °C, with 86.4% sensitivity and 67.0% specificity, and the best threshold for the forehead measurement was 36.2 °C, with 93.2% sensitivity and 60.0% specificity.

Conclusion

Wrist measurements are more stable than forehead measurements under different circumstances. Both measurements have favorable fever screening abilities in indoor patients. The cut-off values were both 36.2 °C.

SUBMITTER: Chen G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8266026 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionReal-world data provide insight into how medications perform in clinical practice. The PIONEER REAL Switzerland study aimed to understand clinical outcomes with oral semaglutide in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D).MethodsPIONEER REAL Switzerland was a 34-44-week, multicentre, prospective, non-interventional, single-arm study of adults with T2D naïve to injectable glucose-lowering medication who were initiated on oral semaglutide in routine clinical practice. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline (BL) to end of study (EOS); secondary endpoints included change in body weight (BW) from BL to EOS and the proportion of participants achieving HbA1c < 7.0% and the composite endpoints HbA1c reduction ≥ 1%-points with BW reduction ≥ 3% or ≥ 5% at EOS. Safety was assessed in participants who received ≥ 1 dose of oral semaglutide.ResultsOf the 185 participants (female/male, n = 67/118) initiating oral semaglutide, 168 (90.8%) completed the study and 143 (77.3%) remained on treatment with oral semaglutide at EOS. At BL, participants had a mean age of 62 years, diabetes duration of 6.4 years, HbA1c of 7.7%, BW of 95.6 kg and body mass index of 33.2 kg/m2; 56.2% of participants were receiving glucose-lowering medications. Significant reductions were observed for HbA1c (estimated change - 0.91%; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 1.10, - 0.71; p < 0.0001) and BW (estimated change - 4.85%; 95% CI - 5.70, - 4.00; p < 0.0001). In total, 139 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 65 (35.1%) participants; most were mild or moderate. The most frequent AEs were gastrointestinal disorders (27.0%); 31 AEs in 20 (10.8%) participants led to discontinuation of oral semaglutide. Six serious AEs were reported; all were considered unlikely to be related to oral semaglutide.ConclusionPeople living with T2D treated with oral semaglutide in Switzerland achieved clinically significant reductions in HbA1c and BW, with no new safety signals.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04537624. A graphical abstract is available for this article.

Project description:Abstract Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide and accounts for 90% of all primary liver cancers. Chronic inflammation is the hallmark across most prevalent etiologies among which HBV is the leading cause worldwide (33%), followed by alcohol (30%), HCV (21%), other factors like non-alcoholic steatohepatitis linked to insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome, and obesity associated inflammation (16%). Deregulation of the tightly controlled immunological network leads to liver disease, including chronic infection, autoimmunity, and tumor development. While inflammation drives oncogenesis in the liver, HCC also recruits ICOS+ FOXP3+ Tregs and MDSCs and upregulates immune checkpoints to induce a state of immunosuppression in the tumor microenvironment. As such, research is focused on targeting and modulating the immune system to treat HCC. The Checkmate 040 and Keynote 224 studies established the role of immunotherapy in the treatment of patients with HCC. In Phase I and II trials, nivolumab and pembrolizumab demonstrated durable response rates of 15–20% and were subsequently approved as second-line agents after sorafenib. Due to the success of the IMbrave 150 and HIMALAYA trials, which examined the combination of atezolizumab/bevacizumab and tremelimumab/durvalumab, respectively, the FDA approved these regimens as first-time treatment options for patients with advanced HCC. The encouraging results of immunotherapy in the management of HCC has led researchers to evaluate if combination with locoregional therapies may result in a synergistic effect. Real-world studies represent an invaluable tool to assess and verify the applicability of clinical trials in the bedside setting with a more varied patient population. We herein review current real-life use of ICIs in the management of HCC and highlight some of the ongoing clinical trials that are expected to change current recommended first-line treatment in the near future.