Non-patient-related SARS-CoV-2 exposure from colleagues and household members poses the highest infection risk for hospital employees in a German university hospital: follow-up of the prospective Co-HCW seroprevalence study.

PURPOSE: The Co-HCW study is a prospective, longitudinal, single-center observational study that aims to assess the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and infection status in staff members of Jena University Hospital (JUH) in Jena, Germany. METHODS: This follow-up study covers the observation period from 19th May 2020 to 22nd June 2021. At each of the three voluntary study visits, participants filled out a questionnaire regarding their SARS-CoV-2 exposure and provided serum samples to detect specific SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Participants who were tested positive for antibodies against nucleocapsid and/or spike protein without previous vaccination and/or reported a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test were regarded to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was applied to identify potential risk factors for infected compared to non-infected participants. RESULTS: Out of 660 participants that were included during the first study visit, 406 participants (61.5%) were eligible for the final analysis as their COVID-19 risk area (high-risk n = 76; intermediate-risk n = 198; low-risk n = 132) did not change during the study. Forty-four participants [10.8%, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 8.0-14.3%] had evidence of a current or past SARS-CoV-2 infection detected by serology (n = 40) and/or PCR (n = 28). No association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and the COVID-19 risk group according to working place was detected. However, exposure to a SARS-CoV-2 positive household member [adjusted OR (AOR) 4.46, 95% CI 2.06-9.65] or colleague (AOR 2.30, 95%CI 1.10-4.79) was found to significantly increase the risk of a SARS-CoV-2 infection. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that non-patient-related SARS-CoV-2 exposure posed the highest infection risk for hospital staff members of JUH.

Antibiotic Stewardship und Pneumonie

Pneumonia is a very frequent and potentially fatal disease. It can be classified into 3 different entities, community-acquired (CAP), hospital-acquired (HAP) and pneumonia in immunosuppressed patients. The CAP and HAP are primarily eligible for antibiotic stewardship (ABS) interventions, strategies to enhance the rational use of antibiotic agents. In patients hospitalized with pneumonia, microbiological testing is strongly recommended before starting antibiotic treatment. A risk stratification of patients and grading of the severity of pneumonia is crucial for the calculated choice of antibiotics and the mode of administration. In patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) without septic shock, bacterial superinfections are rare and usually do not require empirical antibiotic treatment. After 48–72 h the antibiotic treatment strategy needs to be re-evaluated and a targeted de-escalated treatment should be implemented taking the clinical status and microbiology into consideration. Stopping calculated treatment in cases of misdiagnosis and limiting the duration of antibiotic treatment are essential ABS strategies to optimize the clinical outcome in patients with CAP and HAP and to keep the development of antibiotic resistance and drug toxicity as low as possible. In certain situations, the use of a biomarkers for bacterial infections, e.g. procalcitonin, can support the early discontinuation of antibiotics or the diagnosis of bacterial superinfections in COVID-19.

Antibiotic Stewardship und Pneumonie Antibiotic stewardship and pneumonia

Die Pneumonie ist eine sehr häufige und potenziell tödliche Erkrankung. Es werden 3 Entitäten (ambulant erworbenen = CAP, nosokomial erworben = HAP und Pneumonie unter Immunsuppression) unterschieden von denen insbesondere die CAP und die HAP für die Umsetzung von Antibiotic Stewardship(ABS)-Strategien, den rationalen Umgang mit Antibiotika, gut geeignet sind. Die Durchführung einer mikrobiologischen Diagnostik vor Start einer Antibiotikatherapie bei Pneumonie, die stationär behandelt werden muss, wird stark empfohlen. Eine Risikostratifizierung der Patienten und der Schweregrad der Erkrankung sind entscheidend für die kalkulierte Antibiotikaauswahl und die Applikationsform. Bei COVID-19-Patienten ohne septischen Schock kann aufgrund der niedrigen Rate von bakteriellen Superinfektionen auf eine empirische Antibiotikatherapie verzichtet werden. Eine Reevaluation der Antibiotikatherapie nach 48–72 h mit gezielter Deeskalation unter Beachtung der Klinik und Mikrobiologie, Absetzen bei Fehlindikation und die Begrenzung der Therapiedauer sind essenzielle ABS-Strategien zur Optimierung des klinischen Outcomes bei CAP und HAP mit dem Ziel, die Antibiotikaresistenzentwicklung sowie die Toxizität für den Patienten möglichst gering zu halten. Der Einsatz von Biomarkern wie Procalcitonin kann in bestimmten Situationen ein frühzeitiges Absetzen der Therapie begünstigen oder die Diagnose einer bakteriellen Superinfektion bei COVID-19 unterstützen.

Unmet needs in pneumonia research: a comprehensive approach by the CAPNETZ study group.

INTRODUCTION: Despite improvements in medical science and public health, mortality of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) has barely changed throughout the last 15 years. The current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has once again highlighted the central importance of acute respiratory infections to human health. The "network of excellence on Community Acquired Pneumonia" (CAPNETZ) hosts the most comprehensive CAP database worldwide including more than 12,000 patients. CAPNETZ connects physicians, microbiologists, virologists, epidemiologists, and computer scientists throughout Europe. Our aim was to summarize the current situation in CAP research and identify the most pressing unmet needs in CAP research. METHODS: To identify areas of future CAP research, CAPNETZ followed a multiple-step procedure. First, research members of CAPNETZ were individually asked to identify unmet needs. Second, the top 100 experts in the field of CAP research were asked for their insights about the unmet needs in CAP (Delphi approach). Third, internal and external experts discussed unmet needs in CAP at a scientific retreat. RESULTS: Eleven topics for future CAP research were identified: detection of causative pathogens, next generation sequencing for antimicrobial treatment guidance, imaging diagnostics, biomarkers, risk stratification, antiviral and antibiotic treatment, adjunctive therapy, vaccines and prevention, systemic and local immune response, comorbidities, and long-term cardio-vascular complications. CONCLUSION: Pneumonia is a complex disease where the interplay between pathogens, immune system and comorbidities not only impose an immediate risk of mortality but also affect the patients' risk of developing comorbidities as well as mortality for up to a decade after pneumonia has resolved. Our review of unmet needs in CAP research has shown that there are still major shortcomings in our knowledge of CAP.

Vaccine Response in the Immunocompromised Patient with Focus on Cellular Immunity.

During the last few years, we have experienced a shift in how we evaluate the effectiveness of vaccines [...].

Prospective surveillance study in a 1,400-bed university hospital: COVID-19 exposure at home was the main risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 point seroprevalence among hospital staff.

The Co-HCW study is a prospective cohort study among hospital staff, including healthcare workers (HCWs) and administration staff, at the Jena University Hospital (JUH), Germany. The objectives of this study were to assess SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroprevalence, individual exposure risk factors and compliance of HCWs to wear personal protective equipment (PPE). After the first nosocomial COVID-19 outbreak at JUH, mandatory masking was implemented on 20th March 2020. We evaluated point seroprevalence using two IgG detecting immunoassays and issued a questionnaire to assess COVID-19 exposure, clinical symptoms and compliance to wear PPE. Antibody retesting was offered to participants with a divergent result of both immunoassays 5-10 weeks after the first test. Between 19th May and 19th June 2020, we analysed 660 participants [out of 3,228; 20.4%]. Among them, 212 participants (32.1%) had received a previous COVID-19 test. Four of them (1.9%) reported a positive test result. After recruitment, 18 participants (2.7%) had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in at least one immunoassay. Overall, 21 participants (3.2%) had any evidence of a past or current SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among them, 13 (61.9%) were not aware of direct COVID-19 exposure and 9 (42.9%) did not report any clinical symptoms. COVID-19 exposure at home (adjusted OR (aOR) with 95% CI: 47.82 (5.49, 416.62)) was associated with SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence. We observed no evidence for an association between seroprevalence and exposure at work (aOR 0.48 (0.13, 1.70)) or with COVID-19 risk area according to the working place (aOR for intermediate-risk vs. high-risk: 1.97 (0.42, 9.22), aOR for low-risk versus high-risk: 2.10 (0.40, 11.06); p = .655). Reported compliance of HCWs to wear PPE differed (p < .001) between working in high-risk (98.3%) and in intermediate-risk areas (69.8%). In conclusion, compared to administration staff, we observed no additional risk to acquire SARS-CoV-2 infections by patient care, probably due to high compliance to wear PPE.

Antibody response using six different serological assays in a completely PCR-tested community after a coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak-the CoNAN study.

OBJECTIVES: Due to a substantial proportion of asymptomatic and mild courses, many severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections remain unreported. Therefore, assessment of seroprevalence may detect the real burden of disease. We aimed to determine and characterize the rate of SARS-CoV-2 infections and the resulting seroprevalence in a defined population. The primary objective of the study was to assess SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence using six different IgG-detecting immunoassays. Secondary objectives of the study were: (a) to determine potential risk factors for symptomatic versus asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 courses, and (b) to investigate the rate of virus RNA-persistence. METHODS: CoNAN is a population-based cohort study performed in the community Neustadt am Rennsteig, Germany, which was quarantined from 22 March to 5 April after six SARS-CoV-2 cases were detected in the village's population. The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak comprised 51 cases and 3 deaths. The CoNAN study was performed from 13 May to 22 May 2020, 6 weeks after a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. RESULTS: We enrolled a total of 626 participants (71% of the community population) for PCR and antibody testing in the study. All actual SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests were negative. Fifty-two out of 620 (8.4%) participants had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in at least two different assays. There were 38 participants with previously PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of those, only 19 (50%) displayed anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We also show that antibody-positive participants with symptoms compatible with a respiratory tract infection had significantly higher antibody levels then asymptomatic participants (EU-assay: median 2.9 versus 7.2 IgG-index, p 0.002; DS-assay: median 45.2 versus 143 AU/mL, p 0.002). Persisting viral replication was not detected. CONCLUSIONS: Our data question the relevance and reliability of IgG antibody testing to detect past SARS-CoV-2 infections 6 weeks after an outbreak. We conclude that assessing immunity for SARS-CoV-2 infection should not rely on antibody tests alone.