ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Measuring maximal respiratory pressure is a widely used method of investigating the strength of inspiratory and expiratory muscles. OBJECTIVES: To compare inspiratory pressures obtained at functional residual capacity (FRC) with measures at residual volume (RV), and expiratory pressures obtained at FRC with measures at total lung capacity (TLC) in individuals with different health conditions: post-COVID-19, COPD, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), heart failure (CHF), and stroke; and to compare the mean differences between measurements at FRC and RV/TLC among the groups. METHODS: Inspiratory and expiratory pressures were obtained randomly at different lung volumes. Mixed factorial analysis of covariance with repeated measures was used to compare measurements at different lung volumes within and among groups. RESULTS: Seventy-five individuals were included in the final analyses (15 individuals with each health condition). Maximal inspiratory pressures at FRC were lower than RV [mean difference (95% CI): 11.3 (5.8, 16.8); 8.4 (2.3, 14.5); 11.1 (5.5, 16.7); 12.8 (7.1, 18.4); 8.0 (2.6, 13.4) for COVID-19, COPD, IPF, CHF, and stroke, respectively] and maximal expiratory pressures at FRC were lower than TLC [mean difference (95% CI): 51.9 (37.4, 55.5); 60.9 (44.2, 77.7); 62.9 (48.1, 77.8); 58.0 (43.9, 73.8); 57.2 (42.9, 71.6) for COVID-19, COPD, IPF, CHF, and stroke, respectively]. All mean differences were similar among groups. CONCLUSION: Although inspiratory and expiratory pressures at FRC were lower than measures obtained at RV/TLC for the five groups of health conditions, the mean differences between measurements at different lung volumes were similar among groups, which raises the discussion about the influence of the viscoelastic properties of the lungs on maximal respiratory pressure.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive , Stroke , Humans , Maximal Respiratory Pressures , Functional Residual Capacity , LungABSTRACT
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic unfolded due to the widespread severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission reinforced the urgent need for affordable molecular diagnostic alternative methods for massive testing screening. We present the clinical validation of a pH-dependent colorimetric reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The method revealed a limit of detection of 19.3 ± 2.7 viral genomic copies/µL when using RNA extracted samples obtained from nasopharyngeal swabs collected in guanidine-containing viral transport medium. Typical RT-LAMP reactions were performed at 65°C for 30 min. When compared to reverse transcriptase-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), up to cycle-threshold (Ct) value 32, RT-LAMP presented 98% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 95.3-99.5%] sensitivity and 100% (95% CI = 94.5-100%) specificity for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection targeting E and N genes. No cross-reactivity was detected when testing other non-SARS-CoV virus, confirming high specificity. The test is compatible with primary RNA extraction-free samples. We also demonstrated that colorimetric RT-LAMP can detect SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants of interest, such as variants occurring in Brazil named gamma (P.1), zeta (P.2), delta (B.1.617.2), B.1.1.374, and B.1.1.371. The method meets point-of-care requirements and can be deployed in the field for high-throughput COVID-19 testing campaigns, especially in countries where COVID-19 testing efforts are far from ideal to tackle the pandemics. Although RT-qPCR is considered the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection, it requires expensive equipment, infrastructure, and highly trained personnel. In contrast, RT-LAMP emerges as an affordable, inexpensive, and simple alternative for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection that can be applied to massive COVID-19 testing campaigns and save lives.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Maximal respiratory pressures (MRP) obtained at functional residual capacity (FRC) may reflect the real respiratory muscle pressure. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate concurrent validity, test-retest, and inter-rater reliability of MRP performed with a new instrument in healthy individuals, and to compare values obtained at different volumes in healthy individuals and individuals with COPD. METHODS: MRP of 100 healthy individuals were obtained using the TrueForce and the MicroRPM® at residual volume (RV) and total lung capacity (TLC) to evaluate concurrent validity. MRP were obtained at FRC using the TrueForce to evaluate reliability. Comparisons of inspiratory pressure values (FRC compared to RV) and expiratory pressure values (FRC compared to TLC) were performed with 100 healthy individuals and 15 individuals with COPD. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.77 and 0.86 for concurrent validity for inspiratory and expiratory pressures, respectively. Test-retest reliability showed an ICC of 0.87 for inspiratory pressure, and 0.78 for expiratory pressure; inter-rater reliability showed an ICC of 0.91 for inspiratory pressure, and 0.84 for expiratory pressure. Measurements performed at RV and TLC were higher when compared to FRC [mean difference (95%CI)= -8.30 (-11.82, -4.78) cmH2O; -37.29 (-42.63, -31.96) cmH2O] in healthy individuals, and -11.09 (-15.83, -6.35) cmH2O; -57.14 (-71.05, -43.05) cmH2O in COPD, for inspiratory and expiratory pressures, respectively. CONCLUSION: MRP performed with the TrueForce presented good concurrent validity, good test-retest reliability, excellent inter-rater reliability for inspiratory pressure and good inter-rater reliability for expiratory pressure. MRP were lower when obtained at FRC for healthy individuals and with COPD.
