Search

Introduction: Having an adequate supply of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic has been a constant challenge for hospitals across the United States. In the event of shortages, our assembled mask might offer noninferior protection compared to an N95 respirator. Objective: To study the ability of an assembled mask to pass a quantitative fit testing.Methods: We conducted a feasibility study at the Oklahoma City Veteran Affairs Health Care System. Volunteers were fitted with an assembled mask made of either a Hans Rudolph half-face mask or a Respironics Performax full-face mask, attached to an Iso-Gard HEPA light Filter 28022 through a Performax SE elbow hinge. Quantitative fit testing was conducted using the Occupation Safety and Health Administration fit testing protocol. The primary outcome was the percentage of participants who pass the quantitative fit test. Secondary outcomes included the overall fit factor (FF), average FF for different exercises, changes in pulse oximetry and endtidal CO2 at 0 and 15 minutes, willingness to use the mask, and visibility assessment.Results: Twenty participants completed the study, and all (100 percent) passed the quantitative fit testing. The overall FF had a geometric mean of 2,317 (range: 208-16,613) and a geometric standard deviation of 3.8. The lowest FF was recorded while the subjects were talking. Between time 0 and 15 minutes, there was no clinically significant change in pulse oximetry and end-tidal CO2 levels. Most participants reported “very good” visibility and were “highly likely” to use the Hans Rudolph half-face mask in the case of shortage.Conclusion: Our assembled respirator offers noninferior protection to N95 respirators in the setting of hypothetical protective equipment shortage.

The Michigan Legislature mandated that all public schools stock epinephrine auto-injectors (EAIs). A minimal amount is known regarding the incremental value of EAIs in schools. Our primary objective was to describe the frequency of administration of epinephrine for EMS patients with acute allergic reactions in public schools. Our secondary objective was to estimate the cost of mandating public schools to stock EAIs.We performed a retrospective cohort study of EMS cases with an impression of allergic reaction and who received epinephrine recorded in the 2014 Michigan EMS Information System (MI-EMSIS). We abstracted patient demographics, incident location by address to identify public schools, source of epinephrine given, and suspected allergen if known. We calculated advanced life support (ALS) response times to assess temporal impact of school EAIs in communities with ALS systems. We estimated the unsubsidized annual procurement cost of this mandate for Michigan public schools (N = 4,039), using range of costs for the required 2 EAIs (adult and pediatric) as estimated by the legislature ($140/each) and recently reported costs for commercial sources ($1,200). Training costs were not included. Descriptive statistics are reported.During this period, there were 1,550,009 EMS cases in the state with 631 receiving non-cardiac arrest epinephrine for presumed anaphylaxis, of which 23 cases were in public schools. Reported allergens were most often food 12 (51.2%), insect stings 4(22.2%) or unknown 7(30.4%). Among these patients, the source for epinephrine used was from the student, 7 (30.4%), EMS 7 (30.4%), school 7(30.4%), and unknown 2(8.7%). A majority (21, 91.3%) of the public school cases occurred in communities with ALS systems and ALS response was relatively rapid (median response 6 minutes, 90 percentile, 13 minutes). The unsubsidized annual cost of Michigan public schools to stock EAIs ranges from $565,460 to $4,846,800.In this study, few public school patients received epinephrine for anaphylaxis and the vast majority occurred in communities with rapid ALS response. The direct annual supply cost of the school EAI mandate is substantial.

Sepsis affects millions of people worldwide every year. The majority of sepsis research arises from developed countries. This large gap in medical advancement between the developed and developing world leaves us pondering over crucial questions that must be tackled: Are developing countries able to implement the standards of care set by the developed world? Do they have access to the ongoing medical innovations? Is there global equality of medical care? Is the burden and toll of sepsis heavier in the developing world? To answer all these questions, the starting point is to assess the impact of sepsis on developing countries. Literature about Sepsis in Lebanon, a developing country in the Middle East Region, is scarce. This review article sheds light on the burden of sepsis in Lebanon and the Middle East as well as shares our personal research experiences.