Pun, Matiram, Rachel Turner, Giacomo Strapazzon, Hermann Brugger, and Erik R. Swenson. Lower incidence of COVID-19 at high altitude: Facts and confounders. High Alt Med Biol . 21:217–222, 2020.—The rapid transmission, increased morbidity, and mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has exhausted many health care systems and the global economy. Large variations in COVID-19 prevalence and incidence have been reported across and within many countries worldwide; however, this remains poorly understood. The variability and susceptibility across the world have been mainly attributed to differing socioeconomic status, burden of chronic diseases, access to health care, strength of health care systems, and early or late adoption of control measures. Environmental factors such as pollution, ambient temperature, humidity, and seasonal weather patterns at different latitudes may influence how severe the pandemic is and the incidence of infection in any part of the world. In addition, recent epidemiological data have been used to propose that altitude of residence may not only influence those environmental features considered key to lesser viral transmission, but also susceptibility to more severe forms of COVID-19 through hypoxic-hypobaria driven genomic or nongenomic adaptations specific to high-altitude populations. In this review, we critically examine these factors and attempt to determine based upon available scientific and epidemiological data whether living in high-altitude regions might be protective against COVID-19 as recent publications have claimed.

Carbonic anhydrase (CA) inhibitors have an impressive safety record despite the multiple functions that CA isozymes serve because they are not fully inhibited with most dosing. While reducing the targeted CA-dependent process sufficiently for disease control, residual activity and uncatalyzed rates in combination with compensations are adequate to avoid lethal consequences. Some drugs have in vitro selectivity differences against the 13 active isozymes, but none are convincingly selective in vivo or clinically. Efforts to synthesize selective inhibitors should result in safer drugs with fewer side effects. This review will focus on approved drugs with CA-inhibiting activity, whether used directly for this purpose or others. Side effects are discussed in relation to various organ systems and the disease being treated. Causes of side effects are considered, and strategies for symptom reduction are given. Common side effects of paresthesias, dyspepsia, lassitude and fatigue in 30 - 40% of patients are generally tolerable or abate, but if not can be partially relieved by bicarbonate supplementation. The most important safety concerns are severe acidosis, respiratory failure and encephalopathy in patients with renal, pulmonary and hepatic disease where caution is critical, as is also the case in persons with sulfa drug allergies.

The ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has been unprecedented on many levels, not least of which are the challenges in understanding the pathophysiology of these new critically ill patients. One widely reported phenomenon is that of a profoundly hypoxemic patient with minimal to no dyspnea out of proportion to the extent of radiographic abnormality and change in lung compliance. This apparently unique presentation, sometimes called “happy hypoxemia or hypoxia” but better described as “silent hypoxemia,” has led to the speculation of underlying pathophysiological differences between COVID-19 lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from other causes. We explore three proposed distinctive features of COVID-19 that likely bear on the genesis of silent hypoxemia, including differences in lung compliance, pulmonary vascular responses to hypoxia, and nervous system sensing and response to hypoxemia. In the context of known principles of respiratory physiology and neurobiology, we discuss whether these particular findings are due to direct viral effects or, equally plausible, are within the spectrum of typical ARDS pathophysiology and the wide range of hypoxic ventilatory and pulmonary vascular responses and dyspnea perception in healthy people. Comparisons between lung injury patterns in COVID-19 and other causes of ARDS are clouded by the extent and severity of this pandemic, which may underlie the description of “new” phenotypes, although our ability to confirm these phenotypes by more invasive and longitudinal studies is limited. However, given the uncertainty about anything unique in the pathophysiology of COVID-19 lung injury, there are no compelling pathophysiological reasons at present to support a therapeutic approach for these patients that is different from the proven standards of care in ARDS.

Background: Altitude sojourns increasingly attract individuals of all ages and different health statuses due to the appeal of high-altitude destinations worldwide and easy access to air travel. The risk of acute mountain sickness (AMS) when flying to high-altitude destinations remains underemphasized. Thus, this review aims to evaluate the altitude-dependent AMS incidence depending on the mode of ascending, e.g. by air vs terrestrial travel. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify the observational studies assessing AMS incidence after acute ascent of primarily healthy adults to real high altitude. In addition, placebo arms of interventional trials evaluating the prophylactic efficacy of various drugs have been separately analysed to confirm or refute the findings from the observational studies. Linear regression analyses were used to evaluate the altitude-dependent AMS incidence. Results: Findings of 12 observational studies, in which the AMS incidence in 11 021 individuals ascending to 19 different altitudes (2200–4559 m) was evaluated, revealed an impressive 4.5-fold steeper increase in the AMS incidence for air travel as compared with slower ascent modes, i.e. hiking or combined car and/or air travel and hiking. The higher AMS incidence following transportation by flight vs slower means was also confirmed in placebo-treated participants in 10 studies of drug prophylaxis against AMS. Conclusions: Due to the short time span in going from low to high altitude, reduced acclimatization likely is the main reason for a higher AMS risk when travelling to high-altitude destinations by flight. To avoid frustrating travel experiences and health risks, appropriate and timely medical advice on how to prepare for air travel to high altitude is of vital importance. Effective preparation options include the use of modern pre-acclimatization strategies and pharmacological prophylaxis by acetazolamide or dexamethasone, or even considering alternate itineraries with more gradual ascent.

The contribution of veno-venous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) to systemic oxygen delivery is determined by the ratio of total extracorporeal blood flow ( ) to cardiac output ( ). Thermodilution-based measurements of may be compromised by blood recirculating through the ECMO (recirculation fraction; Rf). We measured the effects of and Rf on classic thermodilution-based measurements of in six anesthetized pigs. An ultrasound flow probe measured total aortic blood flow ( ) at the aortic root. Rf was quantified with the ultrasound dilution technique. was set to 0–125% of and was measured using a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) in healthy and lung injured animals. PAC overestimated ( ) at all settings compared to . The mean bias between both methods was 2.1 L/min in healthy animals and 2.7 L/min after lung injury. The difference between and increased with an of 75–125%/ compared to Q_EC <50%/ . Overestimation of was highest when resulted in a high Rf. Thus, thermodilution-based measurements can overestimate cardiac output during VV ECMO. The degree of overestimation of depends on the _EC/ ratio and the recirculation fraction.