Refine
Document Type
- Article (57)
Language
- English (57) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (57)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (57)
Keywords
- COVID-19 (57) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (57) (remove)
The long-term effect of protection by two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients receiving chronic intermittent hemodialysis (CIHD) is an urging question. We investigated the humoral and cellular immune response of 42 CIHD patients who had received two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and again after a booster vaccine with mRNA-1273 six months later. We measured antibody levels and SARS-CoV-2-specific surrogate neutralizing antibodies (SNA). Functional T cell immune response to vaccination was assessed by quantifying interferon-γ (IFN-γ) and IL-2 secreting T cells specific for SARS-CoV-2 using an ELISpot assay. Our data reveal a moderate immune response after the second dose of vaccination, with significantly decreasing SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody levels and less than half of the study group showed neutralizing antibodies six months afterwards. Booster vaccines increased the humoral response dramatically and led to a response rate of 89.2% for antibody levels and a response rate of 94.6% for SNA. Measurement in a no response/low response (NR/LR) subgroup of our cohort, which differed from the whole group in age and rate of immunosuppressive drugs, indicated failure of a corresponding T cell response after the booster vaccine. We strongly argue in favor of a regular testing of surrogate neutralizing antibodies and consecutive booster vaccinations for CIHD patients to provide a stronger and persistent immunity.
Background: During the current second wave of COVID-19, the radiologists are expected to face great challenges in differentiation between COVID-19 and other virulent influenza viruses, mainly H1N1. Accordingly, this study was performed in order to find any differentiating CT criteria that would help during the expected clinical overlap during the current Influenza season.
Results: This study was retrospectively conducted during the period from June till November 2020, on acute symptomatic 130 patients with no history of previous pulmonary diseases; 65 patients had positive PCR for COVID-19 including 50 mild patients and 15 critical or severe patients; meanwhile, the other 65 patients had positive PCR for H1N1 including 50 mild patients and 15 critical or severe patients. They included 74 males and 56 females (56.9%:43.1%). Their age ranged 14–90 years (mean age 38.9 ± 20.3 SD). HRCT findings were analyzed by four expert consultant radiologists in consensus. All patients with COVID-19 showed parenchymal or alveolar HRCT findings; only one of them had associated airway involvement. Among the 65 patients with H1N1; 56 patients (86.2%) had parenchymal or alveolar HRCT findings while six patients (9.2%) presented only by HRCT signs of airway involvement and three patients (4.6%) had mixed parenchymal and airway involvement. Regarding HRCT findings of airway involvement (namely tree in bud nodules, air trapping, bronchial wall thickening, traction bronchiectasis, and mucous plugging), all showed significant p value (ranging from 0.008 to 0.04). On the other hand, HRCT findings of parenchymal or alveolar involvement (mainly ground glass opacities) showed no significant relation.
Conclusion: HRCT can help in differentiation between non-severe COVID-19 and H1N1 based on signs of airway involvement.
Patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) commonly show abnormalities of liver tests (LTs) of undetermined cause. Considering drugs as tentative culprits, the current systematic review searched for published COVID-19 cases with suspected drug-induced liver injury (DILI) and established diagnosis using the diagnostic algorithm of RUCAM (Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method). Data worldwide on DILI cases assessed by RUCAM in COVID-19 patients were sparse. A total of 6/200 reports with initially suspected 996 DILI cases in COVID-19 patients and using all RUCAM-based DILI cases allowed for a clear description of clinical features of RUCAM-based DILI cases among COVID-19 patients: (1) The updated RUCAM published in 2016 was equally often used as the original RUCAM of 1993, with both identifying DILI and other liver diseases as confounders; (2) RUCAM also worked well in patients treated with up to 18 drugs and provided for most DILI cases a probable or highly probable causality level for drugs; (3) DILI was preferentially caused by antiviral drugs given empirically due to their known therapeutic efficacy in other virus infections; (4) hepatocellular injury was more often reported than cholestatic or mixed injury; (5) maximum LT values were found for alanine aminotransferase (ALT) 1.541 U/L and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) 1.076 U/L; (6) the ALT/AST ratio was variable and ranged from 0.4 to 1.4; (7) the mean or median age of the COVID-19 patients with DILI ranged from 54.3 to 56 years; (8) the ratio of males to females was 1.8–3.4:1; (9) outcome was favorable for most patients, likely due to careful selection of the drugs and quick cessation of drug treatment with emerging DILI, but it was fatal in 19 patients; (10) countries reporting RUCAM-based DILI cases in COVID-19 patients included China, India, Japan, Montenegro, and Spain; (11) robust estimation of the percentage contribution of RUCAM-based DILI for the increased LTs in COVID-19 patients is outside of the current scope. In conclusion, RUCAM-based DILI with its clinical characteristics in COVID-19 patients and its classification as a confounding variable is now well defined, requiring a new correct description of COVID-19 features by removing DILI characteristics as confounders.
Evidence-based and comprehensible health information is a key element of evidence-based medicine and public health. The goal is informed decision-making based on realistic estimations of health risks and accurate expectations about benefits and harms of interventions. In Germany, standards of evidence-based risk information were poorly followed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frequently, public information was biased, fragmentary and misleading. Pandemic-related threat scenarios induced emotional distress and unnecessary anxiety. A systematic and comprehensive evaluation of the pandemic measures is crucial, but still pending in Germany. A critical analysis of risk communication by experts, politicians and the media during the pandemic should be a key element of the evaluation process. Evaluation of decision making and media reporting during the pandemic should improve preparedness for future crises.
Background: Antibody detection of SARS-CoV-2 requires an understanding of its variation, course, and duration.
Methods: Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 was evaluated over 5–430 days on 828 samples across COVID-19 severity levels, for total antibody (TAb), IgG, IgA, IgM, neutralizing antibody (NAb), antibody avidity, and for receptor-binding-domain (RBD), spike (S), or nucleoprotein (N). Specificity was determined on 676 pre-pandemic samples.
Results: Sensitivity at 30–60 days post symptom onset (pso) for TAb-S/RBD, TAb-N, IgG-S, IgG-N, IgA-S, IgM-RBD, and NAb was 96.6%, 99.5%, 89.7%, 94.3%, 80.9%, 76.9% and 92.8%, respectively. Follow-up 430 days pso revealed: TAb-S/RBD increased slightly (100.0%); TAb-N decreased slightly (97.1%); IgG-S and IgA-S decreased moderately (81.4%, 65.7%); NAb remained positive (94.3%), slightly decreasing in activity after 300 days; there was correlation with IgG-S (Rs = 0.88) and IgA-S (Rs = 0.71); IgG-N decreased significantly from day 120 (15.7%); IgM-RBD dropped after 30–60 days (22.9%). High antibody avidity developed against S/RBD steadily with time in 94.3% of patients after 430 days. This correlated with persistent antibody detection depending on antibody-binding efficiency of the test design. Severe COVID-19 correlated with earlier and higher antibody response, mild COVID-19 was heterogeneous with a wide range of antibody reactivities. Specificity of the tests was ≥99%, except for IgA (96%).
Conclusion: Sensitivity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays was determined by test design, target antigen, antibody avidity, and COVID-19 severity. Sustained antibody detection was mainly determined by avidity progression for RBD and S. Testing by TAb and for S/RBD provided the highest sensitivity and longest detection duration of 14 months so far.
Background: In March 2020, the COVID-19 outbreak led to the declaration of a pandemic. The accompanying restrictions on public life caused a change in the training routines of athletes worldwide. The present study aimed to investigate the effects of a 13-week supervised home training program on physical performance, sleep quality, and health-related quality of life in professional youth soccer players during the first COVID-19 lockdown in Germany.
Methods: Eight professional soccer players (age range 16–19; height: 1.81 ± 0.07 m; body weight: 72.05 ± 6.96 kg) from a Bundesliga team in Germany participated in this study. During the lockdown, they trained 5–6 days per week with home-based training plans and were monitored via tracking apps and video training. To determine the effects of home training, measurements were taken before (March 2020) and after (June 2020) the home training period. Bioelectrical impedance analysis was used to determine body composition, and an isokinetic strength test and a treadmill step test, including lactate measurements, were used to measure physical performance. Two questionnaires were responded to in order to assess health-related quality of life [Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36)] and sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index).
Results: When comparing measurements before and after the home training period, we observed significant increases in the following variables: body weight (72.05 ± 6.96 kg vs. 73.50 ± 6.68 kg, p = 0.034), fat mass (11.99 ± 3.13 % vs. 13.98 ± 3.92 %, p = 0.030), body mass index (22.04 ± 0.85 kg/m2 vs. 22.49 ± 0.92 kg/m2, p = 0.049), and mental health component summary score (MCS) of the questionnaire SF-36 (53.95 ± 3.47 vs. 58.33 ± 4.50, p = 0.044). Scores on the general health (77.88 ± 14.56 vs. 89.75 ± 13.76, p = 0.025) and mental health (81.50 ± 9.30 vs. 90.00 ± 11.71, p = 0.018) subscales of the SF-36 also increased significantly.
Conclusion: The COVID-19 lockdown led to an increase in body composition parameters and showed an improvement in the MCS and scores on the general and mental health subscales of the SF-36. Physical performance and sleep quality could be maintained during the home training period. These observations may help trainers for future training planning during longer interruptions in soccer training.
The immune response is known to wane after vaccination with BNT162b2, but the role of age, morbidity and body composition is not well understood. We conducted a cross-sectional study in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) for the elderly. All study participants had completed two-dose vaccination with BNT162b2 five to 7 months before sample collection. In 298 residents (median age 86 years, range 75–101), anti-SARS-CoV-2 rector binding IgG antibody (anti-RBD-IgG) concentrations were low and inversely correlated with age (mean 51.60 BAU/ml). We compared the results to Health Care Workers (HCW) aged 18–70 years (n = 114, median age: 53 years), who had a higher mean anti-RBD-IgG concentration of 156.99 BAU/ml. Neutralization against the Delta variant was low in both groups (9.5% in LTCF residents and 31.6% in HCWs). The Charlson Comorbidity Index was inversely correlated with anti-RBD-IgG, but not the body mass index (BMI). A control group of 14 LTCF residents with known breakthrough infection had significant higher antibody concentrations (mean 3,199.65 BAU/ml), and 85.7% had detectable neutralization against the Delta variant. Our results demonstrate low but recoverable markers of immunity in LTCF residents five to 7 months after vaccination.
Purpose: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replicates predominantly in the upper respiratory tract and is primarily transmitted by droplets and aerosols. Taking the medical history for typical COVID-19 symptoms and PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 testing have become established as screening procedures. The aim of this work was to describe the clinical appearance of SARS-CoV-2-PCR positive patients and to determine the SARS-CoV-2 contact risk for health care workers (HCW).
Methods: The retrospective study included n = 2283 SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests from n = 1725 patients with otorhinolaryngological (ORL) diseases performed from March to November 2020 prior to inpatient treatment. In addition, demographic data and medical history were assessed.
Results: n = 13 PCR tests (0.6%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The positive rate showed a significant increase during the observation period (p < 0.01). None of the patients had clinical symptoms that led to a suspected diagnosis of COVID-19 before PCR testing. The patients were either asymptomatic (n = 4) or had symptoms that were interpreted as symptoms typical of the ORL disease or secondary diagnoses (n = 9).
Conclusion: The identification of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients is a considerable challenge in clinical practice. Our findings illustrate that taking a medical history alone is of limited value and cannot replace molecular SARS-CoV-2 testing, especially for patients with ORL diseases. Our data also demonstrate that there is a high probability of contact with SARS-CoV-2-positive patients in everyday clinical practice, so that the use of personal protective equipment, even in apparently “routine cases”, is highly recommended.
Testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by RT-PCR is a vital public health tool in the pandemic. Self-collected samples are increasingly used as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs. Several studies suggested that they are sufficiently sensitive to be a useful alternative. However, there are limited data directly comparing several different types of self-collected materials to determine which material is preferable. A total of 102 predominantly symptomatic adults with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection self-collected native saliva, a tongue swab, a mid-turbinate nasal swab, saliva obtained by chewing a cotton pad and gargle lavage, within 48 h of initial diagnosis. Sample collection was unsupervised. Both native saliva and gargling with tap water had high diagnostic sensitivity of 92.8% and 89.1%, respectively. Nasal swabs had a sensitivity of 85.1%, which was not significantly inferior to saliva (p = 0.092), but 16.6% of participants reported they had difficult in self-collection of this sample. A tongue swab and saliva obtained by chewing a cotton pad had a significantly lower sensitivity of 74.2% and 70.2%, respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity was not related to the presence of clinical symptoms or to age. When comparing self-collected specimens from different material, saliva, gargle lavage or mid-turbinate nasal swabs may be considered for most symptomatic patients. However, complementary experiments are required to verify that differences in performance observed among the five sampling modes were not attributed to collection impairment.