Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- COVID-19 (5) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (5)
Background: Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, interventions in the upper airways are considered high-risk procedures for otolaryngologists and their colleagues. The purpose of this study was to evaluate limitations in hearing and communication when using a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) system to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission and to assess the benefit of a headset. Methods: Acoustic properties of the PAPR system were measured using a head and torso simulator. Audiological tests (tone audiometry, Freiburg speech test, Oldenburg sentence test (OLSA)) were performed in normal-hearing subjects (n = 10) to assess hearing with PAPR. The audiological test setup also included simulation of conditions in which the target speaker used either a PAPR, a filtering face piece (FFP) 3 respirator, or a surgical face mask. Results: Audiological measurements revealed that sound insulation by the PAPR headtop and noise, generated by the blower-assisted respiratory protection system, resulted in significantly deteriorated hearing thresholds (4.0 ± 7.2 dB hearing level (HL) vs. 49.2 ± 11.0
Background: Fingolimod is used for immune therapy in patients with multiple sclerosis. Long-term treatment is associated with a small increase in the risk of herpes virus reactivation and respiratory tract infections. Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) under Fingolimod treatment have not been described.
Methods and results. We report a 57-year old female patient with a relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis under fingolimod treatment who experienced a severe COVID-19 infection in March 2020 (Extended Disability Status Scale: 2.0). Having peripheral lymphopenia typical for fingolimod treatment (total lymphocytes 0.39/nL [reference range 1.22-3.56]), the patient developed bilateral interstitial pneumonia with multiple ground-glass opacities on chest CT. Fingolimod medication was stopped. On the intensive care unit, non-invasive ventilation was used to provide oxygen and ventilation support regularly. Over the following two days, oxygenation improved, and the patient was transferred to a normal ward five days after admission.
Conclusion: The implications fingolimod has on COVID-19 are complex. As an S1P analogue, fingolimod might enhance lung endothelial cell integrity. In addition, in case of a so-called cytokine storm, immunomodulation might be beneficial to reduce mortality. Future studies are needed to explore the risks and therapeutic effects of fingolimod in COVID-19 patients.
The current SARS-CoV-2 outbreak leads to a growing need of point-of-care thoracic imaging that is compatible with isolation settings and infection prevention precautions. We retrospectively reviewed 17 COVID-19 patients who received point-of-care lung ultrasound imaging in our isolation unit. Lung ultrasound was able to detect interstitial lung disease effectively; severe cases showed bilaterally distributed B-Lines with or without consolidations; one case showed bilateral pleural plaques. Corresponding to CT scans, interstitial involvement is accurately depicted as B-Lines on lung ultrasound. Lung ultrasound might be suitable for detecting interstitial involvement in a bedside setting under high security isolation precautions.
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.
Hintergrund: Ab Frühjahr 2020 kam es zur weltweiten Verbreitung von SARS-CoV‑2 mit der heute als erste Welle der Pandemie bezeichneten Phase ab März 2020. Diese resultierte an vielen Kliniken in Umstrukturierungen und Ressourcenverschiebungen. Ziel unserer Arbeit war die Erfassung der Auswirkungen der Pandemie auf die universitäre Hals-Nasen-Ohren(HNO)-Heilkunde für die Forschung, Lehre und Weiterbildung. Material und Methoden: Die Direktorinnen und Direktoren der 39 Universitäts-HNO-Kliniken in Deutschland wurden mithilfe einer strukturierten Online-Befragung zu den Auswirkungen der Pandemie im Zeitraum von März bis April 2020 auf die Forschung, Lehre und die Weiterbildung befragt. Ergebnisse: Alle 39 Direktorinnen und Direktoren beteiligten sich an der Umfrage. Hiervon gaben 74,4 % (29/39) an, dass es zu einer Verschlechterung ihrer Forschungstätigkeit infolge der Pandemie gekommen sei. Von 61,5 % (24/39) wurde berichtet, dass pandemiebezogene Forschungsaspekte aufgegriffen wurden. Von allen Kliniken wurde eine Einschränkung der Präsenzlehre berichtet und 97,5 % (38/39) führten neue digitale Lehrformate ein. Im Beobachtungszeitraum sahen 74,4 % der Klinikdirektoren die Weiterbildung der Assistenten nicht gefährdet. Schlussfolgerung: Die Ergebnisse geben einen Einblick in die heterogenen Auswirkungen der Pandemie. Die kurzfristige Bearbeitung pandemiebezogener Forschungsthemen und die Einführung innovativer digitaler Konzepte für die studentische Lehre belegt eindrücklich das große innovative Potenzial und die schnelle Reaktionsfähigkeit der HNO-Universitätskliniken, um auch während der Pandemie ihre Aufgaben in der Forschung, Lehre und Weiterbildung bestmöglich zu erfüllen.