Comprehensive periodic health evaluations of 454 Norwegian Paralympic and Olympic athletes over 8 years: what did we learn?

OBJECTIVE: A periodic health evaluation (PHE) is a comprehensive and multidisciplinary investigation of athlete health widely used in elite sport, but its contents and benefits can be questioned. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of conditions identified by a PHE among Paralympic and Olympic athletes over four consecutive Games cycles from Rio de Janeiro 2016 to Beijing 2022 and to assess the benefits and potential pitfalls of a comprehensive PHE programme in detecting existing injuries, illnesses and other health issues. METHODS: We collected extensive health history and clinical examination data on elite athletes: medical history, ECG, blood pressure, blood samples, spirometry, musculoskeletal health, cognitive function, mental health and compliance with public health programmes. RESULTS: The final cohort included 87 Paralympic and 367 Olympic athletes, representing 565 PHE cycles. Musculoskeletal problems and unspecified pain, infections and allergies were the most frequent health issues. High blood pressure was the most prevalent cardiovascular finding, and vitamin D deficiency the most common laboratory abnormality. Most athletes complied with the public childhood vaccination programmes, but fewer with recommended cancer screening. Follow-up of health issues was variable. CONCLUSION: Our PHE programme identified musculoskeletal problems, infections, allergies, elevated blood pressure and vitamin D deficiency as common health conditions. Longitudinal follow-up of health conditions identified during screening and improved compliance with public health and cancer screening programmes is needed to determine the true benefits of athlete care prompted by the PHE.

Assessment of lung function variability documents airflow limitation in many patients with long covid.

Background: It is estimated that 65 million people worldwide suffer from long covid (LC). Many LC symptoms are also reported by patients with airflow limitation, used to confirm asthma. The primary aim was to detect airflow limitation in LC patients by a methacholine bronchial provocation test (BPT) and if negative, by evaluation of diurnal variability in forced expiratory flow in 1 second (FEV1) over a two-weeks' period. The second aim was to assess responsiveness to asthma treatment on diurnal FEV1 variability and LC symptoms. Methods: Patients with LC for at least six months were recruited in this open diagnostic study. Burden of LC symptoms were reported on a 10-point Likert scale (0 = not troubled, 10 = extremely troubled) at inclusion and after three weeks' asthma treatment. A positive methacholine BPT was defined by an accumulated provocation dose (PD20)<8 µmol causing 20% fall in FEV1. App-based spirometer was used for diurnal FEV1 variability, deemed positive by diurnalvariability in FEV1 ≥12%. Results: Airflow limitation was documented by positive methacholine BPT in 8/30 (27%), or by excessive diurnal variability in FEV1 in 21/22 (95%) of the BPT negative LC patients. One patient dropped out due to personal issues. Three weeks' asthma treatment normalised mean diurnal FEV1 variability from 18.0% to 7.3%, p < 0.001. Significant reductions were observed for fatigue and dyspnoea, from 8.3 to 6.1, p < 0.001, and 3.0 to 0, p < 0.001, respectively. Conclusion: This study indicate that airflow limitation may be detected in many LC patients if evaluation of diurnal variability in FEV1 is included in the diagnostics.

Unsupervised field-based exercise challenge tests to support the detection of exercise-induced lower airway dysfunction in athletes.

Background: Athletes are at risk for developing exercise-induced lower airway narrowing. The diagnostic assessment of such lower airway dysfunction (LAD) requires an objective bronchial provocation test (BPT). Objectives: Our primary aim was to assess if unsupervised field-based exercise challenge tests (ECTs) could confirm LAD by using app-based spirometry. We also aimed to evaluate the diagnostic test performance of field-based and sport-specific ECTs, compared with established eucapnic voluntary hyperpnoea (EVH) and methacholine BPT. Methods: In athletes with LAD symptoms, sensitivity and specificity analyses were performed to compare outcomes of (1) standardised field-based 8 min ECT at 85% maximal heart rate with forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) measured prechallenge and 1 min, 3 min, 5 min, 10 min, 15 min and 30 min postchallenge, (2) unstandardised field-based sport-specific ECT with FEV1 measured prechallenge and within 10 min postchallenge, (3) EVH and (4) methacholine BPT. Results: Of 60 athletes (median age 17.5; range 16-28 years.; 40% females), 67% performed winter-sports, 43% reported asthma diagnosis. At least one positive BPT was observed in 68% (n=41/60), with rates of 51% (n=21/41) for standardised ECT, 49% (n=20/41) for unstandardised ECT, 32% (n=13/41) for EVH and methacholine BPT, while both standardised and unstandardised ECTs were simultaneously positive in only 20% (n=7/35). Standardised and unstandardised ECTs confirmed LAD with 54% sensitivity and 70% specificity, and 46% sensitivity and 68% specificity, respectively, using EVH as a reference, while EVH and methacholine BPT were both 33% sensitive and 85% specific, using standardised ECTs as reference. Conclusion: App-based spirometry for unsupervised field-based ECTs may support the diagnostic process in athletes with LAD symptoms. Trial registration number: NCT04275648.

Diagnostic approach to lower airway dysfunction in athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis by a subgroup of the IOC consensus on 'acute respiratory illness in the athlete'.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of various diagnostic bronchoprovocation tests (BPT) in the assessment of lower airway dysfunction (LAD) in athletes and inform best clinical practice. DESIGN: Systematic review with sensitivity and specificity meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EBSCOhost and Web of Science (1 January 1990-31 December 2021). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Original full-text studies, including athletes/physically active individuals (15-65 years) who underwent assessment for LAD by symptom-based questionnaires/history and/or direct and/or indirect BPTs. RESULTS: In 26 studies containing data for quantitative meta-analyses on BPT diagnostic performance (n=2624 participants; 33% female); 22% had physician diagnosed asthma and 51% reported LAD symptoms. In athletes with symptoms of LAD, eucapnic voluntary hyperpnoea (EVH) and exercise challenge tests (ECTs) confirmed the diagnosis with a 46% sensitivity and 74% specificity, and 51% sensitivity and 84% specificity, respectively, while methacholine BPTs were 55% sensitive and 56% specific. If EVH was the reference standard, the presence of LAD symptoms was 78% sensitive and 45% specific for a positive EVH, while ECTs were 42% sensitive and 82% specific. If ECTs were the reference standard, the presence of LAD symptoms was 80% sensitive and 56% specific for a positive ECT, while EVH demonstrated 65% sensitivity and 65% specificity for a positive ECT. CONCLUSION: In the assessment of LAD in athletes, EVH and field-based ECTs offer similar and moderate diagnostic test performance. In contrast, methacholine BPTs have lower overall test performance. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020170915.

International Olympic Committee (IOC) consensus statement on acute respiratory illness in athletes part 1: acute respiratory infections.

Acute illnesses affecting the respiratory tract are common and form a significant component of the work of Sport and Exercise Medicine (SEM) clinicians. Acute respiratory illness (ARill) can broadly be classified as non-infective ARill and acute respiratory infections (ARinf). The aim of this consensus is to provide the SEM clinician with an overview and practical clinical approach to ARinf in athletes. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) Medical and Scientific Commission appointed an international consensus group to review ARill (non-infective ARill and ARinf) in athletes. Six subgroups of the IOC Consensus group were initially established to review the following key areas of ARill in athletes: (1) epidemiology/risk factors for ARill, (2) ARinf, (3) non-infective ARill including ARill due to environmental exposure, (4) acute asthma and related conditions, (5) effects of ARill on exercise/sports performance, medical complications/return-to-sport and (6) acute nasal/vocal cord dysfunction presenting as ARill. Several systematic and narrative reviews were conducted by IOC consensus subgroups, and these then formed the basis of sections in the consensus documents. Drafting and internal review of sections were allocated to 'core' members of the consensus group, and an advanced draft of the consensus document was discussed during a meeting of the main consensus core group in Lausanne, Switzerland on 11 to 12 October 2021. Final edits were completed after the meeting. This consensus document (part 1) focusses on ARinf, which accounts for the majority of ARill in athletes. The first section of this consensus proposes a set of definitions and classifications of ARinf in athletes to standardise future data collection and reporting. The remainder of the consensus paper examines a wide range of clinical considerations related to ARinf in athletes: epidemiology, risk factors, pathology/pathophysiology, clinical presentation and diagnosis, management, prevention, medical considerations, risks of infection during exercise, effects of infection on exercise/sports performance and return-to-sport guidelines.

International Olympic Committee (IOC) consensus statement on acute respiratory illness in athletes part 2: non-infective acute respiratory illness.

Acute respiratory illness (ARill) is common and threatens the health of athletes. ARill in athletes forms a significant component of the work of Sport and Exercise Medicine (SEM) clinicians. The aim of this consensus is to provide the SEM clinician with an overview and practical clinical approach to non-infective ARill in athletes. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) Medical and Scientific Committee appointed an international consensus group to review ARill in athletes. Key areas of ARill in athletes were originally identified and six subgroups of the IOC Consensus group established to review the following aspects: (1) epidemiology/risk factors for ARill, (2) infective ARill, (3) non-infective ARill, (4) acute asthma/exercise-induced bronchoconstriction and related conditions, (5) effects of ARill on exercise/sports performance, medical complications/return-to-sport (RTS) and (6) acute nasal/laryngeal obstruction presenting as ARill. Following several reviews conducted by subgroups, the sections of the consensus documents were allocated to 'core' members for drafting and internal review. An advanced draft of the consensus document was discussed during a meeting of the main consensus core group, and final edits were completed prior to submission of the manuscript. This document (part 2) of this consensus focuses on respiratory conditions causing non-infective ARill in athletes. These include non-inflammatory obstructive nasal, laryngeal, tracheal or bronchial conditions or non-infective inflammatory conditions of the respiratory epithelium that affect the upper and/or lower airways, frequently as a continuum. The following aspects of more common as well as lesser-known non-infective ARill in athletes are reviewed: epidemiology, risk factors, pathology/pathophysiology, clinical presentation and diagnosis, management, prevention, medical considerations and risks of illness during exercise, effects of illness on exercise/sports performance and RTS guidelines.

Prevalence of lower airway dysfunction in athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis by a subgroup of the IOC consensus group on 'acute respiratory illness in the athlete'.

OBJECTIVE: To report the prevalence of lower airway dysfunction in athletes and highlight risk factors and susceptible groups. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EBSCOhost and Web of Science (1 January 1990 to 31 July 2020). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Original full-text studies, including male or female athletes/physically active individuals/military personnel (aged 15-65 years) who had a prior asthma diagnosis and/or underwent screening for lower airway dysfunction via self-report (ie, patient recall or questionnaires) or objective testing (ie, direct or indirect bronchial provocation challenge). RESULTS: In total, 1284 studies were identified. Of these, 64 studies (n=37 643 athletes) from over 21 countries (81.3% European and North America) were included. The prevalence of lower airway dysfunction was 21.8% (95% CI 18.8% to 25.0%) and has remained stable over the past 30 years. The highest prevalence was observed in elite endurance athletes at 25.1% (95% CI 20.0% to 30.5%) (Q=293, I2=91%), those participating in aquatic (39.9%) (95% CI 23.4% to 57.1%) and winter-based sports (29.5%) (95% CI 22.5% to 36.8%). In studies that employed objective testing, the highest prevalence was observed in studies using direct bronchial provocation (32.8%) (95% CI 19.3% to 47.2%). A high degree of heterogeneity was observed between studies (I2=98%). CONCLUSION: Lower airway dysfunction affects approximately one in five athletes, with the highest prevalence observed in those participating in elite endurance, aquatic and winter-based sporting disciplines. Further longitudinal, multicentre studies addressing causality (ie, training status/dose-response relationship) and evaluating preventative strategies to mitigate against the development of lower airway dysfunction remain an important priority for future research.

First analysis of the Severe Paediatric Asthma Collaborative in Europe registry.

New biologics are being continually developed for paediatric asthma, but it is unclear whether there are sufficient numbers of children in Europe with severe asthma and poor control to recruit to trials needed for registration. To address these questions, the European Respiratory Society funded the Severe Paediatric Asthma Collaborative in Europe (SPACE), a severe asthma registry. We report the first analysis of the SPACE registry, which includes data from 10 paediatric respiratory centres across Europe. Data from 80 children with a clinical diagnosis of severe asthma who were receiving both high-dose inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting ß2-agonist were entered into the registry between January 2019 and January 2020. Suboptimal control was defined by either asthma control test, or Global Initiative for Asthma criteria, or ≥2 severe exacerbations in the previous 12 months, or a combination. Overall, 62 out of 80 (77%) children had suboptimal asthma control, of whom 29 were not prescribed a biologic. However, in 24 there was an option for starting a licensed biologic. 33 children with suboptimal control were prescribed a biologic (omalizumab (n=24), or mepolizumab (n=7), or dupilumab (n=2)), and for 29 there was an option to switch to a different biologic. We conclude that the SPACE registry provides data that will support the planning of studies of asthma biologics. Not all children on biologics achieve good asthma control, and there is need for new trial designs addressing biologic switching.

Parent and child perception of quality of life in a randomized controlled peanut oral immunotherapy trial.

BACKGROUND: Improved quality of life (QoL) after oral immunotherapy (OIT) in peanut allergic children is often reported by their parents, while the child's perspective is less clear. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore whether 2 years of OIT improved QoL in children with peanut allergy and to identify factors influencing change in QoL. METHODS: In the open-labeled TAKE-AWAY peanut OIT trial including children with anaphylaxis to peanuts, 57 were randomized to OIT and 20 to observation. The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Version 4.0 was completed by parents and children at enrollment (Y0 ), after 1 year (end of updosing; Y1 ) and after 2 years (Y2 ) of OIT. Minimally clinically important difference (MCID) is ≥5.3. Perceived treatment burden was recorded by visual analogue scales, including adverse events (AEs). An open food challenge (OFC) was performed at Y2 . RESULTS: At Y2 , 18 children had discontinued OIT and 2 of 39 OIT children refused OFC, while 35 of 37 were desensitized to 7500 mg peanut protein. From Y0 to Y2, the mean change (95% confidence intervals) in QoL was 4.4 (0.5, 8.3) among child self-reports and twice as large among parental proxy reports (9.3 [4.3, 14.3]; both P < 0.0001), without significant improvement among the controls. The change in QoL was significantly different from the controls for the parental proxy reports only (P = 0.002). Neither treatment burden nor AEs significantly predicted changes in QoL. CONCLUSION: Two years of OIT improved child-QoL as reported by parents, but not by the children, suggesting that parents may overestimate improvement in child-QoL by OIT.

Feasibility of desensitizing children highly allergic to peanut by high-dose oral immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the feasibility, efficacy and safety of high-dose oral immunotherapy (OIT) in children highly allergic to peanuts. OBJECTIVE: In children highly allergic to peanut, we primarily aimed to determine the feasibility of reaching the maximum maintenance dose (MMD) of 5000 mg peanut protein or, alternatively, a lower individual maintenance dose (IMD), by OIT up-dosing. Secondarily, we aimed to identify adverse events (AEs) and determine factors associated with reaching a maintenance dose. METHODS: The TAKE-AWAY peanut OIT trial enrolled 77 children 5-15 years old, with a positive oral peanut challenge. Fifty-seven were randomized to OIT with biweekly dose step-up until reaching MMD or IMD and 20 to observation only. Demographic and biological characteristics, AEs, medication and protocol deviations were explored for associations with reaching maintenance dose. RESULTS: All children had anaphylaxis defined by objective symptoms in minimum two organ systems during baseline challenge. The MMD was reached by 21.1%, while 54.4% reached an IMD of median (minimum, maximum) 2700 (250, 4000) mg peanut protein, whereas 24.5% discontinued OIT. During up-dosing, 19.4% experienced anaphylaxis. Not reaching the MMD was caused by distaste for peanuts (66.7%), unacceptable AEs (26.7%) and social reasons (6.7%). Increased peanut s-IgG4 /s-IgE ratio (OR [95% CI]: 1.02 [1.00, 1.04]) was associated with reaching MMD. CONCLUSION: Although 75.5% of children with peanut anaphylaxis reached a maintenance dose of 0.25-5 g, only 21.1% reached the MMD. Distaste for peanuts and AEs, including high risk of anaphylaxis, limited the feasibility of reaching MMD.

Comparison of broad range 16S rDNA PCR and conventional blood culture for diagnosis of sepsis in the newborn: a case control study.

BACKGROUND: Early onset bacterial sepsis is a feared complication of the newborn. A large proportion of infants admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) for suspected sepsis receive treatment with potent systemic antibiotics while a diagnostic workup is in progress. The gold standard for detecting bacterial sepsis is blood culture. However, as pathogens in blood cultures are only detected in approximately 25% of patients, the sensitivity of blood culture is suspected to be low. Therefore, the diagnosis of sepsis is often based on the development of clinical signs, in combination with laboratory tests such as a rise in C-reactive protein (CRP). Molecular assays for the detection of bacterial DNA in the blood represent possible new diagnostic tools for early identification of a bacterial cause. METHODS: A broad range 16S rDNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) without preincubation was compared to conventional diagnostic work up for clinical sepsis, including BACTEC blood culture, for early determination of bacterial sepsis in the newborn. In addition, the relationship between known risk factors, clinical signs, and laboratory parameters considered in clinical sepsis in the newborn were explored. RESULTS: Forty-eight infants with suspected sepsis were included in this study. Thirty-one patients were diagnosed with sepsis, only 6 of these had a positive blood culture. 16S rDNA PCR analysis of blinded blood samples from the 48 infants revealed 10 samples positive for the presence of bacterial DNA. PCR failed to be positive in 2 samples from blood culture positive infants, and was positive in 1 sample where a diagnosis of a non-septic condition was established. Compared to blood culture the diagnosis of bacterial proven sepsis by PCR revealed a 66.7% sensitivity, 87.5% specificity, 95.4% positive and 75% negative predictive value. PCR combined with blood culture revealed bacteria in 35.1% of the patients diagnosed with sepsis. Irritability and feeding difficulties were the clinical signs most often observed in sepsis. CRP increased in the presence of bacterial infection. CONCLUSION: There is a need for PCR as a method to quickly point out the infants with sepsis. However, uncertainty about a bacterial cause of sepsis was not reduced by the PCR result, reflecting that methodological improvements are required in order for DNA detection to replace or supplement traditional blood culture in diagnosis of bacterial sepsis.