Occupational noise exposure and hearing loss are prominent in the fire service. Firefighters are routinely exposed to hazardous levels of noise arising from the tools and equipment they use, from sirens and alarm tones to the emergency response vehicles they drive. The present study utilized the Apple Watch to continuously measure environmental noise levels for on-duty firefighters. Participants included 15 firefighters from the metropolitan South Florida area, and 25 adult non-firefighter control subjects. Firefighters were recruited from a variety of roles across two stations to ensure noise exposure profiles were appropriately representative of exposures in the fire service. All participants wore an Apple Watch for up to three separate 24 h shifts and completed a post-shift survey self-reporting on perceived exposures over the 24 h study period. Cumulative exposures were calculated for each shift and noise dose was calculated relative to the NIOSH recommended exposure limit of 85 dBA as an 8 h time-weighted average. The maximum dBA recorded on the Apple Watches was statistically significant between groups, with firefighters experiencing a median of 87.79 dBA and controls a median of 77.27 dBA. Estimated Exposure Time at 85 dBA (EET-85) values were significantly higher for firefighters when compared to controls: 3.97 h (range: 1.20–14.7 h) versus 0.42 h (range: 0.05–8.21 h). Only 2 of 16 firefighters reported the use of hearing protection devices during their shifts. Overall, our results highlight the utility of a commonly used personal device to quantify noise exposure in an occupationally at-risk group.

Objective: The effect of stress on vaccine-induced humoral immunity and therapeutic interventions to mitigate pandemic-related stress remain underexplored. Method: Participants in a longitudinal cohort study (n = 189) completed a validated measure, GAD-7, and 10-instrument stress measure to assess stress and anxiety after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination. Serum was collected to obtain SARS-CoV-2 antibody titer levels. Results: Participants experienced increased stress due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic with a positive correlation between GAD-7 scores and peak antibody titers overall; however, there was a negative association with scores commensurate with severe anxiety. Health care workers and younger participants were more significantly affected by anxiety. Conclusions: Mild anxiety levels may have immune-enhancing effects, whereas severe anxiety may cause antibody generation reduction. Mental health–focused interventions are imperative for younger adults and health care workers. Young adults may be more resilient to increased stress levels.

Background/Objectives: Single-sided deafness (SSD) treatment options include Contralateral Routing of Signal (CROS) or Bilateral Routing of Signal (BiCROS) systems, bone conduction devices, cochlear implants (CIs) and no intervention. Aligning treatment recommendations with patient motivations is fundamental for satisfaction and successful outcomes. At our institution, a structured telehealth consultation precedes formal testing and includes treatment motivation exploration and comprehensive review of all interventions. This study examined SSD treatment motivations and their association with pursuing cochlear implantation. Methods: Adults who completed a pre-treatment SSD telehealth consultation over a four-year period were identified. Charts were retrospectively reviewed for demographics, SSD characteristics, treatment motivations, treatment choice, and CI outcomes. Results: A total of 122 adults were evaluated. Mean age was 56.3 (±13.0) years, and 59.8% were male. Mean SSD duration was 10.8 (±15.8) years. The most common etiology was sudden sensorineural hearing loss. The top primary motivations were improving overall hearing (23.0%), restoring hearing to the deaf ear (22.1%), and improving hearing in noise (21.3%). Most patients (45.1%) opted for a hearing aid, CROS or BiCROS system; 38.5% chose CI; and 14.8% declined treatment. Only 57.4% of those who selected CI had the implant, primarily due to surgery avoidance (31.5%) and insurance limitations (10.5%). Motivation did not predict treatment choice or CI receipt. Among CI recipients (n = 27), those motivated by hearing restoration demonstrated poorer speech outcomes and datalogging. Conclusions: Improving overall hearing and restoring hearing to the deaf ear were the most common motivations for seeking SSD treatment. Adult CI recipients had similar motivations to those who chose non-surgical options.

Background: The computerized rotational head impulse test (crHIT) employs whole-body impulsive rotations like the angular motion used in the video head impulse test (vHIT) to assess the function of all semicircular canals (SCCs). Objective: This study utilized vertical crHIT and vHIT among healthy subjects to evaluate the effectiveness of these tools in assessing SCC function. Methods: Thirty-five individuals with no history of vestibular disorders or traumatic brain injury were enrolled in this study. Participants underwent vHIT (ICS Impulse Otometrics) and crHIT (Neuro-Otologic Testing Center, Spryson America, Inc.). Results: Mean VOR gain was significantly higher during crHIT compared to vHIT, except for the right horizontal SCC ( p < 0.01). Coefficient of variation (CV) for crHIT was smaller than that observed in vHIT across all 6 SCCs, with significant differences in all but the LA and RP SCCs. We also computed lower limits of normal (LLN) for each condition; up to 2.9% of crHIT values fell outside the acceptable LLN compared to up to 37% of vHIT gain values. Average reduced vestibular response (RVR) for crHIT was lower than that observed in vHIT among all semicircular canal pairs and demonstrated less variability for crHIT as compared to vHIT. Conclusions: Overall, these findings support the clinical utility of crHIT for comprehensive SCC function evaluation.

The objectives of this study were to (1) investigate the association between human blood type and COVID-19 in both inpatient and longitudinal populations and (2) identify the association between blood type and severity of COVID-19 via presence of cellular biomarkers of severe infection in hospitalized individuals at our institution in South Florida. This study consisted of (1) a single-center retrospective analysis of 669 out of 2741 COVID-19-positive, screened patients seen from 1 January 2020 until 31 March 2021 at the University of Miami Emergency Department (ED) who tested positive for COVID-19 and had a documented ABO blood type and (2) a longitudinal SARS-CoV-2 immunity study (“CITY”) at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, consisting of 185 survey participants. In an inpatient setting, blood type appeared to be associated with COVID-19 severity and mortality. Blood type O sustained less risk of COVID-19 mortality, and blood type O- demonstrated less risk of developing COVID-19 pneumonia. Inpatients with O- blood type exhibited less biomarkers of severe infection than did other blood types. In a longitudinal setting, there was no association found between blood type and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

False positive reactive plasmin reagin (RPR) reactivity following a COVID-19 vaccine has been reported, and it is therefore conceivable that individuals who receive frequent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations may exhibit durable RPR responses. Here, we sought to investigate the extent to which repeated mRNA COVID-19 vaccines can elicit chronic false RPR reactivity in a longitudinal cohort. Participants (n = 119) in an IRB-approved (#20201026), longitudinal SARS-CoV-2 cohort study were screened for RPR reactivity via manual RPR card assays. Samples with reactive results underwent additional testing, including follow-on RPR screening at additional timepoints, confirmatory fluorescent treponemal antibody (FTA-ABS) testing and anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) testing. Medical histories were collected. We observed (n = 2) screen-positive RPR results (1.7% [2/119]) following booster vaccination, for which two individuals exhibited chronic, vaccine-induced RPR reactivity for up to 9 months following booster vaccination. Both participants were ANA-negative. It is imperative for clinicians to be mindful of the potential immunologic interference of COVID-19 vaccines with standard infectious disease assays, including RPR testing. Detailed medical histories and clinical contexts, including recent vaccination, should be reviewed prior to proceeding with distressing and invasive workups.