Mental health in Germany in the first weeks of the Russo-Ukrainian war.

BACKGROUND: In the connected world, although societies are not directly involved in a military conflict, they are exposed to media reports of violence. AIMS: We assessed the effects of such exposures on mental health in Germany during the military conflict in Ukraine. METHOD: We used the German population-based cohort for digital health research, DigiHero, launching a survey on the eighth day of the Russo-Ukrainian war. Of the 27 509 cohort participants from the general population, 19 444 (70.7%) responded within 17 days. We measured mental health and fear of the impact of war compared with other fears (natural disasters or health-related). RESULTS: In a subsample of 4441 participants assessed twice, anxiety in the population (measured by the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 screener) was higher in the first weeks of war than during the strongest COVID-19 restrictions. Anxiety was elevated across the whole age spectrum, and the mean was above the cut-off for mild anxiety. Over 95% of participants expressed various degrees of fear of the impact of war, whereas the percentage for other investigated fears was 0.47-0.82. A one-point difference in the fear of the impact of war was associated with a 2.5 point (95% CI 2.42-2.58) increase in anxiety (11.9% of the maximum anxiety score). For emotional distress, the increase was 0.67 points (0.66-0.68) (16.75% of the maximum score). CONCLUSIONS: The population in Germany reacted to the Russo-Ukrainian war with substantial distress, exceeding reactions during the strongest restrictions in the COVID-19 pandemic. Fear of the impact of war was associated with worse mental health.

Liquid biomarkers of macrophage dysregulation and circulating spike protein illustrate the biological heterogeneity in patients with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19.

Post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) are long-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection that can substantially impair quality of life. Underlying mechanisms ranging from persistent virus to innate and adaptive immune dysregulation have been discussed. Here, we profiled plasma of 181 individuals from the cohort study for digital health research in Germany (DigiHero) including individuals after mild to moderate COVID-19 with or without PASC and uninfected controls. We focused on soluble factors related to monocyte/macrophage biology and on circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike (S1) protein as potential biomarker for persistent viral reservoirs. At a median time of eight months after infection, we found pronounced dysregulation in almost all tested soluble factors including both pro-inflammatory and pro-fibrotic cytokines. These immunological perturbations were remarkably independent of ongoing PASC symptoms per se, but further correlation and regression analyses suggested PASC specific patterns involving CCL2/MCP-1 and IL-8 that either correlated with sCD162, sCD206/MMR, IFN-α2, IL-17A and IL-33, or IL-18 and IL-23. None of the analyzed factors correlated with the detectability or levels of circulating S1 indicating that this represents an independent subset of patients with PASC. This data confirms prior evidence of immune dysregulation and persistence of viral protein in PASC and illustrates its biological heterogeneity that still awaits correlation with clinically defined PASC subtypes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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.

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.

Rapid Hypermutation B Cell Trajectory Recruits Previously Primed B Cells Upon Third SARS-Cov-2 mRNA Vaccination.

The COVID-19 pandemic shows that vaccination strategies building on an ancestral viral strain need to be optimized for the control of potentially emerging viral variants. Therefore, aiming at strong B cell somatic hypermutation to increase antibody affinity to the ancestral strain - not only at high antibody titers - is a priority when utilizing vaccines that are not targeted at individual variants since high affinity may offer some flexibility to compensate for strain-individual mutations. Here, we developed a next-generation sequencing based SARS-CoV-2 B cell tracking protocol to rapidly determine the level of immunoglobulin somatic hypermutation at distinct points during the immunization period. The percentage of somatically hypermutated B cells in the SARS-CoV-2 specific repertoire was low after the primary vaccination series, evolved further over months and increased steeply after boosting. The third vaccination mobilized not only naïve, but also antigen-experienced B cell clones into further rapid somatic hypermutation trajectories indicating increased affinity. Together, the strongly mutated post-booster repertoires and antibodies deriving from this may explain why the third, but not the primary vaccination series, offers some protection against immune-escape variants such as Omicron B.1.1.529.

The risk of indoor sports and culture events for the transmission of COVID-19.

Nearly all mass gathering events worldwide were banned at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, as they were suspected of presenting a considerable risk for the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. We investigated the risk of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 by droplets and aerosols during an experimental indoor mass gathering event under three different hygiene practices, and used the data in a simulation study to estimate the resulting burden of disease under conditions of controlled epidemics. Our results show that the mean number of measured direct contacts per visitor was nine persons and this can be reduced substantially by appropriate hygiene practices. A comparison of two versions of ventilation with different air exchange rates and different airflows found that the system which performed worst allowed a ten-fold increase in the number of individuals exposed to infectious aerosols. The overall burden of infections resulting from indoor mass gatherings depends largely on the quality of the ventilation system and the hygiene practices. Presuming an effective ventilation system, indoor mass gathering events with suitable hygiene practices have a very small, if any, effect on epidemic spread.