Use and effectiveness of remdesivir for the treatment of patients with covid-19 using data from the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (LEOSS): a multicentre cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The use of remdesivir (RDV) as the first drug approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains controversial. Based on the Lean European Open Survey on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infected patients (LEOSS), we aim to contribute timing-focused complementary real-world insights to its evaluation. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2 infected patients between January 2020 and December 2021 treated with RDV were matched 1:1 to controls considering sociodemographics, comorbidities and clinical status. Multiple imputations were used to account for missing data. Effects on fatal outcome were estimated using uni- and multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS: We included 9,687 patients. For those starting RDV administration in the complicated phase, Cox regression for fatal outcome showed an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 0.59 (95%CI 0.41-0.83). Positive trends could be obtained for further scenarios: an aHR of 0.51 (95%CI 0.16-1.68) when RDV was initiated in uncomplicated and of 0.76 (95% CI 0.55-1.04) in a critical phase of disease. Patients receiving RDV with concomitant steroids exhibited a further reduction in aHR in both, the complicated (aHR 0.50, 95%CI 0.29-0.88) and critical phase (aHR 0.63, 95%CI 0.39-1.02). CONCLUSION: Our study results elucidate that RDV use, in particular when initiated in the complicated phase and accompanied by steroids is associated with improved mortality. However, given the limitations of non-randomized trials in estimating the magnitude of the benefit of an intervention, further randomized trials focusing on the timing of therapy initiation seem warranted.

Disease severity in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: comparing routine surveillance with cohort data from the LEOSS study in 2020 in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Studies investigating risk factors for severe COVID-19 often lack information on the representativeness of the study population. Here, we investigate factors associated with severe COVID-19 and compare the representativeness of the dataset to the general population. METHODS: We used data from the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (LEOSS) of hospitalized COVID-19 patients diagnosed in 2020 in Germany to identify associated factors for severe COVID-19, defined as progressing to a critical disease stage or death. To assess the representativeness, we compared the LEOSS cohort to cases of hospitalized patients in the German statutory notification data of the same time period. Descriptive methods and Poisson regression models were used. RESULTS: Overall, 6672 hospitalized patients from LEOSS and 132,943 hospitalized cases from the German statutory notification data were included. In LEOSS, patients above 76 years were less likely represented (34.3% vs. 44.1%). Moreover, mortality was lower (14.3% vs. 21.5%) especially among age groups above 66 years. Factors associated with a severe COVID-19 disease course in LEOSS included increasing age, male sex (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.53-1.86), prior stem cell transplantation (aRR 2.27, 95% CI 1.53-3.38), and an elevated C-reactive protein at day of diagnosis (aRR 2.30, 95% CI 2.03-2.62). CONCLUSION: We identified a broad range of factors associated with severe COVID-19 progression. However, the results may be less applicable for persons above 66 years since they experienced lower mortality in the LEOSS dataset compared to the statutory notification data.

Entwicklung und Validierung potenzieller Strukturindikatoren zur Evaluierung des klinisch-infektiologischen Versorgungsangebots in deutschen Krankenhäusern während der COVID-19-Pandemie Development and validation of potential structure indicators for clinical infectious disease (ID) care in German hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic

Hintergrund Diese Studie beschreibt die Entwicklung und Validierung von Strukturindikatoren für das klinisch-infektiologische Versorgungsangebot in deutschen Krankenhäusern. Ein solches ist notwendig, um den künftigen Herausforderungen in der Infektionsmedizin adäquat begegnen zu können. Methode Ein Expert*innenteam entwickelte die Strukturindikatoren im Rahmen eines dreistufigen Entscheidungsverfahrens: (1) Identifizierung potenzieller Strukturindikatoren basierend auf einer Literaturrecherche, (2) schriftliches Bewertungsverfahren sowie eine (3) persönliche Diskussion zur Konsensfindung und finalen Auswahl geeigneter Strukturindikatoren. Zur Pilotierung der entwickelten Strukturindikatoren wurde eine Feldstudie durchgeführt. Ein auf den Strukturindikatoren basierender Score wurde für jedes Krankenhaus ermittelt und über eine Receiver-Operator-Charakteristik-Kurve (ROC) anhand extern validierter infektiologischer Expertise (Zentrum der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Infektiologie [DGI]) validiert. Ergebnisse Auf der Basis einer Liste von 45 potenziellen Strukturindikatoren wurden 18 geeignete Strukturindikatoren für das klinisch-infektiologische Versorgungsangebot entwickelt. Von diesen wurden zehn Schlüsselindikatoren für das allgemeine bzw. Coronavirus-Krankheit-2019 (COVID-19)-spezifische klinisch-infektiologische Versorgungsangebot definiert. Bei der Felderhebung des Versorgungsangebots für COVID-19-Patient*innen in 40 deutschen Krankenhäusern erreichten die teilnehmenden Einrichtungen 0 bis 9 Punkte (Median 4) im ermittelten Score. Die Fläche unter der ROC-Kurve betrug 0,893 (95%-Konfidenzintervall (KI): 0,797, 0,988;p < 0,001). Diskussion/Schlussfolgerung Die im Rahmen eines transparenten und etablierten Entwicklungsprozesses entwickelten Strukturindikatoren können perspektivisch genutzt werden, um den aktuellen Zustand und zukünftige Entwicklungen der infektiologischen Versorgungsqualität in Deutschland zu erfassen und Vergleiche zu ermöglichen.

[Development and validation of potential structure indicators for clinical infectious disease (ID) care in German hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic]. / Entwicklung und Validierung potenzieller Strukturindikatoren zur Evaluierung des klinisch-infektiologischen Versorgungsangebots in deutschen Krankenhäusern während der COVID-19-Pandemie.

INTRODUCTION: This study describes the development and validation of structure indicators for clinical infectious disease (ID) care in German hospitals, which is important to adequately face the future challenges in ID medicine. METHODS: A team of experts developed the structure indicators in a three-stage, multicriteria decision-making process: (1) identification of potential structure indicators based on a literature review, (2) written assessment process, and (3) face-to-face discussion to reach consensus and final selection of appropriate structure indicators. A field study was conducted to assess the developed structure indicators. A score based on the structure indicators was determined for each hospital and validated via receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves using externally validated ID expertise (German Society of ID (DGI) Centre). RESULTS: Based on a list of 45 potential structure indicators, 18 suitable indicators were developed for clinical ID care structures in German hospitals. Out of these, ten key indicators were defined for the general and coronavirus disease 2019- (COVID-19-) specific clinical ID care structures. In the field survey of clinical ID care provision for COVID-19 patients in 40 German hospitals, the participating facilities achieved 0 to 9 points (median 4) in the determined score. The area under the ROC curve was 0.893 (95% CI: 0.797, 0.988; p < 0.001). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: The structure indicators developed within the framework of a transparent and established development process can be used in the future to both capture the current state and future developments of ID care quality in Germany and enable comparisons.

SARS-CoV-2 viral load dynamics in immunocompromised critically ill patients on remdesivir treatment.

The relationship between SARS-CoV-2 quantitative viral load and risk of disease progression, morbidity such as long- COVID or mortality in immunosuppressed, remains largely undefined in COVID-19 patients. Critically ill immunosuppressed patients potentially benefit from remdesivir treatment because of the prolonged course of their infection. Four critically ill immunocompromised patients and the impact of remdesivir on viral dynamics in lower respiratory samples were studied. Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples were assessed to measure SARS-CoV-2 quantitative viral load using real-time PCR. Corresponding plasma levels of remdesivir and its metabolite GS-441524 were determined. Mean virus load of 39.74 x 107 geq/ml (±33.25 x 107 geq/ml) on day 1 dropped significantly (p<0.008) to 3.54 x 106 geq/ml (±6.93 x 106 geq/ml) on day 3 and to 1.4 x 105 geq/ml (±2.35 x 105 geq/ml) on day 5 of remdesivir treatment. Mean virus load dropped below <1% between day 1 and 5 of remdesivir treatment. Parent prodrug remdesivir and also GS441524 metabolite levels of antiviral activity in our patients were far in excess of EC 50. Our data present that remdesivir treatment potentially reduces the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in immunosuppressed critically ill patients. However, the implication of viral load reduction on morbidity and mortality needs further investigation.

Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of a booster regimen of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine against COVID-19 (ENSEMBLE2): results of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of effective vaccines against COVID-19, booster vaccinations are needed to maintain vaccine-induced protection against variant strains and breakthrough infections. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen) as primary vaccination plus a booster dose. METHODS: ENSEMBLE2 is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial including crossover vaccination after emergency authorisation of COVID-19 vaccines. Adults aged at least 18 years without previous COVID-19 vaccination at public and private medical practices and hospitals in Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, France, Germany, the Philippines, South Africa, Spain, the UK, and the USA were randomly assigned 1:1 via a computer algorithm to receive intramuscularly administered Ad26.COV2.S as a primary dose plus a booster dose at 2 months or two placebo injections 2 months apart. The primary endpoint was vaccine efficacy against the first occurrence of molecularly confirmed moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days after booster vaccination, which was assessed in participants who received two doses of vaccine or placebo, were negative for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR at baseline and on serology at baseline and day 71, had no major protocol deviations, and were at risk of COVID-19 (ie, had no PCR-positive result or discontinued the study before day 71). Safety was assessed in all participants; reactogenicity, in terms of solicited local and systemic adverse events, was assessed as a secondary endpoint in a safety subset (approximately 6000 randomly selected participants). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04614948, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Enrolment began on Nov 16, 2020, and the primary analysis data cutoff was June 25, 2021. From 34 571 participants screened, the double-blind phase enrolled 31 300 participants, 14 492 of whom received two doses (7484 in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 7008 in the placebo group) and 11 639 of whom were eligible for inclusion in the assessment of the primary endpoint (6024 in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 5615 in the placebo group). The median (IQR) follow-up post-booster vaccination was 36·0 (15·0-62·0) days. Vaccine efficacy was 75·2% (adjusted 95% CI 54·6-87·3) against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 (14 cases in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 52 cases in the placebo group). Most cases were due to the variants alpha (B.1.1.7) and mu (B.1.621); endpoints for the primary analysis accrued from Nov 16, 2020, to June 25, 2021, before the global dominance of delta (B.1.617.2) or omicron (B.1.1.529). The booster vaccine exhibited an acceptable safety profile. The overall frequencies of solicited local and systemic adverse events (evaluated in the safety subset, n=6067) were higher among vaccine recipients than placebo recipients after the primary and booster doses. The frequency of solicited adverse events in the Ad26.COV2.S group were similar following the primary and booster vaccinations (local adverse events, 1676 [55·6%] of 3015 vs 896 [57·5%] of 1559, respectively; systemic adverse events, 1764 [58·5%] of 3015 vs 821 [52·7%] of 1559, respectively). Solicited adverse events were transient and mostly grade 1-2 in severity. INTERPRETATION: A homologous Ad26.COV2.S booster administered 2 months after primary single-dose vaccination in adults had an acceptable safety profile and was efficacious against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19. Studies assessing efficacy against newer variants and with longer follow-up are needed. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Invasiveness of Ventilation Therapy Is Associated to Prevalence of Secondary Bacterial and Fungal Infections in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients.

Superinfections are a fundamental critical care problem, and their significance in severe COVID-19 cases needs to be determined. This study analyzed data from the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2-Infected Patients (LEOSS) cohort focusing on intensive care patients. A retrospective analysis of patient data from 840 cases of COVID-19 with critical courses demonstrated that co-infections were frequently present and were primarily of nosocomial origin. Furthermore, our analysis showed that invasive therapy procedures accompanied an increased risk for healthcare-associated infections. Non-ventilated ICU patients were rarely affected by secondary infections. The risk of infection, however, increased even when non-invasive ventilation was used. A further, significant increase in infection rates was seen with the use of invasive ventilation and even more so with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy. The marked differences among ICU techniques used for the treatment of COVID-19-induced respiratory failure in terms of secondary infection risk profile should be taken into account for the optimal management of critically ill COVID-19 patients, as well as for adequate antimicrobial therapy.

SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies to prevent COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as potential prophylaxis to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases on 27 April 2022. We checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, alone or combined, versus an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) of COVID-19. We excluded studies of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs to treat COVID-19, as these are part of another review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane RoB 2. Prioritised outcomes were infection with SARS-CoV-2, development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, all-cause mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs of 9749 participants who were previously uninfected and unvaccinated at baseline. Median age was 42 to 76 years. Around 20% to 77.5% of participants in the PrEP studies and 35% to 100% in the PEP studies had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19. At baseline, 72.8% to 82.2% were SARS-CoV-2 antibody seronegative. We identified four ongoing studies, and two studies awaiting classification. Pre-exposure prophylaxis Tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo One study evaluated tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo in participants exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, Beta, and Delta variant. About 39.3% of participants were censored for efficacy due to unblinding and 13.8% due to vaccination. Within six months, tixagevimab/cilgavimab probably decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.70; 4685 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), decreases development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.35; 5172 participants; high-certainty evidence), and may decrease admission to hospital (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0 to 0.59; 5197 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tixagevimab/cilgavimab may result in little to no difference on mortality within six months, all-grade AEs, and SAEs (low-certainty evidence). Quality of life was not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, and Delta variant. About 36.5% of participants opted for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and had a mean of 66.1 days between last dose of intervention and vaccination. Within six months, casirivimab/imdevimab may decrease infection with SARS-CoV-2 (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0 to 0.14; 825 seronegative participants; low-certainty evidence) and may decrease development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0 to 0.27; 969 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether casirivimab/imdevimab affects mortality regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody serostatus. Casirivimab/imdevimab may increase all-grade AEs slightly (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.31; 969 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on grade 3 to 4 AEs and SAEs within six months. Admission to hospital and quality of life were not reported. Postexposure prophylaxis Bamlanivimab versus placebo One study evaluated bamlanivimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type. Bamlanivimab probably decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 versus placebo by day 29 (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98; 966 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on all-cause mortality by day 60 (R 0.83, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.70; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence), may increase all-grade AEs by week eight (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.46; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may increase slightly SAEs (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.91; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence). Development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital within 30 days, and quality of life were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, and potentially, but less likely to Delta variant. Within 30 days, casirivimab/imdevimab decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.48; 1505 participants; high-certainty evidence), development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (broad-term definition) (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.35; 1505 participants; high-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on mortality (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.43; 1505 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference in admission to hospital. Casirivimab/imdevimab may slightly decrease grade 3 to 4 AEs (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.02; 2617 participants; low-certainty evidence), decreases all-grade AEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80; 2617 participants; high-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference on SAEs in participants regardless of SARS-CoV-2 antibody serostatus. Quality of life was not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For PrEP, there is a decrease in development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (high certainty), infection with SARS-CoV-2 (moderate certainty), and admission to hospital (low certainty) with tixagevimab/cilgavimab. There is low certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2, and development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms; and a higher rate for all-grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab. For PEP, there is moderate certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2 and low certainty for a higher rate for all-grade AEs with bamlanivimab. There is high certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2, development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, and a higher rate for all-grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab.   Although there is high-to-moderate certainty evidence for some outcomes, it is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions. These findings only apply to people unvaccinated against COVID-19. They are only applicable to the variants prevailing during the study and not other variants (e.g. Omicron). In vitro, tixagevimab/cilgavimab is effective against Omicron, but there are no clinical data. Bamlanivimab and casirivimab/imdevimab are ineffective against Omicron in vitro. Further studies are needed and publication of four ongoing studies may resolve the uncertainties.

CMV seropositivity is a potential novel risk factor for severe COVID-19 in non-geriatric patients.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has so far affected more than 250 million individuals worldwide, causing more than 5 million deaths. Several risk factors for severe disease have been identified, most of which coincide with advanced age. In younger individuals, severe COVID-19 often occurs in the absence of obvious comorbidities. Guided by the finding of cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific T cells with some cross-reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 in a COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) patient, we decided to investigate whether CMV seropositivity is associated with severe or critical COVID-19. Herpes simplex virus (HSV) serostatus was investigated as control. METHODS: National German COVID-19 bio-sample and data banks were used to retrospectively analyze the CMV and HSV serostatus of patients who experienced mild (n = 101), moderate (n = 130) or severe to critical (n = 80) disease by IgG serology. We then investigated the relationship between disease severity and herpesvirus serostatus via statistical models. RESULTS: Non-geriatric patients (< 60 years) with severe COVID-19 were found to have a very high prevalence of CMV-seropositivity, while CMV status distribution in individuals with mild disease was similar to the prevalence in the German population; interestingly, this was not detectable in older patients. Prediction models support the hypothesis that the CMV serostatus, unlike HSV, might be a strong biomarker in identifying younger individuals with a higher risk of developing severe COVID-19, in particular in absence of other co-morbidities. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 'CMV-seropositivity' as a potential novel risk factor for severe COVID-19 in non-geriatric individuals in the studied cohorts. More mechanistic analyses as well as confirmation of similar findings in cohorts representing the currently most relevant SARS-CoV-2 variants should be performed shortly.

Early reduction of SARS-CoV-2-replication in bronchial epithelium by kinin B2 receptor antagonism.

SARS-CoV-2 has evolved to enter the host via the ACE2 receptor which is part of the kinin-kallikrein pathway. This complex pathway is only poorly understood in context of immune regulation but critical to control infection. This study examines SARS-CoV-2-infection and epithelial mechanisms of the kinin-kallikrein-system at the kinin B2 receptor level in SARS-CoV-2-infection that is of direct translational relevance. From acute SARS-CoV-2-positive study participants and -negative controls, transcriptomes of nasal curettages were analyzed. Primary airway epithelial cells (NHBEs) were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and treated with the approved B2R-antagonist icatibant. SARS-CoV-2 RNA RT-qPCR, cytotoxicity assays, plaque assays, and transcriptome analyses were performed. The treatment effect was further studied in a murine airway inflammation model in vivo. Here, we report a broad and strong upregulation of kallikreins and the kinin B2 receptor (B2R) in the nasal mucosa of acutely symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive study participants. A B2R-antagonist impeded SARS-CoV-2 replication and spread in NHBEs, as determined in plaque assays on Vero-E6 cells. B2R-antagonism reduced the expression of SARS-CoV-2 entry receptor ACE2, G protein-coupled receptor signaling, and ion transport in vitro and in a murine airway inflammation in vivo model. In summary, this study provides evidence that treatment with B2R-antagonists protects airway epithelial cells from SARS-CoV-2 by inhibiting its replication and spread, through the reduction of ACE2 levels and the interference with several cellular signaling processes. Future clinical studies need to shed light on the airway protection potential of approved B2R-antagonists, like icatibant, in the treatment of early-stage COVID-19. KEY MESSAGES: Induction of kinin B2 receptor in the nose of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. Treatment with B2R-antagonist protects airway epithelial cells from SARS-CoV-2. B2R-antagonist reduces ACE2 levels in vivo and ex vivo. Protection by B2R-antagonist is mediated by inhibiting viral replication and spread.

Infection Control Measures and Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG among 4,554 University Hospital Employees, Munich, Germany.

Hospital staff are at high risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. This cross-sectional study aimed to determine the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospital staff at the University Hospital rechts der Isar in Munich, Germany, and identify modulating factors. Overall seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2-IgG in 4,554 participants was 2.4%. Staff engaged in direct patient care, including those working in COVID-19 units, had a similar probability of being seropositive as non-patient-facing staff. Increased probability of infection was observed in staff reporting interactions with SARS-CoV-2‒infected coworkers or private contacts or exposure to COVID-19 patients without appropriate personal protective equipment. Analysis of spatiotemporal trajectories identified that distinct hotspots for SARS-CoV-2‒positive staff and patients only partially overlap. Patient-facing work in a healthcare facility during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic might be safe as long as adequate personal protective equipment is used and infection prevention practices are followed inside and outside the hospital.

[Erratum to: Strategy for university emergency room management at the beginning of an epidemic using COVID-19 as an example]. / Erratum zu: Strategie einer universitären Notaufnahme für das COVID-19-Management im Rahmen einer beginnenden Epidemie.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1007/s10049-020-00759-8.].

Key summary of German national treatment guidance for hospitalized COVID-19 patients : Key pharmacologic recommendations from a national German living guideline using an Evidence to Decision Framework (last updated 17.05.2021).

PURPOSE: This executive summary of a national living guideline aims to provide rapid evidence based recommendations on the role of drug interventions in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: The guideline makes use of a systematic assessment and decision process using an evidence to decision framework (GRADE) as recommended standard WHO (2021). Recommendations are consented by an interdisciplinary panel. Evidence analysis and interpretation is supported by the CEOsys project providing extensive literature searches and living (meta-) analyses. For this executive summary, selected key recommendations on drug therapy are presented including the quality of the evidence and rationale for the level of recommendation. RESULTS: The guideline contains 11 key recommendations for COVID-19 drug therapy, eight of which are based on systematic review and/or meta-analysis, while three recommendations represent consensus expert opinion. Based on current evidence, the panel makes strong recommendations for corticosteroids (WHO scale 5-9) and prophylactic anticoagulation (all hospitalized patients with COVID-19) as standard of care. Intensified anticoagulation may be considered for patients with additional risk factors for venous thromboembolisms (VTE) and a low bleeding risk. The IL-6 antagonist tocilizumab may be added in case of high supplemental oxygen requirement and progressive disease (WHO scale 5-6). Treatment with nMABs may be considered for selected inpatients with an early SARS-CoV-2 infection that are not hospitalized for COVID-19. Convalescent plasma, azithromycin, ivermectin or vitamin D3 should not be used in COVID-19 routine care. CONCLUSION: For COVID-19 drug therapy, there are several options that are sufficiently supported by evidence. The living guidance will be updated as new evidence emerges.

[Antiviral drugs : Potent agents, promising therapies for COVID­19 and therapeutic limitations]. / Antivirale Medikamente : Potente Wirkstoffe, Hoffnungsträger bei COVID­19 und therapeutische Grenzen.

Antiviral drugs inhibit viral replication by interaction with specific elements of the viral replication cycle. Directly acting antiviral agents have revolutionized the therapeutic options for chronic infections with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV). Pharmacological developments constantly improve therapeutic and prophylactic options for diseases caused by herpes viruses, which is of particular relevance for immunocompromised patients. While infections with persistent viruses, such as HIV, HBV or herpes viruses principally so far cannot be cured, complete elimination of viruses that cause acute infections is possible; however, acute infections, such as influenza or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) offer only a small therapeutic window for antiviral strategies due to their pathophysiological dynamics. The optimal time point for antiviral agents is immediately after exposure to the virus, which frequently limits its application in practice. An effective pre-exposure or postexposure prophylaxis has been established for infections with HIV and influenza A/B and also gains relevance for infections with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Integration of mobile sensors in a telemedicine hospital system: remote-monitoring in COVID-19 patients.

Aim: The goal is to design and, in a next step, establish a scalable, multi-center telemonitoring platform based on existing systems for monitoring COVID-19 patients in home quarantine. In particular, the focus will be on raw data acquisition, integration of sensor data into the hospital system, structured data storage, and interoperability. Subject and methods: Data necessary for monitoring, otherwise provided in various portals, will be continuously queried and integrated into the hospital system via a new interface in this proof-of-concept work. Results: Based on extensive preliminary work at Klinikum rechts der Isar with a structured clinical database, we extend our system's integration of raw data and visualization in dashboards, as well as scientific provision of data from mobile sensors for monitoring patients in home quarantine. Conclusion: Based on existing integrated telemonitoring systems supporting semantic and syntactic interoperability, short-term provision of scientific databases is possible. The integration of different mobile sensors into a clinical system for remote monitoring of patients around the clock is still new and to our knowledge unique.