Infection control strategies for healthcare workers during COVID-19 pandemic in German hospitals: A cross-sectional study in march–april 2021

Background Healthcare workers (HCW) are at risk of getting infected with COVID-19 at work. To prevent such incidents and provide a safe environment in hospitals, comprehensive infection control strategies are necessary. We aimed to collect information on COVID-19 infection control strategies regarding personal protective equipment (PPE), regulations during breaks for HCW and dissemination of pandemic-related information. Methods We invited infection control practitioners from 987 randomly selected German hospitals in March–April 2021 to participate in our cross-sectional online survey. We categorized the hospital based on bed capacity (≤499 beds = small;≥500 beds = large). Fisher's exact test was performed and p < 0.05 defined as statistically significant. Findings 100 participants completed the questionnaire. Small hospitals were more directive about requiring FFP2 respirators (63%), whereas larger hospitals more often gave their HCW a choice between these and medical masks (67%). For the care of COVID-19 and suspected COVID-19 cases, >90% of the participants recommended the use of gloves. Notably, gloves were recommended beyond COVID-19 in 30% of the hospitals. During meal breaks various strategies were followed. Conclusion Recommendations for PPE varied across hospital sizes, which could be due to different assessments of necessity and safety. Regulations during breaks varied strongly which illustrates the need for clear official guidelines.

Infection control strategies for healthcare workers during COVID-19 pandemic in German hospitals: A cross-sectional study in march-april 2021.

Background: Healthcare workers (HCW) are at risk of getting infected with COVID-19 at work. To prevent such incidents and provide a safe environment in hospitals, comprehensive infection control strategies are necessary. We aimed to collect information on COVID-19 infection control strategies regarding personal protective equipment (PPE), regulations during breaks for HCW and dissemination of pandemic-related information. Methods: We invited infection control practitioners from 987 randomly selected German hospitals in March-April 2021 to participate in our cross-sectional online survey. We categorized the hospital based on bed capacity (≤499 beds = small; ≥500 beds = large). Fisher's exact test was performed and p < 0.05 defined as statistically significant. Findings: 100 participants completed the questionnaire. Small hospitals were more directive about requiring FFP2 respirators (63%), whereas larger hospitals more often gave their HCW a choice between these and medical masks (67%). For the care of COVID-19 and suspected COVID-19 cases, >90% of the participants recommended the use of gloves. Notably, gloves were recommended beyond COVID-19 in 30% of the hospitals. During meal breaks various strategies were followed. Conclusion: Recommendations for PPE varied across hospital sizes, which could be due to different assessments of necessity and safety. Regulations during breaks varied strongly which illustrates the need for clear official guidelines.

Interdependencies of cellular and humoral immune responses in heterologous and homologous SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Homologous and heterologous SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations yield different spike protein-directed humoral and cellular immune responses. This study aimed to explore their currently unknown interdependencies. METHODS: COV-ADAPT is a prospective, observational cohort study of 417 healthcare workers who received vaccination with homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, homologous BNT162b2 or with heterologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2. We assessed humoral (anti-spike-RBD-IgG, neutralizing antibodies, and avidity) and cellular (spike-induced T-cell interferon-γ release) immune responses in blood samples up to 2 weeks before (T1) and 2-12 weeks following secondary immunization (T2). RESULTS: Initial vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 resulted in lower anti-spike-RBD-IgG compared with BNT162b2 (70 ± 114 vs. 226 ± 279 BAU/ml, p < .01) at T1. Booster vaccination with BNT162b2 proved superior to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 at T2 (anti-spike-RBD-IgG: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2 2387 ± 1627 and homologous BNT162b2 3202 ± 2184 vs. homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 413 ± 461 BAU/ml, both p < .001; spike-induced T-cell interferon-γ release: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2 5069 ± 6733 and homologous BNT162b2 4880 ± 7570 vs. homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 1152 ± 2243 mIU/ml, both p < .001). No significant differences were detected between BNT162b2-boostered groups at T2. For ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, no booster effect on T-cell activation could be observed. We found associations between anti-spike-RBD-IgG levels (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2 and homologous BNT162b2) and T-cell responses (homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2) from T1 to T2. Additionally, anti-spike-RBD-IgG and T-cell response were linked at both time points (all groups combined). All regimes yielded neutralizing antibodies and increased antibody avidity at T2. CONCLUSIONS: Interdependencies between humoral and cellular immune responses differ between common SARS-CoV-2 vaccination regimes. T-cell activation is unlikely to compensate for poor humoral responses.