ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Early during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, national population-based seroprevalence surveys were conducted in some countries; however, this was not done in Germany. In particular, no seroprevalence surveys were planned for the summer of 2022. In the context of the IMMUNEBRIDGE project, the GUIDE study was carried out to estimate seroprevalence on the national and regional levels. METHODS: To obtain an overview of the population-wide immunity against SARS-CoV-2 among adults in Germany that would be as statistically robust as possible, serological tests were carried out using self-sampling dried blood spot cards in conjunction with surveys, one by telephone and one online. Blood samples were analyzed for the presence of antibodies to the S and N antigens of SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Among the 15 932 participants, antibodies to the S antigen were detected in 95.7%, and to the N antigen in 44.4%. In the higher-risk age groups of persons aged 65 and above and persons aged 80 and above, anti-S antibodies were found in 97,4% and 98.8%, respectively. Distinct regional differences in the distribution of anti-S and anti-N antibodies emerged. Immunity gaps were found both regionally and in particular subgroups of the population. High anti-N antibody levels were especially common in eastern German states, and high anti-S antibody levels in western German states. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that a large percentage of the adult German population has formed antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This will markedly lower the probability of an overburdening of the health care system by hospitalization and high occupancy of intensive care units due to future SARS-CoV-2 waves, depending on the viral characteristics of then prevailing variants.
ABSTRACT
Background: We performed a multicenter, randomized open-label trial in patients with moderate to severe Covid-19 treated with a range of possible treatment regimens. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to one of three regimen groups at a ratio of 1:1:1. The primary outcome of this study was admission to the intensive care unit. Secondary outcomes were intubation, in-hospital mortality, time to clinical recovery, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Between April 13 and August 9, 2020, a total of 336 patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the 3 treatment regimens including group I (hydroxychloroquine stat, prednisolone, azithromycin and naproxen;120 patients), group II (hydroxychloroquine stat, azithromycin and naproxen;116 patients), and group III (hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir (116 patients). The mean LOS in patients receiving prednisolone was 5.5 in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population and 4.4 days in the per-protocol (PP) population ompared with 6.4 days (mITT population) and 5.8 days (PP population) in patients treated with Lopinavir/Ritonavir. Results: The mean LOS was significantly lower in the mITT and PP populations who received prednisolone compared with populations treated with Lopinavir/Ritonavir (p = 0.028;p = 0.0007). We observed no significant differences in the number of deaths, ICU admission, and need for mechanical ventilation between the Modified ITT and per-protocol populations treated with prednisolone and Lopinavir/Ritonavir, although these outcomes were better in the arm treated with prednisolone. The time to clinical recovery was similar in the modified ITT and per-protocol populations treated with prednisolone, lopinavir/ritonavir, and azithromycin (p = 0.335;p = 0.055;p = 0.291;p = 0.098). Conclusions: The results of the present study show that therapeutic regimen (regimen I) with low dose prednisolone was superior to other regimens in shortening the length of hospital stay in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. The steroid sparing effect may be utilized to increase the effectiveness of corticosteroids in the management of diabetic patients by decreasing the dosage.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of European Resuscitation Council (ERC) COVID-19-guidelines on resuscitation quality emphasizing advanced airway management in out-of-hospital-cardiac-arrest. METHODS: In a manikin study paramedics and emergency physicians performed advanced cardiac life support in three settings: ERC guidelines 2015 (control), COVID-19-guidelines as suggested with minimum staff (COVID-19-minimal-personnel); COVID-19-guidelines with paramedics and an emergency physician (COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager). Main outcome measures were no-flow-time, quality metrics as defined by ERC and time intervals to first chest compression, oxygen supply, intubation and first rhythm analysis. Data were presented as mean±standard deviation. RESULTS: Thirty resuscitation scenarios were completed. No-flow-time was markedly prolonged in COVID-19-minimal-personnel (113±37 s) compared to control (55±9 s) and COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager (76±38s; P<0.001 each). In both COVID-19-groups chest compressions started later (COVID-19-minimal-personnel: 32±6 s; COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager: 37±7 s; each P<0.001 vs. control [21±5 s]), but oxygen supply (COVID-19-minimal-personnel: 29±5 s; COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager: 34±7 s; each P<0.001 vs. control [77±19 s]) and first intubation attempt (COVID-19-minimal-personnel: 111±14 s; COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager: 131±20 s; each P<0.001 vs. control [178±44 s]) were performed earlier. However, time interval to successful intubation was similar (control: 198±48 s; COVID-19-minimal-personnel: 181±42 s; COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager: 130±25 s) due to a longer intubation time in COVID-19-minimal-personnel (61±35 s) compared to COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager (P=0.002) and control (19±6 s; P<0.001). Time to first rhythm analysis was more than doubled in COVID-19-minimal-personnel (138±96 s) compared to control (50±12 s; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed chest compressions and prolonged no-flow-time markedly reduced the quality of resuscitation. These negative effects were attenuated by increasing the number of staff and by adding an experienced airway manager. The use of endotracheal intubation for reducing aerosol release during resuscitation should be discussed critically as its priorization is associated with an increase in no-flow-time.