Audiological profile of adult Long COVID patients.

INTRODUCTION: Hearing loss is one of the self-reported symptoms of Long COVID patients, however data from objective and subjective audiological tests demonstrating diminished hearing in Long COVID patients has not been published. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Respondents of a large Long COVID online survey were invited to the ENT-department for an otologic exam. The participants were split into three groups based on their history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and persistence of symptoms. Respondents with a history of a SARS-CoV-2 infection were allocated to the Long COVID group, if they reported persistent symptoms and to the Ex COVID group, if they had regained their previous level of health. Participants without a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection made up the No COVID control group. In total, 295 ears were examined with otoscopy, tympanograms, pure tone audiometry and otoacoustic emissions. Ears with known preexisting hearing loss or status post ear surgery, as well as those with abnormal otoscopic findings, non-type A tympanograms or negative Rinne test were excluded. RESULTS: Compared to the No COVID and Ex COVID groups, we did not find a clinically significant difference in either hearing thresholds or frequency specific TEOAEs. However, at 500 Hz the data from the left ear, but not the right ear showed a significantly better threshold in the Ex COVID group, compared to Long COVID and No COVID groups. Any of the other tested frequencies between 500 Hz and 8 kHz were not significantly different between the different groups. There was a significantly lower frequency-specific signal-to-noise-ratio of the TEOAEs in the Long COVID compared to the No COVID group at 2.8 kHz. At all other frequencies, there were no significant differences between the three groups in the TEOAE signal-to-noise-ratio. CONCLUSION: This study detected no evidence of persistent cochlear damage months after SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large cohort of Long COVID patients, as well as those fully recovered.

Antiviral T-cell frequencies in a healthy population: Reference values for evaluating antiviral immune cell profiles in immunocompromised patients and their application during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

Background: Viral infections and reactivations (e.g. cytomegalovirus (CMV)) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and solid organ transplantation (SOT) and in patients with immunodeficiencies. Here, antiviral drugs are the mainstay of treatment, but they have side effects and cannot achieve complete viral clearance without prior reconstitution of functional virus-specific T cells (VSTs). Method(s): We performed serological testing and measured VST frequencies against 23 viral protein-derived peptide pools of 11 clinically relevant human viruses by Interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) ELISpot assay in a cohort of healthy donors (n=151). Moreover, we performed in-depth immune profiling in patients actively infected with SARS-CoV-2 (n=92) and in unvaccinated, recovered COVID-19 patients (n=204) by ELISA, ELISpot, multicolor flow cytometry and multiplex analysis. Result(s): Based on serological testing, IFN-gamma ELISpot results, age and sex, we established normal ranges for VST frequencies in healthy donors for better interpretation of VST frequencies observed in immunocompromised patients. While in SARS-CoV-2 recovered patients, the antiviral immune response was characterized by a broad specificity, significantly lower T-cell responses were observed during active infection. Comparison with the previously established reference values for VST frequencies revealed an overall reduced T-cell functionality based on the lack of CMV-pp65-reactive T cells in CMV-seropositive COVID-19 patients, which was associated with an inflammatory milieu, expression of inhibitory molecules, and effector caspase activity in T cells. Conclusion(s): The established reference values are an invaluable tool for immune response assessment, therapeutic agent intensity and decision making in immunocompromised patients. Further, we provide evidence that the low T-cell response observed during SARS-CoV-2 infection is not exclusively due to lymphopenia, but rather due to checkpoint- and cell death-associated mechanisms, suggesting that these patients may benefit from SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell therapy.

Health workers’ perception vs medically approved COVID-19 infection risk: the risk communication gap : Ellen Kuhlmann

Background This study analyses how healthcare workers (HCWs) perceived risks, protection and preventive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to medically approved risks and organisational measures. We aim to explore ‘blind spots’ of pandemic protection and identify mental health needs. Methods A German multi-method hospital study at Hannover Medical School serves as an ‘optimal-case’ scenario of a high-income country, well-resourced hospital sector and an organisation with low HCW infection rate serves to explore governance gaps in HCW protection. Document analysis, expert information and survey data (n = 1163) were collected as part of a clinical study into SARS-CoV-2 serology testing during the second wave of the pandemic (November 2020-February 2021). Selected survey items included perceptions of risks, protection and preventive measures. Descriptive statistical analysis and regression were undertaken for gender, profession and COVID-19 patient care. Results Our study reveals a low risk of 1% medically approved infections among participants, but a much higher mean personal risk estimate of 15%. The majority (68.4%) expressed ‘some’ to ‘very strong’ fear of acquiring infection at the workplace. Individual protective behaviour and compliance with protective workplace measures were estimated as very high. Yet only about half of the respondents felt strongly protected by the employer;12% even perceived ‘no’ or ‘little’ protection. Gender and contact with COVID-19 patients had no significant effect on the estimations of infection risks and protective workplace behaviour, but nursing was correlated with higher levels of personal risk estimations and fear of infection. Conclusions A strong mismatch between low medically approved risk and personal risk perceptions of HCWs brings stressors and threats into view, that may be preventable through improved information, risk communication and inclusion of mental health support in pandemic preparedness. Key messages • Healthcare workers’ perceptions of COVID-19 infection risks are much higher than medically approved infection risk. • Pandemic preparedness and protection plans must pay greater attention to information, risk communication and mental health needs.

Self-reported vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and adverse events in multiple cohorts : Carolina Judith Klett-Tammen

In two studies (“App-based infection assessment in RESIST (iAR)” and “Digital infection monitoring in persons living with immunodeficiency (DIMI)” ), we monitor health related items, as vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and conduct syndromic surveillance of acute respiratory infections in high-risk populations, i.e. elderly persons and persons living with HIV, respectively. In a third very similar study (“Sensors for measuring aerosols and reactive gases to deduce health effects (SMARAGD)”) mainly healthy adults participate. To record incident or recurring transient health events, risk factors and further health data in real-time, we developed the eResearch system “PIA - Prospective Monitoring and Management App”. Recruitment for RESIST, SMARAGD and DIMI started in March 2021 and is ongoing. The questionnaire was presented in April 2022. Preliminary results include 86 participants from the three cohorts. In total, one indicated to be not vaccinated, none were vaccinated once, three (3.5%) twice, 63 (73.3%) three times and 19 (22.1%) four times. Participants reported the following adverse events after immunization (AEFI): after 40 applied doses with Vaxzevria® 24 AEFI (60%);after 158 doses of Comirnaty® 41 AEFI (26%);after 62 doses of Spikevax® 19 AEFI (30.7%);and after three doses of Janssen®, one AEFI (33.3%). In these cohorts, 20 (23.36%) participants stated having had a SARS-CoV-2 infection, of these 16 (80%) after the last vaccination dose, three (15%) before the first dose and one (5%) in between doses. Most participants were vaccinated three times, with Comirnaty being the most applied vaccine, as in officially reported numbers. AEFI varied according to vaccine and were higher than in the German surveillance system (1.64/1000 doses). Most infections were indicated to have been diagnosed after the booster vaccination. The results are limited by the small sample size and possible bias through self-reporting and social desirability regarding vaccination status. Key messages • Overall, most participants were vaccinated with Comirnaty and had three doses of vaccine. Of the participants with a diagnosed SARS-CoV-2-infection, most got infected after the booster vaccine. • The number of reported AEFI was higher than in the official surveillance in Germany.