Meal-timing patterns and chronic disease prevalence in two representative Austrian studies.

PURPOSE: This study aimed at describing meal-timing patterns using cluster analysis and explore their association with sleep and chronic diseases, before and during COVID-19 mitigation measures in Austria. METHODS: Information was collected in two surveys in 2017 (N = 1004) and 2020 (N = 1010) in representative samples of the Austrian population. Timing of main meals, nighttime fasting interval, last-meal-to-bed time, breakfast skipping and eating midpoint were calculated using self-reported information. Cluster analysis was applied to identify meal-timing clusters. Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models were used to study the association of meal-timing clusters with prevalence of chronic insomnia, depression, diabetes, hypertension, obesity and self-rated bad health status. RESULTS: In both surveys, median breakfast, lunch and dinner times on weekdays were 7:30, 12:30 and 18:30. One out of four participants skipped breakfast and the median number of eating occasions was 3 in both samples. We observed correlation between the different meal-timing variables. Cluster analysis resulted in the definition of two clusters in each sample (A17 and B17 in 2017, and A20 and B20 in 2020). Clusters A comprised most respondents, with fasting duration of 12-13 h and median eating midpoint between 13:00 and 13:30. Clusters B comprised participants reporting longer fasting intervals and later mealtimes, and a high proportion of breakfast skippers. Chronic insomnia, depression, obesity and self-rated bad health-status were more prevalent in clusters B. CONCLUSIONS: Austrians reported long fasting intervals and low eating frequency. Meal-timing habits were similar before and during the COVID-19-pandemic. Besides individual characteristics of meal-timing, behavioural patterns need to be evaluated in chrono-nutrition epidemiological studies.

The Association of Time of Day of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccine Administration With SARS-CoV-2 Anti-Spike IgG Antibody Levels: An Exploratory Observational Study.

Data from human and animal studies are highly suggestive of an influence of time of day of vaccine administration on host immune responses. In this population-based study, we aimed to investigate the effect of time of day of administration of a COVID-19 vector vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca), on SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike S1 immunoglobulin (IgG) levels. Participants were 803 university employees who received their first vaccine dose in March 2021, had serology data at baseline and at 3 weeks, and were seronegative at baseline. Antibody levels were determined in binding antibody units (BAU/mL) using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Generalized additive models (GAM) and linear regression were used to evaluate the association of time of day of vaccination continuously and in hourly bins with antibody levels at 3 weeks. Participants had a mean age of 42 years (SD: 12; range: 21-74) and 60% were female. Time of day of vaccination was associated non-linearly ("reverse J-shape") with antibody levels. Morning vaccination was associated with the highest (9:00-10:00 h: mean 292.1 BAU/mL; SD: 262.1), early afternoon vaccination with the lowest (12:00-13:00 h: mean 217.3 BAU/mL; SD: 153.6), and late afternoon vaccination with intermediate (14:00-15:00 h: mean 280.7 BAU/mL; SD: 262.4) antibody levels. Antibody levels induced by 12:00-13:00 h vaccination (but not other time intervals) were significantly lower compared to 9:00-10:00 h vaccination after adjusting for potential confounders (beta coefficient = -75.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -131.3, -20.4). Our findings show that time of day of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has an impact on the magnitude of IgG antibody levels at 3 weeks. Whether this difference persists after booster vaccine doses and whether it influences the level of protection against COVID-19 needs further evaluation.

Comparison of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein antibodies in healthcare workers and an unselected adult and paediatric all-comer patient population: insights from a longitudinal study of healthcare workers and concurrent serial cross-sectional studies of patients at an academic medical centre in Austria.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to estimate and compare the prevalence of the virus-specific antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein antigen (anti-SARS-CoV-2 N) in healthcare workers and an all-comer paediatric and adult patient population. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A longitudinal study enrolling healthcare professionals and concurrent serial cross-sectional studies of unselected all-comer patients were conducted at an Austrian academic medical centre. Healthcare workers were tested at enrolment and after 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 months. The cross-sectional studies in patients were conducted at three time periods, which roughly coincided with the times after the first, second and third wave of SARS-CoV-2 in Austria (ie, 24 August-7 September 2020; 8-22 February 2021 and 9-23 November 2021). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 N antibodies were measured using a sandwich electrochemiluminescence assay (Roche). RESULTS: In total, 2735 and 9275 samples were measured in 812 healthcare workers (median age: 40 years, 78% female) and 8451 patients (median age: 55 years, 52% female), respectively. Over the entire study period, anti-SARS-CoV-2 N antibodies were detected in 98 of 812 healthcare workers, resulting in a seroprevalence of 12.1% (95% CI 10.0% to 14.5%), which did not differ significantly (p=0.63) from that of the all-comer patient population at the end of the study period (407/3184; 12.8%, 95% CI 11.7% to 14.0%). The seroprevalence between healthcare workers and patients did not differ significantly at any time and was 1.5-fold to 2-fold higher than the number of confirmed cases in Austria throughout the pandemic. In particular, there was no significant difference in the seroprevalence between paediatric and adult patients at any of the tested time periods. CONCLUSION: Throughout the pandemic, healthcare staff and an adult and paediatric all-comer patient population had similar exposure to SARS-CoV-2. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04407429.

Willingness to receive an annual COVID-19 booster vaccine in the German-speaking D-A-CH region in Europe: A cross-sectional study.

Background: Emergence of new coronavirus variants and waning immunity may necessitate regular COVID-19 vaccine boosters, but empirical data on population willingness for regular vaccination are limited. Methods: In August 2021, we surveyed 3,067 quota-sampled German-speaking adults residing in the D-A-CH region (Germany, Austria, Switzerland). Using multivariable adjusted ordered logistic regression models we calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) to assess factors associated with willingness to vaccinate annually against COVID-19. Findings: Among 2,480 participants vaccinated or planning to get vaccinated, 82·4% indicated willingness to receive annual COVID-19 boosters. This willingness was higher in Austria (OR=1·47, 95% CI, 1·19-1·82; p < 0·001) and Germany (OR=1·98, 95% CI, 1·60-2·45; p < 0·001) versus Switzerland and increased with age. Having voted in the last national election (ORopposition party voters=1·51, 95% CI=1·18-1·92; p = 0·001 and ORgoverning party voters=1·57, 95% CI=1·28-1·93; p < 0·001, versus non-voters) and not regularly participating in religious meetings (OR=1·37, 95% CI=1·08-1·73; p = 0·009, versus participation at least monthly) were significantly associated with willingness to vaccinate, as was partial (OR=1·97, 95% CI=1·43-2·72; p < 0·001) or total (OR=5·20, 95% CI=3·76-7·19; p < 0·001) approval of COVID-19 mitigation measures (versus non-approval). By country, Austrians showed the strongest association of voting behavior and mitigation measure approval with willingness to vaccinate. Interpretation: Targeted promotion programs informed by political and religious engagement and mitigation measure approval are needed to increase willingness to receive regular COVID-19 boosters. Funding: Medical University of Vienna, Department of Epidemiology, Danube University Krems, Department for Knowledge and Communication Management; Austrian Society of Epidemiology.

SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests provide benefits for epidemic control - observations from Austrian schools.

OBJECTIVE: This paper motivates and justifies the use of antigen tests for epidemic control as distinct from a diagnostic test. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We discuss the relative advantages of antigen and PCR tests, summarizing evidence from both the literature as well as Austrian schools, which conducted frequent, mass rapid antigen testing during the spring of 2021. While our report on testing predates Delta, we have updated the review with recent data on viral loads in breakthrough infections and more information about testing efficacy, especially in children. RESULTS: Rapid antigen tests detect proteins at the surface of virus particles, identifying the disease during its infectious phase. In contrast, PCR tests detect viral genomes: they can thus diagnose COVID-19 before the infectious phase but also react to remnants of the virus genome, even weeks after live virus ceases to be detectable in the respiratory tract. Furthermore, the logistics for administering the tests are different. Large-scale rapid antigen testing in Austrian schools showed low false-positive rates along with an approximately 10% lower effective reproduction number in the tested cohort. CONCLUSION: Using antigen tests at least 2-3 times per week could become a powerful tool to suppress the COVID-19 pandemic.

The benefits, costs and feasibility of a low incidence COVID-19 strategy.

In the summer of 2021, European governments removed most NPIs after experiencing prolonged second and third waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most countries failed to achieve immunization rates high enough to avoid resurgence of the virus. Public health strategies for autumn and winter 2021 have ranged from countries aiming at low incidence by re-introducing NPIs to accepting high incidence levels. However, such high incidence strategies almost certainly lead to the very consequences that they seek to avoid: restrictions that harm people and economies. At high incidence, the important pandemic containment measure 'test-trace-isolate-support' becomes inefficient. At that point, the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and its numerous harmful consequences can likely only be controlled through restrictions. We argue that all European countries need to pursue a low incidence strategy in a coordinated manner. Such an endeavour can only be successful if it is built on open communication and trust.

A look into the future of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe: an expert consultation.

How will the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic develop in the coming months and years? Based on an expert survey, we examine key aspects that are likely to influence the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. The challenges and developments will strongly depend on the progress of national and global vaccination programs, the emergence and spread of variants of concern (VOCs), and public responses to non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). In the short term, many people remain unvaccinated, VOCs continue to emerge and spread, and mobility and population mixing are expected to increase. Therefore, lifting restrictions too much and too early risk another damaging wave. This challenge remains despite the reduced opportunities for transmission given vaccination progress and reduced indoor mixing in summer 2021. In autumn 2021, increased indoor activity might accelerate the spread again, whilst a necessary reintroduction of NPIs might be too slow. The incidence may strongly rise again, possibly filling intensive care units, if vaccination levels are not high enough. A moderate, adaptive level of NPIs will thus remain necessary. These epidemiological aspects combined with economic, social, and health-related consequences provide a more holistic perspective on the future of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Excess all-cause mortality and COVID-19-related mortality: a temporal analysis in 22 countries, from January until August 2020.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate overall and sex-specific excess all-cause mortality since the inception of the COVID-19 pandemic until August 2020 among 22 countries. METHODS: Countries reported weekly or monthly all-cause mortality from January 2015 until the end of June or August 2020. Weekly or monthly COVID-19 deaths were reported for 2020. Excess mortality for 2020 was calculated by comparing weekly or monthly 2020 mortality (observed deaths) against a baseline mortality obtained from 2015-2019 data for the same week or month using two methods: (i) difference in observed mortality rates between 2020 and the 2015-2019 average and (ii) difference between observed and expected 2020 deaths. RESULTS: Brazil, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, the UK (England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland) and the USA demonstrated excess all-cause mortality, whereas Australia, Denmark and Georgia experienced a decrease in all-cause mortality. Israel, Ukraine and Ireland demonstrated sex-specific changes in all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: All-cause mortality up to August 2020 was higher than in previous years in some, but not all, participating countries. Geographical location and seasonality of each country, as well as the prompt application of high-stringency control measures, may explain the observed variability in mortality changes.

Correlates of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Austria: trust and the government.

BACKGROUND: With the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic surging and new mutations evolving, trust in vaccines is essential. METHODS: We explored correlates of vaccine hesitancy, considering political believes and psychosocial concepts, conducting a non-probability quota-sampled online survey with 1007 Austrians. RESULTS: We identified several important correlates of vaccine hesitancy, ranging from demographics to complex factors such as voting behavior or trust in the government. Among those with hesitancy towards a COVID-19 vaccine, having voted for opposition parties (opp) or not voted (novote) were (95% Confidence Intervall (CI)opp, 1.44-2.95) to 2.25-times (95%CInovote, 1.53-3.30) that of having voted for governing parties. Only 46.2% trusted the Austrian government to provide safe vaccines, and 80.7% requested independent scientific evaluations regarding vaccine safety to increase willingness to vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to expected, psychosocial dimensions were only weakly correlated with vaccine hesitancy. However, the strong correlation between distrust in the vaccine and distrust in authorities suggests a common cause of disengagement from public discourse.

Working from home, quality of life, and perceived productivity during the first 50-day COVID-19 mitigation measures in Austria: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore changes in quality of life and perceived productivity, focusing on the effects of working from home during the first COVID-19 50-day mitigation period in Austria. METHODS: We conducted an Austrian-representative online survey (N = 1010) of self-reported life- and work-related changes during the first COVID-19 50-day mitigation period (March 16 through May 1 2020) compared to the situation before. We used multinominal logistic regression models to identify correlates of improved/decreased quality of life in the entire sample, and of improved/decreased productivity in a subsample of the working population (N = 686). We also calculated age- and multivariable-adjusted ORs and 95% CIs of an improved/decreased quality of life and an improved/decreased productivity by work from home status. RESULTS: During the COVID-19 mitigation period, quality of life improved in 17.5%, but decreased in 20.7% of the general Austrian population; perceived productivity at work increased in 12.7%, but decreased in 30.2% of the working population. Working from home during the mitigation period was associated with an increased quality of life (vs. none, partially: OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.09-3.91; all the time: 3.69, 1.86-7.29). In contrast, perceived productivity seemed to decrease when people worked from home (vs. none, partially: 1.42, 0.86-2.35; all the time: 1.48, 0.85-2.58). Working from home and related benefits were not equally distributed among gender, age, and educational attainment. CONCLUSIONS: A transition to more flexibility of workplace and working hours for employees could have important positive consequences for family and professional life, for stakeholders, for public health, and ultimately for the environment.

COVID-19 heralds a new epistemology of science for the public good.

COVID-19 has revealed that science needs to learn how to better deal with the irreducible uncertainty that comes with global systemic risks as well as with the social responsibility of science towards the public good. Further developing the epistemological principles of new theories and experimental practices, alternative investigative pathways and communication, and diverse voices can be an important contribution of history and philosophy of science and of science studies to ongoing transformations of the scientific enterprise.

Impact of the 1st and 2nd Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Primary or Revision Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty-A Cross-Sectional Single Center Study.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the number of primary and revision total joint arthroplasties (TJA/rTJA) in 2020 compared to 2019. Specifically, the first and the second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic were evaluated as well as the pre-operative COVID-19 test. A cross-sectional single-center study of our prospectively maintained institutional arthroplasty registry was performed. The first COVID-19 wave and the second COVID-19 wave led to a socioeconomic lockdown in 2020. Performed surgeries, cause of revision, age, gender, and American Society of Anesthesiologists-level were analyzed. Preoperative COVID-19 testing was evaluated and nationwide COVID-19 data were compared to other countries. In 2020, there was a decrease by 16.2% in primary and revision TJAs of the hip and knee compared to 2019. We observed a reduction of 15.8% in primary TJAs and a reduction of 18.6% on rTJAs in 2020 compared to 2019. There is an incline in total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and a decline in total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) comparing 2019 to 2020. During the first wave, there was a reduction in performed primary TJAs of 86%. During the second wave, no changes were observed. This is the first study quantifying the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary and revision TJAs regarding the first and second wave.

Comment on Alley, S.J., et al. As the Pandemic Progresses, How Does Willingness to Vaccinate against COVID-19 Evolve? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 797.

We would like to extend on the article by Alley et al [...].

Fast Response to Superspreading: Uncertainty and Complexity in the Context of COVID-19.

Although the first coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) wave has peaked with the second wave underway, the world is still struggling to manage potential systemic risks and unpredictability of the pandemic. A particular challenge is the "superspreading" of the virus, which starts abruptly, is difficult to predict, and can quickly escalate into medical and socio-economic emergencies that contribute to long-lasting crises challenging our current ways of life. In these uncertain times, organizations and societies worldwide are faced with the need to develop appropriate strategies and intervention portfolios that require fast understanding of the complex interdependencies in our world and rapid, flexible action to contain the spread of the virus as quickly as possible, thus preventing further disastrous consequences of the pandemic. We integrate perspectives from systems sciences, epidemiology, biology, social networks, and organizational research in the context of the superspreading phenomenon to understand the complex system of COVID-19 pandemic and develop suggestions for interventions aimed at rapid responses.