Pathogen spectra in hospitalised and nonhospitalised children with community-acquired pneumonia.

Background: Paediatric community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a leading cause of paediatric morbidity. However, particularly for outpatients with paediatric CAP, data on aetiology and management are scarce. Methods: The prospective pedCAPNETZ study multicentrically enrols children and adolescents with outpatient-treated or hospitalised paediatric CAP in Germany. Blood and respiratory specimens were collected systematically, and comprehensive analyses of pathogen spectra were conducted. Follow-up evaluations were performed until day 90 after enrolment. Results: Between December 2014 and August 2020, we enrolled 486 children with paediatric CAP at eight study sites, 437 (89.9%) of whom had radiographic evidence of paediatric CAP. Median (interquartile range) age was 4.5 (1.6-6.6) years, and 345 (78.9%) children were hospitalised. The most prevalent symptoms at enrolment were cough (91.8%), fever (89.2%) and tachypnoea (62.0%). Outpatients were significantly older, displayed significantly lower C-reactive protein levels and were significantly more likely to be symptom-free at follow-up days 14 and 90. Pathogens were detected in 90.3% of all patients (one or more viral pathogens in 68.1%; one or more bacterial strains in 18.7%; combined bacterial/viral pathogens in 4.1%). Parainfluenza virus and Mycoplasma pneumoniae were significantly more frequent in outpatients. The proportion of patients with antibiotic therapy was comparably high in both groups (92.4% of outpatients versus 86.2% of hospitalised patients). Conclusion: We present first data on paediatric CAP with comprehensive analyses in outpatients and hospitalised cases and demonstrate high detection rates of viral pathogens in both groups. Particularly in young paediatric CAP patients with outpatient care, antibiotic therapy needs to be critically debated.

[Community-acquired pneumonia]. / Ambulant erworbene Pneumonie.

RISK FACTORS FOR SEVERE COURSES: The CRB-65 score is recommended as a risk predictor, as well as consideration of unstable comorbidities and oxygenation. GROUPING OF COMMUNITY-ACQUIRED PNEUMONIA: Community-acquired pneumonia is divided into 3 groups: mild pneumonia, moderate pneumonia, severe pneumonia. Whether there is a curative vs palliative treatment goal should be determined early. DIAGNOSTIC RECOMMENDATION: An X-ray chest radiograph is recommended to confirm the diagnosis, also in the outpatient setting if possible. Sonography of the thorax is an alternative, asking for additional imaging if negative. Streptococcus pneumoniae remains the most common bacterial pathogen. THERAPY: Community-acquired pneumonia continues to be associated with high morbidity and lethality. Prompt diagnosis and prompt initiation of risk-adapted antimicrobial therapy are essential measures. However, in times of COVID-19, as well as the current influenza and RSV epidemic, purely viral pneumonias must also be expected. At least with COVID-19, antibiotics can often be avoided. Antiviral and anti-inflammatory drugs are used here. POST-ACUTE COURSE: Patients after community-acquired pneumonia have increased acute and long-term mortality due to cardiovascular events in particular. The focus of research is on improved pathogen identification, a better understanding of the host response with the potential of developing specific therapeutics, the role of comorbidities, and the long-term consequences of the acute illness.

Comorbidity defines asthmatic patients' risk of COVID-19 hospitalization: A global perspective.

BACKGROUND: The global epidemiology of asthma among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presents striking geographic differences, defining prevalence zones of high and low co-occurrence of asthma and COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare asthma prevalence among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in major global hubs across the world by applying common inclusion criteria and definitions. METHODS: We built a network of 6 academic hospitals in Stanford (Stanford University)/the United States; Frankfurt (Goethe University), Giessen (Justus Liebig University), and Marburg (Philipps University)/Germany; and Moscow (Clinical Hospital 52 in collaboration with Sechenov University)/Russia. We collected clinical and laboratory data for patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. RESULTS: Asthmatic individuals were overrepresented among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Stanford and underrepresented in Moscow and Germany as compared with their prevalence among adults in the local community. Asthma prevalence was similar among patients hospitalized in an intensive care unit and patients hospitalized in other than an intensive care unit, which implied that the risk for development of severe COVID-19 was not higher among asthmatic patients. The numbers of males and comorbidities were higher among patients with COVID-19 in the Stanford cohort, and the most frequent comorbidities among these patients with asthma were other chronic inflammatory airway disorders such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. CONCLUSION: The observed disparity in COVID-19-associated risk among asthmatic patients across countries and continents is connected to the varying prevalence of underlying comorbidities, particularly chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Multi-Perspective Inquiry.

Background: The early COVID-19-pandemic was characterized by changes in decision making, decision-relevant value systems and the related perception of decisional uncertainties and conflicts resulting in decisional burden and stress. The vulnerability of clinical care professionals to these decisional dilemmas has not been characterized yet. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire study (540 patients, 322 physicians and 369 nurses in 11 institutions throughout Germany) was carried out. The inclusion criterion was active involvement in clinical treatment or decision making in oncology or psychiatry during the first year of COVID-19. The questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, and the perception of consequences for patients). Data analysis was performed using ANOVA, Pearson rank correlations, and the Chi²-test, and for inferential analysis, nominal logistic regression and tree classification were conducted. Results: Professionals reported changes in clinical management (27.5%) and a higher workload (29.2%), resulting in decisional uncertainty (19.2%) and decisional conflicts (22.7%), with significant differences between professional groups (p < 0.005), including anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress in professional subgroups (p < 0.001). Nominal regression analysis targeting "Decisional Uncertainty" provided a highly significant prediction model (LQ p < 0.001) containing eight variables, and the analysis for "Decisional Conflicts" included six items. The classification rates were 64.4% and 92.7%, respectively. Tree analysis confirmed three levels of determinants. Conclusions: Decisional uncertainty and conflicts during the COVID-19 pandemic were independent of the actual pandemic load. Vulnerable professional groups for the perception of a high number of decisional dilemmas were characterized by individual perception and the psychological framework. Coping and management strategies should target vulnerability, enable the handling of the individual perception of decisional dilemmas and ensure information availability and specific support for younger professionals.

Die Situation der Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Akutkrankenhäusern während der zweiten Welle der SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie: eine Onlinebefragung The situation of physicians in acute hospitals during the second wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An online survey

Hintergrund Die SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie hat Auswirkungen auf das Wohlbefinden von Beschäftigten im Gesundheitswesen. Insbesondere der Einfluss des arbeitsbezogenen Kohärenzgefühls sowie der wahrgenommenen organisationalen Unterstützung auf das Burnout-Level von Ärzt*innen in Akutkrankenhäusern in Deutschland ist weitgehend unbekannt. Methode Im Dezember 2020 und Januar 2021 wurden Ärzt*innen von 81 Krankenhäusern in Hessen (Deutschland) online befragt. Es wurden die Instrumente BAT (Burnout Assessment Tool), Work-SoC (arbeitsbezogenes Kohärenzgefühl), POS-s (wahrgenommene organisatorische Unterstützung – Kurzfassung) sowie literaturbasierte Items genutzt. Ergebnisse Von 181 Ärzt*innen wiesen 34 % ein moderates oder hohes Burnout-Level auf, 21 % würden nach der Pandemie den Arbeitsplatz wechseln. Je höher der Work-SoC (β = −0,560;p < 0,001) und je höher der POS-s (β = −0,125;p < 0,05), desto niedriger ist das Burnout-Level. Die Patienten nicht ausreichend fachlich versorgen zu können, hat einen negativen Einfluss auf das Kohärenzgefühl. 46,4 % gaben an, sich nicht durch Angebote des Arbeitgebers während der SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie qualifiziert zu fühlen. Sie wünschten sich Angebote zu Achtsamkeits- und Resilienzförderung (45 %), Notbetreuungsangebote für Kinder (41 %) und Krisenhelfer im Team (32 %). Schlussfolgerung Unabhängig von der Pandemie gilt es, gesundheitsförderliche Rahmenbedingungen zu schaffen, die kohärentes Arbeiten ermöglichen und „moralischen Verletzungen“ vorbeugen oder es ermöglichen, diese zu bearbeiten.

Unmet needs in pneumonia research: a comprehensive approach by the CAPNETZ study group.

INTRODUCTION: Despite improvements in medical science and public health, mortality of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) has barely changed throughout the last 15 years. The current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has once again highlighted the central importance of acute respiratory infections to human health. The "network of excellence on Community Acquired Pneumonia" (CAPNETZ) hosts the most comprehensive CAP database worldwide including more than 12,000 patients. CAPNETZ connects physicians, microbiologists, virologists, epidemiologists, and computer scientists throughout Europe. Our aim was to summarize the current situation in CAP research and identify the most pressing unmet needs in CAP research. METHODS: To identify areas of future CAP research, CAPNETZ followed a multiple-step procedure. First, research members of CAPNETZ were individually asked to identify unmet needs. Second, the top 100 experts in the field of CAP research were asked for their insights about the unmet needs in CAP (Delphi approach). Third, internal and external experts discussed unmet needs in CAP at a scientific retreat. RESULTS: Eleven topics for future CAP research were identified: detection of causative pathogens, next generation sequencing for antimicrobial treatment guidance, imaging diagnostics, biomarkers, risk stratification, antiviral and antibiotic treatment, adjunctive therapy, vaccines and prevention, systemic and local immune response, comorbidities, and long-term cardio-vascular complications. CONCLUSION: Pneumonia is a complex disease where the interplay between pathogens, immune system and comorbidities not only impose an immediate risk of mortality but also affect the patients' risk of developing comorbidities as well as mortality for up to a decade after pneumonia has resolved. Our review of unmet needs in CAP research has shown that there are still major shortcomings in our knowledge of CAP.

Long-term cardiac pathology in individuals with mild initial COVID-19 illness.

Cardiac symptoms are increasingly recognized as late complications of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in previously well individuals with mild initial illness, but the underlying pathophysiology leading to long-term cardiac symptoms remains unclear. In this study, we conducted serial cardiac assessments in a selected population of individuals with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) with no previous cardiac disease or notable comorbidities by measuring blood biomarkers of heart injury or dysfunction and by performing magnetic resonance imaging. Baseline measurements from 346 individuals with COVID-19 (52% females) were obtained at a median of 109 days (interquartile range (IQR), 77-177 days) after infection, when 73% of participants reported cardiac symptoms, such as exertional dyspnea (62%), palpitations (28%), atypical chest pain (27%) and syncope (3%). Symptomatic individuals had higher heart rates and higher imaging values or contrast agent accumulation, denoting inflammatory cardiac involvement, compared to asymptomatic individuals. Structural heart disease or high levels of biomarkers of cardiac injury or dysfunction were rare in symptomatic individuals. At follow-up (329 days (IQR, 274-383 days) after infection), 57% of participants had persistent cardiac symptoms. Diffuse myocardial edema was more pronounced in participants who remained symptomatic at follow-up as compared to those who improved. Female gender and diffuse myocardial involvement on baseline imaging independently predicted the presence of cardiac symptoms at follow-up. Ongoing inflammatory cardiac involvement may, at least in part, explain the lingering cardiac symptoms in previously well individuals with mild initial COVID-19 illness.

Differences in Stakeholders' Perception of the Impact of COVID-19 on Clinical Care and Decision-Making.

BACKGROUND: Pandemics are related to changes in clinical management. Factors that are associated with individual perceptions of related risks and decision-making processes focused on prevention and vaccination, but perceptions of other healthcare consequences are less investigated. Different perceptions of patients, nurses, and physicians on consequences regarding clinical management, decisional criteria, and burden were compared. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional OnCoVID questionnaire studies. METHODS: Data that involved 1231 patients, physicians, and nurses from 11 German institutions that were actively involved in clinical treatment or decision-making in oncology or psychiatry were collected. Multivariate statistical approaches were used to analyze the stakeholder comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 29.2% of professionals reported extensive changes in workload. Professionals in psychiatry returned severe impact of pandemic on all major aspects of their clinical care, but less changes were reported in oncology (p < 0.001). Both patient groups reported much lower recognition of treatment modifications and consequences for their own care. Decisional and pandemic burden was intensively attributed from professionals towards patients, but less in the opposite direction. CONCLUSIONS: All of the groups share concerns about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare management and clinical processes, but to very different extent. The perception of changes is dissociated in projection towards other stakeholders. Specific awareness should avoid the dissociated impact perception between patients and professionals potentially resulting in impaired shared decision-making.

Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Patient Perspective.

(1) Background: Uncertainty is typical for a pandemic or similar healthcare crisis. This affects patients with resulting decisional conflicts and disturbed shared decision making during their treatment occurring to a very different extent. Sociodemographic factors and the individual perception of pandemic-related problems likely determine this decisional dilemma for patients and can characterize vulnerable groups with special susceptibility for decisional problems and related consequences. (2) Methods: Cross-sectional data from the OnCoVID questionnaire study were used involving 540 patients from 11 participating institutions covering all major regions in Germany. Participants were actively involved in clinical treatment in oncology or psychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, perception of consequences for patients) and very basic demographic data (age, gender, stage of treatment and educational background). Decision uncertainties and distress were operationalized using equidistant five-point scales. Data analysis was performed using descriptive and various multivariate approaches. (3) Results: A total of 11.5% of all patients described intensive uncertainty in their clinical decisions that was significantly correlated with anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress. Younger and female patients and those of higher educational status and treatment stage had the highest values for these stressors (p < 0.001). Only 15.3% of the patients (14.9% oncology, 16.2% psychiatry; p = 0.021) considered the additional risk of COVID-19 infections as very important for their disease-related decisions. Regression analysis identified determinants for patients at risk of a decisional dilemma, including information availability, educational level, age group and requirement of treatment decision making. (4) Conclusions: In patients, the COVID-19 pandemic induced specific decisional uncertainty and distress accompanied by intensified stress and psychological disturbances. Determinants of specific vulnerability were related to female sex, younger age, education level, disease stages and perception of pandemic-related treatment modifications, whereas availability of sufficient pandemic-related information prevented these problems. The most important decisional criteria for patients under these conditions were expected side effects/complications and treatment responses.

Longitudinal Analysis of Coronavirus-Neutralizing Activity in COVID-19 Patients.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has now been continuing for more than two years. The infection causes COVID-19, a disease of the respiratory and cardiovascular system of variable severity. Here, the humoral immune response of 80 COVID-19 patients from the University Hospital Frankfurt/Main, Germany, was characterized longitudinally. The SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity of serum waned over time. The neutralizing potential of serum directed towards the human alpha-coronavirus NL-63 (NL63) also waned, indicating that no cross-priming against alpha-coronaviruses occurred. A subset of the recovered patients (n = 13) was additionally vaccinated with the mRNA vaccine Comirnaty. Vaccination increased neutralization activity against SARS-CoV-2 wild-type (WT), Delta, and Omicron, although Omicron-specific neutralization was not detectable prior to vaccination. In addition, the vaccination induced neutralizing antibodies against the more distantly related SARS-CoV-1 but not against NL63. The results indicate that although SARS-CoV-2 humoral immune responses induced by infection wane, vaccination induces a broad neutralizing activity against multiple SARS-CoVs, but not to the common cold alpha-coronavirus NL63.

A scoping review of mHealth monitoring of pediatric bronchial asthma before and during COVID-19 pandemic.

Mobile (m) Health technology is well-suited for Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) in a patient's habitual environment. In recent years there have been fast-paced developments in mHealth-enabled pediatric RPM, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, necessitating evidence synthesis. To this end, we conducted a scoping review of clinical trials that had utilized mHealth-enabled RPM of pediatric asthma. MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science were searched from September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2021. Our scoping review identified 25 publications that utilized synchronous and asynchronous mHealth-enabled RPM in pediatric asthma, either involving mobile applications or via individual devices. The last three years has seen the development of evidence-based, multidisciplinary, and participatory mHealth interventions. The quality of the studies has been improving, such that 40% of included study reports were randomized controlled trials. In conclusion, there exists high-quality evidence on mHealth-enabled RPM in pediatric asthma, warranting future systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of the benefits of such RPM.

Evaluation of a multiplex PCR screening approach to identify community-acquired bacterial co-infections in COVID-19: a multicenter prospective cohort study of the German competence network of community-acquired pneumonia (CAPNETZ).

PURPOSE: Thorough knowledge of the nature and frequency of co-infections is essential to optimize treatment strategies and risk assessment in cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aimed to evaluate the multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) screening approach for community-acquired bacterial pathogens (CABPs) at hospital admission, which could facilitate identification of bacterial co-infections in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Clinical data and biomaterials from 200 hospitalized COVID-19 patients from the observational cohort of the Competence Network for community-acquired pneumonia (CAPNETZ) prospectively recruited between March 17, 2020, and March 12, 2021 in 12 centers in Germany and Switzerland, were included in this study. Nasopharyngeal swab samples were analyzed on hospital admission using multiplex real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR for a broad range of CABPs. RESULTS: In total of 200 patients Staphylococcus aureus (27.0%), Haemophilus influenzae (13.5%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (5.5%), Moraxella catarrhalis (2.5%), and Legionella pneumophila (1.5%) were the most frequently detected bacterial pathogens. PCR detection of bacterial pathogens correlated with purulent sputum, and showed no correlation with ICU admission, mortality, and inflammation markers. Although patients who received antimicrobial treatment were more often admitted to the ICU and had a higher mortality rate, PCR pathogen detection was not significantly related to antimicrobial treatment. CONCLUSION: General CABP screening using multiplex PCR with nasopharyngeal swabs may not facilitate prediction or identification of bacterial co-infections in the early phase of COVID-19-related hospitalization. Most patients with positive PCR results appear to be colonized rather than infected at that time, questioning the value of routine antibiotic treatment on admission in COVID-19 patients.

Implementation and use of mHealth home telemonitoring in adults with acute COVID-19 infection: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: mHealth refers to digital technologies that, via smartphones, mobile apps and specialised digital sensors, yield real-time assessments of patient's health status. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, these technologies enable remote patient monitoring, with the benefit of timely recognition of disease progression to convalescence, deterioration or postacute sequelae. This should enable appropriate medical interventions and facilitate recovery. Various barriers, both at patient and technology levels, have been reported, hindering implementation and use of mHealth telemonitoring. As systematised and synthesised evidence in this area is lacking, we developed this protocol for a scoping review on mHealth home telemonitoring of acute COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We compiled a search strategy following the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) and PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendation for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science will be searched from 1 March 2020 to 31 August 2021. Following the title and abstract screening, we will identify, systematise and synthesise the available knowledge. Based on pilot searches, we preview three themes for descriptive evidence synthesis. The first theme relates to implementation and use of mHealth telemonitoring, including reported barriers. The second theme covers the interactions of the telemonitoring team within and between different levels of the healthcare system. The third theme addresses how this telemonitoring warrants the continuity of care, also during disease transition into deterioration or postacute sequelae. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The studied evidence is in the public domain, therefore, no specific ethics approval is required. Evidence dissemination will be via peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and reports to the policy makers.

The impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on the prevalence of respiratory tract pathogens in patients with community-acquired pneumonia in Germany.

We show a shift in the prevalence of respiratory viral pathogens in community-acquired pneumonia patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our data support the efficiency of non-pharmaceutical interventions on virus circulation except for rhinoviruses. The consequences of an altered circulation on subsequent winter seasons remain unclear and support the importance of systematic virological surveillance.

The REMAP-CAP (Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community-acquired Pneumonia) Study. Rationale and Design.

There is broad interest in improved methods to generate robust evidence regarding best practice, especially in settings where patient conditions are heterogenous and require multiple concomitant therapies. Here, we present the rationale and design of a large, international trial that combines features of adaptive platform trials with pragmatic point-of-care trials to determine best treatment strategies for patients admitted to an intensive care unit with severe community-acquired pneumonia. The trial uses a novel design, entitled "a randomized embedded multifactorial adaptive platform." The design has five key features: 1) randomization, allowing robust causal inference; 2) embedding of study procedures into routine care processes, facilitating enrollment, trial efficiency, and generalizability; 3) a multifactorial statistical model comparing multiple interventions across multiple patient subgroups; 4) response-adaptive randomization with preferential assignment to those interventions that appear most favorable; and 5) a platform structured to permit continuous, potentially perpetual enrollment beyond the evaluation of the initial treatments. The trial randomizes patients to multiple interventions within four treatment domains: antibiotics, antiviral therapy for influenza, host immunomodulation with extended macrolide therapy, and alternative corticosteroid regimens, representing 240 treatment regimens. The trial generates estimates of superiority, inferiority, and equivalence between regimens on the primary outcome of 90-day mortality, stratified by presence or absence of concomitant shock and proven or suspected influenza infection. The trial will also compare ventilatory and oxygenation strategies, and has capacity to address additional questions rapidly during pandemic respiratory infections. As of January 2020, REMAP-CAP (Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community-acquired Pneumonia) was approved and enrolling patients in 52 intensive care units in 13 countries on 3 continents. In February, it transitioned into pandemic mode with several design adaptations for coronavirus disease 2019. Lessons learned from the design and conduct of this trial should aid in dissemination of similar platform initiatives in other disease areas.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02735707).

Analysis of Humoral Immune Responses in Patients With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has caused a pandemic with tens of millions of cases and hundreds of thousands of deaths. The infection causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a disease of the respiratory system of divergent severity. In the current study, humoral immune responses were characterized in a cohort of 143 patients with COVID-19 from the University Hospital Frankfurt am Main, Germany. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2-specific-antibodies were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). SARS-CoV-2 and human coronavirus NL63 neutralization activity was analyzed with pseudotyped lentiviral vectors. RESULTS: The severity of COVID-19 increased with age, and male patients encountered more serious symptoms than female patients. Disease severity was correlated with the amount of SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobulin (Ig) G and IgA and the neutralization activity of the antibodies. The amount of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG antibodies decreased with time after polymerase chain reaction conformation of the infection, and antibodies directed against the nucleoprotein waned faster than spike protein-directed antibodies. In contrast, for the common flu coronavirus NL63, COVID-19 disease severity seemed to be correlated with low NL63-neutralizing activities, suggesting the possibility of cross-reactive protection. CONCLUSION: The results describe the humoral immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 and might aid the identification of correlates of protection needed for vaccine development.

Aprotinin Inhibits SARS-CoV-2 Replication.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of the current coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Protease inhibitors are under consideration as virus entry inhibitors that prevent the cleavage of the coronavirus spike (S) protein by cellular proteases. Herein, we showed that the protease inhibitor aprotinin (but not the protease inhibitor SERPINA1/alpha-1 antitrypsin) inhibited SARS-CoV-2 replication in therapeutically achievable concentrations. An analysis of proteomics and translatome data indicated that SARS-CoV-2 replication is associated with a downregulation of host cell protease inhibitors. Hence, aprotinin may compensate for downregulated host cell proteases during later virus replication cycles. Aprotinin displayed anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity in different cell types (Caco2, Calu-3, and primary bronchial epithelial cell air-liquid interface cultures) and against four virus isolates. In conclusion, therapeutic aprotinin concentrations exert anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity. An approved aprotinin aerosol may have potential for the early local control of SARS-CoV-2 replication and the prevention of COVID-19 progression to a severe, systemic disease.

No SARS-CoV-2 detection in the German CAPNETZ cohort of community acquired pneumonia before COVID-19 peak in March 2020.

PURPOSE: The first SARS-CoV-2 cases in Europe were reported in January 2020. Recently, concern arose on unrecognized infections before this date. For a better understanding of the pandemic, we retrospectively analyzed patient samples for SARS-CoV-2 from the prospective CAPNETZ study cohort. METHODS: We used nasopharyngeal swab samples from a cohort of well characterized patients with community acquired pneumonia of the CAPNETZ study group, recruited from different geographic regions across Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, and Switzerland between 02nd December 2019 and 28th April 2020. Multiplex real-time RT-PCR for a broad range of respiratory pathogens and SARS-CoV-2 real-time RT-PCR were performed on all samples. RESULTS: In our cohort, respiratory pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 21.5% (42/195) of patients with rhinovirus as the most frequently detected pathogen. The detection rate increased to 29.7% (58/195) when SARS-CoV-2 was included. No SARS-CoV-2 positive sample was detected before end of March 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory viral pathogens accounted for a considerable number of positive results but no SARS-CoV-2 case was identified before the end of March 2020.