Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(5)2022 Apr 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1820431

ABSTRACT

(1) Background: Health care workers (HCWs) play a key role in increasing anti-COVID vaccination rates. Fear of potential side effects is one of the main reasons for vaccine hesitancy. We investigated which side effects are of concern to HCWs and how these are associated with vaccine hesitancy. (2) Methods: Data were collected in an online survey in February 2021 among HCWs from across Germany with 4500 included participants. Free-text comments on previously experienced vaccination side effects, and fear of short- and long-term side effects of the COVID-19 vaccination were categorized and analyzed. (3) Results: Most feared short-term side effects were vaccination reactions, allergic reactions, and limitations in daily life. Most feared long-term side effects were (auto-) immune reactions, neurological side effects, and currently unknown long-term consequences. Concerns about serious vaccination side effects were associated with vaccination refusal. There was a clear association between refusal of COVID-19 vaccination in one's personal environment and fear of side effects. (4) Conclusions: Transparent information about vaccine side effects is needed, especially for HCW. Especially when the participants' acquaintances advised against vaccination, they were significantly more likely to fear side effects. Thus, further education of HCW is necessary to achieve good information transfer in clusters as well.

2.
Anaesthesist ; 71(4): 281-290, 2022 Apr.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1777695

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In the context of COVID-19, the German CEOsys project (COVID-19 Evidenz Ökosystem, www.covid-evidenz.de ) identifies, evaluates and summarizes the results of scientific studies to obtain evidence on this disease. The evidence syntheses are used to derive specific recommendations for clinical practice and to contribute to national guidelines. Besides the necessity of conducting good quality evidence syntheses during a pandemic, just as important is that the dissemination of evidence needs to be quick and efficient, especially in a health crisis. The CEOsys project has set itself this challenge. OBJECTIVE: Preparing the most suitable distribution of evidence syntheses as part of the CEOsys project tasks. METHODS: Intensive care unit (ICU) personnel in Germany were surveyed via categorical and free text questions. The survey focused on the following topics: evidence syntheses, channels and strategies of distribution, possibility of feedback, structure and barriers of dissemination and trustworthiness of various organizations. Profession, qualification, setting and size of the facility were recorded. Questionnaires were pretested throughout the queried professions (physician, nurse, others). The survey was anonymously carried out online through SosciSurvey® and an e­mail was sent directly to 940 addresses. The survey was launched on 3 December, a reminder was sent after 14 days and it ended on 31 December. The survey was also announced via e­mail through DIVI. RESULTS: Of 317 respondents 200 completed the questionnaire. All information was analyzed including the responses from incomplete questionnaires. The most stated barriers were lack of time and access. Especially residents and nurses without specialization in intensive care mentioned uncertainty or insufficient experience in dealing with evidence syntheses as a barrier. Active distribution of evidence syntheses was clearly preferred. More than half of the participants chose websites of public institutions, medical journals, professional societies and e­mail newsletters for drawing attention to new evidence syntheses. Short versions, algorithms and webinars were the most preferred strategies for dissemination. Trust in organizations supplying information on the COVID-19 pandemic was given to professional societies and the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) as the German governmental institute for infections and public health. The respondents' prioritized topics are long-term consequences of the disease, protection of medical personnel against infection and possibilities of ventilation treatment. CONCLUSION: Even though universally valid, evidence syntheses should be actively brought to the target audience, especially during a health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic with its exceptional challenges including lack of time and uncertainties in patient care. The contents should be clear, short (short versions, algorithms) and with free access. E­mail newsletters, websites or medical journals should continuously report on new evidence syntheses. Professional societies and the governmental institute for infections and public health should be involved in dissemination due to their obvious trustworthiness.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Critical Care , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Surveys and Questionnaires
3.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-315831

ABSTRACT

Background: Severe COVID-19 associated respiratory failure, poses the one challenge of our days. Assessment and treatment of COVID-19 associated hyperinflammation may be key to improve outcomes. It was speculated that in subgroups of patients secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (sHLH) or cytokine release syndrome (CRS) with features of macrophage activation syndrome might drive severe disease trajectories. If confirmed, profound immunosuppressive therapy would be a rationale treatment approach. Methods: : Over a median observation period of 11 (IQR: 8;16) days, 19 consecutive confirmed severe COVID-19-patients admitted to our intensive-care-unit were tested for presence of sHLH by two independent experts. HScores and 2004-HLH diagnostic criteria were assessed. Patients were grouped according to short-term clinical courses: discharge from ICU versus ongoing ARDS or death at time of analysis. Results: : The median HScore at admission was 157 (IQR: 98;180), without the key clinical triad of HLH, i.e. progressive cytopenia, persistent fever and organomegaly. Independent expert chart review revealed the absence of sHLH in all cases. No patient reached more than 3/6 of modified HLH 2004 criteria. Nevertheless, patients presented hyperinflammation with peripheral neutrophilic signatures (neutrophil/lymphocyte-ratio>3.5). The latter best paralleled their short-term clinical courses, with declining relative neutrophil numbers prior to extubation (4.4, [IQR: 2.5;6.3];n=8) versus those with unfavourable courses (7.6, [IQR: 5.2;31], n=9). Conclusion: Our study rules out virus induced sHLH as the leading cause of most severe-COVID-19 trajectories. Instead, an associated innate neutrophilic hyperinflammatory response or virus-associated-CRS appears dominant in patients with an unfavourable clinical course. Therapeutic implications are discussed.

4.
J Med Virol ; 93(12): 6703-6713, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1544323

ABSTRACT

Scores to identify patients at high risk of progression of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), may become instrumental for clinical decision-making and patient management. We used patient data from the multicentre Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2-Infected Patients (LEOSS) and applied variable selection to develop a simplified scoring system to identify patients at increased risk of critical illness or death. A total of 1946 patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were included in the initial analysis and assigned to derivation and validation cohorts (n = 1297 and n = 649, respectively). Stability selection from over 100 baseline predictors for the combined endpoint of progression to the critical phase or COVID-19-related death enabled the development of a simplified score consisting of five predictors: C-reactive protein (CRP), age, clinical disease phase (uncomplicated vs. complicated), serum urea, and D-dimer (abbreviated as CAPS-D score). This score yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77-0.85) in the validation cohort for predicting the combined endpoint within 7 days of diagnosis and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.85) during full follow-up. We used an additional prospective cohort of 682 patients, diagnosed largely after the "first wave" of the pandemic to validate the predictive accuracy of the score and observed similar results (AUC for the event within 7 days: 0.83 [95% CI: 0.78-0.87]; for full follow-up: 0.82 [95% CI: 0.78-0.86]). An easily applicable score to calculate the risk of COVID-19 progression to critical illness or death was thus established and validated.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , C-Reactive Protein/analysis , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/pathology , Female , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products/analysis , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Reproducibility of Results , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Severity of Illness Index , Urea/blood , Young Adult
5.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD013825, 2021 09 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1490675

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs for treating patients with COVID-19, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention. To maintain the currency of the evidence, we will use a living systematic review approach. A secondary objective is to track newly developed SARS-CoV-2-targeting mAbs from first tests in humans onwards.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and three other databases on 17 June 2021. We also checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. Between submission and publication, we conducted a shortened randomised controlled trial (RCT)-only search on 30 July 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that evaluated SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, alone or combined, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, to treat people with COVID-19. We excluded studies on prophylactic use of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). Prioritised outcomes were all-cause mortality by days 30 and 60, clinical progression, quality of life, admission to hospital, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified six RCTs that provided results from 17,495 participants with planned completion dates between July 2021 and December 2031. Target sample sizes varied from 1020 to 10,000 participants. Average age was 42 to 53 years across four studies of non-hospitalised participants, and 61 years in two studies of hospitalised participants. Non-hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 Four studies evaluated single agents bamlanivimab (N = 465), sotrovimab (N = 868), regdanvimab (N = 307), and combinations of bamlanivimab/etesevimab (N = 1035), and casirivimab/imdevimab (N = 799). We did not identify data for mortality at 60 days or quality of life. Our certainty of the evidence is low for all outcomes due to too few events (very serious imprecision).  Bamlanivimab compared to placebo No deaths occurred in the study by day 29. There were nine people admitted to hospital by day 29 out of 156 in the placebo group compared with one out of 101 in the group treated with 0.7 g bamlanivimab (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.33), 2 from 107 in the group treated with 2.8 g (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.47) and 2 from 101 in the group treated with 7.0 g (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.56). Treatment with 0.7 g, 2.8 g and 7.0 g bamlanivimab may have similar rates of AEs as placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.50; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.27). The effect on SAEs is uncertain. Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Bamlanivimab/etesevimab compared to placebo There were 10 deaths in the placebo group and none in bamlanivimab/etesevimab group by day 30 (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.81). Bamlanivimab/etesevimab may decrease hospital admission by day 29 (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.59), may result in a slight increase in any grade AEs (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.59) and may increase SAEs (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.37). Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab compared to placebo Casirivimab/imdevimab may reduce hospital admissions or death (2.4 g: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.19; 8.0 g: RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.79). We are uncertain of the effect on grades 3-4 AEs (2.4 g: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.73) and SAEs (2.4 g: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.65). Mortality by day 30 and clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Sotrovimab compared to placebo We are uncertain whether sotrovimab has an effect on mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.18) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) requirement or death (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.76). Treatment with sotrovimab may reduce the number of participants with oxygen requirement (RR 0.11, 95 % CI 0.02 to 0.45), hospital admission or death by day 30 (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.48), grades 3-4 AEs (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.60), SAEs (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63) and may have little or no effect on any grade AEs (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.16).  Regdanvimab compared to placebo Treatment with either dose (40 or 80 mg/kg) compared with placebo may decrease hospital admissions or death (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.60, 206 participants), but may increase grades 3-4 AEs (RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.52 to 13.12; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.37 to 10.70). 80 mg/kg may reduce any grade AEs (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.22) but 40 mg/kg may have little to no effect (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.43). There were too few events to allow meaningful judgment for the outcomes mortality by 30 days, IMV requirement, and SAEs.  Hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 Two studies evaluating bamlanivimab as a single agent (N = 314) and casirivimab/imdevimab as a combination therapy (N = 9785) were included.   Bamlanivimab compared to placebo  We are uncertain whether bamlanivimab has an effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83) and SAEs by day 28 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.14). Bamlanivimab may have little to no effect on time to hospital discharge (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.20) and mortality by day 90 (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.43). The effect of bamlanivimab on the development of severe symptoms at day 5 (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85) is uncertain. Bamlanivimab may increase grades 3-4 AEs at day 28 (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.98). We assessed the evidence as low certainty for all outcomes due to serious imprecision, and very low certainty for severe symptoms because of additional concerns about indirectness. Casirivimab/imdevimab with usual care compared to usual care alone Treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab compared to usual care probably has little or no effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.02), IMV requirement or death (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04), nor alive at hospital discharge by day 30 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04). We assessed the evidence as moderate certainty due to study limitations (lack of blinding). AEs and SAEs were not reported.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for each comparison is based on single studies. None of these measured quality of life. Our certainty in the evidence for all non-hospitalised individuals is low, and for hospitalised individuals is very low to moderate. We consider the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. Further studies and long-term data from the existing studies are needed to confirm or refute these initial findings, and to understand how the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants may impact the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. Publication of the 36 ongoing studies may resolve uncertainties about the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs for the treatment of COVID-19 and possible subgroup differences.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Cause of Death , Humans , Middle Aged , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
6.
Anaesthesist ; 71(4): 281-290, 2022 Apr.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1427225

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In the context of COVID-19, the German CEOsys project (COVID-19 Evidenz Ökosystem, www.covid-evidenz.de ) identifies, evaluates and summarizes the results of scientific studies to obtain evidence on this disease. The evidence syntheses are used to derive specific recommendations for clinical practice and to contribute to national guidelines. Besides the necessity of conducting good quality evidence syntheses during a pandemic, just as important is that the dissemination of evidence needs to be quick and efficient, especially in a health crisis. The CEOsys project has set itself this challenge. OBJECTIVE: Preparing the most suitable distribution of evidence syntheses as part of the CEOsys project tasks. METHODS: Intensive care unit (ICU) personnel in Germany were surveyed via categorical and free text questions. The survey focused on the following topics: evidence syntheses, channels and strategies of distribution, possibility of feedback, structure and barriers of dissemination and trustworthiness of various organizations. Profession, qualification, setting and size of the facility were recorded. Questionnaires were pretested throughout the queried professions (physician, nurse, others). The survey was anonymously carried out online through SosciSurvey® and an e­mail was sent directly to 940 addresses. The survey was launched on 3 December, a reminder was sent after 14 days and it ended on 31 December. The survey was also announced via e­mail through DIVI. RESULTS: Of 317 respondents 200 completed the questionnaire. All information was analyzed including the responses from incomplete questionnaires. The most stated barriers were lack of time and access. Especially residents and nurses without specialization in intensive care mentioned uncertainty or insufficient experience in dealing with evidence syntheses as a barrier. Active distribution of evidence syntheses was clearly preferred. More than half of the participants chose websites of public institutions, medical journals, professional societies and e­mail newsletters for drawing attention to new evidence syntheses. Short versions, algorithms and webinars were the most preferred strategies for dissemination. Trust in organizations supplying information on the COVID-19 pandemic was given to professional societies and the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) as the German governmental institute for infections and public health. The respondents' prioritized topics are long-term consequences of the disease, protection of medical personnel against infection and possibilities of ventilation treatment. CONCLUSION: Even though universally valid, evidence syntheses should be actively brought to the target audience, especially during a health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic with its exceptional challenges including lack of time and uncertainties in patient care. The contents should be clear, short (short versions, algorithms) and with free access. E­mail newsletters, websites or medical journals should continuously report on new evidence syntheses. Professional societies and the governmental institute for infections and public health should be involved in dissemination due to their obvious trustworthiness.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Critical Care , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Surveys and Questionnaires
7.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 9(7)2021 Jul 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1308464

ABSTRACT

Vaccination hesitancy is a threat to herd immunity. Healthcare workers (HCWs) play a key role in promoting Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in the general population. We therefore aimed to provide data on COVID-19 vaccination acceptance/hesitancy among German HCWs. For this exploratory, cross-sectional study, an online survey was conducted in February 2021. The survey included 54 items on demographics; previous vaccination behavior; trust in vaccines, physicians, the pharmaceutical industry and health politics; fear of adverse effects; assumptions regarding the consequences of COVID-19; knowledge about vaccines; and information seeking behavior. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and chi-square tests were performed. Four thousand five hundred surveys were analyzed. The overall vaccination acceptance was 91.7%. The age group ≤20 years showed the lowest vaccination acceptance. Factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were lack of trust in authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Attitudes among acquaintances were associated with vaccination hesitancy too. Participants with vaccination hesitancy more often obtained information about COVID-19 vaccines via messenger services or online video platforms and underperformed in the knowledge test. We found high acceptance amongst German HCWs. Several factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were identified which could be targeted in HCW vaccination campaigns.

8.
Sci Rep ; 10(1): 18277, 2020 10 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-892043

ABSTRACT

Severe COVID-19 associated respiratory failure, poses the one challenge of our days. Assessment and treatment of COVID-19 associated hyperinflammation may be key to improve outcomes. It was speculated that in subgroups of patients secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (sHLH) or cytokine release syndrome (CRS) with features of macrophage activation syndrome might drive severe disease trajectories. If confirmed, profound immunosuppressive therapy would be a rationale treatment approach. Over a median observation period of 11 (IQR: 8; 16) days, 19 consecutive confirmed severe COVID-19-patients admitted to our intensive-care-unit were tested for presence of sHLH by two independent experts. HScores and 2004-HLH diagnostic criteria were assessed. Patients were grouped according to short-term clinical courses: discharge from ICU versus ongoing ARDS or death at time of analysis. The median HScore at admission was 157 (IQR: 98;180), without the key clinical triad of HLH, i.e. progressive cytopenia, persistent fever and organomegaly. Independent expert chart review revealed the absence of sHLH in all cases. No patient reached more than 3/6 of modified HLH 2004 criteria. Nevertheless, patients presented hyperinflammation with peripheral neutrophilic signatures (neutrophil/lymphocyte-ratio > 3.5). The latter best paralleled their short-term clinical courses, with declining relative neutrophil numbers prior to extubation (4.4, [IQR: 2.5;6.3]; n = 8) versus those with unfavourable courses (7.6, [IQR: 5.2;31], n = 9). Our study rules out virus induced sHLH as the leading cause of most severe-COVID-19 trajectories. Instead, an associated innate neutrophilic hyperinflammatory response or virus-associated-CRS appears dominant in patients with an unfavourable clinical course. Therapeutic implications are discussed.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/pathology , Cytokine Release Syndrome/etiology , Lymphohistiocytosis, Hemophagocytic/pathology , Pneumonia, Viral/pathology , Aged , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Cohort Studies , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Critical Illness , Cytokine Release Syndrome/diagnosis , Female , Ferritins/analysis , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Interleukin-6/metabolism , Lymphocytes/cytology , Lymphohistiocytosis, Hemophagocytic/complications , Lymphohistiocytosis, Hemophagocytic/diagnosis , Male , Middle Aged , Neutrophils/cytology , Pandemics , Pilot Projects , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL