Metrology of two wearable sleep trackers against polysomnography in patients with sleep complaints.

Sleep trackers are used widely by patients with sleep complaints, however their metrological validation is often poor and relies on healthy subjects. We assessed the metrological validity of two commercially available sleep trackers (Withings Activité/Fitbit Alta HR) through a prospective observational monocentric study, in adult patients referred for polysomnography (PSG). We compared the total sleep time (TST), REM time, REM latency, nonREM1 + 2 time, nonREM3 time, and wake after sleep onset (WASO). We report absolute and relative errors, Bland-Altman representations, and a contingency table of times spent in sleep stages with respect to PSG. Sixty-five patients were included (final sample size 58 for Withings and 52 for Fitbit). Both devices gave a relatively accurate sleep start time with a median absolute error of 5 (IQR -43; 27) min for Withings and -2.0 (-12.5; 4.2) min for Fitbit but both overestimated TST. Withings tended to underestimate WASO with a median absolute error of -25.0 (-61.5; -8.5) min, while Fitbit tended to overestimate it (median absolute error 10 (-18; 43) min. Withings underestimated light sleep and overestimated deep sleep, while Fitbit overestimated light and REM sleep and underestimated deep sleep. The overall kappas for concordance of each epoch between PSG and devices were low: 0.12 (95%CI 0.117-0.121) for Withings and VPSG indications 0.07 (95%CI 0.067-0.071) for Fitbit, as well as kappas for each VPSG indication 0.07 (95%CI 0.067-0.071). Thus, commercially available sleep trackers are not reliable for sleep architecture in patients with sleep complaints/pathologies and should not replace actigraphy and/or PSG.

Real-world effectiveness of casirivimab plus indevimab in a dedicated ambulatory unit created for patients with early COVID-19 during a massive delta variant wave.

Only limited real-life data are available on the effects of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies in high-risk patients who have early COVID-19 and do not require supplemental oxygen. We prospectively studied 217 patients infected by the delta variant who received casirivimab plus indevimab in a dedicated ambulatory unit created during our 4th COVID wave. Mean age was 64 years, 94% had at least one comorbidity, and mean duration of symptoms was 2.9 days. Oxygen requirement, hospitalization, and mortality rates were 10, 6, and 2.8%, respectively. These results suggest benefits of early administration of neutralizing antibodies in high-risk patients infected with the delta variant.

Association Between Lack of Blinding and Mortality Results in Critical Care Randomized Controlled Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether intervention effect estimates for mortality differ between blinded and nonblinded randomized controlled trials conducted in critical care. We used a meta-epidemiological approach, comparing effect estimates between blinded and nonblinded randomized controlled trials for the same research question. DATA SOURCES: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials evaluating a therapeutic intervention on mortality in critical care, published between January 2009 and March 2019 in high impact factor general medical or critical care journals and by Cochrane. DATA EXTRACTION: For each randomized controlled trial included in eligible meta-analyses, we evaluated whether the trial was blinded (i.e., double-blinded and/or reporting adequate methods) or not (i.e., open-label, single-blinded, or unclear). We collected risk of bias evaluated by the review authors and extracted trial results. DATA SYNTHESIS: Within each meta-analysis, we compared intervention effect estimates between blinded and nonblinded randomized controlled trials by using a ratio of odds ratio (< 1 indicates larger estimates in nonblinded than blinded randomized controlled trials). We then combined ratio of odds ratios across meta-analyses to obtain the average relative difference between nonblinded and blinded trials. Among 467 randomized controlled trials included in 36 meta-analyses, 267 (57%) were considered blinded and 200 (43%) nonblinded. Intervention effect estimates were statistically significantly larger in nonblinded than blinded trials (combined ratio of odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99). We found no heterogeneity across meta-analyses (p = 0.72; I2 = 0%; τ2 = 0). Sensitivity analyses adjusting the main analysis on risk of bias items yielded consistent results. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention effect estimates of mortality were slightly larger in nonblinded than blinded randomized controlled trials conducted in critical care, but confounding cannot be excluded. Blinding of both patients and personnel is important to consider when possible in critical care trials, even when evaluating mortality.