ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Antibody assays against SARS-CoV-2 are used in sero-epidemiological studies to estimate the proportion of a population with past infection. IgG antibodies against the spike protein (S-IgG) allow no distinction between infection and vaccination. We evaluated the role of anti-nucleocapsid-IgG (N-IgG) to identify individuals with infection more than one year past infection. METHODS: S- and N-IgG were determined using the Euroimmun enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in two groups: a randomly selected sample from the population of Stuttgart, Germany, and individuals with PCR-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants were five years or older. Demographics and comorbidities were registered from participants above 17 years. RESULTS: Between June 15, 2021 and July 14, 2021, 454 individuals from the random sample participated, as well as 217 individuals with past SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mean time from positive PCR test result to antibody testing was 458.7 days (standard deviation 14.6 days) in the past infection group. In unvaccinated individuals, the seroconversion rate for S-IgG was 25.5% in the random sample and 75% in the past infection group (P = < 0.001). In vaccinated individuals, the mean signal ratios for S-IgG were higher in individuals with prior infection (6.9 vs 11.2; P = < 0.001). N-IgG were only detectable in 17.1% of participants with past infection. Predictors for detectable N-IgG were older age, male sex, fever, wheezing and in-hospital treatment for COVID-19 and cardiovascular comorbidities. CONCLUSION: N-IgG is not a reliable marker for SARS-CoV-2 infection after more than one year. In future, other diagnostic tests are needed to identify individuals with past natural infection.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Face-to-face medical and psychotherapeutic treatments during the Corona pandemic often involve patients and health care providers wearing face masks. We performed a pilot survey assessing the subjective experience of wearing face masks during psychotherapy sessions regarding (i) feasibility, (ii) psychotherapeutic treatment and (iii) communication, emotion and working alliance in patients and healthcare professionals. Methods: A total of n = 62 inpatients (RR = 95.4%) and n = 33 healthcare professionals (RR = 86.8%) at an academic department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy participated in this survey anonymously. The items of the questionnaire were created by the interprofessional expert team and were based on existing instruments: (i) the Therapeutic Relationship Questionnaire and (ii) the German translation of Yalom's Questionnaire on Experiencing in Group Psychotherapy. Results: The majority of patients rate their psychotherapy as highly profitable despite the mask. In individual therapy, face masks seem to have a rather low impact on subjective experience of psychotherapy and the relationship to the psychotherapist. Most patients reported using alternative facial expressions and expressions. In the interactional group therapy, masks were rather hindering. On the healthcare professional side, there were more frequent negative associations of face masks in relation to (i) experiencing connectedness with colleagues, (ii) forming relationships, and (iii) therapeutic treatment. Discussion: Information should be given to patients about the possible effects of face masks on the recognition of emotions, possible misinterpretations and compensation possibilities through alternative stimuli (e.g., eye area) and they should be encouraged to ask for further information. Especially in group therapy, with patients from other cultural backgrounds and in cases of need for help (e.g., hearing impairment) or complex disorders, appropriate non-verbal gestures and body language should be used to match the intended emotional expression.