ABSTRACT
Background: The pandemic situation poses new challenges for research. Ethical issues might arise if especially vulnerable individuals expose themselves to a higher risk of infection for study purposes. Research question: How is the feasibility, quality and acceptance of self-organised blood sample collections to measure anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG antibodies in persons with a high risk for a severe COVID-19 disease progression? Methods: Persons with a high risk for a severe COVID-19 disease progression (immunocompromised, oncology or 80+ years) were recruited between January and September 2021 to send in blood samples (2.6 ml, 7.5 ml or 500 mul EDTA tubes) one month and six months after their second COVID- 19 vaccination. Participants were given the choice of drawing blood themselves (as capillary blood), with the research team, or in local practices or clinics. Participants were surveyed via a computer-assisted telephone interview in December 2021 and January 2022 about their choice of blood sampling methods, experiences, and influence of choice upon study participation. Result(s): Data from 366 participants was collected via telephone follow-up. First, blood samples were collected by the participants themselves (35.8%), local practices or clinics (32.0%) and the research team (22.7%). Second blood samples were mostly collected in local practices or clinics (43.7%) followed by participants themselves (32.5%) and the research team (14.3%). Only 3.3% of blood samples were not sent back or analysable. One-fourth (26%) of participants stated that they would not have participated in the study if it would have been required to travel to the university hospital to give their blood sample. Conclusion(s): Participants were able to self-organise blood collection, using several different blood sample methods. Nearly all blood samples were analyzable when self-collected and sent by post. One-fourth of the participants would not have participated in the study if required to give their blood samples at the study location.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Hearing loss is one of the self-reported symptoms of Long COVID patients, however data from objective and subjective audiological tests demonstrating diminished hearing in Long COVID patients has not been published. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Respondents of a large Long COVID online survey were invited to the ENT-department for an otologic exam. The participants were split into three groups based on their history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and persistence of symptoms. Respondents with a history of a SARS-CoV-2 infection were allocated to the Long COVID group, if they reported persistent symptoms and to the Ex COVID group, if they had regained their previous level of health. Participants without a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection made up the No COVID control group. In total, 295 ears were examined with otoscopy, tympanograms, pure tone audiometry and otoacoustic emissions. Ears with known preexisting hearing loss or status post ear surgery, as well as those with abnormal otoscopic findings, non-type A tympanograms or negative Rinne test were excluded. RESULTS: Compared to the No COVID and Ex COVID groups, we did not find a clinically significant difference in either hearing thresholds or frequency specific TEOAEs. However, at 500 Hz the data from the left ear, but not the right ear showed a significantly better threshold in the Ex COVID group, compared to Long COVID and No COVID groups. Any of the other tested frequencies between 500 Hz and 8 kHz were not significantly different between the different groups. There was a significantly lower frequency-specific signal-to-noise-ratio of the TEOAEs in the Long COVID compared to the No COVID group at 2.8 kHz. At all other frequencies, there were no significant differences between the three groups in the TEOAE signal-to-noise-ratio. CONCLUSION: This study detected no evidence of persistent cochlear damage months after SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large cohort of Long COVID patients, as well as those fully recovered.