Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are placed in public, but the majority of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) occur at home. In residential areas, 785 AEDs were placed and 5735 volunteer responders were recruited. For suspected OHCA, dispatchers activated nearby volunteer responders with text messages, directing two-thirds to an AED first and one-third directly to the patient. We analysed survival (primary outcome) and neurologically favourable survival to discharge, time to first defibrillation shock, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) before Emergency Medical Service (EMS) arrival of patients in residences found with ventricular fibrillation (VF), before and after introduction of this text-message alert system. Survival from OHCAs in residences increased from 26% to 39% {adjusted relative risk (RR) 1.5 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03–2.0]}. RR for neurologically favourable survival was 1.4 (95% CI: 0.99–2.0). No CPR before ambulance arrival decreased from 22% to 9% (RR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3–0.7). Text-message-responders with AED administered shocks to 16% of all patients in VF in residences, while defibrillation by EMS decreased from 73% to 39% in residences (P < 0.001). Defibrillation by first responders in residences increased from 22 to 40% (P < 0.001). Use of public AEDs in residences remained unchanged (6% and 5%) (P = 0.81). Time from emergency call to defibrillation decreased from median 11.7 to 9.3 min; mean difference –2.6 (95% CI: –3.5 to –1.6). Introducing volunteer responders directed to AEDs, dispatched by text-message was associated with significantly reduced time to first defibrillation, increased bystander CPR and increased overall survival for OHCA patients in residences found with VF. A summary of the key design features and outcomes of introduction of volunteer responders to the EMS response for OHCA in residences. In the left panel (pre-introduction, blue) only EMS and first responders were dispatched to the residence of the suspected OHCA. In the right panel (post-introduction, orange) nearby volunteer responders (red) with access to nearby AEDs were alerted with a text-message in addition to the conventional responders. The time interval between 112 call and the first delivered defibrillation shock is indicated with the patient, survival and absence of CPR before EMS arrival is shown in the lower part, both as percentage and as Relative Risk with the associated 95% CI. CI, Confidence Interval; CPR, cardio-pulmonary resuscitation; EMS, Emergency Medical Services; OHCA, Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; ref, reference group.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are valuable for shared decision making and research. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires used to measure PROs, such as health-related quality of life (HRQL). Although core outcome sets for trials and clinical practice have been developed separately, they, as well as other initiatives, recommend different PROs and PROMs. In research and clinical practice, different PROMs are used (some generic, some disease-specific), which measure many different things. This is a threat to the validity of research and clinical findings in the field of diabetes. In this narrative review, we aim to provide recommendations for the selection of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs for people with diabetes for use in clinical practice and research. Based on a general conceptual framework of PROs, we suggest that relevant PROs to measure in people with diabetes are: disease-specific symptoms (e.g. worries about hypoglycaemia and diabetes distress), general symptoms (e.g. fatigue and depression), functional status, general health perceptions and overall quality of life. Generic PROMs such as the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0), or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures could be considered to measure commonly relevant PROs, supplemented with disease-specific PROMs where needed. However, none of the existing diabetes-specific PROM scales has been sufficiently validated, although the Diabetes Symptom Self-Care Inventory (DSSCI) for measuring diabetes-specific symptoms and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) for measuring distress showed sufficient content validity. Standardisation and use of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs can help inform people with diabetes about the expected course of disease and treatment, for shared decision making, to monitor outcomes and to improve healthcare. We recommend further validation studies of diabetes-specific PROMs that have sufficient content validity for measuring disease-specific symptoms and consider generic item banks developed based on item response theory for measuring commonly relevant PROs. Graphical Abstract

Prior research suggests that the proportion of a shockable initial rhythm in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) declined during the last decades. This study aims to investigate if this decline is still ongoing and explore the relationship between location of OHCA and proportion of a shockable initial rhythm as initial rhythm. We calculated the proportion of patients with a shockable initial rhythm between 2006-2015 using pooled data from the COSTA-group (Copenhagen, Oslo, Stockholm, Amsterdam). Analyses were stratified according to location of OHCA (residential vs. public). A total of 19,054 OHCA cases were included. Overall, the total proportion of cases with a shockable initial rhythm decreased from 42% to 37% (P < 0.01) from 2006 to 2015. When stratified according to location, the proportion of cases with a shockable initial rhythm decreased for OHCAs at a residential location (34% to 27%; P = 0.03), while the proportion of a shockable initial rhythm was stable among OHCAs in public locations (59%-57%; P = 0.2). During the last years of the study period (2011-2015), the overall proportion of a shockable initial rhythm remained stable (38%-37%; P = 0.45); this was observed for both residential and public OHCA. We found a decline in the proportion of patients with a shockable initial rhythm in OHCAs at a residential location; this decline levelled off during the second half of the study period (2011-2015). In public locations, we observed no decline in shockable initial rhythm over time.

Persons with diabetes mellitus may have an increased risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 compared to persons without diabetes. Prior studies indicate that immune response and thus vaccine effectiveness might be lower in persons with diabetes. We aimed to systematically review the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in adults with diabetes. Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for studies that evaluated the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in adults with diabetes, published before 4 March 2022. Risk of bias in the included studies was evaluated using the ROBINS-I tool. At least two reviewers conducted the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment independently. After screening of 2196 studies, a total of 17 articles were included. Six different COVID-19 vaccines (Ad5-nCoV-S, AZD1222, BNT162b2, CoronaVac, JNJ-78436735, and mRNA-1273) were included in the synthesis. Vaccine effectiveness was reported for SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic COVID-19, hospitalization, and death, and ranged from 24 to 96% in persons with diabetes, and from 33 to 97% in total study populations; effectiveness was generally lower for persons with diabetes. Odds ratios for breakthrough infection or severe COVID-19 ranged from 1.03 to 2.41 in vaccinated persons with diabetes compared to persons without diabetes. Even though the included studies were very heterogeneous, results from the synthesis indicate that effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines might be lower in persons with diabetes. More research is needed on the comparison of vaccine effectiveness between persons with and without diabetes, and the effectiveness of repeat COVID-19 vaccinations.

Various drugs increase the risk of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in the general population by impacting cardiac ion channels, thereby causing ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF). Dihydropyridines block L-type calcium channels, but their association with OHCA risk is unknown. We aimed to study whether nifedipine and/or amlodipine, often-used dihydropyridines, are associated with increased OHCA risk, and how these drugs impact on cardiac electrophysiology. We conducted a case–control study with VT/VF-documented OHCA cases with presumed cardiac cause from ongoing population-based OHCA registries in the Netherlands and Denmark, and age/sex/index date-matched non-OHCA controls (Netherlands: PHARMO Database Network, Denmark: Danish Civil Registration System). We included 2503 OHCA cases, 10 543 non-OHCA controls in Netherlands, and 8101 OHCA cases, 40 505 non-OHCA controls in Denmark. To examine drug effects on cardiac electrophysiology, we performed single-cell patch-clamp studies in human-induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes. Use of high-dose nifedipine (≥60 mg/day), but not low-dose nifedipine (<60 mg/day) or amlodipine (any-dose), was associated with higher OHCA risk than non-use of dihydropyridines [Netherlands: adjusted odds ratios (OR_adj) 1.45 (95% confidence interval 1.02–2.07), Denmark: 1.96 (1.18–3.25)] or use of amlodipine [Netherlands: 2.31 (1.54–3.47), Denmark: 2.20 (1.32–3.67)]. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest risk of (high-dose) nifedipine use was not further increased in patients using nitrates, or with a history of ischaemic heart disease. Nifedipine and amlodipine blocked L-type calcium channels at similar concentrations, but, at clinically used concentrations, nifedipine caused more L-type calcium current block, resulting in more action potential shortening. High-dose nifedipine, but not low-dose nifedipine or any-dose amlodipine, is associated with increased OHCA risk in the general population. Careful titration of nifedipine dose should be considered.