Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
Respiration ; : 1-8, 2022 Mar 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1770074

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Gender differences in vaccine acceptance among health care workers (HCWs) are well documented, but the extent to which these depend on occupational group membership is less well studied. We aimed to determine vaccine acceptance and reasons of hesitancy among HCWs of respiratory clinics in Germany with respect to gender and occupational group membership. METHODS: An online questionnaire for hospital staff of all professional groups was created to assess experiences with and attitudes towards COVID-19 and the available vaccines. Employees of five clinics were surveyed from 15 to 28 March 2021. RESULTS: 962 employees (565 [72%] female) took part in the survey. Overall vaccination acceptance was 72.8%. Nurses and physicians showed greater willingness to be vaccinated than members of other professions (72.8%, 84.5%, 65.8%, respectively; p = 0.006). In multivariate analyses, worries about COVID-19 late effects (odds ratio (OR) 2.86; p < 0.001) and affiliation with physicians (OR 2.20; p = 0.025) were independently associated with the willingness for vaccination, whereas age <35 years (OR 0.61; p = 0.022) and worries about late effects of vaccination (OR 0.13; p < 0.001) predicted vaccination hesitancy; no differences were seen with respect to gender. In separate analyses for men and women, only for men worries about COVID-19 late effects were relevant, while among women, age <35 years, worries about late effects of vaccination and worries about COVID-19 late effects played a role. CONCLUSIONS: There was no overall difference in vaccination acceptance between male and female HCWs, but there were gender-specific differences in the individual reasons on which this decision-making was based.

3.
Infection ; 50(1): 93-106, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1661756

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/therapy , Hospitalization , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol ; 17(1): 93, 2021 Sep 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1416813

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is currently a dramatic increase in the number of COVID-19 cases worldwide, and further drastic restrictions in our daily life will be necessary to contain this pandemic. The implications of restrictive measures like social-distancing and mouth-nose protection on patients with chronic respiratory diseases have hardly been investigated. METHODS: Our survey, was conducted within the All Age Asthma Cohort (ALLIANCE), a multicenter longitudinal observational study. We assessed the effects of COVID-19 imposed social isolation and use of facial masks, on asthma course and mental health in patients with asthma and wheezing. RESULTS: We observed a high rate of problems associated with using facemasks and a significant reduction in the use of routine medical care. In addition to unsettling impacts, such as an increase in depression symptoms in adults, an astonishing and pleasing effect was striking: preschool children experienced an improvement in disease condition during the lockdown. This improvement can be attributed to a significant reduction in exposure to viral infections. CONCLUSION: Long-term observation of this side effect may help improve our understanding of the influence of viral infections on asthma in early childhood.

5.
Pneumologie ; 75(11): 869-900, 2021 Nov.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1392935

ABSTRACT

The German Society of Pneumology initiated the AWMFS1 guideline Post-COVID/Long-COVID. In a broad interdisciplinary approach, this S1 guideline was designed based on the current state of knowledge.The clinical recommendation describes current post-COVID/long-COVID symptoms, diagnostic approaches, and therapies.In addition to the general and consensus introduction, a subject-specific approach was taken to summarize the current state of knowledge.The guideline has an expilcit practical claim and will be continuously developed and adapted by the author team based on the current increase in knowledge.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pulmonary Medicine , COVID-19/complications , Consensus , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Infection ; 50(1): 93-106, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1296979

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/therapy , Hospitalization , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Immunity ; 53(6): 1296-1314.e9, 2020 12 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-965599

ABSTRACT

Temporal resolution of cellular features associated with a severe COVID-19 disease trajectory is needed for understanding skewed immune responses and defining predictors of outcome. Here, we performed a longitudinal multi-omics study using a two-center cohort of 14 patients. We analyzed the bulk transcriptome, bulk DNA methylome, and single-cell transcriptome (>358,000 cells, including BCR profiles) of peripheral blood samples harvested from up to 5 time points. Validation was performed in two independent cohorts of COVID-19 patients. Severe COVID-19 was characterized by an increase of proliferating, metabolically hyperactive plasmablasts. Coinciding with critical illness, we also identified an expansion of interferon-activated circulating megakaryocytes and increased erythropoiesis with features of hypoxic signaling. Megakaryocyte- and erythroid-cell-derived co-expression modules were predictive of fatal disease outcome. The study demonstrates broad cellular effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection beyond adaptive immune cells and provides an entry point toward developing biomarkers and targeted treatments of patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/metabolism , Erythroid Cells/pathology , Megakaryocytes/physiology , Plasma Cells/physiology , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Biomarkers , Blood Circulation , COVID-19/immunology , Cells, Cultured , Cohort Studies , Disease Progression , Female , Gene Expression Profiling , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Proteomics , Sequence Analysis, RNA , Severity of Illness Index , Single-Cell Analysis
10.
Allergol Select ; 4: 53-68, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-761024

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the treatment of patients with allergic and atopy-associated diseases has faced major challenges. Recommendations for "social distancing" and the fear of patients becoming infected during a visit to a medical facility have led to a drastic decrease in personal doctor-patient contacts. This affects both acute care and treatment of the chronically ill. The immune response after SARS-CoV-2 infection is so far only insufficiently understood and could be altered in a favorable or unfavorable way by therapy with monoclonal antibodies. There is currently no evidence for an increased risk of a severe COVID-19 course in allergic patients. Many patients are under ongoing therapy with biologicals that inhibit type 2 immune responses via various mechanisms. There is uncertainty about possible immunological interactions and potential risks of these biologicals in the case of an infection with SARS-CoV-2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A selective literature search was carried out in PubMed, Livivo, and the internet to cover the past 10 years (May 2010 - April 2020). Additionally, the current German-language publications were analyzed. Based on these data, the present position paper provides recommendations for the biological treatment of patients with allergic and atopy-associated diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: In order to maintain in-office consultation services, a safe treatment environment must be created that is adapted to the pandemic situation. To date, there is a lack of reliable study data on the care for patients with complex respiratory, atopic, and allergic diseases in times of an imminent infection risk from SARS-CoV-2. Type-2-dominant immune reactions, as they are frequently seen in allergic patients, could influence various phases of COVID-19, e.g., by slowing down the immune reactions. Theoretically, this could have an unfavorable effect in the early phase of a SARS-Cov-2 infection, but also a positive effect during a cytokine storm in the later phase of severe courses. However, since there is currently no evidence for this, all data from patients treated with a biological directed against type 2 immune reactions who develop COVID-19 should be collected in registries, and their disease courses documented in order to be able to provide experience-based instructions in the future. CONCLUSION: The use of biologicals for the treatment of bronchial asthma, atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and spontaneous urticaria should be continued as usual in patients without suspected infection or proven SARS-CoV-2 infection. If available, it is recommended to prefer a formulation for self-application and to offer telemedical monitoring. Treatment should aim at the best possible control of difficult-to-control allergic and atopic diseases using adequate rescue and add-on therapy and should avoid the need for systemic glucocorticosteroids. If SARS-CoV-2 infection is proven or reasonably suspected, the therapy should be determined by weighing the benefits and risks individually for the patient in question, and the patient should be involved in the decision-making. It should be kept in mind that the potential effects of biologicals on the immune response in COVID-19 are currently not known. Telemedical offers are particularly desirable for the acute consultation needs of suitable patients.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL