Self-Reported Reactogenicity After Different COVID-19 Vaccination Regimens­An Analysis of Registry-Based Data.

BACKGROUND: In Rhineland-Palatinate, most COVID-19 vaccinations are centrally recorded by the Rhineland-Palatinate Division of Vaccine Documentation, which includes self-reported vaccination reactions (SRVR) and their level of perceived intensity. We analyzed the occurrence of SBIR reported between 12/2020 and 12/2021 in relation to the different vaccination regimens involving BioNTech/Pfizer (BNT) and Moderna (m1273) mRNA vaccines and AstraZeneca (ChAd) and Johnson & Johnson (Ad26) viral vector vaccines. METHODS: Using sex-specific logistic regression models, we analyzed the occurrence of all local and systemic SBIR, as well as the occurrence of only local and systemic SBIR that were selfrated as "severe" by the vaccinated persons, in relation to the vaccine of the first vaccination and the vaccination regimen of the second vaccination (BNT/BNT, ChAd/ChAd, m1273/m1273, ChAd/BNT, ChAd/m1273). Vaccination with BNT or the BNT/BNT regimen formed the reference category for the estimated odds ratios (OR) with respective 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Of all those vaccinated, 40.7% provided valid information on SBIR after the first vaccination and 33.8% after the second vaccination. As a result, 887 052 individuals were included in the analyses. Their median age was 60 years, and 58% were women. The most common vaccination regimen was BNT/BNT (67.3%). The most common SBIR were pain at the injection site and fatigue. Self-reported reactogenicity after the first vaccination was lowest for BNT. Self-reported systemic reactogenicity was notably higher after vaccination with a vector vaccine. After the second vaccination, self-reported reactogenicity was lowest after a ChAd/ChAd regimen and highest after an m1273 second vaccination. CONCLUSION: With overall acceptable tolerability, differences in self-reported reactogenicity were evident depending on the particular COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination regimens in question.

Medical appointments and provision of medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Mainz, Germany.

Previous evidence suggested that non-COVID-19-related medical care was reduced during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it remained unclear whether or to which extent this effect lasted beyond the first wave, or existed in a longer time frame. Here, we consider questionnaire data of the Gutenberg-COVID-19 study together with pre-pandemic baseline data of the Gutenberg Health Study concerning the region around Mainz, Germany, to study the effects of the pandemic on the provision of medical care until April 2021. We observed that the proportion of cancelled medical appointments was low and that the fraction of participants with a medical appointment as an indicator for the number of appointments being made was in line with pre-pandemic levels. Appointments were more likely cancelled by the patient (rather than the provider), and more likely cancelled by medical specialists such as dentists or ophthalmologists (rather than GPs). In conclusion, we found some evidence that, at least with regard to realized appointments, the medical system and the provision of medical care were not harmed by the COVID-19 pandemic on a longer time scale.

[Explaining the age-adjusted excess mortality with COVID-19-attributed deaths from January 2020 to July 2021]. / Erklärbarkeit der altersadjustierten Übersterblichkeit mit den COVID-19-attribuierten Sterbefällen von Januar 2020 bis Juli 2021.

BACKGROUND: Estimating COVID-19 mortality is impeded by uncertainties in cause of death coding. In contrast, age-adjusted excess all-cause mortality is a robust indicator of how the COVID-19 pandemic impacts public health. However, in addition to COVID-19 deaths, excess mortality potentially also reflects indirect negative effects of public health measures aiming to contain the pandemic. OBJECTIVES: The study examines whether excess mortality in Germany between January 2020 and July 2021 is consistent with fatalities attributed to COVID-19 or may be partially due to indirect effects of public health measures. METHODS: Excess mortality trends for the period from January 2020 to July 2021 were checked for consistency with deaths attributed to COVID-19 in both the German federal states and districts of Rhineland-Palatinate. The expected monthly mortality rates were predicted based on data from 2015-2019, taking into account the population demographics, air temperature, seasonal influenza activity, and cyclic and long-term time trends RESULTS: COVID-19-attributed mortality was included in the 95% prediction uncertainty intervals for excess mortality in 232 of 304 (76.3%) month-state combinations and in 607 of 684 (88.7%) month-district combinations. The Spearman rank correlation between excess mortality and COVID-19-attributed mortality across federal states was 0.42 (95% confidence interval [0.31; 0.53]) and 0.21 (95% confidence interval [0.13; 0.29]) across districts. CONCLUSIONS: The good agreement of spatiotemporal excess mortality patterns with COVID-19 attributed mortality is consistent with the assumption that indirect adverse effects from public health interventions to contain the COVID-19 pandemic did not substantially contribute to excess mortality in Germany between January 2020 and July 2021.

Association of COVID-19 mortality with COVID-19 vaccination rates in Rhineland-Palatinate (Germany) from calendar week 1 to 20 in the year 2021: a registry-based analysis.

Vaccination is among the measures implemented by authorities to control the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, real-world evidence of population-level effects of vaccination campaigns against COVID-19 are required to confirm that positive results from clinical trials translate into positive public health outcomes. Since the age group 80 + years is most at risk for severe COVID-19 disease progression, this group was prioritized during vaccine rollout in Germany. Based on comprehensive vaccination data from the German federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate for calendar week 1-20 in the year 2021, we calculated sex- and age-specific vaccination coverage. Furthermore, we calculated the proportion of weekly COVID-19 fatalities and reported SARS-CoV-2 infections formed by each age group. Vaccination coverage in the age group 80 + years increased to a level of 80% (men) and 75% (women). Increasing vaccination coverage coincided with a reduction in the age group's proportion of COVID-19 fatalities. In multivariable logistic regression, vaccination coverage was associated both with a reduction in an age-group's proportion of COVID-19 fatalities [odds ratio (OR) per 5 percentage points = 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.82-0.96, p = 0.0013] and of reported SARS-CoV-2 infections (OR per 5 percentage points = 0.82, 95% CI 0.76-0.88, p < 0.0001). The results are consistent with a protective effect afforded by the vaccination campaign against severe COVID-19 disease in the oldest age group.

Protective and Risk Factors for Mental Distress and Its Impact on Health-Protective Behaviors during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic between March 2020 and March 2021 in Germany.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is posing a global public health burden. These consequences have been shown to increase the risk of mental distress, but the underlying protective and risk factors for mental distress and trends over different waves of the pandemic are largely unknown. Furthermore, it is largely unknown how mental distress is associated with individual protective behavior. Three quota samples, weighted to represent the population forming the German COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring study (24 March and 26 May 2020, and 9 March 2021 with >900 subjects each), were used to describe the course of mental distress and resilience, to identify risk and protective factors during the pandemic, and to investigate their associations with individual protective behaviors. Mental distress increased slightly during the pandemic. Usage of cognitive reappraisal strategies, maintenance of a daily structure, and usage of alternative social interactions decreased. Self-reported resilience, cognitive reappraisal strategies, and maintaining a daily structure were the most important protective factors in all three samples. Adherence to individual protective behaviors (e.g., physical distancing) was negatively associated with mental distress and positively associated with frequency of information intake, maintenance of a daily structure, and cognitive reappraisal. Maintaining a daily structure, training of cognitive reappraisal strategies, and information provision may be targets to prevent mental distress while assuring a high degree of individual protective behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Effects of the respective interventions have to be confirmed in further studies.

[Mental burden, resilience and tendency towards absenteeism among healthcare personnel in Germany during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020 : An ad hoc survey]. / Psychische Belastung, Resilienz und Absentismusneigung bei Gesundheitspersonal in Deutschland während der ersten COVID-19-Pandemiewelle im Frühjahr 2020 : Eine Ad-hoc-Befragung.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is associated with extensive changes in the public and private life in Germany. Healthcare personnel are particularly exposed to additional stressors. OBJECTIVE: To identify the mental burden, resilience, tendency towards absenteeism and associated factors during the COVID-19 pandemic in an anonymous cross-sectional survey. METHODS: Data on sociodemographics, occupational situation, contact to COVID-19 patients, mental burden, stressors, resilience, risk and protective factors were assessed among a convenience sample of healthcare personnel in spring 2020 (5 April 2020-7 May 2020). A comparison with the general population in Germany before and during the COVID-19 pandemic was conducted. RESULTS: After the evaluation of 650 completed questionnaires, an increased mental burden was found compared to the German general population before the pandemic, while the mental burden was reduced compared to the general population during the pandemic. The self-reported resilience was slightly higher compared to the general population before and during the pandemic. The COVID-19-related stressors and worries were the most important risk factors, self-efficacy and optimism the most important protective factors. The mental burden was moderately correlated with the intention to change the profession and the tendency towards absenteeism. CONCLUSION: Mental burden in healthcare personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with a higher tendency towards taking sick leave. In order to support healthcare personnel interventions that foster resources, such as self-efficacy and optimism should be offered to particularly vulnerable groups .