The impact of COVID-19 on the interpretation of psycho-oncological support trial results: a quasi-experimental approach using the data from the new form of care "Integrated cross-sectoral psycho-oncology (nFC-isPO)".

OBJECTIVE: In addition to the common difficulties of ongoing trials, the COVID-19 pandemic posed several challenges to scientists worldwide and created an additional burden for vulnerable patient groups. In the nFC-isPO of individualised treatment for anxiety and depression in newly diagnosed patients with cancer caregivers (e.g. psycho-oncologists) reported elevated HADS scores in newly enrolled patients after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the question arises whether the pandemic affected HADS scores. Therefore, stratified analyses by the time of enrolment (T1) were performed for patients with 12 months of care (T3). METHODS: Patients with 12 months of care (N = 1,140) were analysed. A comparison within the regression discontinuity design according to the time points at which patients completed the baseline (T1) HADS questionnaire was conducted to examine differences between patients recruited before Q2/2020 (pre-pandemic) and after the coronavirus outbreak. Furthermore, mean HADS scores at T1 and T3 for all quarters during the study were compared. RESULTS: Mean T1 and T3 HADS scores of patients with cancer during the pandemic are only slightly higher than those of the pre-pandemic group. No significant treatment effect was observed in either the pre-pandemic (p = 0.5495, Late = 1.7711) or the post-pandemic group (p = 0.9098, LATE=-0.2933). In contrast, the average local treatment effect in the post-pandemic group suggests a minimal decrease in HADS score in the predefined range and thus a positive treatment effect for isPO. Comparison of mean HADS scores at T1 and T3 did not show a large increase by pandemic-related timepoints, however, a decrease of approximately 2-3 points over each quarter at 12 months compared to baseline is observed. CONCLUSION: The existing nFC-isPO care is resilient to crisis and may counteract external influences such as the Corona pandemic. Accordingly, the pandemic had little influence on the fears of patients with cancer in the nFC-isPO. This emphasises that psycho-oncology is vital for the reduction of stress, anxiety and depression in patients with cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Registry on 30 October 2018 under the ID "DRKS00015326".

Results of the Cologne Corona Surveillance (CoCoS) study - a cross-sectional study: survey data on risk factors of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults.

BACKGROUND: The personal, environmental, and behavioral risk factors that play an important role in the spread of SARS-CoV-2 are still largely unclear. At the same time, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of specific countermeasures for SARS-CoV-2. As a first approach to these questions, we use data from the Cologne Corona Surveillance (CoCoS) study, a large cross-sectional study conducted in Cologne, Germany, in June 2021. METHODS: This study was conducted in Cologne, Germany. Six thousand randomly selected Cologne residents who were 18 years of age or older were invited to participate in this study. Participant information was obtained via an online survey. Previous SARS-CoV-2 infections were recorded using self-reports. Sociodemographic and environmental information such as age, sex, living situation were collected. Potential SARS-CoV-2 risk behaviors were captured (workplace situation, adherence to hygiene regulations, and regular use of public transportation). Adherence to hygiene regulations was surveyed by determining the compliance with the 'AHA'-rules (German acronym that stands for keeping a distance of 1.5 m from fellow citizens, hand disinfection, and wearing a face mask). Binary logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: A sample of 2,433 study participants provided information. Comparison of the sample with the general population showed representativeness for most sociodemographic characteristics with a preference for higher level of education in the study sample. Younger age, as well as living with minor children (under 18 years) in the same household were associated with a higher number of self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infections. Adherence to hygiene regulations was associated with fewer self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infections in adults. Gender, size of living space per person, workplace situation (work from home versus working with contact to colleagues/customers), and regular use of public transportation showed no significant association with self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infections in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: The presented results provide initial indications of which sociodemographic and behavioral factors may be associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, the fact that these factors were recorded without exact dates and could have changed accordingly during the pandemic or after infection limits the strength of the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS.de, German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), Identifier: DRKS00024046, Registered on 25 February 2021.

Infection and transmission risks of COVID-19 in schools and their contribution to population infections in Germany: A retrospective observational study using nationwide and regional health and education agency notification data.

BACKGROUND: School-level infection control measures in Germany during the early Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic differed across the 16 federal states and lacked a dependable evidence base, with available evidence limited to regional data restricted to short phases of the pandemic. This study aimed to assess the (a) infection risks in students and staff; (b) transmission risks and routes in schools; (c) effects of school-level infection control measures on school and population infection dynamics; and (d) contribution of contacts in schools to population cases. METHODS AND FINDINGS: For this retrospective observational study, we used German federal state (NUTS-2) and county (NUTS-3) data from public health and education agencies from March 2020 to April 2022. We assessed (a) infection risk as cumulative risk and crude risk ratios and (b) secondary attack rates (SARs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We used (c) multiple regression analysis for the effects of infection control measures such as reduced attendance, mask mandates, and vaccination coverage as absolute reduction in case incidence per 100,000 inhabitants per 14 days and in percentage relative to the population, and (d) infection dynamic modelling to determine the percentage contribution of school contacts to population cases. We included (a) nationwide NUTS-2 data from calendar weeks (W) 46-50/2020 and W08/2021-W15/2022 with 3,521,964 cases in students and 329,283 in teachers; (b) NUTS-3 data from W09-25/2021 with 85,788 student and 9,427 teacher cases; and (c) detailed data from 5 NUTS-3 regions from W09/2020 to W27/2021 with 12,814 cases (39% male, 37% female; median age 14, range 5 to 63), 43,238 contacts and 4,165 secondary cases for students (for teachers, 14,801 [22% male, 50% female; median age 39, range 16 to 75], 5,893 and 472). Infection risk (a) for students and teachers was higher than the population risk in all phases of normal presence class and highest in the early 2022 omicron wave with 30.6% (95% CI 30.5% to 32.6%) of students and 32.7% (95% CI 32.6% to 32.8%) of teachers infected in Germany. SARs (b) for students and staff were below 5% in schools throughout the study period, while SARs in households more than doubled from 13.8% (95% CI 10.6% to 17.6%) W21-39/2020 to 28.7% (95% CI 27% to 30.4%) in W08-23/2021 for students and 10.9% (95% CI 7% to 16.5%) to 32.7% (95% CI 28.2% to 37.6%) for staff. Most contacts were reported for schools, yet most secondary cases originated in households. In schools, staff predominantly infected staff. Mandatory surgical mask wearing during class in all schools was associated with a reduction in the case incidence of students and teachers (c), by 56/100,000 persons per 14 days (students: 95% CI 47.7 to 63.4; teachers: 95% CI 39.6 to 71.6; p < 0.001) and by 29.8% (95% CI 25% to 35%, p < 0.001) and 24.3% (95% CI 13% to 36%, p < 0.001) relative to the population, respectively, as were reduced attendance and higher vaccination coverage. The contribution of contacts in schools to population cases (d) was 2% to 20%, lowest during school closures/vacation and peaked during normal presence class intervals, with the overall peak early during the omicron wave. Limitations include underdetection, misclassification of contacts, interviewer/interviewee dependence of contact-tracing, and lack of individual-level confounding factors in aggregate data regression analysis. CONCLUSION: In this study, we observed that open schools under hygiene measures and testing strategies contributed up to 20% of population infections during the omicron wave early 2022, and as little as 2% during vacations/school closures; about a third of students and teachers were infected during the omicron wave in early 2022 in Germany. Mandatory mask wearing during class in all school types and reduced attendance models were associated with a reduced infection risk in schools.

Viral Load Dynamics in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Breakthrough Infections.

To determine viral dynamics in Omicron breakthrough infections, we measured severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 RNA in 206 double-vaccinated or boostered individuals. During the first 3 days following the onset of symptoms, viral loads were significantly higher (cycle threshold [Ct], 21.76) in vaccinated compared to boostered (Ct, 23.14) individuals (P = .029). However, by performing a longitudinal analysis on 32 individuals over 14 days, no difference in the viral load trajectory was observed between double-vaccinated and boostered patients. Our results indicate that booster immunization results in a reduction in detectable viral loads without significantly changing viral load dynamics over time.

Results of the Cologne Corona surveillance (CoCoS) study - a prospective population-based cohort study: incidence data and potential underestimation of new SARS-CoV-2 adult infections by health authorities.

BACKGROUND: Current incidence estimates of SARS-CoV-2 in Germany rely to a large extent on case notifications. However, the large number of mild or asymptomatic infections is likely to result in underestimation. Population-based studies can provide valid estimates of the SARS-CoV-2 incidence and thus support health authorities to monitor the epidemiological situation and to initiate, maintain, strengthen or relax effective countermeasures. METHODS: This study was conducted in Cologne, Germany. Six-thousand randomly drawn Cologne residents, 18 years of age or older, were contacted by mail in March 2021. Study envelopes contained a kit for self-administered saliva sample and access details to a questionnaire on sociodemographic characteristics, previous positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR and completed COVID-19 vaccinations. Participants were again invited for a second round in June 2021, while those who declined participation were replaced by additional randomly drawn Cologne residents in order to reach a total of 6000 potential participants again. The saliva samples were sent to the laboratory by mail and tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-qPCR. The incidence estimates were adjusted for sensitivity and specificity of the test procedure and compared with the official numbers of new SARS-CoV-2 cases in the adult Cologne population. RESULTS: The first surveillance round in March 2021 (response rate: 34.08%, N = 2045) showed a SARS-CoV-2 seven-day incidence of 85 cases per 100,000 adult Cologne residents (95% CI: 9 to 319). In the same period, the officially registered cases were 125 per 100,000. The second surveillance round in June 2021 (response rate: 36.53%, N = 2192) showed a seven-day incidence of 27 per 100,000 adult Cologne residents (95% CI: 1 to 142), while the official figures for newly registered SARS-CoV-2 cases in the same period were 15 per 100,000. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence estimates do not indicate relevant underestimation of new SARS-CoV-2 infections based on case notification. Regular use of the surveillance method developed here may nevertheless complement the efforts of the health authorities to assess the epidemiological situation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS.de, German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), Identifier: DRKS00024046 , Registered on 25 February 2021.

Effective high-throughput RT-qPCR screening for SARS-CoV-2 infections in children.

Systematic SARS-CoV-2 testing is a valuable tool for infection control and surveillance. However, broad application of high sensitive RT-qPCR testing in children is often hampered due to unpleasant sample collection, limited RT-qPCR capacities and high costs. Here, we developed a high-throughput approach ('Lolli-Method') for SARS-CoV-2 detection in children, combining non-invasive sample collection with an RT-qPCR-pool testing strategy. SARS-CoV-2 infections were diagnosed with sensitivities of 100% and 93.9% when viral loads were >106 copies/ml and >103 copies/ml in corresponding Naso-/Oropharyngeal-swabs, respectively. For effective application of the Lolli-Method in schools and daycare facilities, SEIR-modeling indicated a preferred frequency of two tests per week. The developed test strategy was implemented in 3,700 schools and 698 daycare facilities in Germany, screening over 800,000 individuals twice per week. In a period of 3 months, 6,364 pool-RT-qPCRs tested positive (0.64%), ranging from 0.05% to 2.61% per week. Notably, infections correlated with local SARS-CoV-2 incidences and with a school social deprivation index. Moreover, in comparison with the alpha variant, statistical modeling revealed a 36.8% increase for multiple (≥2 children) infections per class following infections with the delta variant. We conclude that the Lolli-Method is a powerful tool for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance and can support infection control in schools and daycare facilities.

Determining the reliability of rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection in fully vaccinated individuals

Background Rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) are commonly used as SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests both by medical professionals and laypeople. However, the performance of RADT in vaccinated individuals has not been fully investigated. Objectives RT-qPCR and rapid antigen detection testing were performed to evaluate the performance of the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag Test in detecting SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in vaccinated individuals. Study design Two swab specimens, one for RT-qPCR and one for RADT, were collected from vaccinated individuals in an outpatient clinic. For comparison of RADT performance in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, a dataset already published by this group was used as reference. Results A total of 696 samples were tested with both RT-qPCR and RADT that included 692 (99.4%) samples from vaccinated individuals. Of these, 76 (11.0%) samples were detected SARS-CoV-2 positive by RT-qPCR and 45 (6.5%) samples by the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test. Stratified by Ct values, sensitivity of the RADT was 100.0%, 94.4% and 81.1% for Ct ≤ 20 (n=18), Ct ≤ 25 (n=36) and Ct ≤ 30 (n=53), respectively. Samples with Ct values ≥ 30 (n=23) were not detected. Overall RADT specificity was 99.7% and symptom status did not affect RADT performance. Notably, RADT detected 4 out of 4 samples of probable Omicron variant infection based on single nucleotide polymorphism analysis. Conclusion Our results show that RADT testing remains a valuable tool in detecting breakthrough infections with high viral RNA loads.

Determining the reliability of rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection in fully vaccinated individuals.

BACKGROUND: Rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) are commonly used as SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests both by medical professionals and laypeople. However, the performance of RADT in vaccinated individuals has not been fully investigated. OBJECTIVES: RT-qPCR and rapid antigen detection testing were performed to evaluate the performance of the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag Test in detecting SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in vaccinated individuals. STUDY DESIGN: Two swab specimens, one for RT-qPCR and one for RADT, were collected from vaccinated individuals in an outpatient clinic. For comparison of RADT performance in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, a dataset already published by this group was used as reference. RESULTS: During the delta wave, a total of 696 samples were tested with both RT-qPCR and RADT that included 692 (99.4%) samples from vaccinated individuals. Of these, 76 (11.0%) samples were detected SARS-CoV-2 positive by RT-qPCR and 45 (6.5%) samples by the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test. Stratified by Ct values, sensitivity of the RADT was 100.0%, 94.4% and 81.1% for Ct ≤ 20 (n=18), Ct ≤ 25 (n=36) and Ct ≤ 30 (n=53), respectively. Samples with Ct values ≥ 30 (n=23) were not detected. Overall RADT specificity was 99.7% and symptom status did not affect RADT performance. Notably, RADT detected 4 out of 4 samples of probable Omicron variant infection based on single nucleotide polymorphism analysis. CONCLUSION: Our results show that RADT testing remains a valuable tool in detecting breakthrough infections with high viral RNA loads.

Progress feedback in children and adolescents with internalizing and externalizing symptoms in routine care (OPTIE study): study protocol of a randomized parallel-group trial.

BACKGROUND: Progress feedback provides therapists with progress notes on a regular basis through the continuous assessment of participants throughout their treatment (e.g., symptoms, therapeutic alliance). While for adults the evidence base has increased over the years, progress feedback in the therapy of children and adolescents has not been sufficiently investigated. This manuscript describes the trial protocol of the OPTIE study: a randomized trial that tests the efficacy of a progress feedback system in children and adolescents under conditions of routine care. METHODS: The study is based on a randomized parallel-group trial with two treatment groups (routine, feedback) at an outpatient unit of a university hospital. The target sample size is 439 families consisting of children and adolescents aged 6 to17 years old with internalizing and/or externalizing symptoms. Both the patients and the therapists are independently assigned to the treatment groups by stratified block randomization. In both treatment groups patients receive routine care behavioral therapy for a study-related 12 months; additionally, in the feedback group, a progress feedback system with three components is applied (monitoring, report, and supervision). For three informants (caregiver, child [≥ 11 years], therapist) surveys are conducted every 6 weeks (e.g., symptoms, goals, motivation). For both treatment groups, comparison data is collected at baseline and at six and 12 months after the beginning of the intervention (pre, inter, post), and includes five informants (blinded clinician, therapist, caregiver, child [≥ 11 years], teacher). DISCUSSION: The OPTIE study will contribute to the evidence base of progress feedback in children and adolescents and has the potential to uncover treatments' effects in the small to medium range. Noteworthy features are the inclusion of children younger than 10 years old and the consideration of a blinded clinician rating. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) DRKS00016737 ( https://www.drks.de/DRKS00016737 ). Registered 17 September, 2019.

Mobile PCR-based surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 to reduce visiting restrictions in nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: Residents in nursing homes for the elderly (NH) are at high risk for death from COVID-19. We investigated whether repeated non-mandatory RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 surveillance of NH staff and visitors reduces COVID-19 incidence rates in NH residents and allows to reduce visiting restrictions. METHODS: This pilot study at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic compared a surveillance approach of regular, twice-weekly voluntary PCR testing of health-care workers (HCW) and visitors in interventional NH (INH) with a setting without regular testing in control NH (CNH). Residents were not tested routinely within this study. Testing was performed in a mobile testing site with same-day result reporting. SARS-CoV-2 incidence among residents in both INH and CNH was the primary endpoint; secondary endpoints being SARS-CoV-2 infection among visitors and HCW in INH. RESULTS: Two INH and two CNH participated between October and December, 2020. At INH1, 787 tests of HCW and 350 tests of visitors were performed, accounting for 18.1% (n = 1930) of visits. At INH2, 78 tests of HCW and 372 tests of visitors were done, i.e., 30.5% (n = 1220) of visits. At the two INH 23 HCW and three visitors tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 outbreaks occurred among residents in INH1 (identified through study testing) and in CNH1. Utilization of voluntary testing was low. CONCLUSION: In a real-world setting without available rapid testing, voluntary RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 testing of HCW and visitors does not prevent COVID-19 outbreaks in NH. Complete, non-selective testing for these groups should be instituted before visiting restrictions can be reduced. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier: NCT04933981.

Protocol of the Cologne Corona Surveillance (CoCoS) Study- a prospective population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance strategies are critical to cope with the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and to evaluate, as well as adjust government-imposed countermeasures. Incidence estimates are widely based on laboratory confirmed cases reported by health authorities. Prevalence and incidence data of SARS-CoV-2 is still scarce, along with demographic and behavioural factors associated with infection risk. METHODS: The Cologne Corona Surveillance Study will be conducted in the City of Cologne, which is the fourth-largest city in Germany with a population of approximately 1.1 million. Researchers will apply self-sampling surveillance to a rolling cohort of Cologne residents. Random samples of 6000 Cologne residents 18 years of age and older will be drawn from the registration office. Upon receiving the information and saliva sample kit, participants will be asked to fill out a questionnaire online or via phone, sign written informed consent, and send back written consent, as well as saliva sample. The saliva samples will be tested for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse PCR. The questionnaire will be administered to gather information about personal characteristics such as health status and risks. A second round of testing will take place 6 weeks after the first. DISCUSSION: Self-administered saliva sampling proved to be a legitimate and feasible alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs taken by health professionals. However, it is unclear whether the targeted response rate of 40% can be achieved and whether the results are representative of the population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS.de, German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), Identifier: DRKS00024046 , Registered on 25 February 2021.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Urologists in Germany.

BACKGROUND: In order to contain the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, Germany has implemented drastic restrictions on public or social life, while health institutions are invoked to postpone elective procedures. Although urologists are less involved in the direct treatment of COVID-19 patients, the current situation strongly affects the urological work routine. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on various aspects of work and personal life among urologists in Germany. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 589 urologists in Germany participated in an online survey between March 27 and April 11, 2020. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Participants were stratified into subgroups according to professional characteristics. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Most urologists rated Germany as "well prepared" and the increasing restrictions of social life as "very positive." Routine operation was more restricted in hospitals than in the outpatient sector (p = 0.046). Moreover, urologists from the outpatient sector felt significantly less prepared for the COVID-19 pandemic (p = 0.001), reported a higher shortage of protective medical equipment (p < 0.001), and described a tendency toward a higher level of threat (p = 0.054). Although restrictions regarding telemedicine approaches were reported by 60% of participants, the outpatient sector used telehealth more frequently than hospitals (25.5% vs 17.0%, p < 0.001). Limitations include the national design and the restricted survey period. CONCLUSIONS: This survey systematically evaluates the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on personal and professional aspects of German urologists. We identified several issues, such as a higher shortage of medical protective equipment in the outpatient sector that could trigger specific measures to further improve the quality of urological care in Germany. PATIENT SUMMARY: We evaluated a potential impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on professional and personal aspects of the urologists in Germany. Our results suggest that the outpatient sector should receive specific attention as, for example, shortage of protective equipment was more common.

Perception of the 2020 SARS-CoV-2 pandemic among medical professionals in Germany: results from a nationwide online survey.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic represents an unprecedented global challenge and implicates a wide range of burden on medical professionals. Here, we evaluated the perception of the COVID-19 pandemic among medical professionals in Germany. Methods: A total of n = 2827 medical professionals participated in an online survey between 27 March and 11 April. Results: While most participants stated that Germany was well prepared and rated the measures taken by their employer as positive, subgroup analyses revealed decisive differences. The preventive measures were rated significantly worse by nurses compared to doctors (p < 0.001) and by participants from ambulatory healthcare centres compared to participants from maximum-care hospitals (p < 0.001). Importantly, shortage of protective medical equipment was reported more commonly in the ambulatory sector (p < 0.001) and in East German federal states (p = 0.004). Moreover, the majority of health care professionals (72.4%) reported significant restrictions of daily work routine. Finally, over 60% of medical professionals had concerns regarding their own health, which were more pronounced among female participants (p = 0.024). Conclusion: This survey may indicate starting points on how medical professionals could be supported in carrying out their important activities during the ongoing and future healthcare challenges.