Increase in Mental Disorders During the COVID-19 Pandemic-The Role of Occupational and Financial Strains.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have reported an increase in mental disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the exact reasons for this development are not well understood. In this study we investigate whether pandemic-related occupational and financial changes (e.g., reduced working hours, working from home, financial losses) were associated with increased symptoms of depression and anxiety compared with the situation before the pandemic. METHODS: We analyzed data from the German National Cohort (NAKO) Study. Between May and November 2020, 161 849 study participants answered questions on their mental state and social circumstances. Their responses were compared with data from the baseline survey before the pandemic (2014-2019). Linear fixed-effects models were used to determine whether individual changes in the severity of symptoms of depression (PHQ-9) or anxiety (GAD-7) were associated with occupational/ financial changes (controlling for various covariates). RESULTS: The prevalence of moderate or severe symptoms of depression and anxiety increased by 2.4% and 1.5%, respectively, during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the preceding years. The mean severity of the symptoms rose slightly. A pronounced increase in symptoms was observed among those who became unemployed during the pandemic (+ 1.16 points on the depression scale, 95% confidence interval [0.91; 1.41], range 0-27). Increases were also seen for reduced working hours with no short-time allowance, increased working hours, working from home, insecurity regarding employment, and financial strain. The deterioration in mental health was largely statistically explained by the occupational and financial changes investigated in the model. CONCLUSION: Depressive symptoms and anxiety disorders increased slightly in the study population during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Occupational and financial difficulties were an essential contributory factor. These strains should be taken into account both in the care of individual patients and in the planning of targeted prevention measures.

On the gap between objective and perceived risks of COVID-19.

A survey conducted by the German Socio-Economic Panel during the early phase of the SARS-CoV­2 pandemic in spring 2020 showed that the perceived risks of SARS-CoV­2 infection were a massive overestimation of the actual risks. A total of 5783 people (2.3% missing data) stated how likely they thought it was that SARS-CoV­2 would cause a life-threatening illness in them in the next 12 months. The average subjective probability was 26%. We consider how such an overestimation could have occurred and how a more realistic risk assessment could be achieved in the population in a future pandemic. We show that qualitative attributes of the pandemic, the reporting of the media, and psychological features may have contributed to the overestimation of SARS-CoV­2 risks. In its early stages, the SARS-CoV­2 pandemic had qualitative characteristics known to lead to an overestimation of risks: The risks associated with the pandemic were new, unfamiliar, perceived as poorly controllable, and were taken involuntarily. Phenomena known from cognitive psychology such as the availability and anchor heuristics can also explain the overestimation of pandemic risks. Characteristics of media coverage such as the focus on individual fates and the associated neglect of the denominator also contributed to the gap between perceived and objective risk. In a potential future pandemic, people need to be vigilant but not in a panic. Better risk communication-for example, with better prepared figures and graphically presented percentages while avoiding the denominator neglect-could help the population to perceive risks of future pandemics more realistically.

Analysis of fatality impact and seroprevalence surveys in a community sustaining a SARS-CoV-2 superspreading event.

There is an ongoing debate on the COVID-19 infection fatality rate (IFR) and the impact of COVID-19 on overall population mortality. Here, we addressed these issues in a community in Germany with a major superspreader event analyzing deaths over time and auditing death certificates in the community.18 deaths that occurred within the first six months of the pandemic had a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. Six out of 18 deaths had non-COVID-19 related causes of death (COD). Individuals with COVID-19 COD typically died of respiratory failure (75%) and tended to have fewer reported comorbidities (p = 0.029). Duration between first confirmed infection and death was negatively associated with COVID-19 being COD (p = 0.04). Repeated seroprevalence essays in a cross-sectional epidemiological study showed modest increases in seroprevalence over time, and substantial seroreversion (30%). IFR estimates accordingly varied depending on COVID-19 death attribution. Careful ascertainment of COVID-19 deaths is important in understanding the impact of the pandemic.

Leadership program with skills training for general practitioners was highly accepted without improving job satisfaction: the cluster randomized IMPROVEjob study.

Leadership has become an increasingly important issue in medicine as leadership skills, job satisfaction and patient outcomes correlate positively. Various leadership training and physician psychological well-being programmes have been developed internationally, yet no standard is established in primary care. The IMPROVEjob leadership program was developed to improve job satisfaction among German general practitioners and practice personnel. Its acceptance and effectiveness were evaluated. The IMPROVEjob intervention is a participatory, interdisciplinary and multimodal leadership intervention that targets leadership, workflows and communication in general practices using three elements: (1) two leadership workshops with skills training; (2) a toolbox with printed and online material, and (3) a 9-month implementation phase supported by facilitators. A cluster-randomised trial with a waiting-list control evaluated the effectiveness on the primary outcome job satisfaction assessed by the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (range 0-100). A mixed-methods approach with questionnaires and participant interviews evaluated the acceptance of the intervention and factors influencing the implementation of intervention content. Statistical analyses respected the clustered data structure. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated intervention adjustments: online instead of on-site workshops, online material instead of facilitator practice visits. Overall, 52 of 60 practices completed the study, with altogether 70 practice leaders, 16 employed physicians, and 182 practice assistants. According to an intention-to-treat analysis, job satisfaction decreased between baseline and follow-up (not significantly) in the total study population and in both study arms, while the subgroup of practice leaders showed a non-significant increase. A mixed multilevel regression model showed no effect of the intervention on job satisfaction (b = - 0.36, p > 0.86), which was influenced significantly by a greater sense of community (b = 0.14, p < 0.05). The acceptance of the IMPROVEjob workshops was high, especially among practice leaders compared to assistants (1 = best to 5 = worst): skills training 1.78 vs. 2.46, discussions within the practice team 1.87 vs. 2.28, group discussions 1.96 vs. 2.21. The process evaluation revealed that the COVID-19 pandemic complicated change processes and delayed the implementation of intervention content in practice routines. The workshops within the participatory IMPROVEjob intervention were rated very positively but the multimodal intervention did not improve job satisfaction 9 months into the pandemic. Qualitative data showed an impairment of implementation processes by the unforeseeable COVID pandemic.Trial registration Registration number: DRKS00012677 on 16/10/2019.

The GNB3 c.825C>T (rs5443) polymorphism and protection against fatal outcome of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Background and aims: Albeit several factors which influence the outcome of corona virus disease (COVID-19) are already known, genetic markers which may predict the outcome of the disease in hospitalized patients are still very sparse. Thus, in this study, we aimed to analyze whether the single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs5443 in the gene GNB3, which was associated with higher T cell responses in previous studies, might be a suitable biomarker to predict T cell responses and the outcome of COVID-19 in a comprehensive German cohort. Methods: We analyzed the influence of demographics, pre-existing disorders, laboratory parameters at the time of hospitalization, and GNB3 rs5443 genotype in a comprehensive cohort (N = 1570) on the outcome of COVID-19. In a sub cohort, we analyzed SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses and associated GNB3 rs5443 genotypes. We investigated the influence of all factors on COVID-19 fatality in multivariable analysis. Results: We found a younger patient age, normotension or absence of diabetes mellitus or cardiovascular diseases, normal blood cell counts, and low inflammatory markers at hospital admission were protective factors against fatal course of disease. In addition, the rs5443 TT genotype was significantly associated with protection against COVID-19 fatality (OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.40-0.92, p = 0.02). We also observed significantly increased SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses in rs5443 TT genotype carriers (p = 0.01). Although we observed a significant association of the factors described previously in univariate analysis, only a younger age of the patients, normal blood cell counts, and the GNB3 rs5443 TT genotype remained independent predictors against COVID-19 fatality in multivariable analysis. Conclusion: Immutable predictors for COVID-19 fatality are relatively rare. In this study we could show that the TT genotype of the SNP rs5443 in the gene GNB3 is associated with protection against COVID-19 fatality. It was as well correlated to higher SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses, which could result in a milder course of disease in those patients. Based on those observations we hereby provide a further prognostic biomarker, which might be used in routine diagnostics as a predictive factor for COVID-19 mortality already upon hospitalization.

Authors' response: Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany: potential for bias.

We thank van Tongeren et al for responding to our study on occupational disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection risks during the first pandemic wave in Germany (1). The authors address the potential for bias resulting from differential testing between occupational groups and propose an alternative analytical strategy for dealing with selective testing. In the following, we want to discuss two aspects of this issue, namely (i) the extent and reasons of differential testing in our cohort and (ii) the advantages and disadvantages of different analytical approaches to study risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our study relied on nationwide prospective cohort data including more than 100 000 workers in order to compare the incidence of infections between different occupations and occupational status positions. We found elevated infection risks in personal services and business administration, in essential occupations (including health care) and among people in higher occupational status positions (ie, managers and highly skilled workers) during the first pandemic wave in Germany (2). Van Tongeren's et al main concern is that the correlations found could be affected by a systematic bias because people in healthcare professions get tested more often than employees in other professions. A second argument is that better-off people could be more likely to use testing as they are less affected by direct costs (prices for testing) and the economic hardship associated with a positive test result (eg, loss of earnings in the event of sick leave). We share the authors' view that differential testing must be considered when analysing and interpreting the data. Thus, in our study, we examined the proportion of tests conducted in each occupational group as part of the sensitivity analyses (see supplementary figure S1, accessible at www.sjweh.fi/article/4037). As expected, testing proportions were exceptionally high in medical occupations (due to employer requirements). However, we did not observe systematic differences among non-medical occupations or when categorising by skill-level or managerial responsibility. This might be explained by several reasons. First, SARS-CoV-2 testing was free of charge during the first pandemic wave in Germany, but reporting a risk contact or having symptoms was a necessary condition for testing ( https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/coronavirus/chronik-coronavirus.html (accessed 5 September 2022). The newspaper article cited by van Tongeren et al is misleading as it refers to a calendar date after our study period. Second, different motivation for testing due to economic hardship in case of a positive test result is an unlikely explanation, because Germany has a universal healthcare system, including paid sick leave and sickness benefits for all workers (3). Self-employed people carry greater financial risks in case of sickness. We therefore included self-employment in the multivariable analyses to address this potential source of bias. While the observed inverse social gradient may be surprising, it actually matches with findings of ecological studies from Germany (4, 5), the United States (6, 7) as well as Spain, Portugal, Sweden, The Netherlands, Israel, and Hong Kong (8), all of which observed higher infection rates in wealthier neighbourhoods during the initial outbreak phase of the pandemic. One possible explanation is the higher mobility of managers and better educated workers, who are more likely to participate in meetings and engage in business travel and holiday trips like skiing. Given the increasing number of studies providing evidence for this hypothesis, we conclude that the inverse social gradient in our study likely reflects different exposure probabilities and is not a result of systematic bias. This also holds true for the elevated infection risks in essential workers, which is actually corroborated by a large body of research (9-11). Regarding differential likelihood of testing, van Tongeren et al state that "[i]t is relatively simple to address this problem by using a test-negative design" (1). As van Tongeren et al describe, this is a case-control approach only including individuals who were tested (without considering those who were not tested). However, the proposed analytical strategy can lead to another (more serious) selection bias if testing proportions and/or testing criteria differ between groups (12). This can be easily illustrated when comparing the results based on a time-incidence design with those obtained by a test-negative design as shown in table 1 (see PDF). Both approaches show similar results in terms of vertical occupational differences. Infection was more common if individuals had a high skill level or had a managerial position, but associations were stronger in the time-incidence design and did not reach statistical significance in the test-negative design (as indicated by the confidence intervals overlapping "1"). Unfortunately, the test-negative approach relies on a strongly reduced sample size and thus results in greater statistical uncertainty and loss of statistical power (13). In contrast, the test-negative design yields a different picture when estimating the association between essential occupation and infection risk: In this analysis, essential workers did not differ from non-essential workers in their chance of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the test-negative design even exhibits a lower chance for essential workers). This is rather counter-intuitive and is not in accordance with what we know about the occupational hazards of healthcare workers during the pandemic (14). The main problem is that proportions of positive tests are highly unreliable when testing proportions and/or testing criteria differ between groups. As essential workers were tested more often without being symptomatic (due to employer requirements), a lower proportion of positive tests in this group does not necessarily correspond to a lower risk of infection. Consequently, we are not convinced that the test-negative design should be the 'gold standard' for studying risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infections (15). Especially problematic is the loss of statistical power (increasing the probability of a type II error) and the low validity of the test-positivity when test criteria and/or test proportions differ between groups. References 1. van Tongeren M, Rhodes S, Pearce N. Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany: potential for bias. Scand J Work Environ Health 2022;48(7):586-587. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4052. 2. Reuter M, Rigó M, Formazin M, Liebers F, Latza U, Castell S, et al. Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among 108 960 workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany. Scand J Work Environ Health 2022;48:446-56. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4037. 3. Busse R, Blümel M, Knieps F, Bärnighausen T. Statutory health insurance in Germany: a health system shaped by 135 years of solidarity, self-governance, and competition. Lancet 2017;390:882-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31280-1. 4. Wachtler B, Michalski N, Nowossadeck E, Diercke M, Wahrendorf M, Santos-Hövener C, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection - First results from an analysis of surveillance data from Germany. J Heal Monit 2020;5:18-29. https://doi.org/10.25646/7057. 5. Plümper T, Neumayer E. The pandemic predominantly hits poor neighbourhoods? SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 fatalities in German districts. Eur J Public Health 2020;30:1176-80. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa168. 6. Abedi V, Olulana O, Avula V, Chaudhary D, Khan A, Shahjouei S, et al. Racial, Economic, and Health Inequality and COVID-19 Infection in the United States. J Racial Ethn Heal Disparities 2021;8:732-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-020-00833-4. 7. Mukherji N. The Social and Economic Factors Underlying the Incidence of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths in US Counties During the Initial Outbreak Phase. Rev Reg Stud 2022;52. https://doi.org/10.52324/001c.35255. 8. Beese F, Waldhauer J, Wollgast L, Pförtner T, Wahrendorf M, Haller S, et al. Temporal Dynamics of Socioeconomic Inequalities in COVID-19 Outcomes Over the Course of the Pandemic-A Scoping Review. Int J Public Health 2022;67:1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2022.1605128. 9. Nguyen LH, Drew DA, Graham MS, Joshi AD, Guo C-G, Ma W, et al. Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Public Heal 2020;5:e475-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30164-X. 10. Chou R, Dana T, Buckley DI, Selph S, Fu R, Totten AM. Epidemiology of and Risk Factors for Coronavirus Infection in Health Care Workers. Ann Intern Med 2020;173:120-36. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-1632. 11. Stringhini S, Zaballa M-E, Pullen N, de Mestral C, Perez-Saez J, Dumont R, et al. Large variation in anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence among essential workers in Geneva, Switzerland. Nat Commun 2021;12:3455. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23796-4. 12. Accorsi EK, Qiu X, Rumpler E, Kennedy-Shaffer L, Kahn R, Joshi K, et al. How to detect and reduce potential sources of biases in studies of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Eur J Epidemiol 2021;36:179-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00727-7. 13. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Editio. New York: Routledge; 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587. 14. The Lancet. The plight of essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet 2020;395:1587. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31200-9. 15. Vandenbroucke JP, Brickley EB, Pearce N, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CMJE. The Evolving Usefulness of the Test-negative Design in Studying Risk Factors for COVID-19. Epidemiology 2022;33:e7-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001438.

The GNB3 c.825C>T (rs5443) polymorphism and protection against fatal outcome of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Background and aims: Albeit several factors which influence the outcome of corona virus disease (COVID-19) are already known, genetic markers which may predict the outcome of the disease in hospitalized patients are still very sparse. Thus, in this study, we aimed to analyze whether the single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs5443 in the gene GNB3, which was associated with higher T cell responses in previous studies, might be a suitable biomarker to predict T cell responses and the outcome of COVID-19 in a comprehensive German cohort. Methods: We analyzed the influence of demographics, pre-existing disorders, laboratory parameters at the time of hospitalization, and GNB3 rs5443 genotype in a comprehensive cohort (N = 1570) on the outcome of COVID-19. In a sub cohort, we analyzed SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses and associated GNB3 rs5443 genotypes. We investigated the influence of all factors on COVID-19 fatality in multivariable analysis. Results: We found a younger patient age, normotension or absence of diabetes mellitus or cardiovascular diseases, normal blood cell counts, and low inflammatory markers at hospital admission were protective factors against fatal course of disease. In addition, the rs5443 TT genotype was significantly associated with protection against COVID-19 fatality (OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.40–0.92, p = 0.02). We also observed significantly increased SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses in rs5443 TT genotype carriers (p = 0.01). Although we observed a significant association of the factors described previously in univariate analysis, only a younger age of the patients, normal blood cell counts, and the GNB3 rs5443 TT genotype remained independent predictors against COVID-19 fatality in multivariable analysis. Conclusion: Immutable predictors for COVID-19 fatality are relatively rare. In this study we could show that the TT genotype of the SNP rs5443 in the gene GNB3 is associated with protection against COVID-19 fatality. It was as well correlated to higher SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses, which could result in a milder course of disease in those patients. Based on those observations we hereby provide a further prognostic biomarker, which might be used in routine diagnostics as a predictive factor for COVID-19 mortality already upon hospitalization.

Air quality in an air ventilated fitness center reopening for pilot study during COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.

During COVID-19 lockdowns less people were able to fulfill the WHO recommendations on physical activity. Also, fitness centers were associated to SARS-CoV-2 superspreader events. However, the risk of infection can be strongly reduced by outdoor air ventilation. To investigate whether a reopening of fitness centers can be justified, CO 2 concentration was measured during four days in a fitness center. Except for one room, the observed CO 2 concentrations were mainly under 800 ppm, which stands for high air quality. The strong decrease of CO 2 concentration during the 15 min evacuations following each hour of workout, speaks for the functionality of the ventilation system. In particular, the number of people present in the studio has a strong impact on the estimated CO 2 value. In a linear mixed model, an additional CO 2 concentration of 2.24 ppm (95 % confidence interval [2.04, 2.43]) was estimated for this setting with a total volume of 4065 m 3 in the fitness center and a possible air change rate per hour up to 10. This means, that for 45 visitors, 100 ppm can be added to the predicted concentration. To summarize, a combination of ventilation, restriction of the number of visitors and surveying the CO 2 concentration allowing for further restrictions in case of need, seems to be an adequate means to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in fitness centers.

Individuals With Weaker Antibody Responses After Booster Immunization Are Prone to Omicron Breakthrough Infections.

Background: Despite the high level of protection against severe COVID-19 provided by the currently available vaccines some breakthrough infections occur. Until now, there is no information whether a potential risk of a breakthrough infection can be inferred from the level of antibodies after booster vaccination. Methods: Levels of binding antibodies and neutralization capacity after the first, one and six month after the second, and one month after the third (booster) vaccination against COVID-19 were measured in serum samples from 1391 healthcare workers at the University Hospital Essen. Demographics, vaccination scheme, pre-infection antibody titers and neutralization capacity were compared between individuals with and without breakthrough infections. Results: The risk of developing an Omicron breakthrough infection was independent of vaccination scheme, sex, body mass index, smoking status or pre-existing conditions. In participants with low pre-infection anti-spike antibodies (≤ 2641.0 BAU/ml) and weaker neutralization capacity (≤ 65.9%) against Omicron one month after the booster vaccination the risk for developing an Omicron infection was 10-fold increased (P = 0.001; 95% confidence interval, 2.36 - 47.55). Conclusion: Routine testing of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies and surrogate virus neutralization can quantify vaccine-induced humoral immune response and may help to identify subjects who are at risk for a breakthrough infection. The establishment of thresholds for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels identifying "non"-, "low" and "high"-responders may be used as an indication for re-vaccination.

Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among 108 960 workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the occupational risk for a SARS-CoV-2 infection in a nationwide sample of German workers during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (1 February-31 August 2020). METHODS: We used the data of 108 960 workers who participated in a COVID follow-up survey of the German National Cohort (NAKO). Occupational characteristics were derived from the German Classification of Occupations 2010 (Klassifikation der Berufe 2010). PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections were assessed from self-reports. Incidence rates (IR) and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated using robust Poisson regression, adjusted for person-time at risk, age, sex, migration background, study center, working hours, and employment relationship. RESULTS: The IR was 3.7 infections per 1000 workers [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.3-4.1]. IR differed by occupational sector, with the highest rates observed in personal (IR 4.8, 95% CI 4.0-5.6) and business administration (IR 3.4, 95% CI 2.8-3.9) services and the lowest rates in occupations related to the production of goods (IR 2.0, 95% CI 1.5-2.6). Infections were more frequent among essential workers compared with workers in non-essential occupations (IRR 1.95, 95% CI 1.59-2.40) and among highly skilled compared with skilled professions (IRR 1.36, 95% CI 1.07-1.72). CONCLUSIONS: The results emphasize higher infection risks in essential occupations and personal-related services, especially in the healthcare sector. Additionally, we found evidence that infections were more common in higher occupational status positions at the beginning of the pandemic.

Air quality in an air ventilated fitness center reopening for pilot study during COVID-19 pandemic lockdown

During COVID-19 lockdowns less people were able to fulfill the WHO recommendations on physical activity. Also, fitness centers were associated to SARS-CoV-2 superspreader events. However, the risk of infection can be strongly reduced by outdoor air ventilation. To investigate whether a reopening of fitness centers can be justified,  Except for one room, the observed  To summarize, a combination of ventilation, restriction of the number of visitors and surveying the

Dynamics, outcomes and prerequisites of the first SARS-CoV-2 superspreading event in Germany in February 2020: a cross-sectional epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: The first German SARS-CoV-2 outbreak was a superspreading event in Gangelt, North Rhine-Westphalia, during indoor carnival festivities called 'Kappensitzung' (15 February 2020). We determined SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity rate, SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, and analysed the conditions and dynamics of superspreading, including ventilation, setting dimensions, distance from infected persons and behavioural patterns. DESIGN: In a cross-sectional epidemiological study (51 days postevent), participants were asked to give blood, pharyngeal swabs and complete self-administered questionnaires. SETTING: The SARS-CoV-2 superspreading event took place during festivities in the small community of Gangelt in February 2020. This 5-hour event included 450 people (6-79 years of age) in a building of 27 m × 13.20 m × 4.20 m. PARTICIPANTS: Out of 450 event participants, 411 volunteered to participate in this study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: infection status (determined by IgG ELISA). SECONDARY OUTCOME: symptoms (determined by questionnaire). RESULTS: Overall, 46% (n=186/404) of participants had been infected, and their spatial distribution was associated with proximity to the ventilation system (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.25). Risk of infection was highly associated with age: children (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.267 to 0.414) and young adults (age 18-25 years) had a lower risk of infection than older participants (average risk increase of 28% per 10 years). Behavioural differences were also risk associated including time spent outside (OR 0.55, (95% CI 0.33 to 0.91) or smoking (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.124 to 0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underline the importance of proper indoor ventilation for future events. Lower susceptibility of children/young adults indicates their limited involvement in superspreading.

Higher Work-Privacy Conflict and Lower Job Satisfaction in GP Leaders and Practice Assistants Working Full-Time Compared to Part-Time: Results of the IMPROVEjob Study.

BACKGROUND: Work-privacy conflict (WPC) has become an important issue for medical professionals. The cluster-randomized controlled IMPROVEjob study aimed at improving job satisfaction (primary outcome), with additional outcomes such as examining the work-privacy conflict in German general practice personnel. Using baseline data of this study, the relationship between work-privacy conflict and job satisfaction (JS) was analyzed. In addition, factors associated with higher WPC were identified. METHODS: At baseline, 366 participants (general practitioners (GPs) in leadership positions, employed general practitioners, and practice assistants) from 60 German practices completed a questionnaire addressing socio-demographic data and job characteristics. Standardized scales from the German version of the COPSOQ III requested data concerning job satisfaction and work-privacy conflict. Both scores range from 0 (lowest) to 100 (highest). Multilevel analysis accounted for the clustered data. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS and RStudio software, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Job satisfaction was 77.16 (mean value; SD = 14.30) among GPs in leadership positions (n = 84), 79.61 (SD = 12.85) in employed GPs (n = 28), and 72.58 (SD = 14.42) in practice assistants (n = 254). Mean values for the WPC-scale were higher for professionals with more responsibilities: GPs in leadership positions scored highest with 64.03 (SD = 29.96), followed by employed physicians (M = 45.54, SD =30.28), and practice assistants (M = 32.67, SD = 27.41). General practitioners and practice assistants working full-time reported significantly higher work-privacy conflict than those working part-time (p < 0.05). In a multilevel analysis, work-privacy conflict was significantly associated with job satisfaction (p < 0.001). A multiple regression analysis identified working hours, as well as and being a practice owner or an employed physician as factors significantly influencing WPC. DISCUSSION: WPC was high among general practice leaders and practice personnel working full-time. Future interventions to support practice personnel should focus on reducing WPC, as there is good evidence of its effects on job satisfaction.

Discrepancy between frequent occurrence of COVID-19-like symptoms and low seroconversion rates among healthcare workers.

During the first wave of the pandemic, we compared the occurrence of subjectively experienced COVID-19-like symptoms and true severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) seroconversion rates among medical personnel in general practices. This cross-sectional study determined the SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody status of medical staff from 100 outpatient practices in Germany. Study cohort characteristics and COVID-19-like symptoms were obtained by questionnaires. The initial screening for SARS-CoV-2-recognizing antibodies was performed using a commercial chemiluminescence microparticle immunoassay. Positive results were controlled with another approved test. Samples with discrepant results were subjected to a third IgG-binding assay and a neutralization test. A total of 861 participants were included, 1.7% (n = 15) of whom tested positive for SARS-CoV-specific IgG in the initial screening test. In 46.6% (n = 7) of positive cases, test results were confirmed by an independent test. In the eight samples with discrepant results, neither spike-specific antibodies nor in vitro neutralizing capacity were detectable, resulting in a genuine seroprevalence rate of 0.8%. 794 participants completed the questionnaire. Intriguingly, a total of 53.7% (n = 426) of them stated episodes of COVID-19-like symptoms. Except for smell and taste dysfunction, there were no significant differences between the groups with and without laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion. Our results demonstrated that only 0.8% of participants acquired SARS-CoV-2 even though 53.7% of participants reportedly experienced COVID-19-like symptoms. Thus, even among medical staff, self-diagnosis based on subjectively experienced symptoms does not have a relevant predictive value.

Calculating the number of undetected active SARS-CoV-2 infections from results of population-wide antigen tests.

Current European research estimates the number of undetected active SARS-CoV-2 infections (dark figure) to be two- to 130-fold the number of detected cases. We revisited the population-wide antigen tests in Slovakia and South Tyrol and calculated the dark figure of active cases in the vulnerable populations and the number of undetected active cases per detected active case at the time of the population-wide tests. Our analysis follows three steps: using the sensitivities and specificities of the used antigen tests, we first calculated the number of test-positive individuals and the proportion of actual positives in those who participated in the antigen tests. We then calculated the dark figure in the total population of Slovakia and South Tyrol, respectively. Finally, we calculated the ratio of the dark figure in the vulnerable population to the number of newly detected infections through PCR tests. Per one positive PCR result, another 0.15 to 0.71 cases must be added in South Tyrol and 0.01 to 1.25 cases in Slovakia. The dark figure was in both countries lower than assumed by earlier studies.

Excess mortality due to Covid-19? A comparison of total mortality in 2020 with total mortality in 2016 to 2019 in Germany, Sweden and Spain.

INTRODUCTION: Excess mortality is a suitable indicator of health consequences of COVID-19 because death from any cause is clearly defined contrary to death from Covid-19. We compared the overall mortality in 2020 with the overall mortality in 2016 to 2019 in Germany, Sweden and Spain. Contrary to other studies, we also took the demographic development between 2016 and 2020 and increasing life expectancy into account. METHODS: Using death and population figures from the EUROSTAT database, we estimated weekly and cumulative Standardized Mortality Ratios (SMR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the year 2020. We applied two approaches to calculate weekly numbers of death expected in 2020: first, we used mean weekly mortality rates from 2016 to 2019 as expected mortality rates for 2020, and, second, to consider increasing life expectancy, we calculated expected mortality rates for 2020 by extrapolation from mortality rates from 2016 to 2019. RESULTS: In the first approach, the cumulative SMRs show that in Germany and Sweden there was no or little excess mortality in 2020 (SMR = 0.976 (95% CI: 0.974-0.978), and 1.030 (1.023-1.036), respectively), while in Spain the excess mortality was 14.8% (1.148 (1.144-1.151)). In the second approach, the corresponding SMRs for Germany and Sweden increased to 1.009 (1.007-1.011) and 1.083 (1.076-1.090), respectively, whereas results for Spain were virtually unchanged. CONCLUSION: In 2020, there was barely any excess mortality in Germany for both approaches. In Sweden, excess mortality was 3% without, and 8% with consideration of increasing life expectancy.

ACE2 polymorphism and susceptibility for SARS-CoV-2 infection and severity of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: The RNA virus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is responsible for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Cell entry is mediated by the human angiotensin-converting enzyme II (ACE2). ACE2 and its close homolog angiotensin-converting enzyme I (ACE) are currently discussed candidate genes, in which single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) could alter binding or entry of SARS-CoV-2 and enhance tissue damage in the lung or other organs. This could increase the susceptibility for SARS-CoV-2 infection and the severity of COVID-19. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed genotyping of SNPs in the genes ACE2 and ACE in 297 SARS-CoV-2-positive and 253 SARS-CoV-2-negative tested patients. We analyzed the association of the SNPs with susceptibility for SARS-CoV-2 infection and the severity of COVID-19. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2-positive and SARS-CoV-2-negative patients did not differ regarding demographics and clinical characteristics. For ACE2 rs2285666, the GG genotype or G-allele was significantly associated with an almost two-fold increased SARS-CoV-2 infection risk and a three-fold increased risk to develop serious disease or COVID-19 fatality. In contrast, the ACE polymorphism was not related to infection risk or severity of disease. In a multivariable analysis, the ACE2 rs2285666 G-allele remained as an independent risk factor for serious disease besides the known risk factors male gender and cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, our report appears to be the first showing that a common ACE2 polymorphism impacts the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and the course of COVID-19 independently from previously described risk factors.

Transmembrane serine protease 2 Polymorphisms and Susceptibility to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Type 2 Infection: A German Case-Control Study.

The transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) is the major host protease that enables entry of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) into host cells by spike (S) protein priming. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the gene TMPRSS2 have been associated with susceptibility to and severity of H1N1 or H1N9 influenza A virus infections. Functional variants may influence SARS-CoV-2 infection risk and severity of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as well. Therefore, we analyzed the role of SNPs in the gene TMPRSS2 in a German case-control study. We performed genotyping of the SNPs rs2070788, rs383510, and rs12329760 in the gene TMPRSS2 in 239 SARS-CoV-2-positive and 253 SARS-CoV-2-negative patients. We analyzed the association of the SNPs with susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection and severity of COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2-positive and SARS-CoV-2-negative patients did not differ regarding their demographics. The CC genotype of TMPRSS2 rs383510 was associated with a 1.73-fold increased SARS-CoV-2 infection risk, but was not correlated to severity of COVID-19. Neither TMPRSS2 rs2070788 nor rs12329760 polymorphisms were related to SARS-CoV-2 infection risk or severity of COVID-19. In a multivariable analysis (MVA), the rs383510 CC genotype remained an independent predictor for a 2-fold increased SARS-CoV-2 infection risk. In summary, our report appears to be the first showing that the intron variant rs383510 in the gene TMPRSS2 is associated with an increased risk to SARS-CoV-2 infection in a German cohort.