Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted university teaching globally. The mental health impacts on international university students have been overlooked.Aims: This study examined the differences in COVID-19-related stressors and mental health impacts between international university students studying in the UK or USA who returned to their home country or region (returnees) and those who stayed in their institution country (stayers), and identified COVID-19-related stressors and coping strategies that were predictors of mental health.Method: An online questionnaire survey was conducted from April 28 through May 12, 2020 using an exponential, non-discriminative snowball sampling strategy (registered at the National Institutes of Health: NCT04365361).Results: A total of 124 full-time international university students (36.3% male) were included: 75.8% had returned to their home country or region for reasons related to COVID-19; 77.4% were pursuing a bachelor's program, and 53.2% were in programs with practicum component. 84.7% of all students had moderate-to-high perceived stress, 12.1% had moderate-to-severe symptoms of anxiety and depression, and 17.7% had moderate-to-severe symptoms of insomnia. Compared with returnees, stayers had significantly higher stress from COVID-19-related stressors such as personal health and lack of social support (Cohen's d: 0.57–1.11), higher perceived stress [10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10)] {22.6 ± 6.2 vs. 19.1 ± 6.1, β [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 4.039 (0.816, 7.261), Cohen's d: 0.52}, and more severe insomnia symptoms [Insomnia Severity Index (ISI)] [11.8 ± 6.1 vs. 7.6 ± 5.2, β (95% CI): 3.087 (0.262, 5.912), Cohen's d: 0.45], with moderate-to-large effect sizes. Compared with males, females reported significantly higher stress from uncertainties about academic program (Cohen's d: 0.45) with a small effect size. In the total sample, stress related to academics (e.g., personal attainment, uncertainties about academic program, and changes in teaching/learning format), health (including personal health and health of family and friends), availability of reliable COVID-19-related information, and lack of social support predicted more negative mental health impacts. Resilience, positive thinking, and exercise were predictors of less severe mental health impacts.Conclusions: Stayers experienced more adverse mental health impacts than returnees. We call on educators and mental health professionals to provide appropriate support for international students, particularly the stayers, during the pandemic.

The effects of treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) on glucose metabolism have been investigated previously with conflicting results. This study evaluated the impact of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) treatment of OSA on insulin sensitivity.Males with moderate/severe OSA and no significant comorbidity were randomised to a therapeutic or sham nCPAP treatment group for 1 week and then reassessed. Those who received therapeutic nCPAP were further evaluated at 12 weeks. Insulin sensitivity (K_itt) was estimated by the short insulin tolerance test. Other evaluations included blood pressure, metabolic profile, urinary catecholamines and intra-abdominal fat.In total, 61 Chinese subjects were randomised. 31 subjects receiving therapeutic nCPAP showed an increase in K_itt(6.6±2.9 to 7.6±3.2 %·min⁻¹; p = 0.017), while the 30 patients on sham CPAP had no significant change, and the changes in K_ittwere different between the two groups (p = 0.022). At 12 weeks, improvement in K_ittwas seen in 20 subjects with BMI ≥25 kg·m⁻²(median (interquartile range) 28.3 (26.6–31.5); p = 0.044), but not in the nine subjects with BMI<25 kg·m⁻², or the entire group.The findings indicate that therapeutic nCPAP treatment of OSA for 1 week improved insulin sensitivity in nondiabetic males, and the improvement appeared to be maintained after 12 weeks of treatment in those with moderate obesity.

Hypoadiponectinemia is associated with cardiovascular morbidity and diabetes mellitus. We hypothesize that adiponectin may be downregulated in sleep apnea through various mechanisms, contributing to cardiometabolic risks. This study investigated the relationship between serum adiponectin and sleep disordered breathing and its potential determinants. Cross-sectional study. Adult men without prevailing medical comorbidity from the sleep clinic in a teaching hospital. One hundred thirty-four men underwent polysomnography, with mean age of 43.9 (9.8) years, and median apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of 17.1 (5.7, 46.6). Overnight urine samples for catecholamines and blood samples for analyses of insulin, glucose and adiponectin levels from fasting subjects were taken. Insulin resistance was estimated by homeostasis model assessment (HOMA-IR). Magnetic resonance imaging was performed to quantify the amount of abdominal visceral fat. Serum adiponectin level, adjusted for age, body mass index, and visceral fat volume, was significantly lower in subjects with severe obstructive sleep apnea (AHI ≥ 30) compared with those with an AHI of less than 30: 4.0 (3.1, 5.4) versus 5.4 (3.6, 7.9) µg/mL, P = 0.039. After we adjusted for adiposity, adiponectin levels remained negatively correlated with AHI (P = 0.037), arousal index (P = 0.022), HOMA-IR/fasting insulin (P < 0.001), and urinary norepinephrine and normetanephrine (P < 0.008). In a multiple stepwise regression model, the independent determinants of adiponectin after adjustment for adiposity were HOMA-IR (P < 0.001) and urinary norepinephrine and normetanephrine (P = 0.037). Adiponectin was suppressed in subjects with severe obstructive sleep apnea, independent of obesity. Adiponectin levels were determined by insulin resistance and sympathetic activation, factors that may be totally or partially attributed to sleep disordered breathing.

We assessed the perceived benefits and harms of COVID-19 on family and their associations with sociodemographic factors in Chinese adults in Hong Kong. We conducted an online population-based survey and collected 4891 responses in 6 days. Prevalence estimates were weighted by sex, age, and education of the general population, and associations were analyzed using logistic regression. Our results showed both perceived benefits: 19.0% for family physical health, 7.2% family mental health, and 13.5% family relationships; and harms: 2.3% for family physical health, 37.9% family mental health, 18.6% family relationships, and 37.8% decreased family income. More female or older respondents reported perceived benefits but fewer of them reported perceived harms. More respondents with higher than lower socioeconomic scores (SES) reported perceived benefits on family physical and mental health and family relationships, but more respondents with lower than higher SES reported perceived harm on family income. As the pandemic continues with uncertainties, further studies on the dynamics of benefits and harms are needed. Urgent and additional assistance to underprivileged families and at-risk individuals are needed to reduce the inequities amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.