SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections of Omicron and Delta Variants in Healthcare Workers.

Understanding SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in vaccinated healthcare workers is of key importance in mitigating the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in healthcare facilities. An observational prospective cohort study was conducted in vaccinated employees with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection between October 2021 and February 2022. Serological and molecular testing was performed to determine SARS-CoV-2 viral load, lineage, antibody levels, and neutralizing antibody titers. A total of 571 (9.7%) employees experienced SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections during the enrolment period, of which 81 were included. The majority (n = 79, 97.5%) were symptomatic and most (n = 75, 92.6%) showed Ct values < 30 in RT-PCR assays. Twenty-four (30%) remained PCR-positive for > 15 days. Neutralizing antibody titers were strongest for the wildtype, intermediate for Delta, and lowest for Omicron variants. Omicron infections occurred at higher anti-RBD-IgG serum levels (p = 0.00001) and showed a trend for higher viral loads (p = 0.14, median Ct difference 4.3, 95% CI [-2.5-10.5]). For both variants, viral loads were significantly higher in participants with lower anti-RBD-IgG serum levels (p = 0.02). In conclusion, while the clinical course of infection with both the Omicron and Delta variants was predominantly mild to moderate in our study population, waning immune response over time and prolonged viral shedding were observed.

Burden of hospital admissions and resulting patient interhospital transports during the 2020/2021 SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Saxony, Germany.

Secondary transports of patients from one hospital to another are indicated for medical reasons or to address local constraints in capacity. In particular, interhospital transports of critically ill infectious patients present a logistical challenge and can be key in the effective management of pandemic situations. The state of Saxony in Germany has two characteristics that allow for an extensive evaluation of secondary transports in the pandemic year 2020/2021. First, all secondary transports are centrally coordinated by a single institution. Second, Saxony had the highest SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and the highest COVID-19 associated mortality in Germany. This study evaluates secondary interhospital transports from March 2019 to February 2021 in Saxony with a detailed analysis of transport behaviour during the pandemic phase March 2020 to February 2021. Our analysis includes secondary transports of SARS-CoV-2 patients and compares them to secondary transports of non-infectious patients. In addition, our data show differences in demographics, SARS-CoV-2- incidences, ICU occupancy of COVID-19 patients, and COVID-19 associated mortality in all three regional health clusters in Saxony. In total, 12,282 secondary transports were analysed between March 1st, 2020 and February 28th, 2021, of which 632 were associated with SARS-CoV-2 (5.1%) The total number of secondary transports changed slightly during the study period March 2020 to February 2021. Transport capacities for non-infectious patients were reduced due to in-hospital and out-of-hospital measures and could be used for transport of SARS-CoV-2 patients. Infectious transfers lasted longer despite shorter distance, occurred more frequently on weekends and transported patients were older. Primary transport vehicles were emergency ambulances, transport ambulances and intensive care transport vehicles. Data analysis based on hospital structures showed that secondary transports in correlation to weekly case numbers depend on the hospital type. Maximum care hospitals and specialized hospitals show a maximum of infectious transports approximately 4 weeks after the highest incidences. In contrast, standard care hospitals transfer their patients at the time of highest SARS-CoV-2 case numbers. Two incidence peaks were accompanied by two peaks of increased secondary transport. Our findings show that interhospital transfers of SARS-CoV-2 and non-SARS-CoV-2 patients differ and that different hospital care levels initiated secondary transports at different times during the pandemic.

[COVID-19: a chance for digitalization of teaching? : Report of experiences and results of a survey on digitalized teaching in the fields of anesthesiology, intensive care, emergency, pain and palliative medicine at the University of Leipzig]. / COVID-19: eine Chance zur Digitalisierung der Lehre? : Erfahrungsbericht und Ergebnisse einer Umfrage zur digitalen Lehre im Bereich Anästhesiologie, Intensiv-, Notfall-, Schmerz- und Palliativmedizin an der Universität Leipzig.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV­2 pandemic has been a major challenge for graduate education. Teaching had to be digitalized within a very short time. This also affected the areas of anesthesiology, intensive care, emergency, pain and palliative care at the Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine at the University of Leipzig. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this questionnaire-based survey was to find out which courses can be digitalized from the students' point of view and which forms of teaching are associated with obstacles. In addition, we examined which technical infrastructure supports digitalization best. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In the course of digitalization the lecture series in the areas of palliative care and pain medicine had to be revised but also digital alternatives for seminars, simulation courses and bedside teaching had to be created. Video podcasts, digital learning material, educational films and video conferences were used for the digital implementation of the courses. Depending on the course, different digital methods were combined. In addition, a discussion forum for the exchange between faculty and students was established. An online evaluation was then carried out to assess the content. RESULTS: A total of 82 4th and 5th year medical students took part in the survey. More than 60% of students rated the learning effect of digital courses as "high" or "very high". Video podcasts of the lectures (45.1%) and digital bedside teaching (34.1%) were rated as the most effective ways of imparting knowledge. In particular, 92.7% of the surveyed students believed that the lectures could be replaced digitally on a permanent basis. For bedside teaching (3.7%) and emergency simulation course (1.2%) this is far less the case. In the majority of cases (56.1%), students needed 30-90 min daily for the preparation and post-processing of the contents. Just under 90% gave the digital courses offered by the hospital an overall grade of 1 or 2 (on a scale from 1 = best to 6 = worst). CONCLUSION: The SARS-CoV­2 pandemic posed major challenges for graduate teaching. At the same time, however, it also helped to overcome often long-standing hurdles to the digitalization of teaching. In the course of the digital semester, different teaching formats could be digitalized to varying degrees: Lectures can be digitally reproduced particularly well from the students' perspective, whereas the digitalization of bedside teaching has not been possible in most cases.