Feasibility of self-organized blood sample collection in adults for study purposes in a primary care setting.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic situation poses new challenges for research. Ethical issues might arise if especially vulnerable individuals for severe COVID-19 course expose themselves because of participation in studies to a higher risk of infection for study purposes. How is the feasibility and acceptance of self-organized blood sample collections to measure anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG antibodies in persons with a high risk for a severe COVID-19 disease progression? METHODS: Persons with a high risk for a severe COVID-19 disease progression (immunocompromised, oncology patients or over 80 years old) were recruited between January and September 2021 to send in blood samples (at least 500 µl) 1 month and 6 months after second COVID-19 vaccination. Participants were given the choice of drawing capillary or venous blood themselves or having blood drawn by health professionals belonging to either the study's own research team or the personnel found in local practices or clinics. Participants were surveyed via a telephone interview in December 2021 and January 2022 about their choice of blood sampling methods and influence of blood collection choice upon study participation. RESULTS: Data from 360 participants was collected via telephone follow-up. First blood samples were collected by the participants themselves (35.8%), local practices or clinics (31.9%) and the research team (22.5%). Second blood samples were mostly collected in local practices or clinics (35.6%) followed by participants themselves (25.9%) and the research team (11.5%). Blood samples were not collected in 2.5% and 19.1% of persons during first and second blood draw, respectively. Only 2% of blood samples did not reach the laboratory or were not analyzable. About one-fourth (26%) of participants stated that they would not have participated in the study if it would have been required to travel to the university hospital to give their blood sample. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were able to self-organize blood collection, making use of several different blood sample methods. Nearly all blood samples were analyzable when self-collected and sent in by post. One-fourth of the participants would not have participated in the study if required to give their blood sample in the study location. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trial Registry, DRKS00021152.

Focusing on severe infections with the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in adults: Risk factors, symptomatology and clinical course compared to influenza A / B and the original SARS-CoV-2 strain.

BACKGROUND: The role and impact of RSV in the adult population is not well understood and comparative data of RSV infection, influenza A/B and SARS-CoV-2 in the elderly hospitalized for respiratory infections is limited. METHODS: In a retrospective, monocentric study we analyzed data of adult patients with respiratory infections tested positive by PCR for RSV, Influenza A/B and SARS-CoV-2 over a four-year period from 2017 to 2020. Symptoms on admission, laboratory results, and risk factors were assessed, and the clinical course and outcomes were studied. RESULTS: A total of 1541 patients hospitalized with respiratory disease and PCR positive for one of the 4 viruses were enrolled in the study. RSV was the second most prevalent virus before the COVID-19 pandemic and RSV patients represent the oldest group in this study with an average age of 75 years. Neither clinical nor laboratory characteristics differ clearly between RSV, Influenza A / B and SARS-CoV-2 infections. Up to 85% of patients had risk factors, with COPD and kidney disease found particularly frequently in RSV infections. Hospital stay was 12.66 days for RSV patients and thus significantly longer than for influenza A / B (10.88 and 8.86, respectively, p < 0.001), but shorter than for SARS-CoV-2 (17.87 days, p < 0.001). The risk for ICU admission and the rate of mechanical ventilation were also higher for RSV than for influenza A (OR 1.69 (p = 0.020) and 1.59 (p = 0.050)) and influenza B: (1.98 (p = 0.018) and 2.33 (p < 0.001)), but lower than for SARS-CoV-2 (0.65 (p < 0.001) and 0.59 (p = 0.035)). The risk of hospital mortality for RSV was increased compared with influenza A (1.55 (p = 0.050)) and influenza B (1.42 (p = 0.262)), but lower compared to SARs-CoV-2 (0.37 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: RSV infections in elderly are frequent and more severe than those with influenza A/B. While the impact of SARS-CoV-2 most likely decreased in the elderly population due to vaccination, RSV can be expected to continue to be problematic for elderly patients, especially those with comorbidities and thus, more awareness on the disastrous impact of RSV in this age group is urgently needed.

Social participation and mental health of immunocompromised individuals before and after COVID-19 vaccination-Results of a longitudinal observational study over three time points.

Introduction: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impacted how people perform their daily lives in manifold and sometimes massive ways. Particularly, individuals who are at high risk for a severe disease progression, like immunocompromised people, may have experienced drastic changes in social participation during the pandemic. A COVID-19 basic vaccination may have changed the safety behavior of immunocompromised individuals in terms of infection risk and thereby influence social participation and mental wellbeing. Methods: This study aims to investigate self-perceived social participation at baseline before and at follow-up 1 and 6 months after basic vaccination. Beginning in March 2021, 274 immunocompromised persons 18 years or older were enrolled in the COVID-19 Contact Immune study (CoCo study) in Lower Saxony, Germany. Measurements were performed at three time points regarding social participation [Index for the Assessment of Health Impairments (IMET)], mental health [Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4)], subjective health status (five-point Likert-scale) and quality of life (five-point Likert-scale). Results: In total, 126 participants were included in the final analysis. About 60% of the participants showed increasing social participation over time. The greatest increase in social participation was observed within the first month after basic vaccination (p < 0.001). During the following 5 months, social participation remained stable. The domains "social activities," "recreation and leisure" and "close personal relationships" were responsible for the overall change in social participation. No association was found between social participation and mental health, sociodemographic or medical factors (except hypertension). Discussion: It is unclear why social participation increased after basic vaccination. Perceived vaccine efficacy and a feeling of being protected by the vaccine may have caused relaxed social distancing behaviors. Reducing safety behaviors may, however, increase the risk of a COVID-19 infection for immunocompromised individuals. Further investigations are needed to explore the health-related consequences of more social participation among immunocompromised persons.

Long-term Consequences of COVID-19 and the Pandemic: Protocol for a Web-Based, Longitudinal Observational Study (DEFEAT).

BACKGROUND: With population-wide vaccination availability, the global COVID-19 pandemic entered a new phase. Despite vaccination status, some people who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 experience long-term symptoms. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aim to characterize the long-term effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the pandemic. We also aim to build symptom clusters and determine risk factors for developing long COVID symptoms. Furthermore, we assess social participation and health-related quality of life in patients with long COVID and in the general population during a global pandemic. METHODS: With a mixed-methods, web-based approach, we aim to recruit 2000 people in Germany who are older than 18 years and can provide informed consent. In the quantitative arm of the study, we identify symptoms of and predictive factors for long COVID manifestations with cluster analysis and assess social participation during the pandemic with standardized questionnaires. The qualitative arm of the study uses individual interviews and focus group discussions to better understand the illness experience of persons who experience long COVID. RESULTS: Recruitment started in September 2021. Up until July 2022, we recruited approximately 4500 participants via our web-based database. CONCLUSIONS: This study aims to build an innovative, patient-centered, web-based research platform appropriate for the pandemic by minimizing physical contact between study personnel and participants. All study activities are designed to better understand the long COVID syndrome, social participation during the pandemic, and the illness experiences of persons affected by long COVID. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trial Registry DRKS00026007; https://tinyurl.com/yh282fkt. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/38718.

The Impact of COVID-19 Vaccination on the Social Participation of Immunocompromised Persons - Results of a Multicenter Observational Study.

Immunocompromised persons are at an increased risk for a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection and their safety behaviors may influence their social participation. Vaccinated persons have a lower incidence of infection and severe disease when infected compared to non-vaccinated persons. Therefore, their behavior may change and their social participation may increase after a complete vaccination. The aim of this study was to explore social participation of immunocompromised persons before and after complete COVID-19 vaccination. Between March and September 2021, 274 immunocompromised participants were recruited. Survey data were collected at baseline and follow-up from 194 participants including the Index for the Assessment of Health Impairments [IMET], Patient Health Questionnaire-4 [PHQ-4], subjective health status and quality of life. At baseline, participants were not yet completely vaccinated. Complete vaccination was achieved prior to the follow-up questionnaire. IMET scores decreased significantly at follow-up, indicating a higher social participation after complete vaccination. PHQ-4, subjective health status and quality of life did not differ between baseline and follow-up. There were no significant differences across sociodemographic factors. Significant PHQ-4 differences were observed regarding the population size of the participants' home community. Social participation of immunocompromised persons in our study increased after COVID-19 vaccination. Therefore, social participation should be explored further, especially with regards to the impact of vaccination on groups with a high health risk.

Who is pausing immunosuppressive medication for COVID-19 vaccination? Results of an exploratory observational trial.

BACKGROUND: The influence of immunosuppressive therapy on immunogenicity after COVID-19 vaccination remains unclear. This study surveys patients who receive immunosuppressive therapy about whether or not they paused their immunosuppressive medication while receiving SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, immunosuppressed participants were asked by phone and email about their medication before and during vaccination and who-if anyone-advised them to pause their medication. In addition, a baseline paper-based questionnaire contributes general characteristics regarding age, gender, immunosuppressive medication(s) and the chronic disease(s) requiring immunosuppressive therapy. RESULTS: Of 207 surveyed participants, 59 persons (28.5%) paused their immunosuppressive medication before/during vaccination. Persons with rheumatic conditions and women were significantly more likely to pause immunosuppressive therapy than others. Over half of those who paused their medication reported receiving a recommendation from their specialist and 22.0% (13 of 59) decided to pause medication themselves without consulting a physician in advance. CONCLUSIONS: Besides lack of evidence, many immunosuppressed individuals and their treating physicians choose to pause medication before COVID-19 vaccination and accepting the risk of worsening their underlying disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00023972, registered 12/30/2020.

Self-reported Tinnitus and Vertigo or Dizziness in a Cohort of Adult Long COVID Patients.

Tinnitus, vertigo and dizziness are symptoms commonly reported among Long and Post COVID patients, however the severity of these symptoms has not been assessed in large trials. Therefore, in this study a large cohort of Long COVID patients was surveyed about the presence and severity of tinnitus and vertigo or dizziness symptoms. The online survey was completed by a German cohort of 1,082 adult Long COVID patients after a mean period of 43.2 weeks ± 23.4 weeks after infection. Eighty percent were not fully vaccinated (at least two vaccinations) at the time of their first COVID symptoms and 9.8% were hospitalized in the course of their acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. At the time of the survey, 60% of patients reported the presence of vertigo or dizziness with a mean severity of 4.6 ± 2.7 on a scale of 1 (least severe) to 10 (most severe) and 30% complained of tinnitus with a mean severity of 4.8 ± 3.0. Approximately one fifth of the participants with tinnitus and vertigo or dizziness, rated their symptoms to be severe. The data shown in this study confirms that tinnitus and vertigo or dizziness are common symptoms in Long COVID patients and demonstrates, that a compelling number of patients rate their symptoms as severe. The self-reported severity highlights the need for Long COVID clinics to address these symptoms effectively. We suggest a multidisciplinary diagnostic and therapeutic approach to prevent further morbidity and socioeconomic burden for Long COVID patients suffering from severe vertigo, dizziness or tinnitus.

SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses in elderly and immunosuppressed participants and patients with hematologic disease or checkpoint inhibition in solid tumors: study protocol of the prospective, observational CoCo immune study.

BACKGROUND: Immunocompromised people (ICP) and elderly individuals (older than 80 years) are at increased risk for severe coronavirus infections. To protect against serious infection with SARS-CoV-2, ICP are taking precautions that may include a reduction of social contacts and participation in activities which they normally enjoy. Furthermore, for these people, there is an uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the vaccination. The COVID-19 Contact (CoCo) Immune study strives to characterize the immune response to COVID-19 vaccination in immunocompromised, elderly people, and patients with hematological or oncological diseases. The study uses blood-based screenings to monitor the humoral and cellular immune response in these groups after vaccination. Questionnaires and qualitative interviews are used to describe the level of social participation. METHODS: The CoCo Immune Study is a mixed methods prospective, longitudinal, observational study at two large university hospitals in Northern Germany. Starting in March 2021, it monitors anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune responses and collects information on social participation in more than 600 participants, at least 18 years old. Inclusion criteria and subcohorts: Participants with (1) regularly intake of immunosuppressive medication (ICP-cohort) or (2) age ≥ 80 years (80 + -cohort). Additionally, patients with current or former (3) myeloid, (4) lymphatic disease or (5) solid tumor under checkpoint inhibition (3-5: HO-cohort). EXCLUSION CRITERIA: (1) refusal to give informed consent, (2) contraindication to blood testing, (3) inability to declare consent. Participants complete a questionnaire at four different time points: prior to full vaccination, and 1, 6 and 12 months after completed vaccination. In addition, participants draw blood samples themselves or through a local health care provider and send them with their questionnaires per post at the respective time points after vaccination. Patients of the HO cohort dispense additional blood samples at week 3 to 12 and at month 6 to 9 after 2nd vaccination to gain additional knowledge in B and T cell responses. Selected participants are invited to qualitative interviews about social participation. DISCUSSION: This observational study is designed to gain insight into the immune response of people with weakened immune systems and to find out how social participation is affected after COVID-19 vaccination. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with German Clinical Trial Registry (registration number: DRKS00023972) on 30th December 2020.

Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Adaptation to Available Cellular Proteases.

Recent emergence of SARS-CoV-1 variants demonstrates the potential of this virus for targeted evolution, despite its overall genomic stability. Here we show the dynamics and the mechanisms behind the rapid adaptation of SARS-CoV-2 to growth in Vero E6 cells. The selective advantage for growth in Vero E6 cells is due to increased cleavage efficiency by cathepsins at the mutated S1/S2 site. S1/S2 site also constitutes a heparan sulfate (HS) binding motif that influenced virus growth in Vero E6 cells, but HS antagonist did not inhibit virus adaptation in these cells. The entry of Vero E6-adapted virus into human cells is defective because the mutated spike variants are poorly processed by furin or TMPRSS2. Minor subpopulation that lack the furin cleavage motif in the spike protein rapidly become dominant upon passaging through Vero E6 cells, but wild type sequences are maintained at low percentage in the virus swarm and mediate a rapid reverse adaptation if the virus is passaged again on TMPRSS2+ human cells. Our data show that the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 can rapidly adapt itself to available proteases and argue for deep sequence surveillance to identify the emergence of novel variants. IMPORTANCE Recently emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants B.1.1.7 (alpha variant), B.1.617.2 (delta variant), and B.1.1.529 (omicron variant) harbor spike mutations and have been linked to increased virus pathogenesis. The emergence of these novel variants highlights coronavirus adaptation and evolution potential, despite the stable consensus genotype of clinical isolates. We show that subdominant variants maintained in the virus population enable the virus to rapidly adapt to selection pressure. Although these adaptations lead to genotype change, the change is not absolute and genomes with original genotype are maintained in the virus swarm. Thus, our results imply that the relative stability of SARS-CoV-2 in numerous independent clinical isolates belies its potential for rapid adaptation to new conditions.

SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Testing - How to Increase the Positive Predictive Value.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing COVID-19 infection rates, low overall prevalence resulting in a poor positive predictive value (PPV) of serological tests requires strategies to increase specificity. We therefore investigated a dual diagnostic strategy and evaluated the correlation between the severity of a SARS-CoV-2 infection and the detectable immune-response. METHODS: Participants were systematically categorized into positive and control cohorts and a probability score of COVID-19 was calculated based on clinical symptoms. Six hundred eighty-two serum samples were analyzed using a highly specific high-throughput system. Combining the serological test result and probability score was performed as a dual diagnostic strategy. RESULTS: Specificity of 99.61% and sensitivity of 86.0% were the basis of our approach. A dual diagnostic strategy led to increased pre-test probability and thus to a test specificity of 100%. In a flu-like symptomatic population, we estimated a COVID-prevalence of 4.79%. Moreover, we detected significantly higher antibody values in patients with fever than without fever. CONCLUSIONS: Based on sensitivity and specificity results of our study being in line with previous findings, we demonstrated a dual assessment strategy including a symptom-based probability score and serological testing to increase the PPV. Moreover, the presence of fever seems to trigger a stronger immune-response.

Risk to Radiology Staff for Occupational COVID-19 Infection in a High-Risk and a Low-Risk Region in Germany: Lessons from the "First Wave". / Risiko radiologischer Mitarbeiter für eine COVID-19-Infektion in einer Hoch- und Niedrigrisikoregion in Deutschland: Lehren aus der "ersten Welle".

PURPOSE: The recent COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an increasing overload of the medical system. Healthcare workers (HCW) in radiology departments are exposed to a high infection risk similar to HCWs in the ICU or dedicated COVID wards. The goal of our paper is to evaluate the prevalence of IgG antibody against SARS-CoV-2 among radiology HCWs in two different hospitals and regions in Germany with a low and high COVID-19 prevalence and to compare it to the prevalence in other clinical personnel. Additionally, we assessed the number of radiological procedures performed in patients with a positive PCR test (C+) followed by a short review of the risk for nosocomial infections of radiology HCWs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During the first COVID-19 wave between March and July 2020, we evaluated a region with one of the highest COVID-19 rates (776-1570/100 000) in Germany (Hospital A). Additionally, we assessed Hospital B in a region with a low prevalence (65/100 000). We tested the serum prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies among the whole staff with a subgroup analysis for radiology in both hospitals. We calculated the total number of different radiological procedures performed in C+ patients. RESULTS: In Hospital A 594 PCR-proven C+ patients were treated resulting in 2723 radiological procedures. 24 % (n = 6) of the radiology technicians and 13.35 (n = 2) of radiologists had a positive IgG test. The rates were similar to positive rates in HCWs in COVID-19 wards and ICUs within the hospital. The most frequently performed procedures in C+ patients were chest X-rays (3.17/patient) and CT examinations (1.15/patient). In Hospital B 50 C+ patients were treated, resulting in 64 radiological procedures. None of the HCWs tested IgG positive. The most frequently performed examinations were also chest X-rays (1.04/patient) and CT (0.2/patient). CONCLUSION: HCWs in radiology have a high occupational infection risk similar to that of HCWs in ICUs and dedicated COVID wards. KEY POINTS: · The risk of acquiring COVID-19 increases with the amount of contact with infected individuals.. · The occupational risk of a SARS-CoV-2 infection for radiology staff is similar to that of nurses and physicians in COVID wards.. · Hygiene concepts and medical resources have to be adapted for further COVID outbreaks.. · Reporting of an occupational disease can be considered in the case of seropositive staff.. CITATION FORMAT: · Finkenzeller T, Lenhart S, Reinwald M et al. Risk to Radiology Staff for Occupational COVID-19 Infection in a High-Risk and a Low-Risk Region in Germany: Lessons from the "First Wave". Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 537 - 543.

Effect of a strict hygiene bundle for the prevention of nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the hospital: a practical approach from the field.

BACKGROUND: During the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic it is crucial for hospitals to implement infection prevention strategies to reduce nosocomial transmission to the lowest possible number. This is all the more important because molecular tests for identifying SARS-CoV-2 infected patients are uncertain, and the resources available for them are limited. In this view, a monocentric, retrospective study with an interventional character was conducted to investigate the extent to which the introduction of a strict hygiene bundle including a general mask requirement and daily screening for suspicious patients has an impact on the SARS-CoV-2 nosocomial rate in the pandemic environment. METHODS: All inpatients from a maximum care hospital in Regensburg (Bavaria) between March 1st and June 10th 2020 were included. Patient with respiratory symptoms were tested for SARS-CoV-2 at admission, patients were managed according to a standard hygiene protocol. At the end of March a strict hygiene bundle was introduced including a general mask obligation and a daily clinical screening of inpatients for respiratory symptoms. Nosocomial infection rate for COVID-19 and the risk for infection transmission estimated by the nosocomial incidence density before and after introduction the hygiene bundle were compared. The infection pressure for the hospital during the entire observational period was characterized by the infection reports in the region in relation to the number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients and the number of infected employees. RESULTS: In fact, after the introduction of a strict hygiene bundle including a general mouth and nose protection obligation and a daily clinical screening of suspicious patients, a significant reduction of the nosocomial rate from 0.28 to 0.06 (p = 0.026) was observed. Furthermore, the risk of spreading hospital-acquired infections also decreased dramatically from 0.0007 to 0.00018 (p = 0.031; rate ratio after/before 0.25 (95%CI 0.06, 1.07) despite a slow decrease of the hospital COVID 19-prevalence and an increase of infected employees. CONCLUSION: The available data underline that a strict hygiene bundle seem to be associated with a decrease of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the pandemic situation.

Results of the first pilot external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for anti-SARS-CoV2-antibody testing.

Objectives Assessment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection prevalence and immunity is cornerstones in the fight against COVID-19 pandemic. For pandemic control, reliable assays for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are required. This pilot external quality assessment (EQA) scheme aimed to independently assess the participants' clinical performance of anti-SARS-CoV-2 testing, to identify shortcomings in clinical practice and to evaluate the suitability of the scheme format. Methods The EQA scheme consisted of eight serum samples with variable reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 intended for the analysis of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (Ig)G, IgA, and IgM antibodies. Laboratories reported: (1) results for each sample and the respective method, (2) raw data from replicate testing of each sample. Results The 16 selected pilot EQA participants reported 294 interpreted results and 796 raw data results from replicate testing. The overall error rate for the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgA, and IgM tests was 2.7, 6.9, and 16.7%, respectively. While the overall diagnostic specificity was rated as very high, sensitivity rates between 67 and 98% indicate considerable quality differences between the manufacturers, especially for IgA and IgM. Conclusions Even the results reported by the small number of participants indicate a very heterogeneous landscape of anti-SARS-CoV-2 serological testing. Differences of available tests and the individual performance of laboratories result in a success rate of 57.1% with one laboratory succeeding for all three antibody-classes. These results are an incentive for laboratories to participate in upcoming open EQA schemes that are needed to achieve a harmonization of test results and to improve serological testing.